Sara Dufour - Dynamiques de pouvoir : comment vos biais sabotent l'intelligence collective

[00:00:00] Uh, we have 50 minutes together, so I'll start. First, thanks to the sponsors who make this event possible. Very, very quickly, I just wanted to specify that I am the co-founder of an anti-sexist association called La Place des Grenouilles. I work as a freelance consultant on product ops missions, agile coach or product coach, or even as an interim or transition manager. And finally, I'll be here this afternoon, uh, at lunchtime, we can chat or also continue the conversation if you want on social media, you can find me on LinkedIn or Blue Sky. Good. So let's get to the heart of the matter. That's why you're here. What I propose to do is to break down the title of this conference. To focus on each part, to delve into it, to see what I mean by the terms I've used, and to create a conversation and reflections around these topics. So the first part, collective intelligence. Uh, I assume you're interested in the subject because you work in contexts where it's an important element for producing and leading work.
[00:01:13] So I'm going to give you a definition. Uh, it's not the universal definition, it's a definition I'm offering you today so we can agree on what we mean by collective intelligence. So it's the mobilization of several agents, meaning several people in a group. who will collaborate, coordinate together to solve problems. In principle, if there's no problem posed, no question asked, no subject, uh, there's no reason to create collective intelligence, or you have to find one.
[00:01:45] And the idea is precisely to capitalize on each person, on each individual in the group, on their skills, on their experiences to achieve something collective. And so, it's both the entire process in question and also the output, the knowledge, the deliverables, the creations that will be the result of this process. In any case, that's how I define collective intelligence today.
[00:02:14] Small quote. Uh, none of us knows what all of us together know. It's Euripides, so it sounds good, I just added the inclusion, he wasn't at that stage yet.
[00:02:27] And so I think here, we all agree that this kind of thing, maybe not every moment, maybe not daily, there are also important individual contributions, of course. But in our, in our VUCA contexts, in our complex contexts, to create software or to address other societal or other issues, uh, it's often important to be able to count on uh, the experience, the knowledge, the viewpoints of the greatest number, in any case, to have a multiplicity of viewpoints to think together.
[00:03:01] Are there people in the room who can give me examples of collective intelligence, whether it's on the process side or the deliverable side? Yes, Wikipedia, I love it when that project is always cited first. Indeed, a beautiful project.
[00:03:20] The Agile Manifesto. Yes, in itself it's a deliverable that emerged from collective intelligence. In your daily life, you might have rituals, regular instances.
[00:03:36] Problem solving. And so how do we solve it? Brainstorming, there you go.
[00:03:48] A priori, probably normally, when well conducted in my opinion, a refinement for example, to talk about rituals you certainly know. In principle, it's based on collective intelligence, we bring a problem, we bring potential solutions, but it's challenged, we think together about the best way to solve a problem. A mob programming session also, for example, that kind of thing.
[00:04:16] Can you, this time in your heads, uh, think about factors, conditions that can inhibit this collective intelligence, that can hinder, that can go against this process of collective intelligence?
[00:04:35] And conversely, you might have more examples in that case, can you think of things, elements, factors that would rather promote, develop, encourage this collective intelligence?
[00:04:55] MIT, a team from MIT looked into the question and, through their research, came up with a factor they call Factor C.
[00:05:07] So now, a little game, by a show of hands. Uh, who thinks that Factor C, uh, which therefore promotes collective intelligence, uh, is the cumulative IQ of all the people in the group?
[00:05:21] No one. Okay. The maximum IQ of the most intelligent person in the group.
[00:05:31] Okay, still no one.
[00:05:33] Is this Factor C the average IQ of the group for each person we have within the group?
[00:05:42] One person?
[00:05:45] Two, don't be shy, you're not being filmed anyway. Okay, good, I have two people. Uh, well, I guess the majority of the group was right, it's none of these three answers. Factor C is, first thing, uh, it's a strong socio-sensitivity. I invite you to look up the term, the English expression on Google, there are interesting things. Uh, I translate it very imperfectly as a strong ability to understand others. To read the other, uh, to know if after a while I'm talking, talking, talking, maybe the person in front of me eventually loses attention to what I'm saying.
[00:06:25] Uh, it's about understanding that the other person might want to start talking, might want to get a word in, that kind of thing, being able to read others.
[00:06:36] A second important ingredient in this Factor C proposed by MIT is equal speaking time within the group. If we have a group of 10 people and it's always the same person talking, a priori, that's not good for collective intelligence. I'm exaggerating, but sometimes not that much.
[00:06:55] And so, also a third element, uh, it's also the presence of women in a group. So it's not women by essence, uh, women are not inherently more prone when they are born to foster collective intelligence. It's simply that women are generally educated in our societies precisely to develop their socio-sensitivity, uh, to make room, to give the floor to others, to listen. We are more trained, encouraged to listen to others in general.
[00:07:37] How many types of intelligence exist? Can you raise your hand if you believe there are two types of intelligence?
[00:07:49] No one. Are there three types of intelligence? Okay, I see a few timid hands going up. Are there four?
[00:07:58] A bit more. Five.
[00:08:01] Okay, six.
[00:08:03] More than six.
[00:08:05] Okay, quite a few hands are going up indeed. Uh, generally when you ask the question to an uninitiated public, who doesn't delve into this type of subject, uh, well, I don't know about you, but I have the impression that people might understand either uh this intelligence we call logical-mathematical. Moreover, when taking IQ tests, there are many questions related to this kind of problem, uh, so logical and mathematical.
[00:08:39] There's often also this linguistic aspect; a person who expresses themselves well or who understands somewhat complex texts, we will also consider them an intelligent person. Also, to answer IQ tests correctly, you need to properly understand the phrasing of the questions and so on. Uh, there are also geometry questions on these IQ tests, uh, or if you know industrial designers for example, or architects, in principle socially, it will be commonly admitted that these are intelligent people. To know, uh, well, how to represent things in space, uh, to be able to visualize things in three dimensions, these are often things that are accepted as, uh, forms of intelligence.
[00:09:22] I'm not going to go into the detail of each one. Uh, in the content I found, I found nine types of intelligence; it's a typology, I'm sure we can find others.
[00:09:33] Uh, and so if we stick to what MIT said about Factor C, we can see that uh this collective intelligence will mainly be based on this line, with interpersonal skills as a central element, so being able to exchange, interact with others, but for that, you also need to understand and know yourself. And also, uh, being able to have the tools, the languages, uh, the language to be able to communicate, interact with others.
[00:10:10] So if I summarize, collective intelligence, it's first about individuals and interactions; it's an expression that will speak to you, and so I bolded 'interaction' because it's especially the quality of interactions that will determine whether or not we achieve collective intelligence. And, Project Aristotle, psychological safety. Should I quickly review what Project Aristotle is, could it be useful for some people, or yes? Uh, so Google, as a successful company, I think we can say that. Uh, has many teams and uh launches many projects, many problems, uh forms teams around subjects of problems to solve, complex obviously. And uh there are teams that are more or less performant. At some point, uh, management said, 'Okay, what's going on?' because we are all Google, we offer the same resources to all teams, what makes some of them more competent than others? So a field study, a sociological study, was conducted. And the study's conclusions point to five factors that make a team performant or not, or more or less performant, and at the very top, truly in the first place, very, very notably, the first thing is psychological safety. So psychological safety is the ability to feel safe in a group, to be yourself, not to be afraid to ask silly questions, or to be judged, or to make mistakes.
[00:11:42] So indeed, there need to be individuals in a group to achieve collective intelligence, interactions must be of quality, and for interactions to be of quality, there must necessarily be, I think, psychological safety for each member of the group.
[00:12:00] Let's move on. I'm going to suggest defining biases.
[00:12:06] If you wouldn't mind. I suggest you close your eyes, we're going to do a little exercise.
[00:12:14] I suggest you uh imagine uh imagine scenes, uh don't try to over-rationalize, uh really stick to the first image, first thought that comes to mind.
[00:12:26] So first case. I suggest you think of an individual leading a management committee.
[00:12:34] What does this individual look like?
[00:12:38] What does their voice sound like, how does this person move, uh express themselves, how are they dressed?
[00:12:47] There you go. Second case.
[00:12:51] Imagine in an office, an Open Space, a person crying.
[00:12:58] What does this person look like? Similarly, how did you imagine them dressed, uh, what does their voice sound like, their appearance, why are they crying, by the way?
[00:13:10] Okay. We'll stop at that case. Uh, in the first case, by a show of hands, can you tell me who imagined a man leading a management committee?
[00:13:25] It always results in an overwhelming majority of hands raised. How? No, I said an individual.
[00:13:36] I didn't say a man, I said an individual.
[00:13:39] Uh, who imagined a woman leading a management committee? I see a few hands, maybe ten max, that's nice, it's cool. Who imagined a non-binary person? I have one person, yeah.
[00:13:54] Very good, in the second case, the person crying. Who imagined a man?
[00:14:00] Yeah, I probably have about fifteen hands maximum going up. Who imagined a woman crying? Yeah. That's the majority. Okay. Thank you, thank you for your honesty, uh we all pretty much fell into the trap uh and I think we've just confirmed that we have sexist biases.
[00:14:17] I based this question, this little exercise, on this great campaign.
[00:14:25] So again, we're going to try to propose a definition for this talk on biases. So it's a gap between the processing of information and reality.
[00:14:38] Uh, and it can also cover omissions, oversights, or errors in perception, errors in evaluation, in the interpretation we make of things. And what I wanted to emphasize is that most of the time, it's unconscious.
[00:14:55] We don't really want to be sexist, I think, we don't think we're sexist, and uh, well, we saw it a few minutes ago, unfortunately, we still have sexist biases. I'm the first, I won't cast the first stone.
[00:15:10] Afterwards, I'm not going to uh say that we should throw biases in the trash, biases themselves are not, it's not something bad. Uh, it's something very useful. It allows us to go fast, not to overthink and ask ourselves 50,000 questions for each micro-decision we have to make during the day or each moment when we have to evaluate, judge a situation or learn something. Uh, this number always makes my head spin, apparently our brain processes 11 million 11 million pieces of information per second.
[00:15:43] Uh, but that will be more in the background because consciously we can only process 50, which I already find quite, well, a lot. So all these biases allow us to take shortcuts, to go faster, and just to function normally.
[00:15:58] Uh, four types of biases according to uh a typology, either when we have too much information to process, it helps us in those cases, when we need to act quickly because we are humans and have limited memory, uh, and also because when we lack meaning, we need to make sense of what we perceive.
[00:16:18] You may have seen this codex of 180 cognitive biases. I invite you to find this resource online, it's super interesting, you can click on each one or almost and browse around for a long time.
[00:16:32] I wanted to highlight the fact that uh among these cognitive biases, many are cultural.
[00:16:40] For example, two-thirds of men and only half of women estimate themselves, when asked, to be more intelligent than average. So here, we have two social groups that uh have been formed, who have received a different culture, a different education—I'm making broad generalizations, obviously, there are different individuals within these social groups—but overall, men consider themselves more intelligent than average, than women.
[00:17:14] So that's an example regarding gender. Uh, we can look at our Anglo-Saxon friends.
[00:17:21] Uh, often, Americans are much more confident in their ability to beat certain animals with their bare hands.
[00:17:31] So there, I don't know if the question was asked to men, women, mixed groups, I don't know. In any case, uh, 15% of Americans think they can beat a kangaroo with their bare hands. I don't know if you've seen the beast.
[00:17:47] It's still, uh. And on the British side, only about 5% have this overconfidence. What's interesting to see is that no matter the animal, Americans are always more to the right. So once again,
[00:18:05] we're talking about two social groups that have cultural biases instilled by a number of things, and we can still see patterns.
[00:18:18] I criticize, I criticize. But in France, I think we can also look ourselves in the mirror.
[00:18:24] Uh, we talk a lot about universalism in France. Uh, isn't that saying that we are the ones who set a reference framework, and that this framework, these rules, are valid for everyone, and it's from these rules, this model, that we will estimate, that we will judge a certain number of things and cultures that are different from ours?
[00:18:50] When we talk about our dear motto, liberty, equality, fraternity, it's all very well, but I believe that liberty and equality were mainly among equals. In fraternity, there are brothers; women only got the right to vote in the last century.
[00:19:10] So we think we are uh objective, we think we are not very biased, we want to be, and that's rather noble. I'm not going to criticize for that. But perhaps we are not uh as objective as we think, perhaps we have more biases than we realize. And I think that can affect all our judgments, all our perceptions, both when we watch the news, but also when we're going to lead a meeting or when we're going to decide who takes which task, for example.
[00:19:43] Finally, the last part of the title's decomposition of the title, so definition. Uh, what we mean by power, first of all.
[00:19:54] There's the action part, concretely, I have I have the power to turn off or turn on this microphone. But I also wanted to emphasize the influence aspect a lot; the power of influence is super important, and we sometimes neglect it a little.
[00:20:11] Uh, it can involve power held by individuals or social groups.
[00:20:18] Uh, at a certain period, uh, white people still had a lot more power and it was admitted, it was written, it was institutionalized compared to slaves. Finally, the last part of the title of the decomposition of the title, so definition. what we mean by already power. There's the action part, concretely, I have the power to turn this microphone off or on, but I also wanted to insist a lot on the influence side. The power of influence is super important and we sometimes neglect it a little bit.
[00:20:10] Uh, it can be about power held by individuals or social groups at a certain time, white people still had a lot more power and it was admitted, it was written, it was institutionalized, uh, in relation to slaves. And there are things that are explicit, as I just mentioned, at a certain time, there was a black code, it was written in black and white, atrocities. Uh but sometimes there are also things that are implicit, sometimes uh, I mean, let's say a scene, for example, if it's uh uh in a in a room, in a there's a conversation and one person is quite young and another person is older, has more experience. Generally, we will rather tend to give more power, of trust, uh of influence to the older person, and the younger person will have to give in more because they know nothing.
[00:21:07] on the structures and dynamics of power. I wanted to remind that they can be given in the short, medium or long term. For example, in the short term, within the same discussion that might last 30 minutes, uh there are the same people, me and someone else for example. Uh at the beginning of the conversation, we can be, we can feel that the power is relatively balanced. If at some point in the conversation, I'm going to feel dominated by the other, if I feel that the other wants to take power over me, maybe after a while I have, I, I hold a card. over the other, I'm going to pull out the card to try and overturn and reverse the power dynamic. So within the same very short conversation, with the same people, it can, it can fluctuate.
[00:21:56] Sorry. Uh in the medium term for example, uh you are in the same team as a colleague. So you are more or less at the same level of power in the hierarchical sense of the term. Uh maybe your colleague at some point will be promoted and so that person will become the head. So, in the medium term, the power structure has been reversed.
[00:22:22] And in the longer term, uh the example I often give is uh it's not the same thing to be uh of Arab Muslim culture today in Spain as it was during the Middle Ages. There you go, to give an idea of the scales. Then, these power structures, they are complex, they are there are different dimensions that will intertwine. Uh for example, we often say that on dating apps, uh it's women who have the power because they have a lot of matches. Except that in the dating market, when a woman goes on a date, the man is often afraid, when I'm talking about heterosexual relationships here. Uh the man, his fear, his dread, is that the person, the woman, doesn't look like the photo. Uh the woman, her fear will be to end up raped or killed. So yes, in one aspect, in the same, in the same situation. Indeed, women have more choice. But behind that, it also hides other things. Again, I can give the example. Uh for example, me in relation to, facing a racialized man. I am white, so I will have that power. but I am a woman, so in relation to that, he will have more power.
[00:23:45] So what I wanted to bring you here was to bring a reflection on how power is distributed, how it is exercised, used, how it manifests itself. How it was acquired from the beginning and especially also how it is maintained. Because often, it was acquired a bit without asking, we didn't seek to have it, we just acquired it, we were born with it. But what makes it that ultimately, consciously or not, it is maintained?
[00:24:20] In short, uh if I summarize the definition I propose to you today uh on power dynamics, it is a process by which uh this power is exercised within a social system.
[00:24:34] So, in your companies today or in your social groups, your groups of friends, in your family. uh in your associations, if you are in the associative world for example, uh who concentrates power. How is it exercised, how is it used, how was it acquired initially and how is it maintained? We also mentioned Wikipedia earlier.
[00:24:57] Here too, it's a social group working on a complex problem that relies on collective intelligence, nevertheless, whether we like it or not, there are necessarily power dynamics between the individuals who contribute to this encyclopedia.
[00:25:13] I'm going to give an example uh of bias.
[00:25:18] I have a colleague, an ex-colleague, uh whose daughter went to the music conservatory, I don't remember which instrument but anyway uh her higher education was to become a musician, that was her training. And he told me that uh it was among the students, male and female, it was completely equal. There were 50% girls and 50% boys studying on this in this curriculum. Are there people here who like music, and especially classical music? OK, there's a small, a good third, I'd say. Have you already been to live music concerts? Yeah. Uh, did you see 50% women and 50% men in the orchestra? No. So what happens? If there are 50% female music students, why don't we find this proportion in the professional world, in orchestras?
[00:26:18] Well, there's an orchestra that asked the question, I think it's in Denmark, I'm not sure. Uh who said to themselves it's not normal. It's not normal that so many women disappear between school and the stage and the orchestra. Uh, so we're going to try to do something, we're going to try to see if we have biases. Because it's strange, we obviously have the impression of only recruiting the best because we won't attach ourselves to gender. Uh it's the performance that's important. But still, we question ourselves. We're going to do an experiment.
[00:26:54] So what was done is that we placed a screen between uh the jurors and the people who were auditioning.
[00:27:03] And as if by chance, more women were selected there. The sexist bias, sexist discrimination, it was not voluntary. Because otherwise uh this, I, well this jury would not have taken this initiative.
[00:27:15] to try and fix, in quotation marks, this lack of parity. It wasn't voluntary since they actively tried to fix the thing.
[00:27:23] But it must be said that despite them, this bias persisted and so we certainly judged women more harshly and therefore accepted them less.
[00:27:34] Another example, so me in the artistic field but more in our professional spheres. Among the people who uh overperform, who are very, very good in their profession, in their field, uh in the business world. Uh most have annual reviews, you know, I don't know what you call it in your in your company, an annual performance review or an annual assessment. And so there, we are indeed talking about all these people who are excellent, who reach or even exceed their objectives.
[00:28:08] Among these people who are evaluated, about three quarters of women receive comments despite their good performance again, who receive negative comments.
[00:28:20] Negative feedback and often also not directly related to their deliverables, to the impact of their work, but things for example about their way of behaving, dressing, speaking, etc. So a manager tells her managed employee, yes, uh maybe sometimes you should try to soften your approach a bit because sometimes you're perceived as a bit aggressive. I say it for your own good, it's for your professional future. It's benevolent. The intention is good, it's to help the person.
[00:28:56] Except, does it really help?
[00:28:59] While telling this anecdote, someone told me, yes, uh one of my first professional experiences, I was young. I performed extremely well and my manager told me that I should lose weight, that I should lose weight. When do we say that to a man?
[00:29:17] And yes, exactly, so there's a study on that subject. and uh if a man performs, we're going to tell him bravo, keep going, you're awesome, we're not going to tell him yeah your polos or your or your t-shirts, they're not great, change your clothes. Anyway, it's a lot less common.
[00:29:35] So once again, we want what's best for our manager, we're not necessarily aware of our biases, we think we're helping.
[00:29:44] Are you newly familiar with this tool?
[00:29:49] OK, about a quarter, I'd say, and of the room knows it, great. Uh so the wheel of power and privilege. So it was proposed by Sylvia Duckworth uh in Canada.
[00:30:02] Uh that's an adaptation in French-speaking Canada.
[00:30:06] Uh I'll let you look at it in detail later, search for the tool on the internet, it's super useful. It allows you to play privilege bingo. The more boxes you check, and you find yourself in the boxes in the center, the more privileged you are. And I can say, the more privileged we are, because I, I check, sorry, many boxes in the center too.
[00:30:32] And so, that's very good, the more boxes we check in the center of the wheel, the more we've won at privilege bingo, hooray. Uh but that means that the more biases we have, the more blind spots we have. There are a lot of things we don't realize because we are at the center and we are privileged. The more boxes you check at the extremities or in the periphery, the more you have a different reality, experience, daily life.
[00:31:04] The less bias you have in the sense that you know the reality of the people who are in the center, at least in theory because it's not what you live but you know them and you know in your flesh the experience of the people concerned by the periphery. That gives you fewer blind spots.
[00:31:22] And when I bring this tool, I want to say that it's not about pointing fingers at you because you have privileges.
[00:31:31] Uh often we're just born with it, uh we're lucky uh to be privileged. Uh you're not guilty, in my opinion, of your privileges. Nevertheless, you are, in my opinion, once again responsible for educating yourselves, responsible for admitting, for understanding that these are privileges, all these things that seem like basic characteristics without consequence, in fact, they are privileges and they give you, they give us power.
[00:32:02] And for me too, I think it's important to realize that people who are much less privileged than us and that therefore they have a reality that is completely different.
[00:32:13] Something else important that I wanted to point out is that discrimination can simultaneously be.
[00:32:21] very, very strong things that are claimed, assumed, made explicit.
[00:32:27] Uh I think, if you're here in this room today, if you chose to see this, that you're not too much in this zone, that you don't identify with that. Nevertheless, discrimination also expresses itself in a much more insidious way. with small phrases, glances, even thoughts that are more common, more ordinary, which we can call micro, with quotation marks, aggression. I say with quotation marks because the more we accumulate these small aggressions, which sometimes are not seen, are not perceived as such. Uh the harder it is, the heavier it is to bear. it can become very violent. And so what I mean is that I trust you that you're not in that. But I cannot believe that you would never be in it. We all make blunders. Uh we can say a word that's wrong. We can have a sexist thought like earlier when I asked you about the person at the head of a comex or a person crying. All of these are prejudices we have.
[00:33:27] And I think it's up to us to deconstruct a certain number of things.
[00:33:32] Because people who are on the margins, or perhaps not entirely on the margins, but not as central as us. Uh, they can experience a number of things that we are not aware of. These people with whom we claim to practice collective intelligence, who are our colleagues, our neighbors, our friends, people from our family. Perhaps they are actually in a state of hypervigilance. Perhaps they are constantly over-adapting and it's very, very, very tiring to be in a permanent state of over-adaptation. We have fewer resources to bring knowledge, to bring experience to the group, to solve the complex problem we face if we want to do collective intelligence. We can lose confidence in ourselves and therefore tell ourselves that our ideas are worth less, so I won't express myself in the group, and therefore we deprive ourselves of potentially very interesting perspectives.
[00:34:23] These people can also develop anger which I think is perfectly legitimate. They can withdraw, isolate themselves to precisely avoid these micro-aggressions, or at least reduce them. It can also lead to burnout, to illness because these states of hypervigilance, of over-adaptation. to always be uh uh, how to say, aware, to be yes, in this vigilance of being attacked and if I get attacked how do I respond, etc. In fact, it generates stress. and continuous cortisol surges are not good for either mental or physical health. So how do we do collective intelligence, how do we confront different points of view that are different to achieve maximum de-biasing?
[00:35:13] with people who are not entirely uh in the best conditions to bring out the best in themselves. Because we can tell ourselves, OK, we can do collective intelligence with people in a group who all have the same socio-demographic characteristics. I think we can agree that it will be less effective, that it will be more biased if we only have clones in the same room to think about a complex problem. So diversity normally brings this richness, this depth of reflection. And so we must be able to work with people who are in the best conditions to put all people in the best conditions. What I said is depressing but I have some avenues for solutions. I don't have ready-made answers, there might be things that are falsely good ideas. Uh the idea of this talk is to make you think about what we can do differently, individually, collectively. Uh so in all humility, I'm offering you some leads, they are only leads.
[00:36:14] So I was saying a moment ago, in principle, we tell ourselves that diversity leads to less bias because each person has their biases, so if we confront all biases, normally we de-bias. Uh but with a small caveat, a question mark, nonetheless.
[00:36:27] Uh you might know this stat, I have the impression we talk about it a lot. Uh we say, OK, there aren't enough women in tech, we need to bring them in. Let's do it, very good, lots of initiatives, uh you might put in a lot of trouble and effort to recruit uh women to feminize your teams a little bit.
[00:36:47] Uh nevertheless, half of them left tech before the age of 35. It's still huge, half.
[00:36:54] Uh and as the main reason invoked.
[00:36:59] There's a third of them, more than a third, who will say that I left tech because the company was not inclusive. Of the remaining two thirds, some also mention this reason as one of the reasons they left, it's just not the main reason, but here there's a third who say that's it. I didn't feel included in the company so I left and retrained or something else. So diversity, yes, it's good, but not diversity without inclusion because otherwise it's just violent for people. If you make an announcement uh that is not a job offer that is not too bro code oriented with foosball and beers and the code ninja and all that. and then in fact you manage to recruit women, to get female candidates, you recruit them and in fact afterwards in reality, the culture is just what I've just described, well the person might not feel super included.
[00:37:56] So diversity, yes.
[00:38:00] but not without inclusion. And if there are people who like Star Wars here, you might remember this acronym that Anglo-Saxons talk about. Uh we also talk about social justice and equity. And I think this acronym is all the more important today, right now, with what's happening across the Atlantic and the impacts it also has on companies in France.
[00:38:23] A few examples, I don't have many. But for example, examples of inclusion, equity, justice, it's simply applying the law.
[00:38:32] Because in fact, French law says that normally harassment, for example, or other aggressions, other forms of violence in the workplace should not be allowed. So sanctioning when there is harassment, whether it's moral or sexual or otherwise, sanctioning these people, sanctioning these behaviors to prevent them from recurring.
[00:38:56] There are also initiatives launched precisely to bring more equity, for example, there are speaker springboards that are emerging left and right for conferences because often the male and female speakers resemble each other a little too much and there is a lack of diversity on stage. Uh so to encourage certain people who would dare less for all sorts of very good reasons, uh we offer programs uh to go get them, to encourage them and so on. Uh, there can also be in some other companies programs, uh, courses, uh, or special sessions, uh, or coaching, uh, dedicated to women, for example. That's not done here but it was done in the United States, there could also be groups, sessions that were reserved for racialized women because it's also a more discriminated group than white women. for conferences because often the speakers look a little bit alike. And we lack diversity on stage. So to encourage certain people who would dare less, for a whole host of very good reasons, we offer programs to go and find them, to encourage them, etc. There can also be in some companies programs, courses or special sessions or coaching dedicated to women, for example. This is not done here, but it was done in the United States. There could also be groups, sessions that were reserved for racialized women, because it is also a more discriminated group than white women.
[00:39:51] I ask myself a lot of questions about after-work events, which are normally places of conviviality to get to know our colleagues.
[00:40:01] We do that, the company favors that so that there is more connection, to grease the wheels because we work as a team, so it's good to get along well, to know our teammates well. So it's work, even if it's a specific form of work, in any case it serves the work, it's for the work, but it's after working hours.
[00:40:26] And who do we exclude when we do after-work events? We can exclude people who chain their paid work day onto another unpaid work day this time. It can be parents, helping parents, who can't afford to just say, "Okay, this sprint was hot, now we've earned this beer, come on, let's go out." It can also be exclusive for some people who don't drink alcohol and who don't really want to be just sober next to a team of ripped guys. Even if it can be nice sometimes to release the pressure with a few drinks, I, I, well, I don't want to throw stones, but let's ask ourselves this question. We have the impression of doing inclusion, of doing conviviality, but who do we leave out?
[00:41:17] Something very important: communication. Uh, I really like NVC, it probably speaks to you, uh, non-violent communication, and I think it's important to do it all the time. Not during an initiation, not during a training, not during a specific retro. Try to do it as much as possible, all the time. It's hard, it's super hard, uh, but try to do it as much as possible. In your daily practices, at work, elsewhere too if you can, it's even better. Uh, but practicing non-violent communication, I think that's something indispensable if we want to do inclusion. If we want to do collective intelligence.
[00:41:59] So not just in retro or in a workshop. And I emphasize the word listening, because often in communication, we will focus on emitting a message. However, to achieve collective intelligence, remember, factor C from MIT, second point, so first point, social sensitivity, arriving to observe, to capture, to understand the other. Second, equal speaking time.
[00:42:21] So in communication, there is also a lot of listening. Very important. Uh, who knows this diagram by a show of hands? Okay, so I'll come back to it. Um, it's a diagram proposed by Lisa Atkins, uh, which essentially maps the skills that agile coaches have or should have.
[00:42:42] Uh, obviously, if we are agile coaches, we know a bit about agility, lean. Often, uh, well, I say agile coach, it's also scrum master, or agile master, or whatever. Uh, often, you have to know, or you have to learn, to give training, to build and give training. There's a mentoring part, often too. We were before devs, we were product owners, we were whatever. So we can bring people we accompany to show the way, advise, accompany, etc. So we can bring people we accompany to show the gesture, advise, accompany, etc. Uh, you have to facilitate, you have to know how to facilitate rituals, workshops, whatever they may be. Uh, for many, after a while in their career, there are many coaches who do a professional coaching training. And for people who don't, they still adopt a lot of tools, issued, proposed, uh, things that are taught in professional coaching training. Personally, I haven't done the training, or not yet, I don't know if I will one day, but I know that when I discuss with pro coaches, there are certain tools that are the same.
[00:43:51] So those are the ones that are relatively indispensable, we could say. And then, it's at choice, at least one of the elements of the bar.
[00:44:00] You must either have a technical mastery, it will often be coaches who will bring things in terms of coding practice or architecture.
[00:44:12] Master the trade or the transformation of organization. So it's at your choice, or if you have all three, that's great. But anyway, that's the cartography of the good coach, according to Lisa Atkins.
[00:44:27] I tell myself, very good. In there, essentially, we will find notions of psychology.
[00:44:36] Especially in professional coaching, but not only, to facilitate a session, to, to bring a training with good pedagogical tools to manage to correctly mentor a person, often you have to know the basics, a little bit, notions of psychology.
[00:44:53] When we focus, we are interested in technique, in transformation, notably, but not only. There are also other things, uh, it's a bit distilled everywhere, we will insert ourselves into systemic. We will be interested in complex systems, so we will try to understand, to grasp, to understand the relationships between the elements in a system, what makes it so that if I pull this string, there is an impact on the other side, etcetera.
[00:45:18] So, psychology and systemic are disciplines that are commonly accepted in the profession, I think. Of agile coaching, in the, in the domains of coaching also, if it's not agile, lean, in our communities of practice. My question is, where is the socio?
[00:45:37] Do we ask ourselves the question of socio? Are there agents of change who, in parallel, in continuous training, take courses or read books in their free time or their training watch time? They read sociology books. I have the impression that it is still a little less widespread.
[00:46:01] So to finish, some practices, uh, again that you probably already know, you already apply. Uh, once again, these are just tips, maybe sometimes bad ideas. But know that asynchronicity can help collective intelligence, it can help inclusion and the collection of ideas from people who are less comfortable speaking in a large group, or in any case in a group of people. Or people who are more on the long-term, who are not going to react spontaneously like that, who have more a thought that will take a path that will take more time.
[00:46:38] Anonymity too. Uh, remember, psychological safety. Maybe not all people are totally safe to express themselves, to share ideas in a group. Uh, so I think you already do it, maybe sometimes. I don't know if you organize a PI planning, maybe you do a feedback collection afterwards on what went well or less well, anonymously. Maybe when you do health checks or, well, team mood or things like that, to make sure everyone can express themselves if it's not going well. Maybe you do that too to have a bit of the group's temperature, to be able to detect weak signals from people who are not doing very well or who have things to criticize or improve.
[00:47:21] The choice on casting. Uh, I often give the example of if you have to do a user story mapping. Or a bio feature workshop, I don't know if either of them speaks to you, but in any case, put several different people around the table. Sorry. Often you will put, you will tell yourself spontaneously, but you have to put a representative of each department or of each trade.
[00:47:46] Except that if we are preparing a software, we want to do a redesign or design a new software. If we put a person from sales, a person from marketing, uh, the CEO, we're going to put a person from customer service, a business manager, and a dev, or a female dev. There will still be an imbalance of forces. Uh, so I think that's something, if you form this group, this workshop, when sending out invitations, you're going to tell yourself, there might be an imbalance there, we're currently working on a software. There still needs to be a bit more people who have this knowledge, uh, and this expertise. So maybe you're going to invite three devs, or you're going to add an architect, technical manager or other. To try to balance the forces.
[00:48:38] So indeed, here we take into account the profession of the people.
[00:48:43] But does it make sense to also ask the question, in the room, do I only have a majority of people with a Master's degree from top schools? What do I do with profiles that have been reconverted, for example? Do I only have people in the room who are 45 or older?
[00:49:01] And so on. We can ask ourselves the question about different things. On different axes of difference and discrimination.
[00:49:11] It can also be resolved by the number of votes. Maybe I can't bring 50,000 people to the meeting because it's going to make too many people, a more inefficient meeting, a workshop that doesn't work super well. But maybe if I only have one dev, maybe that person, when it comes to choosing or prioritizing, we're going to give them five votes, while the other people will only have one vote, for example, to rebalance things. Again, we're talking about equity.
[00:49:35] To achieve something more egalitarian. Speaking time, we already mentioned it. I invite you, for the next two weeks, to focus, well, obviously listen to the content of what is said in your meetings, but also watch, listen to who is speaking and for how long. Try to measure more or less the speaking time of each person and of each type of person. If you are in video, there are tools that do that too, automatically. Uh, but I invite you to do it even in an artisanal way, to notice who speaks, who expresses themselves.
[00:50:08] You probably know the liberating structures, I advise you to look for them, there is an application, there is a site that gives you many resources to precisely animate, uh, animate groups, animate workshops. And who can really favor collective intelligence to listen to the voice of everyone. You certainly know the One Two For All, where you start with your individual reflection. Afterwards, you share it with another person, then you go to four, then you share it with the whole group. That's one of the liberating structures. That makes people cringe, often people, often the same type of person, but non-mixed can be very useful too.
[00:50:50] I'm not saying that you always have to be locked in social groups and not be hermetic. Uh, I'm just saying that for certain moments, it can be useful beforehand, in a first step, to have non-mixed reflections.
[00:51:05] Uh, when the bosses discuss with the trade unions, often the bosses or the shareholders, for example, the leaders, had a moment of non-mixity. They discussed together just about a certain subject and then about a strategy, to adapt the social dialogue. And so, well, the unions too, the representatives of the staff also had this need for this non-mixed moment. And then after that, the two parties meet and there is a dialogue in principle. It's also the case for other, for other things, whether we're talking about non-mixity in terms of gender, of ethnicity, in terms of age also maybe, it can be useful in certain cases, not always, but often.
[00:51:52] And finally, language and representation, it's important.
[00:51:56] Uh, if I always use the masculine to say the CEO, uh, or the PO, or the dev, maybe women will feel, consciously or unconsciously, a little less included. Maybe if I do the double flexion, uh, people will feel a little more included.
[00:52:16] That's one example among others. I also think that training is indispensable. Training on harassment, disability, racism, sexism and LGBTphobia. Uh, it's indispensable and in fact it's simply the law. We don't do it. We don't do it enough. And there, with the times we are living in, I think it will probably regress, but if it's not done at the initiative of your employer on a large scale, don't hesitate to do it individually or in a small group. These are important things, training of this type is not useless.
[00:52:51] Finally, surround yourself with people who can help with this collective intelligence, with this inclusion. Get accompanied by people whose job it is. Consultants, coaches or scrum masters or other people who are sensitive to these issues. And also when recruiting your devs, your archi, your PO, no matter. And also when recruiting, uh, your devs, your archi, your PO, it doesn't matter. Uh, if you can, try to bring in people, not that it's their focus and their job, obviously. Uh, but if you can, try to bring in people, not that it's their focus and their job, obviously, uh, but who are at least sensitized to these issues. For example, if in an interview you are, I don't know, with a person who is perhaps the tech manager, and you are yourself a dev, and you, you try to recruit a new person for the technical team, if you have an individual in front of you who only expresses himself and looks at the dev and who does not even have a glance for the technical manager, it's a bad sign.
[00:53:44] And finally, time. You need patience, perseverance, you will make mistakes, it won't be perfect. Uh, you have to inspect, adapt, you have to iterate, but in any case it takes a lot of time to create safe spaces. Uh, and I think that it's really worth it. If you don't do it for ethical reasons, uh, think, for example, also that the Apple Watch was a big failure on the European market for women. Because the wrists apparently, I thought I understood, of women in Europe are smaller statistically than those of women in the United States, and so it worked less well. So it worked less well. So if you don't do it for your convictions, do it also for business reasons. Uh, for example, all the sensors for uh, the water, the soap that only work on white skin and not on black skin, that's also a big failure. So even for functional, in functional or business terms, it's important to have this collective intelligence and this diversity in the members of the group.
[00:54:45] I'll let you take a photo if it interests you. Uh, there are some people who work in this direction, who I think do indispensable work. And who are in tech. So you can go see between two totally technical conferences or on Lean or Agility or other. Some references outside tech, obviously it's not exhaustive at all, uh, it's impossible to make a summary. But, well, authors, male and female, uh, sociologists, philosophers or other intellectuals who focus on these subjects, I'll get there. And I'll just leave you with three in-house resources. Uh, Natacha has given a conference within the framework of the PDG, La Place des Grenouilles, and I wrote an article that summarizes some very very current examples of micro-aggressions. So if you read it, you will certainly see that you are ultimately, without wanting to be, guilty of aggression and we give you tips on how to do better, how to fix things a little. Uh, we have a fresco created within the framework of the association called the anti-sexist fresco, to precisely become aware of all the sexist discriminations at work. And also I wanted to give a little shout out to Reactive, who has a booth here. Uh, this conference is the result of a conversation I had with Valentin Istria. In the podcast, their podcast called Agile Is Not Enough. If you want to listen to it, there are great speakers who intervene in this podcast. Promise, it's almost over.
[00:56:09] It's the last slide. If you have five things to remember in my opinion, it's that systems are intertwined, I've already explained it. Social relationships are not as simple as we think, there are more axes to take into account.
[00:56:25] I think that we cannot lead an agile transformation if we do not think about these issues, if we do not lead a reflection on these questions and create safe spaces, for me it is an indispensable element to really achieve collective intelligence. To really hear all the voices and thus the best solution in each workshop or other meeting. Once again, you are not guilty, we are not guilty, but I think we are responsible for informing ourselves, for deconstructing a certain number of things, for understanding that the reality that was instilled in us is not the only reality.
[00:56:58] Uh, be careful not to fall into the role of savior or savior, uh, being an ally is a position that is not obvious, and once again we make mistakes. Uh, the idea is not to go from executioner to savior, to victim and so on.
[00:57:10] Uh, the idea is not to go from executioner to savior, to victim and so on. And finally, one last thing, I assure you it's a link. Turn off the TV. Read, consume, consult independent press and support it as best you can. And thank you.
[00:57:36] Do we have time for questions or not?
[00:57:38] No, if you're hungry...
[00:57:40] Yes, if you're hungry, go ahead, you know the two-feet law.
[00:57:42] Two feet, if you're hungry, go ahead. Two questions maybe.
[00:57:50] If someone wants to ask a question?
[00:57:54] I don't know, are there any questions? Maybe there aren't any. Maybe we'll just eat.
[00:57:57] If we stay, we'll eat during the dev.
[00:57:59] Yes, there's one, there are two, or one, two.
[00:58:05] I haven't seen which model you read first.
[00:58:07] Yes, hello, thank you. Hello. About privileges. You don't talk about age.
[00:58:14] I think I mentioned it, and it's also in the wheel of privileges, I think. No, I didn't see it. Okay, so it's maybe not on the wheel, but yes, I mentioned it precisely, in a room we're going to give more importance to a person who is often older because they have more experience and young people we're going to say, well, uh,
[00:58:27] Yeah, but I didn't see it that way, because maybe because I'm older. Okay, but in the company, I don't know if you, once you are 50 years old, I don't know if you've experienced it, you haven't experienced it yet.
[00:58:38] And you are not a man either, so... I think there's a lot of aversion right now and, uh, we're asked to work until 65 or 70, for sure. On the other hand, from 50 years old, you still have something above your head. And that's strong and there's no more of what I think either is that in your wheel, there's no notion of...
[00:58:55] So it's not mine. Sorry, sorry. Okay. This is...
[00:58:58] No, sorry.
[00:58:59] It's a...
[00:59:00] Okay.
[00:59:01] Excuse me.
[00:59:03] In the wheel, there's no notion of dynamic, that is to say that we can be born, uh, we can, we can develop ourselves. We can be helped, in France there are scholarships, for example I was a scholarship holder. I don't think there's such a static side to say, uh, well, you were born in this place, so necessarily you're going to, uh, suffer all these, uh, well, I think we still have the possibility of developing.
[00:59:25] Yes. I agree, uh, thank you for the remark. Indeed, nothing is static. Uh, on the wheel you may have seen the notion of, for example, disability.
[00:59:38] Uh, we can be born without disability and acquire one, either permanent or temporary. Uh, so that's an example. We can also be born in a more modest social class and access a certain number of social and economic capital later. Indeed, it's not, it's not static. I agree. And yes, ageism. It goes both ways. Ageism is as much discriminating against young people because they know nothing, they haven't seen life and so on, as older people because you're a has-been, you're outdated, you don't understand anything anymore and you're not in the loop. And too expensive. Well, that's another question, yes.
[01:00:18] Yes, so indeed, often older people, because they have more experience, will ask for higher salaries. Uh, it's not for me to judge whether it's correct or not, whether it's normal or not. In any case, I'm talking about power structures, power dynamics, and then it's in a meeting or around a project, it's more about saying, okay, the people are there. I don't know how much they're paid, but in any case, uh, it's true that we can marginalize, put aside, and it happens a lot in tech. After that, I think it's not always the case in all environments, but yes, indeed, after a certain age, older people, closer to retirement, but not that close ultimately, are, are sidelined.
[01:00:57] Yes.
[01:01:00] Is there another question or remark or do you want to eat?
[01:01:04] We're going to eat.
[01:01:05] Okay, let's go eat then. Thank you.

Transcript (Translated)