Nice write-up, Mark. I quite enjoyed meeting the mind behind zenpundit and am looking forward to next year!
I actually wasn’t the only Quaker there (Douglas Neal of Leading Edge Forum). Pacifism is a principle, but Quakers also practice Non-violence, which is a strategy. Strategic thinking is well-established and well-regarded among Friends, so my Quaker friends all saw immediately why I would want to attend. My less pacifistic NGO friends actually experienced more confusion and cognitive dissonance. Personally, I enjoy people in the military because I recognize a commitment to principles and a dedication to living them out that mirrors those I have.
Venkatesh said that engaging with another (and I’m surely paraphrasing; this is what my notes say) “is building a consensus reality – which can be adversarial, but need not be”. That’s exactly how I view and use Boyd: I’ve had success building cooperation and agreement through strategic use of tempo.
Quakers: we might be pacifists, but we like to win!
slapout9:
October 19th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I have got to get to one of these conferences before it is all over……have a lot of questions to ask and it sure looks like it was a lot of fun and a very conducive learning environment. Do you guys eat Bar-B-Que?
L. C. Rees:
October 20th, 2012 at 2:52 am
Easy solution to PowerPoint ban: use slides. Hard to argue slides are unBoydian.
Hi L.C.,
.
One other person mentioned this over the weekend.
Michael Williams:
October 20th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Best Powerpoint presentation, or more accurately, presentation supported by Powerpoint, I’ve ever seen was given by Thomas Barnett. If that model could be followed, we would all benefit. Of course, its more art than science.
Hi Gents,
.
Marshall,
.
Nice distinction between principle and strategy. Too much of what is in my head regarding “Quakers” relates to 17th century dissenting Protestantism in England, colonial Philadelphia and Richard Milhous Nixon. Obviously, I need to catch up to a better informed view.
.
Your view of Boyd is correct, though an understudied aspect. Boyd made the point that while most issues of strategy and certainly lower levels of operations (grand tactics) and tactics are intended to be *destructive*, the levels above military strategy – policy, grand strategy, politics, “noble” philosophy – are *constructive* and build up our strength and attractiveness to others at the moral level. As we have (or are willing to acknowledge) less control over affairs, the more important it is to attract allies, partners and supporters to work the willing instead of trying to overcome resistance, saving our strength for unavoidable conflicts. Cheaper and nonzero sum to boot.
.
Hi Slap – Scott and Kristen served up some tasty chicken and pork so I would have to say “Yes”
.
LC & Scott,
.
Indeed!
.
Hi Michael,
.
Tom Barnett is a very polished briefer, among the best and he can do it at a “work the boardroom” or TED-like level. Personally, I like to use slideware in a Garr Reynolds “Presentationzen” style and probably won’t consider presenting at Boyd until the rule is relaxed as I figure people can read anything I write perfectly well on their own faster without having to listen to me read it to them. 😉
.
Hi Fred,
.
You were missed at Boyd my friend!
I want to voice my view on this NO POWER POINT issue. I have done both extremes over the years. I was once dependent upon power point and transitioned over the last several years NO Power Point and now back to short versions of PP with short thoughts or photos to trigger the my thoughts to the area i wish to cover and to hold my A D H D (on Rabies) in check and keep me on the right path. These short maxims or photos also aid in helping the student or participant retain the info.
Like any EXTREME, too much or none, when it comes to power point can be problematic. My understanding of the reason for no PP is that not using or needing it exudes knowledge of ones craft and professionalism however putting ones thoughts into a PP and delivering the material in a “Presentation zen” or “Beyond Bullet Points” manner, in my view exudes knowledge and professionalism as well. PP gets a bad rap because of the deliver and those institutions that prepare canned PP for instructors or facilitators who lack the knowledge to deliver the material because they do not know the material, so they just read the material. PISS POOR in any Profession!!! I THINK WE ALL HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF AN UNPROFESSIONAL PP DELIVERY! Professionally delivered however, with a fluid tempo i fell PP is just fine and has benefits! With the B&B group i personally do not think its a problem most especially in the short briefing format B&B uses. I am all for relaxing the current PP rule.
Zen i would love to hear from guys like yourself and Scott Shipman at B&B as as i have learned much from both of you over the years that has helped me shape and reshape my thinking ob various aspects of Boyd s theories. Your method of delivery in person and your unique perspectives with or without power point is something i know every participant would gain much from.
Hi Fred,
.
Concur with everything you wrote, and your remarks reminded me of a saying an old colleague used to use: “A fool with a tool, is still a fool.” The culprit isn’t PPT per se, it is how it is used—the problem arises from those who lack imagination/depth of knowledge.
.
Concur also with Zen, you were missed terribly this year!
Marshall Wallace:
October 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Nice write-up, Mark. I quite enjoyed meeting the mind behind zenpundit and am looking forward to next year!
I actually wasn’t the only Quaker there (Douglas Neal of Leading Edge Forum). Pacifism is a principle, but Quakers also practice Non-violence, which is a strategy. Strategic thinking is well-established and well-regarded among Friends, so my Quaker friends all saw immediately why I would want to attend. My less pacifistic NGO friends actually experienced more confusion and cognitive dissonance. Personally, I enjoy people in the military because I recognize a commitment to principles and a dedication to living them out that mirrors those I have.
Venkatesh said that engaging with another (and I’m surely paraphrasing; this is what my notes say) “is building a consensus reality – which can be adversarial, but need not be”. That’s exactly how I view and use Boyd: I’ve had success building cooperation and agreement through strategic use of tempo.
Quakers: we might be pacifists, but we like to win!
slapout9:
October 19th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I have got to get to one of these conferences before it is all over……have a lot of questions to ask and it sure looks like it was a lot of fun and a very conducive learning environment. Do you guys eat Bar-B-Que?
L. C. Rees:
October 20th, 2012 at 2:52 am
Easy solution to PowerPoint ban: use slides. Hard to argue slides are unBoydian.
J. Scott Shipman:
October 20th, 2012 at 2:55 am
Hi L.C.,
.
One other person mentioned this over the weekend.
Michael Williams:
October 20th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Best Powerpoint presentation, or more accurately, presentation supported by Powerpoint, I’ve ever seen was given by Thomas Barnett. If that model could be followed, we would all benefit. Of course, its more art than science.
Fred Leland:
October 20th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Nicely done Mark , with the pictures and all i feel almost like i was there 🙂 am going to repost over on my site.
zen:
October 21st, 2012 at 1:29 am
Hi Gents,
.
Marshall,
.
Nice distinction between principle and strategy. Too much of what is in my head regarding “Quakers” relates to 17th century dissenting Protestantism in England, colonial Philadelphia and Richard Milhous Nixon. Obviously, I need to catch up to a better informed view.
.
Your view of Boyd is correct, though an understudied aspect. Boyd made the point that while most issues of strategy and certainly lower levels of operations (grand tactics) and tactics are intended to be *destructive*, the levels above military strategy – policy, grand strategy, politics, “noble” philosophy – are *constructive* and build up our strength and attractiveness to others at the moral level. As we have (or are willing to acknowledge) less control over affairs, the more important it is to attract allies, partners and supporters to work the willing instead of trying to overcome resistance, saving our strength for unavoidable conflicts. Cheaper and nonzero sum to boot.
.
Hi Slap – Scott and Kristen served up some tasty chicken and pork so I would have to say “Yes”
.
LC & Scott,
.
Indeed!
.
Hi Michael,
.
Tom Barnett is a very polished briefer, among the best and he can do it at a “work the boardroom” or TED-like level. Personally, I like to use slideware in a Garr Reynolds “Presentation zen” style and probably won’t consider presenting at Boyd until the rule is relaxed as I figure people can read anything I write perfectly well on their own faster without having to listen to me read it to them. 😉
.
Hi Fred,
.
You were missed at Boyd my friend!
Fred Leland:
October 21st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I want to voice my view on this NO POWER POINT issue. I have done both extremes over the years. I was once dependent upon power point and transitioned over the last several years NO Power Point and now back to short versions of PP with short thoughts or photos to trigger the my thoughts to the area i wish to cover and to hold my A D H D (on Rabies) in check and keep me on the right path. These short maxims or photos also aid in helping the student or participant retain the info.
Like any EXTREME, too much or none, when it comes to power point can be problematic. My understanding of the reason for no PP is that not using or needing it exudes knowledge of ones craft and professionalism however putting ones thoughts into a PP and delivering the material in a “Presentation zen” or “Beyond Bullet Points” manner, in my view exudes knowledge and professionalism as well. PP gets a bad rap because of the deliver and those institutions that prepare canned PP for instructors or facilitators who lack the knowledge to deliver the material because they do not know the material, so they just read the material. PISS POOR in any Profession!!! I THINK WE ALL HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF AN UNPROFESSIONAL PP DELIVERY! Professionally delivered however, with a fluid tempo i fell PP is just fine and has benefits! With the B&B group i personally do not think its a problem most especially in the short briefing format B&B uses. I am all for relaxing the current PP rule.
Zen i would love to hear from guys like yourself and Scott Shipman at B&B as as i have learned much from both of you over the years that has helped me shape and reshape my thinking ob various aspects of Boyd s theories. Your method of delivery in person and your unique perspectives with or without power point is something i know every participant would gain much from.
J. Scott Shipman:
October 21st, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Hi Fred,
.
Concur with everything you wrote, and your remarks reminded me of a saying an old colleague used to use: “A fool with a tool, is still a fool.” The culprit isn’t PPT per se, it is how it is used—the problem arises from those who lack imagination/depth of knowledge.
.
Concur also with Zen, you were missed terribly this year!
Fred Leland:
October 21st, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Scott i love your colleagues quote. 🙂
Ski:
October 23rd, 2012 at 1:15 am
Really wished I could have briefed there. Next year for certain…