In the Monday education at MPI’s World Education Congress in St. Louis titled WEC 2013: Designing the Meeting You Want to Attend, presenter John Nawn, Founder/CEO of The Perfect Meeting asked attendees "What if you could design the conference you want to attend? What would it look like?" Key MPI staff Brad Shanklin, Senior Director of Membership and Chapters; Junior Tauvaa, Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketplace; and Danya Casey, Vice President of Events and Certification were on hand to relay their overall goals and objectives. Based on these, Nawn then led the attendees to come up with their own strategies and tactics to recommend to MPI for designing next year’s conference. All ideas generated during this session will be shared with MPI membership at large to gain further input into the adoption of this session’s outcomes and the ultimate design of WEC 2013.

Some comments and suggestions from the attendees were that suppliers need relationships with buyers and need education about the supplier and buyer roles. This is certainly something MPI considers when planning all its conferences and members can also find out more in the Personas report found here.

Attendees want to be challenged to do things different, to be energized, sit back and learn from others. Nawn quoted MPI's Knowledge Manager Miranda van Bruck from an earlier WEC session, "If we build it for you, you might come, but if we build it together with you are already there." This sentiment was echoed by attendees.

Other suggestions were to provide useful, usable, applicable, hands on sessions with good teachers. Nawn finished the session by sharing meeting design concepts and taxonomies.

What suggestions would you have about designing WEC 2013? Content, logistics, location, purpose?

Be looking for the Meeting Design study, due out in Fall 2012.

Recent research out of the University of California-Riverside suggests that ambition drives happiness.

Assistant marketing professor Cecile K. Cho concluded that consumers who set ambitious goals have a greater level of satisfaction compared to those who set conservative goals.

Two experiments were conducted to compare people who set ambitious goals to those who set conservative goals. They focused on situations in which goals were achieved, and measured the level of satisfaction with the achieved goals.

In the first experiment, 134 participants were asked to set a target rate of return that they would be satisfied with and asked to pick from a percentage range of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 or 20. Low goal setters were defined as those who set the rate at 14 percent or lower.  High goal setters were those who set the rate at greater than 14 percent.

Participants were then asked to allocate their US$5,400 budget by picking three of 20 fictitious stocks presented to them. After a 10-minute filler task, participants received the return of their stock portfolio, handwritten by the experimenter so it matched their goal. Participants were led to believe their stock allocation had been entered into a database to get actual returns.

The experimenters then concocted three feedback scenarios.

In the first one, only the stock performance information was provided. This is called the “default” condition of interest. In the second one, the participants were first told the typical return of stocks was 6 percent to 20 percent and then told how their stocks performed. In the last scenario, participants were first reminded what their goal was and then told how their stocks performed. Participants were then asked to rate their satisfaction on 9-point scales.

Of interest is whether all participants, who achieve their goals, are similarly happy. Existing research would predict that those who achieve their goals should be satisfied. Results suggested otherwise.

In the first “default” scenario, high goal setters average satisfaction was 7.85 while low goal setters were at 6.53.

In the third scenario, where the range of possible outcomes was reiterated, a similarly large gap occurred between high-goal setters (8.57) and low goal setters (6.98).

In the second scenario, where participants were reminded of their goal, the gap in happiness level between the two groups disappeared, with high goal setters at 7.72 and low goal setters at 7.46.

This suggested that when people set goals, they don’t necessarily recall this goal to evaluate their performance, but recruit a higher comparison point to do so. This upward comparison process likely negatively impacts their satisfaction with the performance of their portfolio.

A second experiment involving puzzles found similar results.

“The moral of the story is don’t sell yourself short,” Cho said. “Aim high.”

(Story materials provided by the University of California-Riverside.)