Thanks to Sean Stannard-Stockton for introducing me to this video. He referenced it while writing about the risks of being outcomes-focused in philanthropy. It’s a great reminder to keep ourselves open to what we aren’t looking for. It may also provide some insight as to why networks bend our brains, at least those parts that are singularly focused on results of a linear cause-and-effect kind. The social capital and new forms of self-organized action that are the result of network building activity are not always the first things that appear front and center on our screens. Rather, they may appear in the background, on the periphery, or in the spaces where more concrete images meet. And yet, there is little doubt about the potential of net-centric approaches for social impact. Time to adjust our eyes from the isolated (old paradigm) prize.
Network Theory and Social Technology have become so tightly bound that it becomes increasingly difficult to talk about networks for social change without having one of our nonprofit-types freak out about technology, learning curves, accessibility, etc. I have been looking for ways to sift through the distinctions in a way that salvages core network lessons for movement building; here is some of what I’ve come up with:
The network approach works offline as well as online (it is a logic, not a technology)
We should move from an organization-centric paradigm to a network-centric paradigm (our organizational structures can evolve in this direction)
Our leadership models must evolve in order to handle decentralization (deemphasize control and emphasize connection)
I have been using a “rocket building” analogy. Building a rocket is too expensive for us to just start building at random. Instead, we first build a computer model of the rocket, there we adjust for all sort of variables, the pull of gravity, energy needs, the best types of material, etc. We see how it works on the computer, and then we build it.
Similarly, we could not have dared to build an offline world that allows for as much decentralization and self-organization as the online world does. Our current organizational structures – from the state, to the corporation, to the foundation and the nonprofit – are too strongly cemented. Breaking down organizational walls and internal hierarchies would have put too much at risk.
The online world has provided an unprecedented space for large-scale experimentation in new forms of organization. It has become our own computer model and it is showing us amazing things about what is possible not only online but also offline. Kevin Kelly of Wired Magazine has gone as far as calling this The New Socialism. And while I’m sure that Marx is turning in his grave, what I continue to argue is that an entirely new paradigm is finally emerging and that it is through our participation that we’ll actually have a chance to shape it.
Network Theory and Social Technology have become so tightly bound that it becomes increasingly difficult to talk about networks for social change without having one of our nonprofit-types freak out about technology, learning curves, accessibility, etc. I have been looking for ways to sift through the distinctions in a way that salvages core network lessons for movement building; here is some of what I’ve come up with:
The network approach works offline as well as online (it is a logic, not a technology)
We should move from an organization-centric paradigm to a network-centric paradigm (our organizational structures can evolve in this direction)
Our leadership models must evolve in order to handle decentralization (deemphasize control and emphasize connection)
I have been using a “rocket building” analogy. Building a rocket is too expensive for us to just start building at random. Instead, we first build a computer model of the rocket, there we adjust for all sort of variables, the pull of gravity, energy needs, the best types of material, etc. We see how it works on the computer, and then we build it.
Similarly, we could not have dared to build an offline world that allows for as much decentralization and self-organization as the online world does. Our current organizational structures – from the state, to the corporation, to the foundation and the nonprofit – are too strongly cemented. Breaking down organizational walls and internal hierarchies would have put too much at risk.
The online world has provided an unprecedented space for large-scale experimentation in new forms of organization. It has become our own computer model and it is showing us amazing things about what is possible not only online but also offline. Kevin Kelly of Wired Magazine has gone as far as calling this The New Socialism. And while I’m sure that Marx is turning in his grave, what I continue to argue is that an entirely new paradigm is finally emerging and that it is through our participation that we’ll actually have a chance to shape it.
I knew a few Barr Fellows before I started doing the kind of work I do today. I knew a few of them before they were Barr Fellows, and so I also knew them after. It was in this nonscientific way that I was able to observe some of the subtle and not so subtle shifts that were happening among my friends – the fellowship had an effect on them and on their work. Conceptually, the idea behind the fellowship was something that I could understand, network theory and the power of relationships already made intuitive sense to me.
Check out the Barr Fellows Program for a formal description of the effort. But to risk oversimplification, the fellowship is about taking a diverse group of amazing leaders in Boston’s social sector, rewarding them with a sabbatical, connecting them to one another and exposing them to social innovation in other parts of the world.
Emergence is an interesting thing; one might even argue that it is the most naturally occurring of all things – couldn’t we say that the universe itself just emerged and keeps emerging?As we approach the limits of the best laid out planning processes we could come up with we begin to face the fact that a world of increasing complexity cannot be managed like it is a big machine that will produce predictable and measurable outcomes.In this increasingly complex world some of us are seeking ways to align ourselves with the process of emergence, to foster and facilitate it, to serve it with sharp intentionality and to let go of command and control fantasies.
Here is where “The Hub” comes in.I had the pleasure of visiting “The Hub” in São Paulo and I find myself deeply inspired.Emergence Theory demands locality, it proposes that local micro-interactions are foundational to the emergence of new systems.“The Hub” is about co-location, it provides a physical space that is meant to “facilitate unlikely encounters” among people concerned with social change and social innovation.“The Hub – São Paulo” provides a beautiful creative space that is open, flexible and stimulating.Small teams or individual social entrepreneurs can make it their full-time home, or they can arrange to rent space there anywhere from 5 to 100 hours per month.
These social innovators may be focused on anything, and ideally on different things.In fact, given that the “The Hub – São Paulo” is still in start-up mode, I have learned that some of its tenants do not even have an explicit social mission.A space like this, without walls or fixed desks is a space where previously unthinkable projects can emerge, it is an ideal space for the intersection of fields that makes “The Medici Effect” possible – this is how innovation happens.
Hub Hosts are a lot like network weavers.Yes, they take care of details like shared printers and internet connections, but they also work to interconnect tenants using the space.Tenants are encouraged to host events and information sessions where they can share what they are working on and what they are learning.“The Hub” is a truly vibrant space where socially committed individuals can experience life in a network and begin to shed their organizational constraints.“The Hub” is just one response to the need for new forms of human organization, but it certainly is a great one, it is the sort of place from which a new world can emerge.
What other efforts to apply network theory do you know about?
I’m intrigued by the idea of living systems and so I spend a lot of time thinking about what it is that gives a network a life of its own.If I’m convinced of the need of decentralized structures and in the power of self-organization then I have to concern myself with what it is that motivates networked efforts to take on a life of their own. When I look at my own experience of life in a network I understand that learning is a key motivator for decentralized self-organization.
To be specific:I want to learn the best way to apply the logic of decentralized structures to movement building efforts.
In order to do this:I read, I experiment, I share my learning, I become engaged in relationships with others who want to learn the same thing.
People who are engaged in a quest for something that they are passionate about come together of their own volition.I am part of a network of friends who are people interested in movement building and social transformation, we come together to socialize as well as to problem solve and learn together.In order to keep this network alive we most often have to overcome obstacles like being too busy working in some social change nonprofit!
So my own experience of life in a network demonstrates that the desire to learn about something that you are passionate about is great fuel for decentralized self-organization. But there is one more layer of nuance here.Among my group of friends we are not doing the kind of learning that is defined by some specific quantity of knowledge being transferred from one head to another, we are engage in the type of active learning that informs creative action.
So there is learning, but there is also something about creative power. But that’s a topic for another blog.
I have been a zealous (some would say over-zealous!) proponent of networks and the application of network theory to the work of social change.I have been pushing and working for a radical rethink of our very approach to social transformation.I believe we have to move away from a model that is organization-centric into a mission-based model that maximizes the potential of decentralization.My vision calls for an approach that creates the conditions for the emergence of ideas, opportunities and formations that we could not have been imagined through our visioning and strategic planning efforts.
I am still a believer, and I’m probably still a zealot, I still see the ways in which an unbelievable wealth of passion, conviction, dedication and self motivation is wasted away, trapped by organizational structures that constrain this energy rather than liberate it.However, I have also been delving into a multiplicity of frameworks and studies addressing human development and it is increasingly evident that we are all at different stages of development.Being an adult does not always mean one has advanced through every stage of development and so not everyone can work with the same layers of complexity.
Now, I am clearly aware that I’m delving into dangerous territory, and I have no intention of getting into “who decides who is how developed,” but I will be bold enough to agree with the proposition that human beings evolve through a set of developmental stages, that these stages allow us to deal with greater and greater levels of complexity, and that we are not all at the same developmental stage.This is an important insight for someone working to shift organizational structures.It is possible that the more idealized decentralized models we are looking at might actually be making an idealized assumption about the developmental levels of the human beings involved.
However, rather than pulling back from this push forward along the paradigm shift, I think that what is important is that we understand that such developmental dynamics are always at play.Accounting for this layer of complexity does not mean that we move away from facilitating decentralized, self-organizing systems, it means than in fomenting this next phase of social movement we also seek to create the conditions for developmental progress among the human beings involved.Our job is not to assume that some people just can’t shift, but to understand how certain organizational parameters can support our evolution while liberating our will to create change.
Make Meetings MatterJoin us on February 5 for a practical and energizing webinar that teaches simple facilitation practices to turn meetings into inclusive, focused conversations that lead to real progress!
