"I couldn't tell who was in the room, and who was on zoom.."

Last weekend, I was part of supporting a hybrid conference - which was about how we 'do' hybrid (hope that's not too meta of a concept to open a blog post with?)

As a facilitator who's part of the IAF England & Wales team, earlier this year we were considering how to re-assert ourselves as a body of practitioners, and also re-spark our community of facilitators, after being without our customary annual conference for the last 2 years (Covid, and all that). 

Someone (possibly me) suggested that we do it as a hybrid event - giving us the chance to share, try out, and learn from others how we do events where people are both 'roomies' and 'zoomies'. 

And while there's lots of other posts people are making about their experiences of it across social media, expressing how having it as hybrid was far more enjoyable and engaging than many were fearful it would be otherwise, I wanted to pause to reflect on my experience of leading a session about how we do networking in hybrid ways.

Given that we all know (in theory) how to do networking in person, and we've started to feel our way with it on-line in breakout rooms, etc over the last 2 years of pandemic, I wanted to try out the notion of doing it 'hybrid' - where the people networking together are both on-line and in a room at the same time.

I also wanted to explore some of what each side felt like they were missing out on, in not being in the others' physical/virtual space. 

So, as part of the session, I posed a flipped question to both groups - what did zoomies feel they were missing out on, by not being in the room; and what did the roomies feel they were missing out on by not being a zoomie.

Interesting, there were lots of frustrations and FOMOs expressed on both sides, but in 'headline':

- if you're on-line in a hybrid event, you miss the spontaneity and potential for physical contact with other human beings;

- if you're in the room at a hybrid event, you can feel more vulnerable and at risk from not having access to your usual home comforts, and having less recourse to being able to 'get out' if you feel they need to.

  

So - some good learning that highlights that not everyone is keen to rush back to doing everything in person (or if we are, we need some careful considerations). 

And there was also lots of other great learning throughout the conference about the realities and practicalities of both managing, and being part of, hybrid events.

(SPOILER: despite our not spending any money on tech, and the venue not being set up for hybrid, we managed to lash-up makeshift roving cameras and mics in ways that impressed everyone both on and off line, showing that it doesn't have to be that technically difficult).

But for me, the key message from my session wasn't about how to run hybrid networking in a tech way, but in how I approached it as a facilitator in recognising that there were 2 groups of people with different different starting/engagement points.

Encouragingly, how I planned the session and facilitated the networking seemed to work really well for people, with comments being made afterwards such as:

- "this experience has made me more confident about doing things in a hybrid way"

- "when we were doing the networking, I hadn't realised who was in the room/on zoom until afterwards!"

So for anyone who's either planning, or thinking about being part of, a hybrid event - my takeaway would be this: as important as it is to get the tech doing the things you need/want it to, it's just as important to also think and plan how you're going to structure the sessions and activities within it to help everyone feel part of it, regardless of how they're joining it.

"ain't nothing like a Dame", forgotten legacies, and growing lettuces in space... (the future of the co-op movement from a regional perspective)

I was recently invited back to my old stomping ground of Cambridge to speak at the Regional Co-op Council's annual conference - as some may know, I spent several years turning around the fortunes a local co-op and social enterprise development agency there, and somehow initiating some ideas that have since become national flagships...

And the invitation was too tempting to pass on: in 1997, The East of England was the first in the country to form a regional co-op forum (which became the regional Co-ops Council model today), and in doing so inspired every other region in the UK to not only form a corresponding Council model, but also informed every region to then go on to create a wider regional social enterprise partnership too! (and I was involved in the forming of both this first regional council, and the subsequent first regional social enterprise partnership too, so nice to go back and see how it was getting on)

The East of England was also the first to create a 10 year strategy for shaping the future of the co-operative movement from a regional perspective (which I still have a copy of!, although sadly just about everyone at the Coops East conference seemed to be unaware of just how influential they've been in shaping the wider movement and beyond through these things in its history...).

Therefore being able to return to remind them of their history and legacy seemed an important thing to do in encouraging the next wave of the 'co-operative revolution'.

(and it was also personally encouraging for me to be able to see some people I originally got to know 15 years ago still active and impacting the world through their roles - Austen and Sally: yes, that's you I'm referring to!)

While the day itself may have seemed to have had too many speakers for some people's comfort (8 main presentations, 2 facilitated round table planning activities, and a break for lunch - and all in the space of about 5 hours), my impression is that many also felt that they wanted more... and my overriding impression was that rather than blinding people with stats and policy headlines, all of the speakers more appropriately drew on stories and histories of their respective co-ops - its stories that capture our interest and imagination much more powerfully, and make it easier to share these ideas with other people, than any set of quantitative data and mapping reports ever can.

So to try and summarise what impressed upon me most from the day means I'll omit some things that others felt were the highlights for them, or focus on some aspects that others felt were more of an irrelevance. But that's part of the joy of blogging - encouraging you to subsequently read others' write ups and form your own view, and a reflection of the diversity of the co-operative movement itself. However, for me the 'highlights' I'd like to share are as follows:

1. Co-ops were highlighted at being at the forefront of the next agricultural revolution with the workers co-op, Delta T Devices, sharing how their equipment is helping to grow lettuces on the international space station
2. Dame Pauline Green passionately argued how co-ops have become the UK's greatest ever export, revealed how she's now a good mate of the Pope, and had people highlight that a musical about her work for the movement is already well know - "There is nothing like a Dame" from South Pacific
3. Tweets that people were making on the day drew interest in what Coops East were doing from the co-operative movement internationally
4. It's impossible for nearly any co-operative to fully cover all of the impact and ways in which they are contributing to making the world a better place in only 9 minutes
5. While some co-ops may be accused of having too many aims for their own good, and people encourage them to therefore reduce them in number; if you were a parent with 'too many children', how could you choose which of them to give up?
6. People's ideas for what a 'paradise region' might look like if the East of England were to be transformed by the co-op sector struck me as being reminiscent of the role that Co-op societies held in their communities at the start of the 20th century (community social events, everyone being aware about what co-ops are and using them as their preferred suppliers and shops, schools being explicitly linked with coops and teaching children about them, local businesses being encouraged and supported by them...)
7. Some co-ops present (and who spoke) seemed unaware of the national programmes and influence they'd created over the years until I referred to some of these during the Q&A panels
8. I also found myself being volunteered to chair the conference in lieu of my father who was too unwell to do so, and so naturally took the opportunity to do some table-top dancing as part of the official proceedings...

I think my overriding takeaway from the day was that as a movement we have a legacy (and future) that is far more impressive and powerful than most realise, but we risk losing it all if we forget our history and don't keep regularly sharing and reminding ourselves of our stories.

But the whole day was also tweeted and instagrammed about by various other people there - just check out the day's hashtag to see other's pictures and stories via #acoopregion; and Coops East have also uploaded all of the speakers notes and presentations to their website: http://www.cooperatives-east.coop/events/acooperativeregion/

the best national business support policy may be no policy at all...?

I recently found myself on an 'expert panel' at a forum convened by ISBE (the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship) on the future of business support policy in the UK, as part of their ongoing conversation into informing and shaping what a new national policy should be.

(OK - to clarify, I was technically there as Leigh Sear of SFEDI and the IOEE, but as he'd been called away overseas, he asked me to fill in for him, hence the confusion of my having 2 names at the forum.)

And while I shared various stories and approaches to business support with those present, I thought it might also be useful to capture here some of the other speakers' arguments and discussions with those in the room that stuck with me, as well as some of what I took away that I'm still mulling over, and that will likely also inform my own ongoing activity in this field:

The definitions debate

With the almost fetishism of high growth in business support policy, it seems that the definition of what constitutes 'high growth' may be too exclusive in excluding many businesses who are seeing significant increases in revenues, but aren't matching this with creating lots of direct employment opportunities (such as software firms, and something that will be be increasingly the norm with the rise of the 'gig economy').

As a result, many businesses who have the potential to contribute greatly to our economy are being sidelined and overlooked - surely to our cost...?

Not a 'bottomless well' (of growth)

It also seems that business growth isn't something that can be sustained - various data sets shared by the ERC(https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ERC-InsightPap-HartDanes.pdf) all indicate that firms can only experience grow for about their first 5 years, and then all mature and plateau; so if policy is to prioritise support for growth, we need to be more open and honest in recognising that businesses are only able to do so for a time limited period.

Measures of success

There seemed to be a general consensus that we need to use more that just financial measures to consider success in business growth - and that these should reflect the aspirations and motivations of the entrepreneurs and owners behind the businesses.

However, I've an idea that whatever these measures are should share the same characteristics as metrics in financial accounts: that they can be bench-marked externally to help us better consider how we compare and contrast with others to fully appreciate just how successful we really are, and that they can be aggregated to form data sets and evidence bases to allow us to better represent and lobby on their behalf.

Whose benefit is policy actually for?

Discussions around the different players active in the business support arena raised a question about who business support should be for, and who should be paying for it. Public policy should take a utilitarian approach, facilitating and enabling the most benefit for the most people, and in the real world, this means that the State can't appease everyone, or provide for all business types and needs (hence it's prioritising of high growth over sole traders as it believes this will create the most impact for more people).

However, we're seeing private firms starting to offer accelerator and incubator programmes, and also sponsor others' enterprise development and growth initiatives. So rather than try and create a single public policy that will encompass everyone, should we rather be taking an approach that uses simpler policy frameworks around different themes and types of enterprise/entrepreneur; better recognising that in some instances the private sector is better placed, and should be leading on elements of support?

The rationale (and risks) for enterprise education to be a recognised part of business support

There seemed to be agreement that any role Universities hold in delivering any policy around business support needs to include elements of enterprise education, and while there are good reasons for this, there are also some risks too - 

• teaching and encouraging entrepreneurship amongst students increases their future employability by developing skills that employers value
• degree apprenticeships creates opportunities for universities to capitalise on their role as a provider of learning, but there's no clear models for how Universities might best harness this new model (yet...)
• there's a risk that in some universities having linked their offer of enterprise support to that of national policy, many student startups are being 'lost' or 'fail to launch' as the University is too focused on encouraging high growth and Intellectual Property-based ventures
• with the rise of corporates taking active roles in offering business support (including where there may not be an immediately obvious business case for them to do so), there's a need for Universities to better co-ordinate their offer with these to capitalise on knowledge and expertise that both are developing - but tellingly, there was no presence from any such corporates at the Forum...

The holy grail: creating a pipeline of support for startup to high growth

Within any national policy that emerges, there will need be a recognition that encouraging new startups is just as important as supporting growth in existing businesses - but that its also difficult to ensure that this progression is smooth or able to be well managed. This is largely because of not only the sheer diversity of different business types and motivations, but also the plethora of support available to them at different stages and in different sectors.

In theory, Local Economic Partnerships should be well placed to better co-ordinate these support offers to maximise their potential for wider benefit, but the experience of many seems to be that owing to the governance models of LEPs not being inclusive or transparent enough, that such knowledge and co-ordination which could unlock the potential of many firms, isn't happening.

If we can only do one thing...

As a closing to the panel debate, a few straw polls were taken of people in the room, asking for shows of hands to gauge what the focus of national policy should be if it could only focus on one thing: more start-ups, or more scale-ups.

(Personally, I'm in favour of more start-ups: they create and encourage more diversity and choice in an ever-changing society; help us develop more resilience; and research shows that the larger firms tend not to stick around that long anyway - the FTSE100 has a churn rate of about 10% each year!)

Overwhelming the room voted in favour of more start-ups.

social value - more impact or more talk? (reflections from Social Value 17)

Part of my approach to my CPD is to tweet from events I attend to capture my thoughts and reflections from them, and then subsequently turn to my blog to try and crystallise my learning from them, and what difference it will subsequently make in how I support clients in the future - and my attending Social Value 17 is no exception...

The conference is one of a series of events that Social Enterprise Yorkshire and Humber stage throughout the year, in response to interests expressed by its member social enterprises in the region. It was designed to look at how social value is being introduced into the sector and public commissioning, and subsequently, how social enterprises might better approach identifying and reporting their impact to aid in their winning public sector contracts.

And against that agenda, I personally found it to be something of a mixed bag (as anyone who was following my tweets on the day would have likely already surmised...)

Having now 'slept on it', I think my overall impressions remain what I left with on the day:

• probably a bit too much of being 'talked at', rather than sharing stories and facilitated networking (if you do a picture search on twitter for the events' hashtag, all the images are of people holding a microphone and standing in front of a powerpoint screen)
• there wasn't really much given by way of reason as to why as a sector we should be getting more serious about reporting our impact, beyond the fact that some public sector commissioners are starting to write it into their tender specifications - but in my experience, this is usually the weakest (and least relevant for most) reason...
• given that the main focus of the event was on how social value strengthens the commissioning of public services, a conspicuous absence of anyone from any health bodies
• a lot of gaps with regards to practicalities for attending enterprises and charities to be able to follow up on to support themselves with identifying and starting to report their social impact (Social Value UK's free webinar series, the Global Value Exchange set of standardised outcome indicators, and the Inspiring Impact self-help resources to name but 3 that no one made any references to...)

but there were also some moments that were encouraging:

• the open recognition that most private companies are shaming the sector in being able to better report impact than many local social enterprises and charities can
• in the workshop, hearing local commissioners share some of their frustrations and hopes for social value commissioning, (and being open to learning from previous strategies and directives from the last 15 years that I shared with them)

What I also noticed is that despite this being an event about social value, there were very few examples of impact reports on show (with the exception of the 3 social investment bodies present - Key Fund, Charity Bank, and Unity Bank) - but I also took a handful of copies of mine and left out on the tables, and all of which were taken with interest and enthusiasm when people realised what they were...

So - overall, a disappointing day in terms of being able to learn anything new that I didn't already know (and in fact, it turning out that I knew more than some of the keynote speakers during opportunities for questions I put to them, and the number of people subsequently approaching me after the formal event to the conference...), but also encouraging to see that commissioners are becoming more open and wanting to progress the debate and discussion. And also useful in helping me better understand the messages that clients I work with are being exposed to, in being able to better structure and direct my support for their future benefit.

What I also took away from the day was that there's also more appetite to be open in taking about when we make mistakes, recognising that there's great value in the learning we can all benefit from through such openness (however embarrassing and fearful we might feel in admitting it...)

(and as an additional 'personal highlight' from the event - my most popular tweet from it was a picture of Key Fund's Dave Thornett apparently playing some bizarre 'social value' game...) 

maybe social investment isn't that different after all..?

I was able to make it along to this year's "Working Capital" conference that was recently staged in Sheffield - a day to immerse myself in reflecting, arguing, sharing, and further exploring the wonderful world of 'social investment'.

Depending on who you speak with, Social Investment is either the next big thing (and has been for a few years...); is a market that's suffered failure in the past and needed interventions from government; or a smoke screen for covering the cuts to grants that sustain many charities and social enterprises...

money might not grow on trees, but these desktop garden
pots from Key Fund mean you can grow most other things 

The day offered a range of perspectives and stories: Cliff Prior of Big Society Capital stating openly what many are starting to whisper in hushed tones - social enterprise should be moving more towards retail and consumer markets because public commissioners are very tough nuts to either crack, or to change their behaviours; and Hazel Blears encouraging those same commissioners to do more to learn from each other to progress the social value act (but in doing seemingly having forgotten previous national initiatives over the last 20 odd years that were designed to do just that...).

But the impressions I'm left with (initially at least - as always, I'm open to others coming back to me to challenge me on these points) are:

• most of the specialist lenders to social enterprise make it difficult for the sector to borrow from them because they usually have repayment terms of only 5 years maximum. But in the private sector its not uncommon to 'refinance' a loan - it can often be hard to get a loan because you've no history of repaying debts; but once you start to, you can flip your loan to another lender on better terms... So what's to stop social enterprises getting what seem initially expensive loans in comparison with the high street banks who see them as being too risky, showing they can manage repayments, and then transfer the loan to their high street bank on better terms?

• the things that are important to those seeking investment (quick decision, affordable terms, flexibility), are the same as for any other type of organisation in any sector seeking a loan

• as a general movement, social investment seems to be a little bit too 'introspective' for my liking: NESTA undertake regular national surveys of social and alternative finance, which no-one referenced today. Without understanding how different 'flavours' of social finance compare to other finance types in how widely they're being used, how can we hope to make a best informed decision about where we should be investing our time in pursuing investment?

But but in all, a good day to reflect, see some friendly and familiar faces, and hopefully the start of most other enterprises' journeys into investment that will ultimately help them create bigger and better impacts on, and for, their respective communities.

I came, I saw, I (possibly) embarrassed myself...

So I was there (as were lots of other people) - the first 5-day festivalof Social Enterprise hosted by Greenwich University (and pulled together by Harsha Patel who we can't thank enough for doing so!). And what's even more exciting was that I wasn't just there to heckle from the back seats and prop up the networking bar, I'd been invited to be part of the headline acts alongside some of social enterprise's rockstars.

And while others can tell you far better (and honestly) how I really was, and how useful and engaging my activities and support offered were, it strikes me that I may have been either very foolish or incredibly brilliant in my contributions as a keynote speaker to the closing debate - 'should all entrepreneurs be social entrepreneurs?'.

You see, many people I have the privilege to walk alongside for a time in encouraging and supporting them to realise their visions (both as individual entrepreneurs and sector bodies) regard me as a fine example of a 'social entrepreneur'. Except I don't think that I am one - a social entrepreneur is motivated by wanting to change the world for the better, and to earn some money along the way to keep the lights on and the cats fed. A 'traditional' entrepreneur has an idea for how to earn some money to keep the lights on and the cats fed... And I fall into the latter camp - following some questionable behaviour just over 10 years ago by a very large regional business in the sector, I'd relocated to the other end of the country and found myself without employment and a young family to support.

But having been raised the way I have, rather than sign on at the job centre (only 2 streets away), I began knocking on doors to find work (and have been hustling ever since). So you see, my motivation is about supporting my family - and part of that is not just keeping the lights on, but also trying to help leave the world is a slightly better place for my kids as they start to make their way into it. And part of how I try and live my life is also trying to manifest certain values and principles in how I work. All of which apparently make me indistinguishable from a social entrepreneur by my actions and impacts.

But what does it matter if people label me as something I don't think I am? If it doesn't get in the way of what I'm trying to achieve for myself and others, am I just having an existential mid-life crisis? Is it more important to consider how we act, and the impact we have on others, rather than what we call ourselves?

And I bared all of this publicly on stage at a national event in front of media, sector leaders, and hundreds of people who were also wondering of social enterprise is the right thing for them.

So - what do you think, was I incredibly clever, disruptive, and have moved the debate on to its next paradigm (never thought I'd use that word in a non-satirical context!), or have I just ruined any professional reputation and credibility I may have had...?

Initial reaction in the room and on twitter seems to be positive - but I think my duck may have had a lot to do with that ;-)

the day I realised I was a 'professional'...

so – its official: I'm a professional after all (despite what some may feel are my efforts to the contrary...)

Some of you will know that as a provider of support and consultancy services to enterprises, I 'fell' into self-employment and become a micro business by accident nearly 8 years ago. It was never part of any grand career or life plan, but rather a way that I could use what I felt were my skills and gifts in a way that I could continue to support myfamily, and also offer some contribution to the wider world.

During one of my rare attendances at aconference recently I made the most of an opportunity to hear about the work to develop and agree national standards for advisers to co-operativeenterprise. What struck me most from my participating in that session was how I clearly I exhibit the '3 pillars of professionalism':

-        qualifications assessed against national occupation standards

-        assessed and qualified CPD (continuing professional development)

-       subscribing to a recognised code of conduct (especially useful in handling those rare occasions that clients wish to file a complaint against me)

These are all things that I find myself naturally doing – qualifications are a quick and easy way to allow me to assureclients of my skill and knowledge; CPD assures me that I'm keeping myself up-to-date and having opportunity to reflect on my knowledge and thinking; and codes of conduct I subscribe to through my membership of trade bodies (such as the Institute of Consulting) help keep me accountable (and so strengthen my integrity).

So it’s gratifying to learn that these practices I've always adopted as being 'common sense' make me a 'professional', but does this now mean I have to start behaving like one....? and if so, does that mean I should start wearing a suit and tie and charging exorbitant rates for my time ;-)

The day I became a hashtag on twitter…

You may already know that I’m on twitter; you may know that I occasionally tweet ‘live’ from events I’m at; and you may even know that a few months back someone did a survey that identified me as one of the top500 influencers of social enterprise in the world based on what I do on twitter.

But what you probably don’t know if that earlier this week, I became a ‘#’ (hashtag) on twitter.

Hashtags are funny things - they let you easily find other tweets of similar subject matter, and also to help place the content of a tweet in some kind of context. They range from the celebrity, to campaigns, to movements, and even the ridiculous.

And the list of them has just been added to with one that’s all about me! And while many people know I have a gift for self-publicity, on this occasion I can’t claim the credit for it: it was someone else who, unprompted, began this new tag. I’d just finished having a chat with them about some ideas around the LiM tool that allows small enterprises to more easily and better identify and report on their social impact and value, and they tweeted about it, adding the hash tag #chattoadrian

A couple of other people picked up on this and retweeted the tag pretty quickly, meaning its moved from one persons random idea to something that others think is genuinely useful and helpful.

What does this mean for me in practical terms? Well, I’m realistic enough to know that I’ll never trend on twitter, but it is a way that people can more easily see who I’ve been speaking with and what they thought of me. And I like that - I’ve always been open about trying to be transparent and accountable in how I work and offer my support and services, and this new hash tag means that its even easier for people to say and see just how good (or otherwise) I’ve been. It’ll keep me on my toes more, and that can surely only be a good thing in the long run.

So - thank you Graham Gardiner for making a new rod for my back, and contributing to my notoriety!

the delusions of senior management (...and why it harms all of us)

At a recent seminar I attended, I noticed that the more senior a persons’ role is, the more likely they are not to have brought a notepad/pen, etc. with them - yet they know they're coming to an event where they’ll be exposed to learning, and so be wanting to keep notes for their reference later. 

Perhaps this is because that due to the seniority of their role, they assume that others will have taken care of such ’basic’ administrative needs for them (a self-delusion of how important they think they are)?

And this concerns me - this obvious erosion of a person not taking responsibility for themselves is surely at odds with their responsibility for the performance and well-being of others under them? If they can’t be trusted to make sure they’ve a notepad and pen when going to an event where they know they’ll need them, then how can we have faith in their competency to manage significant budgets or large numbers of other people?

There are, thankfully, exceptions I’ve seen to this - people who’ve been on leadership programmes with the likes of Common Purpose, people in co-operatives (where one of the defining values is ‘self-responsibility’), and people in faith-based organisations, where there is a commonality of theological teaching around proving you can be trusted in the small things before being allowed to take on the larger responsibilities…

So perhaps we need to challenge people in authority more; not over the public failings that cost people’s livelihoods, but before they can get to that stage - check that your boss carries a notepad and pen with them when out and about…

Where have all the pens gone? (the hidden victims of technology and austerity custs)

On the occasions that I find myself at conferences I've noticed that I'm increasingly 'lending' my pen to the person I'm sitting next to. And I wonder if this is symbolic of the rise of mobile technologies and budget cuts – after all, before the rise of the smartphone we would have to scribble notes and ideas down in a notepad but now we can just tap them onto a keypad; and the assumption that delegate packs will always have a pen in them just can't be taken for granted anymore (they may not cost much individually, but can soon add up when you're trying to keep within a budget!)

So – I'd like to propose that you all take a moment to mourn the passing of what was once a common item in all suit pockets and ladies' purses – the humble biro. But don't worry, I always carry a spare so if you find yourself short at an event: just see if you can spot me!

The highs (and lows) of doing it live...

Ok, so most who are reading this will know that I tweet – if for no other reason that you can see what I’m tweeting in the update sidebar on your screen as you read this!

And lots of other people tweet too – some of it funny, some provocative, some thoughtful, some boring... and you may also know that there are lots of conventions and practices that have emerged around twitter: the #hashtag, the tweetup, and the tweeting live from events...

I've always liked to think that I’m open to ‘experimenting’ with my practices, so when I attended a recent event being staged by Unltd, I took the opportunity to jump onto a wifi network to tweet about the event ‘live’. And other people at the same event did the same. And from my perspective this meant some quite interesting things happened:


* I got to reflect on speakers’ presentations and discussions better because I could instantly follow (via the event #hashtag) what others thought of their points and arguments which helped me better reflect on them for myself

* people who I knew wanted to attend but couldn’t were able to get an insight into the emerging themes and issues being discussed, so didn’t miss out

* through being able to identify fellow tweeters at the event by searching for tweets with that #hashtag, I got to make contact with more people that I would have physically been able to do otherwise


BUT... all these things came at a cost. All the time I spent tweeting and reading others’ tweets I wasn’t fully listening to the speakers (naughty me!) and it also meant that I spent some of the time staring of my phone instead of being open to starting conversations with the strangers around me.

On balance, I’m glad I tweeted live as it meant I got a lot more out of the event that I would have done otherwise – having the opportunity to live tweet again may mean I attend more conferences in the future!