These are the some of my ahah conclusions as 2009 winds down:

1. 6 is no good
   Representative committees are no good. Of late, truly useful interaction and progress has occurred only when there are 5 or fewer participants in the room.
2. Buck the futility of meetings and the tyranny of the email onslaught
   More gets accomplished through MSN and before/after meetings, than in meetings or through emails. One can save a lot of time by cutting out 90% of emails, and all meetings with more than 6 participants. Show up once in a while, bail on the rest?  (Additional inspiration: HBR – Manage your Time Like Jim Collins)
3. Lay low – Full stop on the meta-discussion
   Leaders across the organization are supposed to care about the how/who/why, but given their every-day they could really not care less. The results should be the focus, and I am sure that good results will win any argument. I should stop trying to get consensus/understanding on the “why” and “how”. Consensus has rarely been achieved, and when it has, it hasn´t gotten us anywhere really. ROI on time invested = .01.
4. A good model seems like a good goal – but it really just looks good on a slide
   What I bring to the table (and the same can be said of my most effective colleagues) probably doesn´t fit nicely into any role, in ANY organizational model that might solve what ails us.  The university is decentralized, and lets not kid ourselves, future centralization efforts won´t be plucking people from among the existing rank and file.  So you are outside of the box, far removed from the politics, you might want to take a second look around.And if one is already outside the box, why try and hop inside it? Maybe misguided craziness?
5. Geeks and nerds will always be a bit rogue
   It is often the uniqueness, the oddities and special talents of those in some of the best teams, not sameness that yields great results. Increasingly  the “odd-man-out ” in every single org model discussed lately, my gut feeling is that maybe I should just stick to participating in the virtual teams and ad-hoc collaborations.  It is even possible to further self-organize without getting anyone´s blessing.  This might also be more fun, in addition to being more effective.

   All we need now  is a secret handshake or a code word, maybe even a lair.
   

6. Fun shouldn´t be tabled for later
   Maslow was right.  Money is not what drives everyone. After my basic needs are met, I work because I want to achieve something more, and I like much of what I do.  We are not all characters in The Office, and it is possible to be too focused sometimes. One´s job can NOT be 150% about the organizations goals. (This can burn people out and that helps no one). Plan for a bit more fun, and few other bits from the top of old Maslow´s hierarchy.
7. If you build it, they won´t necessarily come, but maybe.
   Compelling is: finished products that can be demonstrated; processes that have achieved some results, and systems that are up and running. These are way more compelling that any plan or description.  Example: Installed WordPress and  Joomla, then people started using them. Propose adoption of WordPress MU and we got a institutional skepticism, budget concerns and a report. Propose a video and you get a long discussion. Make a video and you get a video. Develop an interaction yourself an you please your users; request a developer to develop it, and you get a place on their massive todo list.  Choose what is fastest.

It´s not worth blaming anyone, it´s not ideal. It´s not how we want things to be. It´s just how it is. (Unless you are lucky enough to work at Ben & Jerry´s or Google. Lucky, talented, ducks.)

* Translations:

julebord = corporate Christmas party in Norway
ribbe = traditional Norwegian Christmas pork ribs

• 64-40 -@
• 38-26 – &
• 35-23 – #

This post serves only as a note-to-self.