Motivating Participation

by

Recently I was asked how to increase attendance at a gathering. I came up with a few simple questions to consider. Look at three perspectives.

1. The participants–who are they? There may be several audiences, and for each one, figure out what they want to get or are getting from the gathering.

2. Your perspective–why are you inviting them? What do you want to get from their attendance and participation? List separately for each audience group.

3. Observer perspective–what will the outcome of the gathering be? What will the world be able to see, touch, taste, smell, or feel because of the participation?

Now, what do you do with that? Use #1 to develop your strategy of attraction of participants. Use #2 to identify the proportional blend you want to have of different audience groups. Do you need idea generators? Processors to move ideas along? Finishers to put ideas into action? And #3 is useful for attracting funding and sponsorship.

Incentives, and this is just a starter list, might be:
# association (other people to connect with–especially face to face if they know each other virtually)
# reputation (most active in the field or other recognition of effort is honored)
# growth (learn something)
# inspiration (this is usually why a well-regarded speaker works)
# challenge (opportunity to collaborate on something vital)
# recognition (building their own visibility–like getting acknowledged for doing a cool video etc)
# play (to laugh and be creative)
# delight (good food, good sensate experience)
# narrative (fits into their story of who they are and why they do what they do)
# contribution (opportunity to give to the group)
# influence (able to change others or environment)
# stuff (things people can take with them and help develop branding and identity)

I strongly encourage visual mapping to show the relationships between people and between motivations/incentives and people.

Once you are clear about who to invite and why (for them, for you, and for others), then develop your message to each audience considering the benefit they receive for attending and participating. Then, also, consider what that benefit gets for them. Does it save them time or money? Does it develop their reputation or acknowledge them? Consider Maslow’s hierarchy. What core need is met?

There is much more depth to this than I can address in a single blog post, but this gets us off to a good start. What would you add to the incentives? Are there other valuable perspectives to consider? Is there a good way to create a matrix for organizing the information? What visual techniques would reveal the most useful information?

B-Corp beginning

by

Corp with purpose?

Lucy writes over on Philanthropy 2173 about it and the few founding orgs celebrating. Her next post also further explains. I am still trying to understand, but I have hope…

She writes:

What is a B Corporation? It is a new designation for commercial enterprises that actively seek to produce social and environmental benefits along with profits. While not yet part of corporate law, the B Corporation founders aim to first build a movement of companies that meet certain standards, and then change the law to recognize these entities.

Exceptional Life of Clare Mulvany

by

I followed her travels around the world, while she interviewed social entrepreneurs. We IMed about travel, entrepreneurship, headaches, and poetry. I continue to watch to see how her project emerges, and I eagerly look forward to the book she is writing.

A reciprocalthank you Clare, for all you have done to inspire me. And a huge smile for all the giggles along the way. You are an awesome and delightful friend! I must get to Ireland to see you!

Serving, Fixing, and Helping

by

Recently I (virtually) met Cory who heads up the Action Hero Network. He sent this out to us from the facebook group.

In the Service of Life

Serving is different from helping.
Helping incurs debt. But serving, like healing, is mutual.
Serving is also different from fixing. There is distance
between ourselves and whatever or whomever we are fixing.
Fixing is a form of judgement. All judgement creates
distance, a disconnection, an experience of difference.
If helping is an experience of strength, fixing is an
experience of mastery and expertise.
Service on the other hand, is an experience of mastery,
surrender, and awe. We cannot serve at a distance.
We can only serve that to which we are profoundly connected,
that which we are willing to touch.
We serve life not because it is broken, but because it is holy.

Adapted from Rachel Naomi Remen

(found on Argon’s page: http://people.tribe.net/argonvancouver )

Indeed. I like this description very much. It resonates deeply with the way I was trained to think with coaching and trained to see philanthropy. (Yes, I know that is not at all what most people would assume philanthropy is–but let us hope for a transformation in this direction where serving is the form of contribution.)

Field Building? What is that?

by

Social network analysis reveals the nodes and their connections. Yes. “The nodes in the network are the people and groups while the links show relationships or flows between the nodes.” Great. What about the things that support the nodes and their ability to make connections. This is the field of the network, and it functions as an energetic even magnetic space that impacts the network in profound ways. We are defined not only by the positive space of our presence and the relationships we bear to each other, but also the space between us, the “negative space” referred to in art class.

If you want to change the configuration of the social network map, changing behavior is one avenue, but it is often difficult to encourage and enforce. Another option is to change the environment. It can be easier, perhaps, to find levers for change in this layer.

So when I talk about field-building, I am talking about that space–the environment of the network. Created by convening events, participating in dialogs, creating avenues to disperse messages, refining the language and frames of the network and its purpose.

Ornet.com network image

World We Want revisited

by

Over at the World We Want blog last year, I responded to a post with an essay on the World I Want. It received feedback.

I want to revisit that. Draft 2.

What is your vision of a better world?

Many revolutions converging to create a world with more honor, respect, and ecological/systems awareness.

What converges?

Convergence of improvements for global health. The eradication of major diseases. Small Pox down, Polio close, Measles next, then each one or even many simultaneously. And more and more of this being achieved by organizations working together as a global health community using more and more complex and responsive information tools. More safe drinking water made available through coordinated efforts using community-labor and resources along with global data tracking and local/global teams which share and transfer expertise. We begin to take care of the bottom of the Maslow pyramid for all people. Put a bottom under it so all people do really and truly have a chance to have dignity and health.

Increased transparency of our resources above and beyond money to “grow ours” rather than “grow mine” including:

    • WEB 2.5—mass communication facilitated by servant leaders and centered on user-collaboration, tapping into collective intelligence. The many edges all empowered by mediums of information conveyance to speak across traditional boundaries and be honored in a customized user-driven fashion. Power to the edges, baby!
      Social Network Analysis—beginning to map and value the actual relationships that exist between us rather than the relationships placed on us by org charts. Moving forward to show relationships between people, organizations, affiliations, interests and passions. Deep and rich visualizations that empower connection and uplift action.
      Community Asset Mapping—tapping into the greater wealth of our communities—our connections, the resources we can bring to bear. Going beyond money to do more and see clearly, visually, what is available so making intentional choices is easier. Tapping into multiple forms of resources, inciting flows, and creating and empowering “currents” for systemic flows.
      Open Source—community working together producing property for the commons and changing the model for developing intellectual material. Let me repeat, producing property for the commons, particularly infrastructure that empowers honorable markets.
      Volunteerism on the rise as more and more boomers get back to their ideals. Retirement shifts from retiring/resting from work and community to become a meaning-making phase. It becomes about giving/contributing while supported by financial independence. It allows the vast intellectual and social wealth of the Boomers to be reused and shared through extensive volunteer and community efforts.
      The Organic Movement and other ecologically sensitive movements growing in popularity. People more and more realize the cause and effect relationships of their consumption and for their own health and the health of the world make different more thrivable choices.
      The rise and flourishing of our neglected gift economy via increased information sharing, matchmaking of needs with resources, and spiritual sense of oneness promoted by globalization in the best sense. Think Blessed Unrest and Wiser Earth.

    • What are the conditions needed to realize it?

    That the converging efforts find support and common cause and so unite and reinforce each other bringing together multiple upward spirals to change the overall flow of our culture.

    What are the obstacles?

    • Old thinking which focuses too much on immediate needs, “get me mine” thinking.
      Fear and scarcity thinking.
      Old established systems slow to change.
      Over-focus on band-aid efforts like micro-lending or over-glorification of system-reinforcing work that plays itself like change such as the Grameen Bank (which perpetuates debt-based systems).
      Delays in seeing the power of unity as each groups scrambles for funding, investors, audience, or attention. Competition instead of collaboration. Delay in seeing or valuing persistently our common cause.

    • Based on your experience, what parts of the vision are realistic and what ideas, strategies and plans can make it so?

    My vision is not only realistic; it is already in motion. The main question is about timing. How soon will we change? How many of us need to have an awakening in order to tip the change?

    I partner, as I can, with those who are doing everything they can to enable the dawning of a new age of thrivability, respect, honor, and ecological/systemic awareness. I spread the word to you, and you pass it on. If it is a message people are ready for, it will spread virally far and wide. If not, we re-work the message, lay more groundwork, develop more tools, share more information, and reach out to more hearts.

    I believe…
    I have a dream…
    I hope….
    that we believe
    and we have a shared dream…

    Nurture Tools

    by

    I have been working over at wagn.nurture.biz to add some tools and resources.

    Here are articles I have written about coaching and philanthropy. Then, here are some book reviews which are usually one page descriptions and summaries of books like Freakonomics. And some new worksheets for entrepreneurs looking toward venture financing. And a Development Plan Questionnaire for coaching clients.

    Friend Wheel

    by

    This friend wheel thing is pretty fun on Facebook. How connected are your friends? To each other. Keep in mind this is only as good as the data and the condition that your friends be on the social network.

    friend wheel

    Being Web 2.0

    by

    It is not about the tools! It is about being organic, distributed, and discerning. It is about emergence and collaboration.

    Organic not controlling. Web 2.0 is not about controlling. Organic and Emerging, yes. Directing possibly. Controlling, no. Anything that hopes to limit, contain, own, restrict, or control is not, at its essence, web 2.0 regardless of the technology it uses.

    Distributed not centralized.     Much like controlling, is centralizing. Power at the edges baby! Network theory. Distributed systems. Not only is this a more powerful way of structuring information, it builds trust in participants. I mean mashups and widgets rather than facebook apps, people.

    Discerning not divisive. Web 2.0 is not about creating us and them dichotomies. It is not divisive distinctions: men v women. White::black. The global north::The global south. It is about commonality. And that can require us to discern differences, but the focus is on finding what do we have in common rather than what we are different. How can we connect and share with others? What can we share with? How can we create trusting relationships for sharing in a global conversation space? Who am I and who are we?

    Being Web 2.0 is facilitated by tools. Definitely. But it isn’t merely using the tools. It is much more. It is part of our evolution toward collective consciousness.

    Making Money Make Change

    by

    (posted by Phil at Gifthub and listed at Resource Generation….and Tides…

    Money Making Change Retreat

    Challenging Wealth Disparity, Creating Justice

    Registration is open for the 2007 Making Money Make Change (MMMC) Retreat. This is the big annual conference for young progressive people with wealth to come together to be supported and challenged in making creative and informed choices about their resources.

    October 4th – 7th, 2007 :: Whitackers, North Carolina


    Register here    .