Collaboration Mixing Board

This morning I read a RT from @jhagel:

Open source trumps crowdsource – by @cdgramshttp://bit.ly/bIn1at

And an idea that has been bubbling in the back of my head came to the surface begging to be set free. Collaboration and Cooperation are complex processes. Setting up them as rivals diminishes the value each provide us. One is not better than another as much as one may be more or less appropriate for a particular issue. And there are a bunch of knobs and dials to adjust based on what we have to put into the system and what we would like to have as output.

My initial “Mixing Board” points to several of these knobs and dials and some of the measures we might watch. I hope you will consider these and contribute to a revised version that holds greater rigor and collective wisdom. 🙂 Collaborate with me!

CollaborationSThis is the basic mixer. We have 3 areas: the Dials – things that feel measurable and adjustable, the Knobs – things that feel like a spectrum, and the Lights – things that we can sense but probably not directly adjust.

The Dials:

  • # of contributors (5 people, 25, 100, 1000, 10000, etc)
  • # of beneficiaries (5 people, 25, 100, 1000, 10000, etc)
  • degree of facilitation/quality control (none, light-handed, moderated, tight, regulated)
    1. none – for example – the ability to co-create the internet approaches NO facilitation and NO quality control.
    2. light-handed – co-creating youtube is light-handed (as is most major social media space) with very simple rules.. and very little quality control
    3. moderated – wikipedia has a process for including content, a system for elevating reputation, and a fairly advanced peer produced quality control system and standards
    4. tight – most blogs (from harvard business blogs to Daily Kos) where several people have permission to add posts (the comment option might be handled lightly to not at all however) and the quality control is high (even if the quality is not high – the control of it is)
    5. regulated – let’s talk wall street stats or sports numbers collecting on websites – there is regulation about the information to control the quality and the facilitation is more in the realm of bureaucracy
  • feedback loops – do stakeholders/creators have ways of getting feedback on the collaborations? For example, couchsurfing ratings. I presume that collaborations in which people know they are successful via tight feedback loops encourage more collaboration. This is simply my assumption. 🙂

Then we have The Knobs or Spectrums:

  • cooperation – from collective to collaborative (to what degree are people creating/generating through interaction with each other? Is it the number who show up or the output of their engagement with each other? CarrotMobs are about the number (collective) and team sports are about the combined output and interaction (collaborative).
  • granularity – from single output to many outputs that can be added together. A single output could be a logo design or a designed t-shirt… where an additive output is something like Linux – composed of hundreds or even thousands of pieces where individual authorship of the granule still allows for collective production of a larger work.
  • governance – from benevolent dictator to consensus, who manages the collaboration? An individual, a leadership circle, a revolving/evolving group, or full consensus of all involved, etc.
  • field – from commons to market – what does the output create in total? Does it create a market for individuals to succeed (or fail) within or a commons for all to share?

Finally we have The Lights – given the settings of the Knobs and Dials, what can we sense?

  • emergent – does the collaboration create the conditions for emergence? To what degree?
  • creative – does the collaboration enable creative effort or stifle it?
  • quality – does the collaboration produce high quality results/outputs? (by whose definition?)
  • resourceful – does it optimally engage the resources of those collaborating?
  • beneficial – does it create benefits? (one could ask for who?)
  • speed – how long does the collaboration take?
  • adaptable – how able is the collaboration to make adjustments in response to the environtment
  • scalable – can the collaboration expand? to what degree? (not that scaling is always ideal! it isn’t!)

WonderWomanGang

Yesterday I was missing my friend @rachelannyes – so I looked at her twitter feed to see what she has been up to and get a sense of how she is doing. I found a lovely post:

@rachelannyes: What the world needs now is a Wonder Woman gang.

Absolutely.

So I hereby nominate for the Wonder Woman Gang the following amazing women. Please feel free to nominate those who inspire you and seem to have super powers in transforming our world.

@rachelannyes @randomdeanna@CDEgger @juneHolley @HildyGottlieb @amoration@amyrsward @VenessaMiemis @kanter @caseorganic@p2173 @kitode @ruby @silona@samsweetwater @wseltzer @rmchase @nilofer@deborah909 @sgleason @kristinwolff @staceymonk @joguldi @christinasworld@identitywoman @mariadeathstar @lizstrauss@ruthannharnisch @ladyniasan @beandlive @sheriherndon @nancywhite@alizasherman @CreatvEmergence @slboval

Then I asked for other nominations.

@kg posted: @NurtureGirl I nominate @sloane@beautifulthangs @ericaogrady@ShaunaCausey @willotoons@emgollie @khartline @Rapetzel#WonderWomanGang 🙂

plus: @kg posted: @NurtureGirl Are so many! @coachsizzle @nspilger @avivamo@realize_ink @snesbitt @susangordo@suzboop @penguinasana too 🙂#wonderwomangang

Who do you nominate? And when you think of wonderwomangang, what comes to mind? What super powers do you think these women have?

Catastrophe Thinking

I am pretty sure my entire life has been lived under the hovering cloud of the apocalypse. Sure there were moments of possibility – the fall of the wall, the election of Obama, the end of apartheid in South Africa. But mostly the global events we hear about focus on the end of civilization as we know it, albeit in small chunks at a time. It is still framed as disaster…. we are losing what we had and aren’t moving into a better world (except in small isolated ways). From AIDS to Bird Flu, from Rwanda genocide to Sudan and Burma, nuclear proliferation, the Gulf Coast disaster 2.0 (and Katrina as 1.0), Haiti (and so many other earthquakes, mud slides, volcanoes, and other weather/geological disasters for humans) – plus economic crisis and climate change, the extinction of so many species, and the war on terror (which just grows fear and terror) all converge – even for those of us who don’t watch the news. There is overpopulation, sex slaves, and child mortality issues as well as deforestation, crumbling infrastructure, and coach potatoes living in suburban nightmares. There are activists working cancer into their bodies with their martyr-like dedication. There are those in sedated near oblivion – zombie-living. There are hedonic wealth-seekers facing doom with greed and opulence. This is the story of crumbling and disintegration. Our globalized post-modern world tumbling through catastrophes.

We tell this story, and we have been telling this story, for my whole life. And the fear-mongering started long before I was born – the the cold war threatening nuclear annihilation for half a century.

I am tired of this story. I am tired of seeing faces worn down with the contraction of fear. I am weary of the negativity and desperation driving people to hate, divide, hoard, and fight. I am sick of finding out my government is justifying killing people in order to obtain more resources (because, I guess, we are in such a state of lack!).

We victimize ourselves, and in that suffering, we victimize others with our trauma.

Enough. Put it down. Don’t believe the hype. Don’t fight for a world you already gave up on.

Look for the flower emerging in the sidewalk – life pressing through without complaint or blame to assert its urge for sunlight. Nature is incredibly resilient and adaptive. Work within the world we have to co-create the world we want. Focus on what is going well and right, and encourage more of it. Breathe and be the serenity prayer.

Do not deny the brutal facts before us, but know that you see those facts through a filter of the story you are telling yourself (and others) about the world. You can transform that story and see those facts in a fresh light – from a different vantage point. Turn on the thrivability light, and recognize that life gives rise to more life. Never before in human history have we known a greater wealth of possibility.

After three days in Philadelphia discussing philanthropy and philanthropic strategies for transformation, I feel deeply convinced and inspired by a model I can see of thrivable philanthropy. Gerard calls it evolutionary philanthropy, and there might be some subtle distinctions. However, let me explain. And then I hope it will be more clear why our stories about our world could shift to transform our experience of it and the world itself.

Let’s call charity the work that we do to address immediate needs of others who can not, for whatever reason, care for themselves. It is as if you are standing on a riverbank, see a baby floating downstream, and you rush out to save the drowning child. Only, there are not enough people pulling drowning babies from the river, and the babies have suffered from being in the river. Our hearts break open. Some savvy volunteer wonders aloud – “who is tossing babies in this river?” And a crew of helpers decide to go upstream to find the cause. And they discover a system out of balance allowing babies to land in the river. They decide to change the system and set up programs to help mothers and advocate for social justice. We call this social change and social justice work. Still, babies are floating down the river. The philanthropist supporting this work starts to wonder – huh, what impact is my giving having? I want babies to stop ending up in the river – this is madness! And the social justice worker says – well, we think we have decreased the number of babies in the river, but this is a complex adaptive system so I can’t name all the causes and effects! I can’t clearly attribute your dollars having saved babies without acknowledging other programs and the dynamic changes in the system in which our town operates, babies are born, the economy shifts, and nature takes her course. We might have even changed our baby counting practices in a way that changed how many babies we can account for, which skewed the numbers giving an artificial bump. But we are not sure.

Then a thinker stands up and says – it is the very culture and beliefs in which we operate that give rise to these systems that aren’t taking care of all these babies. And the philanthropist has to choose now – either fund better metrics to know whether there is an impact… or fund cultural shift. And there are still babies in the river, and everyone’s hearts break open knowing it and seeing it. And they are sad.

Transforming culture takes longer, it is harder to measure, the complex dynamic system of it all makes it next to impossible to attribute agency clearly. And, it is where the greatest possibility for creating a culture that ever more deeply transforms itself, cares for each other and the whole, and enables the world we want.

Change your story.

5 Ways to Save Yourself from Relationship Overwhelm

Upside down !!
Creative Commons License photo credit: 1Happysnapper (photography)

Social Media is transformative and magnificent. It is also time consuming for most people, and it can lead to relationship overwhelm. You find so many amazing people out there who share your belief, interests, passions, and humor.

If you are trying to create more space in your life for what matters most to you, here are 5 ways you can save yourself from relationship overwhelm.

  1. Time allocation. Create office hours – during a set time, you connect to people. Maybe it is 8-9am or 4-5pm every day. Maybe it is 2 days a week. How many hours do you want to give it? Maybe you have 5 hours a week, and you track how many you use. Experiment to find the method of time management that fits you and your lifestyle. Do what works.
  2. Rings of priority – who is in the center, who is on the periphery? Make sure to give time to those people that really matter. Filter your social media feeds, so you always can see what they are up to. Be clear with yourself what your criteria are for being near that center loop of connections. The periphery is important too, as a resource for bringing in new information. Find balance for yourself. Don’t cut it off…but don’t get lost there either. What will help you hold that? Is it a container of time? A medium of communication?
  3. Make a request. Share with your network your aim to manage your relationships so you can be a better friend and contributor. Say something like,  “I cherish you and the wonderful connections I have, AND, in order to be a better friend, I want to be more careful about how I am giving attention. Can you please consider if contacting me is urgent, important, or valuable? I hope this helps us improve the quality of our connection.”
  4. Make REGULAR sacred space – no tech, all family, or even all alone time. Hold it as your recharge time. Budge anything on your calendar before you give this up. Think of it as your morning oatmeal. Without it, you can’t bring your best self to the world. I don’t mean sacred as in religious practice. I mean sacred as in – never give this up. You are too important in your life not to make time for yourself. I have done this for years, and found it really rewarding. Oh, and do communicate to your connections that you have this boundary so they can respect it. They will hold it ONLY to the degree that you take it seriously.
  5. Think in longer time frames and make daily decisions on those frames (and not the minute to minute ones). Think of what you want your life to be like over the next 5 years. What can you do today that helps you have that life? What is un-necessary, superfluous, repetitive (doing it twice or more isn’t adding value or enjoyment)? Imagine wiping your calendar completely free. No obligations. What do you want really and truly to add back in? (This often happens when you have a major crisis happen – it gives you permission to start over.)

“What are you going to do with this one wild and precious life?” ~ Mary Oliver

Flash Collaboration Discussion

Announcement

The HUB Berkeley, Friday April 9th at noon
Berkeley, CA

Brown Bag lunch with Jean Russell, curator of Thrivability: A Collaborative Sketch. Jean will present and discuss flash collaboration. She used this process to involve 70 collaborators from across the world in producing an ebook in less than 90 days. The ebook was repeatedly a top “twittered” and “facebooked” item on Slideshare. It is approaching 5000 views in less than 3 weeks. It is cash positive on a generosity model. She will point to successful ways of using social media to both develop and launch a project, as well as project management for flash collaborations. Take away ideas on how to collaborate with your network for tangible and visible results.

Closing Triangles

I think of myself as nurturing networks and communities as well as individuals and organizations. And one strategy I use is network weaving. Network Weaving describes the connection made between two people I know who don’t yet know each other as closing a triangle, because in a network map, this is exactly what it looks like!

credit: NetworkWeaving

credit: NetworkWeaving

Here, in this post, I want to talk specifically about my practice of making introductions. I had been connecting people for a long time before I met Ken Homer, but his introduction format really set the bar for me. When he introduced me to another one of his connections, I felt like I was glowing! Wow, that is how I want people to feel when I connect them.

Sure, I want them to feel good and associate that with me. Less egotistically, I want the time I take to make an introduction to be time well spent for all of us. I want them to feel great about connecting to the person I introduce them too. I want it to be useful all around. This is not about quantity for me, it is about quality. So, here is the pattern I use, developed in part through what Ken demonstrated.

I described it on twitter today.
Picture 3

  1. describing strengths of each
    After stating the purpose of the email (useful for any and all starts to email conversation), describe relevant and positive strengths of each person to each other.
    My wording for this is usually, “Person A, please allow me to introduce you to Person B. Person B is passionate about x, has terrific skills in y, and wants to explore z. ” Followed by the inverse, “Person B, please allow me to introduce you to Person A. Person A is passionate about m, has terrific skills in n, and wants to explore o.” This is a rough format, each one is different, but they all fit within that general pattern. Also, the adjectives are always chosen to fit the people I am describing. Use your own.
  2. point to alignment & mutual benefit
    I like to point to something that makes the people I am connecting clear about what they have in common. I don’t mean that they both read books. I mean that they are both within a particular field or sub-domain, know people in common, or have a similar passion about making the world a better place (and do so coming from a similar mindset).
    I also like to point out what I imagine might be the mutually beneficial initial outcome from each party taking the time to make the connection. It might not be what actually happens, but it gives them some sense of why I am making the connection and what each might gain from it.
  3. name small first step
    Sometimes I forget to leave this in. However, after receiving several wonderful network weaving emails from others, I realized how vital this is. I received some letters, saw the alignment, and yet I might not know what to do about it. So in my introduction, I have been adding some suggestion for a first step – “In a 15 minute phone call, I think you could discuss your shared interest in x.”
    That examples covers part of #2 and also #3. It doesn’t have to be long. Often I might have had an extended discussion with one of the parties, so I can point to what I have refined as a conversation starter for them.

I find that this often makes clear too what role I want one to play to the other. Maybe I am asking Person A to mentor Person B on a subject area. Or maybe I want Person B to introduce Person A to someone within their network who can help in a more targeted fashion. Being clear on roles can help people feel the respect I am offering them as well as make choices about what they want to be.

I hope these patterns help you make connections between two people.

If it were not for….

HildyGottlieb

What created the today you will build your future upon? Fill in the blank: If it weren’t for __ I wouldn’t be/have ___.

This twitter post inspired me to share my gratitude.

If it were not for… my network… I would be or have nearly anything I do have and am.

I can name names here. And I have at time in public and in private shared with those people that I am clear have been instrumental in getting me where I am. When I picture answering this question, I see a rippling wave spreading out from this moment. It converges at this time and this place, but the factors and people that had to be in place and in time in order to arrive here are manifold. Many many manifold. And this is not just true for me, it is also true of everyone else in this great overlapping ripple that at its best creates a wave. Perhaps even a rogue wave.

On a skinny puppy song I used to enjoy… there was a sample at the beginning, “is it me and my head or me and my body?” Now I think of this as “Is it me and my network or me and my environment.” Am I even a distinct thing beyond my network? Or distinct from my environment? I am so deeply comprised of the people who have touched my life. Their influence on me forms this palimpsest that makes up my being. In this layered collage, there are colors and sections that seem more vibrant than others, more noticeable. But the whole of the composition is from the whole of the experience. And so too with the landscapes I have been in. I am both the product and the agent of the environments I inhabit.

If it were not for you, I would not be me. Ripple ripple, overlap, and gap.

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.

Zero-Sum Games

Have you ever heard of zero-sum games? How about non-zero sum games? For those of you who have not heard of zero-sum games, allow me to briefly explain and share some links. It comes from political and economic theory, and it means if wins are plusses and losses are negatives, the equation will end up with zero. Think about money. We start with zero, Alfred borrows 10 so he can buy widgets from Zeno. Alfred gives Zeno the 10. Alfred has -10 and Zeno has +10, and the system has zero sum.

While there are lots of games we play that actually add up numbers, such as football, in the end one team has more points than the other and is therefore the winner. What matters is not how many points but the difference between them and who has more. This zero-sum game mentality shows up in our behaviors toward each other. Do we act as if my having something means you can’t have it? It puts us in a competition mind frame, and we behave like opponents.

What if there are non-zero sum games? Can we, as humans, transcend the competition mindset and behave cooperatively? What if there are games where helping you do well helps me do well? Sure, there are lots of places we interact where this is appropriate! I have always been surprised that business plans have competition analysis and yet don’t adequately describe the cooperation network the organization will be embedded in.

The real question I want to address here, now that we know a bit about zero-sum and non-zero sum games: how do we work in non-zero sum ways when people we need to work with operate from a zero-sum mind frame?

First and foremost, trying to change others through argument or explanation often just makes them defensive and resistant. I suggest a two-prong approach.

  1. Use their zero-sum mentality to your advantage – and the advantage of the group. Ask where the zero-sum games are – because they exist, and point these zero-sum minded folks to those opportunities.
  2. Demonstrate success of non-zero sum approach. Model what you want to see in the world. Be the change you seek. Through demonstration, others can see the success that comes from it. What they are truly after is success.

That sounds all well and good in an abstract theoretical way. But the situation at hand is not an ideal – it is a specific. And likely in that specific, you, my non-zero sum friends, are on a board of an organization having to navigate decisions about the organization with a zero-sum thinking collaborator, for example. What do you do?

30 Love (explored)
Creative Commons License photo credit: Evil Erin

First I want to talk about body work. So much of what we communicate happens in the body rather than through our words. Avoid sitting across from people who want to act oppositionally. Sit beside them. When they talk about a problem, be sure they gesture toward a shared space in front of them rather than at you. Imagine that they are playing dodgeball as if they were one of those tennis ball launching machines – stay away from the physical space they are launching at with their gestures.

Second, I want to talk about a model of understanding interpersonal dynamics. I use this model often when talking about relationships between people.WeDiagram The diagram, at right, shows two people, A and B, as well as a third node – the WE of A and B. Zero-sum thinkers usually think of their connection as the gray line from you to them. Helping them think beyond zero-sum involves helping them understand the WE connection. When we are in the AB relationship, we still use words like: I, me, mine, you, yours. When we are in the WE of AB, we talk about: we, our, ours. These pronouns point to what we have together in the relationship. demonstrate WE language. Start with you and the zero-sum person. As the language becomes reflected in their statements, you can begin to expand the WE to include others. Keep expanding until you reach we as a community (or what level you need to be at for the group objectives).

Next I want to share a bit about facilitation questions. Our zero-sum thinkers say they want to do something. Ask, “what will that get for you/us?” When they give an answer, ask again, “What will that get for you/us?” First, this helps them feel heard. They have the attention. Be sure to ask in a kind and inquisitive way, because they will quickly intuit if you are asking in order to undermine them. Remember, they think in competitive ways. When you get to a gem – something that is common ground for the collective – in the answer you get from the “what will that get for you/us” THEN ask, “how else might we be able to get that?” Bring in others to help answer that.

This is a brief introduction to ways to navigate zero-sum thinking. We can continue to explore, especially with specific stories. If you have specific needs you want to discuss, we can discuss your issues in a private context via my coaching services.

I would love to hear ways you have navigated zero-sum thinkers in the comments or on twitter (@nurturegirl).

Social Entrepreneurs on Social Media

I saw this in my twitter stream today:

RT @zyOzyfounder: Cool way to follow 182 social entrepreneurs on Twitter http://is.gd/4hQrB via @montero

And I admire and follow tons of people on this list. However, it claims on that link to be comprehensive. And I am quite sure that there are more social entrepreneurs on twitter than that. Now, it may depend on how you define social entrepreneur. Are you thinking bottom of the pyramid business? Are you thinking poverty allieviation? Are you considering only organizations or individuals who have revenue streams? Are you thinking just of innovations (focused on the entrepreneur portion of it)? Do you want to include people who are passing around information about social entrepreneurship, even if they are not themselves the entrepreneur? Or do you just want those making the impact on our social spheres? I included in my additions (see below) people who are in my twitter stream that I think of as “in the realm of” social entrpreneurship. They would show up somewhere on my social entrepreneur network map. Maybe they serve the sector, maybe they add to the conversation, maybe they are emergent, maybe they are bridging between social entrepreneurship and green issues. I did try to steer away from theorists who are innovating tools and tech for social entrepreneurs – that is a whole other list.

I didn’t get everyone I follow that didn’t make the 182 listed. I included some I didn’t think should be missed. Who else would you add?

I recommended:

  • rmchase – founder of zipcar
  • IdentityWoman – innovating in identity and around women’s issues
  • indabamf – innovating on philanthropy
  • Silona – innovating in government tools and civic community
  • sbraiden – engaged in socent conversations for 5+ years (Omidyar.net-ian)
  • 18percentgrey – creating online space for social good
  • byrnegreen – green MBA, start-up socent
  • gbolles – biz partner to Kevin Doyle Jones
  • amoration – socent in gaming space
  • neddotcom – ned.com, nedspace, nedwater – socent leader on omidyar.net community
  • ChristinasWorld – ashoka fellow, life in africa, social media socent on collaboration
  • nuance_intel – collaborative space/incubator for socent
  • DorotheeRoyal – organicnation.tv
  • davidhodgson – greenmba, ideahive
  • justinmassa – movesmart.org
  • weaddup – green identity and action innovative small biz
  • appropedia – open source shared tech