[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Breaking Cliques at Events"


Chris Lamb:
> I came across this recently…
>   http://ericholscher.com/blog/2017/dec/2/breaking-cliques-at-events/
> In particular...
>   Most events develop an “insiders” group who's been going for a long
>   time. These groups tend to feel like exclusionary cliques for first-
>   time attendees, and actively hurt the community's goal of inclusion.
>   I'd like to propose a simple rule that we have at the events I run,
>   which I think makes inclusion easier for everyone.
> Leading to:
>   The rule is: For every year you have attended the event, you should
>   try to meet that many new people each day.

I've been at events where during each break, people were encouraged to
talk to someone they don't already know and tell them something about
themselves (what they do, why they're at the event, for example). I very
much enjoyed this because it made it possible to get to know ~50 people
in less than two days. This does not even have to be a long discussion.
But let me emphasize that this seems to be helpful to break cliques and
confined groups as it offers a possibility and space to meet each other
at eye level, make new connections, get information or learn about other
options to approach all kinds of things.

Now, I've read in at least one answer here that it makes people get out
of their comfort zone to talk to other humans. (I think everybody has
had at least one moment in their life where they felt something similar.
Hopefully, this is not an all-time state!) Still, I believe that we are
social beings and only through talking & working together can we achieve
great things.

So please don't do the maths of Chris' encouragement to say that you
can't possibly follow because you would have to talk to too many people :)

Maybe we can start with acknowledging the situation and only then try to
find possibilities to open up - such as the "Talk to me about ..."
sticker, mentioned by dkg, which I like - at least as a conversation


Reply to: