Posts

Expressing Thrivability: Michelle Holliday

Gratitude. I want to highlight some people I feel grateful to know and experience, people who are expressions of thrivability.

Today, I want to express gratitude for Michelle Holliday. She is a facilitator, organizational consultant, researcher and writer. She brings people together and helps them discover ways they can feel more alive, connect more meaningfully with each other, and serve life more powerfully through their work.

I first encountered Michelle when my network was excitedly sharing this slideshare:

Michelle clearly gets how aliveness, integration, and living systems are the key to thrivability. A year later, she gave this ted talk.

 

More recently, she co-created this amazing and playful community inquiry that went around the world, Thrivable World Quest. I am such a big fan of her work that I gave her the thrivability twitter handle I had been holding onto.

If you are interested in how organizations can be resilient, adaptive — indeed, how they can thrive using living system principles, talk with Michelle! And keep an eye out for her forthcoming book, The Age of Thrivability.

Remixing Community: Interview with Jono Bacon

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Jono Bacon is a changemaker in a seemingly paradoxical sort of way.  He’s a headbanger and a diplomat.  He plays rhythm guitar, swims in big ideas, and has an infectious “Let’s do it!” attitude.  He sometimes screams into the mic, but speaks and writes persuasively.  As the author of The Art of Community, he shared his experience working for Ubuntu, one of the largest open source online communities.  As a musician, Jono recently launched Severed Fifth, an “open band,” that was recently featured in O’Reilly Radar for its potential to reinvent the music business.   Jono sees a new music industry emerging, and he wants Severed Fifth to serve as an example.  The band is in the final stages of crowdfunding their studio album.  (You can help).  But it’s about more than the music.

Todd Hoskins:  Jono, you’ve worked in the open source software business, as well as the music business for a number of years.  What can the music industry learn from the growth of open source?

Jono Bacon:  Open Source has brought tremendous change to the IT industry. Fundamentally it has closed the gap between content provider and content consumer. In the older world, content consumers have little interaction or opportunity to influence the content provider, and this often caused the relationship to feel strained. Open Source changed that: no longer did a programmer rely on a publisher to get their work seen, and no longer was the consumer unable to express feedback to the programmer.

The same thing has affected the music industry: bands would produce content but the content was fed to listeners via the labels. The world I am advocating, via the example of Severed Fifth, is one in which bands are closer to fans, and fans feel they are an integral part of how the band works.

Todd:  You’ve said the uniqueness of Severed Fifth is your community, not that you openly give away your music for free (which others do also).  Why are people motivated to join your Street Team, be your advocates, and send donations for producing a studio album?  Why is the Severed Fifth model thriving?

Jono:  Community has taught us that when people feel empowered by a mission, by an ethos, and by a goal; they will feel an overwhelming sense of unity in contributing their skills and abilities to that mission, ethos, and goal.  We have seen countless examples of this — be it software freedom with Open Source, public availability of knowledge with Wikipedia, or political resistance with various forms of activism.  When a community feels empowered and has the tools and venue to contribute their efforts, great things happen.

Of course, the mission and ethos needs to be one that people genuinely care about. “Getting Jono weekly bagels”, while interesting to me, would not be interesting to most people. I believe that we have seen Severed Fifth gain momentum because this is a problem that many passionate free culture folks care about, but it is also easy for other people to understand and care about too. My goal is to get as many people as possible to understand the mission and ethos we are empowered by — a more open music industry — and to get people on board the Severed Fifth train to produce a great example of success in the new industry.

The challenge is that culture-changing goals such as these can often sound incredibly ethereal and difficult to understand.  My goal is to produce a concrete example of something everyone can point to that demonstrates that a band who harnesses their work with professionally produced music, free access to content, empowered community, and fair financial contributions decided by the fans, will be successful. This is what I want Severed Fifth to be – so other bands can point at it and say, “If they can do it, so can we.”

Todd:  There is this Creator’s Dilemma . . . people have creative power, but often limited ways to make an income without making sacrifices in integrity.  How do you see this becoming more resolved in the future, for artists as well as engineers?

Jono:  Music isn’t any different than software.  When Open Source first came into focus, people were asking the same questions about that too.  On one hand we are giving the music away for free, but free content lowers the bar for listeners to enjoy it – more people can download it, share it with their friends, put it on YouTube and elsewhere.  Therefore, the fanbase grows naturally as people like to share and recommend great experiences to others – it is what makes us human.  A bigger fanbase means more potential customers.  This is a big part of the experiment, and I have a series of ideas of methods for generating revenue that fit into the wider ethos of Severed Fifth.

Todd:  Even with Radiohead’s successful In Rainbows experiment in 2007, it seems bands are still waiting for labels to court them.  With Rock n’ Roll’s history of breaking rules, rebelling against cultural norms, and exerting independence, why has this taken so long to take shape?

Jono:  I believe part of the challenge is that bands traditionally have not had the tools or skills to get out there and build awareness on the back of the free availability of content.  It is hard enough trying to persuade a label to give the content away for free, but then you need to develop a set of skills to really raise awareness of this. Finally, you have the final complicating factor that record deals are so romantic – they hold so much promise for so many bands.  Unfortunately the reality in these economic times is often in conflict with the fantasy.

For years bands have pushed their music in their local areas, but it is only in the last few years that we have seen people developing skills in the area of global community growth and empowerment.  While I am not suggesting for a second that I am an expert, I have been working on this a lot over the last ten years in Open Source, and I think we are starting to see more and more focus being placed on communities and growth – this is another area in which Open Source has led the curve.

Part of the goal with Severed Fifth is expose many of these techniques and approaches and transition them from Open Source and technology to music. Down the line I want to write a book explaining how all of this worked in a format that other bands and artists can harness. focused on musicians and creative types. We have already seen the impact of digital sharing on the music industry, and I think we will next see the impact of sharing this knowledge about building your own fanbase, and this will contribute to the change.

Todd:  We see an aspect of thrivability as self-evolving and self-organizing, requiring an openness to experimentation.  How do the Severed Fifth experiments apply to businesses outside of the music industry?

Jono:  The key point is that software and music are links to other commercial opportunities.  Take Open Source for example – we have huge companies who have successfully built businesses around giving their primary products away for free.  They have instead generated revenue from other areas such as support, training, commercial sales, custom engineering, etc.  It’s happening everywhere, but you have to look for it.

Todd:  On your dream tour, who would be headlining?

Jono:  I would love the exposure of touring with a number of bands, but I’ll say Iron Maiden.  Up the irons!

Todd:  Thanks, Jono.   Good luck with the album and the mission.

Network Thinking: Interview with Valdis Krebs

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Valdis Krebs is the Founder, and Chief Scientist, at orgnet.com. Valdis is a management consultant, researcher, trainer, author, and the developer of InFlow software for social and organizational network analysis.  Valdis is also part of the North American Thrivable Network.

Todd Hoskins:  What is social network analysis?

Valdis Krebs:  Social network analysis [SNA] is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and other connected information/knowledge entities.  The nodes in the network are the people and groups while the links show relationships or flows between the nodes.  SNA provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis of human relationships and forms a basis for improving the relationships and connections in the social group.

Todd:  How does understanding the network relationships contribute to thrivability?

Valdis:  Some network patterns support a thrivable outcome and others constrain it.  A network map shows you an “as is” picture of where you are at.  You know your goal is thrivability and the network map says “OK, you are here now.”  The community leaders, coaches, or weavers then have to figure out how to get “from here to thrivability.”

Creating or building the network for thrivability is not following a blueprint and building a house.  It is more like getting in shape for a marathon, or for rock climbing – you get the system ready for maximal performance in the space you are in.  You get ready, but there are no guarantees of success.  You can be in great shape and still run a bad race today.  But, you probably beat all of those who are in bad shape and ran a bad race today!

Todd:  What structures or prescriptive approaches have you seen that promote a thriving network?

Valdis: The structures that maximize emergence, learning, agility and adaptability.  Those structures that prepare you for the unknown — after all we can NOT predict the future, but we can partially influence it and be ready for it.

One big item is each person’s network awareness — do you know what is happening around you?  Who is involved and how they feel about and contribute to what is going on around you and them?   Do you know who needs help?  Who has the answers?  Who needs to be connected or introduced?  We can only keep so many relationships in our heads and in our software — how do you best utilize that limited number for yourself and others?

Network awareness depends not just on your connections, but also your connection’s connections.  How do you create a close, comfortable network and still have it wide and reaching, so that you can be aware of non-local events and knowledge?

Todd:  You have written that we need to build creative combinations of similarity and difference in order to foster interdependence?   How does a network not become homogeneous?

Valdis:  Yes, birds of a feather flock together!  And if we do not pay attention, and just let things go naturally, we will build highly homophilous networks.  It is easy to build a network of similarity.  It is more difficult, but much more useful (for ourselves and others),  to build a network that utilizes both similarity and difference and thrives on the interplay.

We don’t want too much of either – similarities or differences –  we want a nice combination.  Enough similarities that we feel comfortable and can communicate with each other, but also enough differences that we can innovate and turn each other on to something new and different.

Todd:  So, it requires intention?

Valdis:  Yes, intention and attention!  Know what you want to do and be aware of what has been done around you.  We are always self-organizing, and so are others around us.  With a group of similar intention we will build a thriving network to support that intention.

Todd:  Speaking of building groups of similar intention, are leadership structures changing?  What is emerging?

Valdis:  Yes, leadership is often emergent in networks, and also different depending on need.  Most people don’t think of networks as having leaders — they think everyone is equal in networks.  That is not true.  Some people always have better connections than others in some situations.  Person A may lead in situation 1, but person B takes over in situations 2 and 3, and then in situation  4,  a third leader emerges.   It is usually not one leader all the way through as it is in most hierarchies.

A thrivable community recognizes expert and situational leadership and allows and encourages it to happen.  Even co-leaders are fine.  Whatever implements the intention.

Todd:  If recognizing the power of networks is a valuable lens through which to look at our communities, groups, and organizations, how can we all become better network thinkers?

Valdis:  First step is to recognize that you are embedded in multiple networks:  work, family, friends, hobby, sports, religion, neighborhood, etc.

Second step is to “Connect on your similarities and benefit from your differences.”  Think of the introductions you can make to benefit those around you, including yourself.

Third, is practice simple network weaving.  You do this around triangles — social triangles.  A knows B and C knows B.  B realizes that A and C could benefit from  knowing each other and makes the introduction.  This is called “closing the triangle” — all three people, A, B, and C now know each other.  Look for opportunities to close triangles around yourself.  Don’t introduce everyone to everyone else — just make those introductions that have a plausible positive outcome for the community.  At the same time you are closing existing triangles, open up new ones by making connections outside of your immediate circle of friends and colleagues.  This will open the network to diversity and possibility as new people with new ideas and knowledge now interact within your community.  Anyone can close and open triangles — they do not need anyone’s permission.  This is grass-roots, bottom-up network building.

Todd:  Thanks, Valdis.  I look forward to seeing you at the next workshop!

Flash Collaboration Process

or how Thrivability: A Collabortive Sketch happened.

People have asked: How did you get that done? So, I’ll tell you.

First and foremost, I lucked out. I worked with amazing, generous, patient, inspired, and brilliant people. 70 of them. I wish I could have included more, and yet, it is too much already.

Two of my advisors suggested the project to me in December of 2009. Mid-January, I had enough of a sense of it to put out a request to my advisors for contributions. As pieces came in, I became more bold. I joke that I am a compulsive recruiter. Really, I think it is an energy high of positive feedback loops. That drove me — even more — to want to honor what people contributed and nail our March 15 launch date at SXSW.

Here are my answers to some of the specific questions I have been asked.

What worked well with your book project?

  • Using social media to create buzz, encourage participation, and share thanks
  • Being a dictator about form, process, topics to cover, and who participates
  • Hand-holding those who get writer’s block

What challenges did you face?

  • Getting 70 people to all be on their precise task in a short time period
  • Getting people to meet their deadlines (even though it was all volunteer)
  • Scope creep – the book doubled in size from original intention for it – which I think made it too big to digest whole

How did you manage so many contributors? Deadlines/workflow/editing?

  • Used a modified personal kanban – each person/topic was a post-it note on a wall indicating (by wall placement) what they had done or needed to do
  • Put deadlines 2 weeks before I really needed them, so the slips would be okay (shhhh, keep that secret!)
  • Put everything into a google doc as it came in.
  • Didn’t let them edit each other’s pieces (although I did share samples of existing contributions to new contributors to give them a feel for what was there)
  • Note: I have been an editor for 15 years or so. I am used to the process of idea->draft->edit->revise->final->design->publish. I edited each as they came in. I brought in help for second/third pair of eyes. Only a few had major re-writes and a few went way over the 500 word limit.

How, if at all, did you incentivise contributions (and also people working to deadlines)?

  • Seeded it for momentum. The first contribution came in 2 hours after I asked the initial group (my ring of a dozen advisors). I tweeted my thanks.
    People were motivated, I think, by:

    • Social relationships (they all know me or someone else involved)
    • Uplifting concept (mission is bigger than me or you and aspirational)
    • Peer influence (who else had or was going to contribute)
    • It is possible people thought that being in the book would help with their visibility, but I think that wasn’t a real motivator (in hindsight).
    • People were asked to speak to something they know super well and feel “alive” about, so I suspect/hope they felt it was an “opportunity” to give voice to something vital in themselves.
  • Made it easy to be involved – just get me your 500 or less words. I will do the rest.
  • Made it clear what needed to happen and by when. There were no “ifs, ands, or buts” about it. No threats. No complaints. And an open door for anyone struggling with it.

What advice would you give to anyone thinking of crowdsourcing a book about sustainability?

  • If it is an ebook – keep it SHORT
  • Be firm in your structure and allow people to be creative and alive in the container you provide
  • Ask for small contributions that seem easy to achieve
  • Stick to a short window from request – draft – response – final – design – approval to publication
  • Don’t over-explain the process. What is the least they need to know about what is happening behind the scenes?
  • Consider how you want to manage copyright (we have a copyright on the collection – with each individual holding copyright on their specific piece)
  • Think of it as curation – you are creating a larger work by placing individual works in relation to each other, just as one would with an art exhibit of many artists. There is a grace to making that work well and be cohesive as a whole. (That would be a whole other conversation here)
  • Get multiple opinions on your draft and final draft so that you can find out if that piece that doesn’t strike your fancy is super compelling to someone else (and vice versa). Be careful not to let that feedback overly homogenize things – squeezing the voice and authenticity out of it
It is easy for a collectively written piece to:
    • Get diluted by having too many editors or an unclear vision/purpose
    • Seem like a random hodge podge (be sure to create cohesion through form/argument/story or something!)
    • Have an inconsistent standard or threshold of quality (especially when people volunteer, it is easy to simply be grateful for whatever they offer – but don’t. If they want to be involved, they want it to be good. So handhold folks if you have to – until it meets a high standard.)

How will you solve those challenges?

What questions do you still have? And what answers do you have for collaborations you have worked on?

Positive Deviants

I really love this term. It seems to hold contradiction in itself, as our (at least my own) conception of deviants is usually a negative one! To deviate, however, simply means to do differently. So ask the question – where is someone doing something different that has a positive impact? Here is a lovely article on the power of positive deviants.

you are awesome
Creative Commons License photo credit: Torley

What I love about this story is how it highlights letting change come from within a community. We may know from the outside of a community that behaviors x, y, and z would help them. However, trying to impose those activities tends to fail. When we find those that are within the community that are doing things differently than the others that align with the behavior shifts that would lead to longer life or greater health and opportunity, we can point to those and allow peer influence (remember your Cialdini) to work its magic.

Where is positive deviance in your own life? Where do you do something right/well that you want to do in other areas of your life? Where do you see positive deviance around you? How can you encourage more of what works?

I first heard about this term about 5 years ago – from two mavens: Drake Zimmerman and Tom Munnecke. Nods to them both.

SIDENOTE: My concern here – the caveat, is using this sort of methodology to export culture. Helping people learn how to make money and thus join OUR system may not be what is most useful to us or to them. This is a case in which we might look inside our own culture and find positive deviants. Who is able to live best while relying on financial capital the least? How do they do that? Rather than – if everyone in the world has more money, we will all be better off. The whole poverty alleviation project is a misguided ego-centric approach to better world building. Make people better off – regardless of whether that involves money or not. And do not measure “well-off” by monetary standards. Some of the poorest people I have seen own the biggest houses, fastest cars, and handle the most money.

Unlock Capacity and Capital

I had a wild brainstorm last night. I wish I could share all of it with you. I was pattern finding in history to get a sense of the convergence of shifts we are experiencing. And I was sensing that what goes beyond post-modernism, from what I can see, is a pragmatic humanism. In this, there is a search for what is useful rather than finding some grand overarching theory that explains it all and determines interpretations and meaning. Help me here if you can, the key elements I see from NLP to Integral Theory and beyond: value our nature as humans, seek fit, self-evolving collective organisms, and a search for utility – what works. (By “seek fit” I reference the misinterpretation of Darwin as survival of the fittest being the most capable and assert the other possible interpretation – that what thrives is what fits in that ecosystem.)

I have been listening to a CD on Influence, thinking about Clay Shirky and the success of tools like wikipedia in harnessing human capacity…so…

So from there I wondered, how do we unlock our collective capacity and capital (in many forms)?

    a shared sense of ownership and agency
    opportunity
    small tight feedback loops
    connection and a sense of collective self
    usability
    higher purpose/mission/shared values

What else or what would you include?

By shared sense of ownership and agency, I mean we as contributors need to feel we have some claim over and investment in what we are giving too as well as a sense of our own ability to take action.

By opportunity, I mean there must be a clear path to taking action that we can recognize as a possibility. This might be the very existence of a website that we can find and participate on.

By small feedback loops, I want to be clear that we need to get information quickly and directly that our contribution is accepted and valued. We need regular positive affirmation and attention that what we do matters. And we learn when this attention offers constructive criticism.

We are beings who thrive on connection, social animals. Whether leaders or followers, we are drawn to opportunities where we know we are connected to others and to a collective (especially a meaning-making mission driven collective).

Usability. Well, lofty ideals and warm friends won’t get you there unless you can navigate the systems of an organization organism -whether that is a website or a group process.

Higher purpose/mission/values. I was thinking about why the social networks working for good arouse so many passionate committed individuals giving their time and talent. We strive for a meaningful life and a purpose to our identity, and thus organisms/organizations that call to our higher purpose, mission, and/or values pay us in identity credit–the most valued credit in our times.

I would love to hear your thoughts on what unlocks capacity and capital, as this is surely just preliminary thinking on the subject.

Thank you.