The Plenary Session Must Die

One of the more risky features of the Opportunity Collaboration has been the daily, two hour group rap sessions they call the Colloquium for Good. The logic of the sessions is that they provide a time for people to think big, break out of the specifics of their particular field, and connect in a more deep and ongoing fashion. Although not without critique, the success of the conversations add one more reason to kill the plenary session for good.

I think it's important to write about for the reason that it's not the type of structure found at most network conference - nonprofit or for profit - because it takes people out of what they know and puts them in the uncomfortable position of being vulnerable and reflective. Most of the people here share a bias towards action, which makes the relatively high level of participation in the Colloquium all the more impressive.

The conversations were moderated, and delegates were assigned to groups with which they talked every day and given a set of readings to frame the conversations, which ranged from the relationship of values and practice to the universality of rights to perspectives on poverty.

There were, of course, a number of complaints. Some people didn't like the selection of the readings (which I'd agree with), some people had a hard time feeling like the conversations were too unstructured, or two theoretical. Some people just wanted to use the time to grow deeper relationships with the other members of their group. The remarkable thing is, though, that most of this critique was delivered in the context of how to improve the discussion sections, rather than why they should be scrapped.

I think at this point that most conferences have grown lazy and boring on the fat of plenary session. Plenary sessions (also known as "panel discussions") usually have 3-5 experts with a moderator discussing some theme or topic. Inevitably, by the time people have introduced themselves and gotten through a first round of commentary on whatever topic is at hand, it starts to wrap up and every one leaves no more enlightened than before.

I understand why they exist. It seems like a great idea to have a bunch of smart people discussing a single topic. The problem is that the constraints of the structure almost always end up scrunching any real conversation. There's rarely time for audience questions, and even then, it remains a broadcast form of content. Keynotes aren't great either, but at least a great speaker can be inspirational or provocative. Doing that as part of a plenary is a lot harder.

I often joke that I've never met a plenary that I didn't hate, and while "hate" is a stronger word, I only use it because I can't think of anything stronger. The exceptions I can count on one hand (and more often than not involved the founders of Change.org and Virgance) and I wouldn't mind if I never saw another.

I'm thrilled that the Opportunity Collaboration tried something different, and I'm especially excited that, by and large, it worked.

(Photo: Plenary session from the World Economic Forum + insert from Auto-Tune the News #2)