FedEx, Flocks, and Frames of Reference

You've probably seen the FedEx logo, and by now, maybe you know that in the negative space between the E and the x is a rightward-pointing arrow. The arrow is there by intention, says Lindon Leader, who designed the logo. But if you know the Roman alphabet, you probably don't see the arrow unless you already know it's there.

The difficulty of seeing it comes from the frame of reference that readers habitually use when they see writing or printing. They look at the letters, not the spaces between them. People who are unfamiliar with Roman letters have much less difficulty seeing the arrow.

And when we see flocks of birds, we see the flocks, rather than the individual birds, and not the spaces between the birds. This habitual choice of reference frame is perhaps part of what makes many of the etchings of M.C. Escher so fascinating. He calls upon us to look at the individual birds in the flocks, and at the spaces between the birds.

When we choose our frame of reference consciously, we can see many things that would otherwise escape our notice. Consider the business meeting. For many, the reference frame of choice is the content of the discussion and how we're doing personally in the often-competitive tussle to control it.

Sometimes meetings need
contributions beyond
mere contentA useful alternative frame is that of the group. In that frame, we can ask, "How's the group doing?" Here are questions we can ask in that frame.

Energy level

Are people engaged? Do they arrive on time and stay through till the end? Is there a good amount of laughter? Or are they disengaged? Are they fiddling with their Blackberries? Doodling?

Coherence

Does the group maintain focus? Can they stay on topic, or are they whipsawing from one irrelevant point to another? Can they converge to conclusions, or do they often fail to reach decisions?

Contribution rate

Do people offer contributions at a reasonable rate? Or do they interrupt, over-talking each other or raising their voices? Or do they sit silently when someone poses a question, too fearful to risk offering a comment?

Viewpoint multiplicity

Does the group welcome diverse perspectives? Does it seek fresh views proactively when they aren't in evidence?

Polarization

Has the group evolved into a set of "political parties" whose composition and positions are rigidly consistent? Are they unable to reach joint decisions? Can you reliably predict who will ally with whom on a given question? Is one individual a designated pariah?

To make meetings more productive, groups sometimes need contributions that reach beyond mere content. If you change your frame of reference, and you notice what contributions the group really needs, you might find new ways to contribute to the meeting, to help lead it towards true achievement.  Top    Next Issue

The article you've been reading is an archived issue of Point Lookout, my weekly newsletter. I've been publishing it since January, 2001, free to all subscribers, over the Web, and via RSS. You can help keep it free by donating either as an individual or as an organization. You'll receive in return my sincere thanks — and the comfort of knowing that you've helped to propagate insights and perspectives that can help make our workplaces a little more human-friendly. More

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

The Deck Chairs of the <em>Titanic</em>: Obvious Waste

Among the most futile and irrelevant actions ever taken in crisis is rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic, which, of course, never actually happened. But in the workplace, we engage in activities just as futile and irrelevant, often outside our awareness. Recognition is the first step to prevention.

The Retrospective Funding Problem

If your organization regularly conducts project retrospectives, you're among the very fortunate. Many organizations don't. But even among those that do, retrospectives are often underfunded, conducted by amateurs, or too short. Often, key people "couldn't make it." We can do better than this. What's stopping us?

Constancy Assumptions

We necessarily make assumptions about our lives, including our work, because assumptions simplify things. And usually, our assumptions are valid. But not always.

Wacky Words of Wisdom: VI

Adages, aphorisms, and "words of wisdom" seem valid often enough that we accept them as universal and permanent. Most aren't. Here's Part VI of a collection of widely held beliefs that can be misleading at work.

Issues-Only Team Meetings

Time spent in regular meetings is productive to the extent that it moves the team closer to its objectives. Because uncovering and clarifying issues is more productive than distributing information or listening to status reports, issues-only team meetings focus energy where it will help most.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 30: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: II

When we finally execute plans, we encounter obstacles. So we find workarounds or adjust the plans. But there are times when nothing we try gets us back on track. When this happens for nearly every plan, we might be working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 30.

And on May 7: Subject Matter Bullying

Most workplace bullying tactics have analogs in the schoolyard — isolation, physical attacks, name-calling, and rumor-mongering are common examples. Subject matter bullying might be an exception, because it requires expertise in a sophisticated knowledge domain. And that's where trouble begins. Available here and by RSS on May 7.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenfHlRlTgqCIXkUHBTner@ChacrEuHRQPYVKkOucGfoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info