Category Archives: What I think

What I think

Amplified 08

Potential – remember that? I wrote about potential during 2gether08, about the huge potential that builds up at events where we all get together, about how intoxicating it is, and interesting to see what happens to fulfill that potential – it’s not always obvious, the links are not always clear.

I’d like to really do something with this network of networks, use the occasion to do more than talk about what we might possibly do and actually do some stuff. I’m pootling around with a few ideas for candidate activities, and of course we have the wiki to develop some of them. Come play with me there.

I’m thinking of two streams of stuff – one that requires some tech support and ability and one that requires people who’ve thunk a lot about the cultural, moral and ethical issues – both can create something useful and important – can we do that please?

What I think

If it ain’t broke

1 Comment

Thanks to Tim Davies in the comments of “No to Quotas” for helping me see why I’m getting worked up about this one.

Where is the problem that we’re trying to solve here?

The problem with Innovation Edge wasn’t that the wrong people turned up. It wasn’t that certain groups or parts of society weren’t represented in the whole. It was that hundreds of super smart people did turn up and then were strapped into their seats and lectured to by a very small group of super smart people. It wasn’t a diversity problem – it was a power problem.

No matter which event we’re talking about, what I’m interested in participating in is a shift in designing gatherings in terms of the form and the rules of engagement, the way that a wide multiplicity of views and opinion can be expressed and worked through in conversation rather than meddling with the composition of the group.

Too late on a Sunday to be writing any more, but there is more to say.

What I think

No to quotas

8 Comments

08092008202There have been a couple of times in the last week or so when quotas have been suggested for solving a problem of “fairness”. They were brought up at the Tuttle discussion about Amplified08 in the context of deciding which networks should be represented at this network of networks forum and again during the panel I contributed to at Web2.0 on gender issues – suggesting that perhaps there should be quotas of, for example, women represented on the boards of companies.

I think that both are wrong, and I said so at the time, but didn’t have a chance to explain properly why I think that quotas are inappropriate.

Don’t tell me what to do.
I see quotas in contexts like these as the imposition of the will of one (usually very small) part of the community on another part. This attempts to make things fair by being unfair – in the 80s we called it “positive discrimination” it wasn’t very positive but it was definitely still discrimination. The situations for which it is being suggested, involve a desired or desirable state which for some reason seems unlikely to come about either organically or else quickly enough. The introduction of a quota says we cannot trust people to do the right thing (ie what we want them to do), so we will force them to. Yeuck! Isn’t this the same patronising paternalism we’re trying to be rid of? In my experience, introducing this kind of bias leads on the one hand to a feeling of disempowerment in those who are supposed to be given an advantage, a fear that the benefit given so arbitrarily could just as easily be taken away and on the other hand to resentment among those who were formerly in a majority, leading to a more entrenched determination that no further ground be given. Much better, in my view, to extract myself from what other people should do and simply for me to be vocal in my rejection of discrimination in any form and to demonstrate that in all my actions.

Quotas work in a hierarchy.
Quota-thinking is hierarchy thinking. Aren’t we moving to a world where the dominant form of organisation is a flatter network? My presentation at Web2.0 tried to show that in a networked world, of itself, the network is gender-agnostic although in practice a networked system tends to favour women who play to their strengths of building rich relationships. How do you impose a quota in a network? Especially one that is almost completely free to join? I can see that in a hierarchical model, there are gatekeepers to the centres of power and authority and that if these are biased that leads to a bias throughout the system. So have a quota for unbiased gatekeepers and you ‘solve’ the problem (unintended consequences aside). But as hyperlinks continue to subvert hierarchy, as we come to see that the shadow-side network is as important as any bureacracy and that unintended consequence can not be brushed aside, why cling on to tools that no longer work?

In the case of the “network of networks” the suggestion that we should ensure that each network is adequately represented at the table displays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of these networks. They have no clear boundaries, very low barriers to membership and very flat structures (if they have any at all) Most of all, they are not mutually exclusive. How do you decide who’s representing what and how? Let’s take the Tuttle Club as an example (just because I know it well) Say we had 30 places at Amplified08. How would we decide who’s going or not? Well, perhaps we’d have to say, those people who aren’t members of other networks need to be prioritised because they have no other chances to get in. But are these really the people we want to be representing us? The one’s who are otherwise unconnected? So let’s go for those who have the most memberships. Ooops – memberships? What does that mean? Or how about the 30 who’ve attended the most number of friday morning meetups. Gosh darnit Lloyd, what do you mean, you don’t keep neat and orderly records of who’s attended?!? And do all of these groups have common ideas of what it means to be a member? Attendance at one meeting, 20% of meetings, contribution to online activity gaaah it’s so silly! Why get into this ridiculous conversation? There’s a solution that already works for each of the networks individually – first come, first served – I don’t get why this can’t work for the bigger group too.

Clearly I’m a muddle-headed white, straight, middle-class, university-educated man who’s never had to deal with discrimination in any form and therefore doesn’t understand this stuff. What a good job I’ve got a blog and don’t have to depend on anyone else to decide whether my thoughts are worth publishing.

What I think

Less is More, More is Less

3 Comments

John Naish, talking at the opening of 2gether08 used the term infobesity to sum up what he was saying about our addictive need to ‘consume’ more and more information. In the work session I ran, Leon Benjamin described organisational dependency on hierarchy as being as difficult to get rid of as a heroin addiction. We all know at least one person who’s lost to their crackberry (and not because of the tech).

It’s an interesting metaphor – and a difficult one to use as it quickly slips into Salem territory – denial can be seen as proof of guilt. John has some neuroscientific evidence for those who demand to see physical, chemical “causes” of a phenomenon regardless of overwhelming empirical evidence of behaviours. I see people struggling with information and believing that having more will solve the problem even in the face of repeated proof of the contrary – if only we knew more… if we only had more facts… if only we could measure…

So yeah, less is more, more is less – simple wisdom which, like most simple wisdom, may take a lifetime of practice to fully assimilate.

I first saw this as an Information Manager at the Audit Commission. Part of my job was to design systems to put together all of the known facts and data about each council’s social services department in a form that would be useful to our team of people reviewing the council’s performance.

These people doing the reviewing were not statto’s, not analysts, mostly they were social workers who’d risen through the ranks to some prominence and had years of experience of how social services get delivered and managed. Only one or two had any background in a numerical discipline. Most confessed (some proudly) that it was all greek to them. And yet their lust for more and more data, cut this way or that, dressed up in all the finery that Excel can bestow, was literally insatiable. They could not get enough. My team and I could not give them enough. Reviewers still felt uncomfortable about presenting their ideas (remember, based on 20 years of professional practice) in case someone could prove them wrong.

I had to learn the discipline of saying no, of explaining that the “facts” were only signposts and that more signposts might make you feel secure but of themselves they do little to assure you of arrival at your destination.

Photo by TeddyBare on Flickr cc by-nc

What I think

Reading… this is reading

3 Comments

[the title by the way will probably only mean something to travellers on the Great Western Railway]

Suw just commented on my tuttle post on open spaces that we might have a book-reading session, which reminds me that I was talking to Laura North the other day who is working on the National Year of Reading – yes, it’s now, it’s happening.

My first idea was to get people together to do some play reading – a comedy, preferably, probably something intellectually stimulating too. And short. The Real Inspector Hound for example, or maybe some Orton. I don’t know, anyway, I thought it would be fun and easy to do and eminently bloggable. Anyone?

happy new year, mild insanity, What I think

Happy? New? Year?

5 Comments

dec07 035Isn’t happiness weird? I often find myself being choosy about who to give it away to – but why would I withhold happiness from anyone? And anyway, the more I give away, the more I get back 🙂

Isn’t New Year weird? How did something that should be about innovation become so fixed in tradition? I spent last night equally bored and nonplussed.

Isn’t time weird? This year’s a leap year and so just because we all agree that it’s going to happen, we’ll have an extra day in February. If we can agree on bending a rule about how many days there are in a year, surely we could agree on something else. You know, silly stuff like “let’s stop fighting” or “let’s make sure everyone’s got enough to eat today”

Love & hugs everybodeh!

facebook, friends, politics, social media, social networking, twitter, What I think

FB – Fluid Boundaries, Fixed Behaviours, Friends Behavingbadly

6 Comments

fbfwCharles Frith (one of my fave twitter buddies btw) writes about two types of people Cold War survivors who see the world as black and white, good and evil and behave guardedly online with spy-like pseudonyms and ‘Post-Coldies” who are more comfortable with a zillion shades of grey and who let it all hang out.

It’s a difference that Helen also touched on in her thoughtful post on social media

Charles also points out that post-coldies don’t mind their friends meeting up, whereas the others will do anything to keep “different” areas of their life separate, even to the extent of lying to their “friends”. No wonder there’s such drama at weddings & funerals.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I feel very much at the post-coldie end of the spectrum but I’m not sure that the Cold War hostilities are the source of this separation, more that these are another manifestation of the same thing – the ancient tussle between what it means to be an individual and what it means to be part of a group, whether that group is at the level of 1:1 relationships, household, village, city, nation or continent (not to mention, planet, which is a whole other metaphysical adventure in itself).

I think another way of putting it is to say that some people are most comfortable getting their rules or boundary conditions from the group and others who are most comfortable setting their boundary conditions themselves. To each of these, the other’s behaviour can seem threatening and dangerous. I would argue that the former lead to more rigid behaviours while the latter lead to more flexible opportunities, but I’m aware that I may have a blind spot around this… and of course we’re talking about preferences, not necessarily hard-wired characteristics.

Ha ha, an example has just sprung to mind. This post is going to be a bit rambly. There are people who will tell you that a post needs a beginning middle and an end, a meaningful title, a relevant illustration and well-constructed tags. Tough shit – this is my blog and I make the rules.

In this context, I’m also thinking a lot about my facebook friending. Whenever there’s a conversation about social networking, sooner or later, Dunbar’s number is quoted – usually people describe it as “the limit to the number of real relationships one person can have” or something equally vague. It’s 150 and it’s more complicated than that description, but I’m thinking, OK, I have more than 150 friends on facebook, what does that mean in the context of Dunbar’s number? Specifically there seemed to be a paradox that although I was over the “limit” there are still a whole bunch of my friends and people with whom I have fairly intimate business and personal relationships who aren’t even on Facebook, let alone “friended” by me.

What I’m thinking at the moment is that I have, until now, (and in common with the cold war survivors) tried to manage groups of up to 150 people in my head – that’s why it feels so difficult! Of course 150 isn’t a limit on the number of people you can know, it’s really a limit on the number of people you can have meaningful relationships with without resorting to further rules and socially agreed boundaries.

So compartmentalising isn’t in itself “a Cold-War thing” or even “a bad thing” it’s a way of keeping our groups of relationships manageable. What online social networking does is to highlight that compartmentalising goes on, that people compartmentalise in different ways and allows for an external representation of a much larger number of my relationships than before which allows you to understand or infer (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) what my rules and boundaries are.

Of course this is probably all covered in Anthropology 101 but I much prefer learning from experience.

What I think

5 things you didn’t know about meme

8 Comments

minimeThanks Rachel for tagging me. I’m not a very secretive person (you may have noticed) so this feels quite hard. I’m sorry if you’ve heard any of these before.

1. My nickname at middle school was BB which came about on a trip to France when I was sitting on a coach in tight jeans, an older girl shouted – “God, ain’t that kid got big bollocks” It stuck.

2. I have ‘A’ levels in German, French, Latin so spent my 6th form going slowly mad from translation fatigue. Actually that’s not quite true, I spent my 6th form hanging around the Swan Theatre, getting laid and getting drunk which I count as the main reason why I got an ‘A’ for General Studies.

3. When at drama school, I particularly enjoyed the stage fighting course, but as a result of not paying attention in the “learning to fall” sessions I dislocated both my shoulders (on separate occasions). This is why I may refuse if you ever need carrying up the stairs and one reason among many why I’m unlikely to be seen bowling at cricket.

4. I have never taken a driving test. I had a course of lessons when I was 19 and one this summer, but I have never felt ready or motivated enough to go through with the formalities. This year could be the year… or maybe it couldn’t!

5. I was thrown out of my first student digs in Guildford just before Christmas 1984 because my landlord who was a milkman was sick of meeting me on the stairs coming in from a night of debauchery when he was going out to work. He pushed a note under my door saying “This is not a halfway house. Make sure you and your things are out of here by the time I get back from work today” I did.

Even harder, is thinking of 5 other bloggers who haven’t been tagged yet. That will have to wait till later because….

today’s my birthday. I’m 42. That just feels absolutely mad. I’ve never felt so disconnected from my solar age. It just doesn’t seem to matter one jot to me – not that I feel some other age, just that I’ve come to see that the number is totally irrelevant.

What I think

An inside job

1 Comment

I want to make clear that I don’t say the following from any position of superiority. People who know me well know how rude and controlling I can be when I don’t get my own way.

But it occurs to me that working at Six Apart must be tough.

Mena to Ben Metcalfe at Les Blogs 2 : “You’ve been an asshole to people all day”
Loic to Sam Sethi about Leweb3 : “Sam, you’re an asshole”

If that’s how they speak to customers in public, I hate to imagine how they speak to each other behind closed doors when things get rough.

What I think

It’s Social Stupid

4 Comments

Jessy watches Hugh draw for JeffreyI had a moment of clarity last week while holding an open space at Online. I hesitate to call it an “ah-ha” moment. It’s more of a “well….duuuhhh!” moment.

Hold Tight!

All organisations have formal systems and informal systems. You know the formal bits because formal usually means explicit – the org structure diagram, job descriptions, line (or matrix) management structures, written policies, mission statements, value statements and vision statements and the group and individual objectives (supposedly) derived from them and the behaviours that go with them – making a request, filling in a form, going to see the right person in facilities management, appraising staff performance, project and programme reporting. They also have formal links with customers, suppliers and other organisations – official channels. This is the bureacracy.

The informal or shadow systems are the links between people that may have nothing to do with their official roles or structures. This shadow organisation arises because the formal systems cannot be efficient or effective outside of certain limits. Ralph Stacey in Strategic Management & Organisational Dynamics (dreadful title – great summary and important critique of the development of modern strategic management) points out that there are two main reasons for bureacratic control failing to produce what it’s supposed to: the adverse human reaction to bureacracy (Yup! as I typed that previous paragraph I shuddered at ever having to be part of one again) leading to alienation, passive dependence, work without significance, deskilling and provocation of undesired or unintended behaviour. In addition, formal systems can’t deal well with ambiguity or uncertainty. So these informal groups, unofficial ways of behaving, doing business through social activities and networking grow up to allow the organisation to operate more effectively and efficiently. Remember too that unlike the formal part of the organisation, the boundaries of the shadow systems are permeable and always changing, making new contacts in “the industry” or “the sector” as and when opportunities arise.

Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the shadow organisation is the place where innovation and creativity are allowed to flourish. You can’t make new stuff effectively within a formal process. Creativity requires messiness, mistakes and flexibility around time. Innovations happen in the informal world – and, from time to time, when they are useful to the formal world, they become systematised and turned into policy or else they remain “the way we do things around here”. Note also that the organisation as a whole is the same bunch of people – just that they move over time between formal and informal modes and activities, however, my experience has been that there are people who feel more at home in the informal systems (cool dudes like me – heh!) and others who spend most of their time formally (tight-arsed pen-pushers – natch!)

Now, what came to me on Monday with a thud was that it’s these informal groups and activities that are supported by “social software” Blogs give people the opportunity to say what they want and talk about it, outside of any established order – just talk about what’s on your mind. Wikis allow for a meritocracy in collaborative documentation and policy/decision making. Social networking tools allow you to find and foster new connections outside of the org chart.

Examples of how this is working are coming thick and fast.

Do you believe that Threshers have mastered a process for viral marketing or was it a Stormhoek snowball kicked down the hill by Hugh?

For intellectual stimulation and working with new ideas there’s no competition between an openspace event and any one of the established panel-based conferences. Online was better this year, but still has some way to go.

Check out the reaction to Microsoft’s Zune player and then see what is coming from an informal, asynchronous conversation between Rojas, Winer and Calacanis have suggested and why Rowica might have more search results someday (or might not) (hey listen to the podcast of these guys chatting). OK, I like Rowica, but it seems it’s now dubbed the RWC Player.

So when we take social software or social media and try to sell it (through formal channels) as a part of the bureacracy – to replace something formal, it’s not surprising that we get asked about ROI and metrics and to prove “what’s in it for me”. And when we just take a risk and start something as an experiment that then just works, these questions get asked less and less.

That’s why I’m excited about the next round of Policy Unplugged social conferences which we’re branding as ‘Uploading’. The starting point for these events is that the tools exist, they are part of the ecosystem and it’s no longer about whether you should adopt them, but how you can best adopt them to get things done. And I would suggest that looking at the informal systems in organisations and within industries are the place to start that conversation.

Well…. duuuuuhhh!!!

Bonus Link: Johnnie is re-reading Patricia Shaw. Good move.

tags: & & & & & & & &