Unlocking Participation Through Digital Tools
In today’s article, I want to talk about how to digitalize your company or organization for more effective meetings where more people can participate, share, and explore perspectives. Imagine a meeting where everyone is given the tools to communicate and participate in whatever way they wish.
I recently participated in a couple of meetings at the Socialdemokratiska Arbetarpartiet in Uppsala, and what I learned was that while they did many good things to open up meetings for discussions, they also struggled to invite a broader discussion and dialogue.
The Problem with the 20/80 Rule
And they’re not alone. Many companies and organizations fail to catalyze and utilize the skills and competences that are available. Have you noticed that, typically, 20% of the people do 80% of the talking in meetings? This top-down structure allows people to learn from one expert in a deeper and more nuanced manner. But it also leads to a lot of waste. Every perspective, every person who doesn’t share, represents a missed idea or potential.
- Have you ever found yourself bored at a meeting, unable to participate, leaving without contributing? What would have made it easier for you to participate?
People who are less likely to participate in meetings are also less likely to stay long-term members of your organization or company. They are more likely to look for alternative prospects and eventually leave. Furthermore, most organizations today are screaming for help. They need support—people who can help organize. But leadership is often so overloaded that there isn’t time to properly onboard and train new members.
We often talk about the famous 20/80 rule—this Pareto optimal system argues that 20% of your workforce outputs 80% of the work. This is often treated as a natural law rather than a consequence of how companies and organizations are run today. But what if we could utilize 100% of our organization?
Success-Oriented Cultures Limit Creativity
Let’s talk about that, and let’s also discuss what it means in practice—because it might not be what you expect.
Most companies have success-oriented cultures. We celebrate success and punish weakness or failure. Employees who underperform, fail to contribute, or propose bad ideas are often ignored. Those who bring good ideas and breed innovation are celebrated. Ironically, it’s this exact climate that perpetuates the 20/80 rule.
Embracing Risk for Innovation
Innovation inherently breeds risk. The more innovation you want, the more risk you invite. When you punish mistakes, you discourage innovation because people become cautious and hesitant to try new things. Employees who have previously made mistakes often become passive and less likely to contribute.
Redefining Competition
Today’s companies are built on competition—the belief that competition breeds success. Competition itself isn’t bad; it encourages hard work. But how we handle success and failure within competition creates the issue. When we punish failures and overly reward success, creativity suffers.
- Think of a situation where you took a risk and did something creative or innovative. What kind of organization culture helps you enter into a creative flow?
Before any competition begins, we don’t know who will succeed or fail. However, we do know that everyone participating will experiment, learn, and strive to improve. By examining everyone’s choices and strategies, we maximize learning. Each idea, each proposal, contributes to the creative process. Correcting a bad idea often helps clarify what makes a good one.
Creating an “Oops” Culture
Therefore, we should foster an “oops” culture at work—one where mistakes are laughed at and learned from, continuously improving what we have. Every step taken is inferior to the next. Organizations embark on projects of continuous learning, where human knowledge expands exponentially. Indeed, human knowledge now doubles nearly every month, thanks largely to learning from errors. Academia demonstrates that we learn as much from flawed studies as we do from successful ones.
If you’re reading this, you might be thinking, “Eric, I know this. But we do need to reward success.” Indeed, we should reward effort, innovation, and creativity. Rather than grading students on getting an “A,” we should grade their ability to propose and execute original ideas.
Currently, we spoon-feed knowledge to colleagues, employees, and students. We tell them there’s a right and wrong way to do things, preparing them for predictable exams. Yet life is unpredictable—we don’t know which talents will be useful 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Thus, we must diversify and experiment with different strategies.
Avoiding the Age of Parrots
Today, we risk creating an age of parrots who only repeat what’s been told to them. Studies already show that creativity is declining. But what happens in a world without creativity? I’ve observed that history’s greatest pacifists—Leonardo da Vinci, Edison, Tesla—were also incredibly creative. They opposed violence because they believed creativity could always find solutions to problems.
When creativity falters, we resort to force, working harder or longer hours instead of smarter. The standout employees, however, innovate. We don’t need more blind effort today—we need creatives who dare to innovate.
But there are many ways your company or organization could be reshaped to foster more interaction and equal participation.
- Silent Journaling: Give participants five minutes to think before allowing them to speak or raise their hand. This prevents reactive comments and encourages thoughtful contributions.
- Digital Feedback Tools: Allow participants to offer comments via digital tools like Menti or written notes, such as post-its. This ensures everyone can participate comfortably, especially those hesitant to speak publicly.
- Small Group Discussions: Divide participants into smaller groups of 3-5 people, then have each group present their conclusions to the larger group. Smaller groups naturally encourage inclusive discussion.
- Interactive Stations: Let participants move around the room and interact with large sheets of paper displaying prompts or questions. Movement stimulates the brain, and participants can choose discussions based on their interests, leading to diverse interactions and varied perspectives.
Compare this approach to a traditional meeting where participants sit passively for an hour, followed by a brief Q&A dominated by a few voices, leaving most participants silent and disengaged.
Asking Unanswered Questions
And if we truly want innovation, we must start asking questions we don’t already have answers to.
- Which of the above strategies would you think works best in which situations?
