November 3, 2009

Micropatronage Part 2: the value, ethics and courage circle or…the follow up

inner angels and demons by jimmyxh. Source: Flickr.

My previous post Micropatronage: values, ethics and courage or would you pay for my postgraduate degree created a number of conversations for me both on and offline. Firstly thanks to all those that have contributed to this and a special thanks to Joanne, Marigo and Mick for their thoughtful comments which you can read here.

The micropatronage issue is a contentious one and seems to divide people or completely confuse them. I am one of those completely confused souls. I feel as if I am one of those characters in an animation with the angel and demon on each shoulder debating whether I should eat the chocolate cake or not. I don’t wish to reduce this to good or bad or even chocolate cake for that matter but as similarly to Mick’s comment, I can make justifications for both sides but when it comes to that moment of decision I can’t go through with asking others to contribute to something for primarily my personal gain. Sponsorship or a grant or a scholarship are much more comfortable.

Let’s face it – I should be here trying to convince the world of my cause – but I am not. In some ways for me the issue is need versus want. I want to do further study, in fact I really really want to do further study – but do I need it? No. I already have a post grad qualification (and in fact many have said skip it and do a PhD which is government funded – but I digress).

I definitely agree with Joanne that World 2.0 is much more than about financial value. It is awesome that we live in an economy of abundance and we can help each other out but there are many more who don’t live in the same abundance as we do and I feel more compelled to give to someone in genuine need. Not to mention refer others to give to that need also rather than my own.

There are other issues that arise for me once the micropatronage call is out as well – for example what if I don’t reach the amount I require to proceed by the given date? Do I give the money back? Do I give it away to a charitable cause? Do I just change the end date? More ethical questions.

But I think all my ideas partly come from my childhood upbringing. I have worked since I was 15 years old and have always been paid for my work in whatever organisation I worked for and from this I have what I have – nothing more, nothing less. If I were to open my own business I would flail at attempting to put a financial value on my services per hour. Increasingly there is a fine balance between what you charge for and what you give away freely as well, new business models in which micropatronage plays a role in some. It challenges me greatly. In this World 2.0 where full time, ongoing, 9.00 – 5.00 work is diminishing there is a role for micropatronage, I see it, I even understand it but I cannot reconcile myself to it where it involves me seeking contributions.

And so I have circled the three issues of value, ethics and courage again – I am no closer to a definitive answer but am grateful for the diverse perspectives and challenging conversation.

3 Comments

Filed under value

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 27, 2009

Micropatronage: value, ethics, and courage or would you pay for my postgraduate degree?

Australia Dollars by InfoMofo. Source: Flickr.

Micropatronage is where individuals directly support the work of others through voluntary monetary contributions. It is in essence crowdsourcing funds, gathering small amounts from a large group of people rather than relying on sponsorship from a few. The individual makes a judgement of value on a service, product or event and then contributes finances according to the value and/ or benefit they attach to it – which may be dependent upon experience, quality, social or professional value, or even simply what is affordable at that moment.

My first experience with the concept of micropatronage was approximately 5 years ago at the restaurant Lentil as Anything in Melbourne. In this restaurant the customer decides what they want to pay for the food and drinks they’ve consumed. The customer then puts their donation anonymously into a box at the counter. I have been to Lentil as Anything a number of times over the years and more often than not patrons are generous and often pay above the perceived worth – primarily due to the social good and community values the restaurant promotes.

Another very recent example of micropatronage was Trampoline held last weekend where post event people were asked to donate to assist in covering costs for the event (and incidentally received more than they required and donated the rest to continue other socially minded projects).

A different example is Joanne Spain who has started a personal micropatronage campaign on her website to raise funds for an iPhone (with validated reasoning!). After just one day Joanne has raised 12% of the funds she requires.

The examples of Trampoline and Joanne’s iPhone are open to all to contribute, not just to participating or personally invested people but to all those who believe in the cause, regardless of personal benefit.

The world of finance and payment systems is obviously changing – where people are courageous enough to ask for support via voluntary monetary contributions and where individuals and/or the community determine value and perceived worth by what they pull out of their wallet (or more appropriately what they transfer online!).

These ideas appeal to the good in all of us – it is mutually beneficial. We get something out of it, either a tangible or intangible return on investment but in addition we also get the added value of warm fuzzies that we have done something socially good.

I have to admit these concepts have been on my mind in the last week or so as I have been conflicted with wanting to return to university to study a Masters in Design (Communication Design) at Swinburne University. The cost of the degree is $22 000 which makes feasibility an issue as my current HECS debt already resembles the most part of a house deposit! In brainstorming potential finance opportunities I worked out that if all of my Twitter followers (including spam bots!) donated $35 the cost of my degree would be covered. Per semester it sounds even nicer, just $5.50 per follower.

This brings me to the real issues and questions of micropatronage in this kind of circumstance:

1. Value: Why would people give money to me?
2. Ethics: How could I ask people to donate money to me rather than a more community focused, social and charitable cause?
3. Courage: Do I have the courage to ask?

I had lunch with Joanne Spain yesterday and discussed these ideas with her. Her responses were thought provoking and insightful.

Value: why would anyone give me money?
Joanne argued that she would be happy to pay a small sum of money in return for a ‘personal subscription to me’ and also as support for the value she has found in my content (ie tweets and blog) to date. Another friend said that they would also be happy to invest, saying if they got to benefit from my experience and learnings whilst studying – in whatever form that may be – it would be a worthy investment. And so the concept shifts – it does not become giving money to me but a transaction in which you contribute according to the value you put on my content. If you like what I share and write then it is in your interest to support my journey in learning as your investment will no doubt be returned with considerable (albeit intangible) interest. The question becomes what value would you put on having a ‘subscription to me’?

Ethics: Me or a charity?
This is the really hard justification for me. For example current worthy causes on Twitter I saw yesterday: Movember, supporting Andrew Blanda in his Sydney to the Gong Bike Ride for MS and supporting Inspire Foundation by buying The Perfect Gift for a Man book by Gavin Heaton and Mark Pollard. All are very worthy of support.

How could I ask for financial support when there are worthy causes like these? After all I am a middle class DINK with a good job, mortgage and great people around me. That does not seem like a charitable cause – but is it worthy of investment instead? Joanne and I discussed how much time you naturally give away to others sharing knowledge, giving advice, helping in everyday circumstances. As well, the community value and social good may not be immediate but the future intention to give back is there. And so the investment is to support past and future practices. This returns to the notion of investment over charity or donation and your perception of return on investment for a subscription to me.

Courage: Will I ask?
The idea that micropatronage is more about investment makes me feel more comfortable with the idea that if someone provides some financial support to my education they will benefit from my learning experience. From supporting me they can get some return through observing and participating in my journey via social avenues (both on and offline).

The idea that my education would be for the collective rather than just personal good also sits well. It would increase the motivation for studying being accountable to a group of people rather than just myself.

So from a value prospect and from an ethical viewpoint (keeping charity and investment very separate) the idea of micropatronage for my degree seems sound. But courage? I do not have the courage to ask. I cannot reconcile myself with competing against much worthier causes out there.

Applications for the degree close in February so I have three months to consider options. And so I ask you:
What do you think of micropatronage?
What are you willing to contribute to?
What do you think of crowdsourcing contributions for my further study?

7 Comments

Filed under value

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 31, 2009

What comes first – great leaders or great followers?

Sharing by furiousgeorge81. Source: Flickr.

Sharing by furiousgeorge81. Source: Flickr.

Jye Smith‘s post Great Leaders, Great Followers on his blog A Digital Perspective
 echoed many of the sentiments I feel about leadership and ‘followership’ – and what indeed does come first great leaders or great followers (or as Jye calls them supporters)? Can you have one without the other?

Inspired in part by 10 ways to be a great follower (which is a fantastic post) Jye states

Maybe the qualities of great leaders and great supporters aren’t so different?
By providing a platform of understanding and embrace, you’re doing a large part of what you can to be led, and likewise, a large part of what you can to lead.

To be a great leader you also need to be a great follower. This goes beyond the management and leadership debate and instead recognises the value and importance of leadership across all levels, both horizontally and vertically, within an organisation.

Follower is an uncomfortable term but implies greater participation than simply supporter. Support can be inactive, where as following implies action and participation. For example I think we all support the efforts of charities such as World Vision, but how many of us donate and/ or become invested and follow the charities activities?

A great follower:

  • Self manages well
  • Is committed: both to the organisation and to the purpose which brought the leader and follower together
  • Works with others to reach organisational goals – without needing star billing
  • Builds their capability and focuses their efforts for maximum impact and
  • Is courageous, honest and credible.

From these, you can see that the attributes of a follower are shared with that of a leader and as such through building effective followership skills, leadership capabilities are also fostered.

A follower plays an active contributing role whereas a leader leads other individuals in the collaborative effort – however both have shared responsibility for outcomes (differing from accountability which generally falls to the leader rather than the whole team).

Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett Packard describes this as ‘leadership as a team sport’ – and is based on the concept of shared leadership. This moves beyond organisational hierarchies and creates leaders at all levels throughout the organisation – recognising that succes relies upon individuals, teams, and departments working in collaboration both vertically and horizontally across the organisation. In shared leadership the roles of leader and follower are not mutually exclusive or static roles – nor is one afforded more status or importance than the other. Staff members should be able to flexibly move in and out of leader and follower roles as required. The relationship between the two roles is symbiotic being in one or the other role depends on the situation or organisational need.

Shared leadership requires courage at the top of an organisation to relinquish control and flatten heirarchies to allow all organisational leaders (not just managers) to make decisions as appropriate. For me, the strength of a great leader recognises the potential in others and works to bring that to the fore.  A great leader enables a great follower.

Like the old adage – behind every great man stands a great woman…behind every great leader stands a great follower.  Committed, engaged and capable followers, enable great leaders.

So what does come first – a great leader or a great follower?

5 Comments

Filed under leadership, organisational culture

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 1, 2009

The shift toward innovation, culture and design thinking

Innovation in Corporate America by Ross Mayfield via Flickr

Reflecting on the business morning of Design Capital, part of the State of Design Festival, three weeks on three key themes continue to recur in my mind.
• Innovation
• Organisational culture
• Design thinking

Roy Green, University of Technology Sydney Business School, commenced the morning stating:

For knowledge and innovation, the global financial crisis changes nothing. The real challenge is to link short term recovery to long term competitive advantage.

Green discussed that even within the crisis, those countries who have invested the most in knowledge still have budget surplus – for example Sweden. This is due to the recognition at a high level that innovation drives productivity growth, competitiveness and social inclusion.

Green presented many figures throughout his session including data on product innovation by companies; organisational collaboration in innovation activities; and research and development budgets – in all three areas Australia is lagging behind much of the developed world. What does this mean? To me, it says Australians, both as individuals and companies, are primarily forward thinkers but not so forward in action.

To overcome this Green concluded that organisations must:
1. Invest more in innovation
2. Invest in capabilities and skills for innovation
3. Invest in the management of innovation.

This is needed as innovation is becoming increasingly ‘organisational’, introducing new business models, technology absorption and systems integration. It is becoming ‘non-linear’ with multiple sources of knowledge and creativity, and increasingly driven by collaboration and networks rather than silos. It seems that currently organisations want to ‘do’ innovation without understanding or investing in the appropriate structures, requirements or development required to ensure long term organisational agility.

Peter Williams, CEO of Deloitte Digital, followed demonstrating the change in business models which results in innovation and rapid responsiveness to market (and ultimately success), made available through the social web.

He demonstrated what is possible if organisations are flexible and agile enough within this environment, however most organisations are still governed by structures that do not enable the flow of creativity or innovation required and do not understand the paradigm shift to a social world and the implications this has for business.

Williams stated ‘Corporate culture is an issue: openness, self organisation, and self governance are alien to this environment’.

Innovation will continue to be contrained in organisations where questions such as these prevail: Who owns it? Who’s in control? What are the deliverables? How much will we make? What will happen if someone says something wrong/ bad?

Williams reiterated Clay Shirky’s ‘Failure for free’ concept discussing the core importance of learning by doing in the current environment. With low costs and speed to market, business cases are not required, just launch.

Williams introduced the notion of social innovation and porous design being critical – how can you get people to innovate for you? He introduced a number of success examples of this:
iPhone: the mass numbers of applications being developed daily by the audience
Threadless: you design the t-shirt, population votes on favourites, whichever is most popular is printed
Innocentive: innovation challenges solved by a global community of experts

In Williams words ‘start somewhere, do, reflect and go again’. Oliver Freeman, host of Design Capital summed up Pete Williams presentation as ‘we need to give ourselves up to the anarchic state. In this environment quantity = quality and the diamonds will filter through’.

Moving toward providing capability and the appropriate structure and environment within an organisation for innovation, Joseph Correnza, Principal from Arup Australia presented partly on their workplace design culture. He discussed ‘innovation is the responsibility of each person in the organisation, not a particular team’. Their design culture involves integrated thinking and a holistic approach which is key to the company’s identity and the basis of their differentiation. Their philosophy and culture is built upon:
• knowledge+experience: including knowledge sharing, participating reviews and critiques, networks and forums, professional and technical training.
• creativity+invention: supports original thought, encourages exploration, search for inspiration, communicating ideas, engage in dialogue and passion, allow incubation and maturation.
• holistic+mulitdimensional: discovering cause and effect, encapsulating multiple perspective, developing an appreciation of drivers, working within a cross disciplinary environment, considering the community and society, composition and harmony

In particular it was emphasised the importance of developing confidence within people to explore their own ideas.

Correnza also discussed design thinking as an influence toward Arup’s culture, as the process which leads to the outcome involving:
• Problem definition and translation
• Option creation and exploration
• Selection and refinement
• Execution and delivery
The design thinking process mirrors closely the concepts within Correnza’s Designers Toolkit presented, being made up of: exploration, testing, optomising, collaborating, delivering and immersing. The language may differ but the principles remain aligned.

Previously Green had discussed design thinking as being key for the workplace of the future, which is agile, engaged and collaborative – and which in turns enables innovation. Williams supported this, presenting the importance of design thinking in business models as it provides the opportunity to identify talent, allows openness in process and participation, and the occasion to introduce porous design and incentives to get involved.

So what do I take away from all of this?
The concepts of innovation, organisational culture and design thinking are somewhat intertwined and interdependent for business agility and success. I want to say this will be important in the future, however the paradigm shift is already occurring, people are increasingly social and collaborative, there is greater expectations on response times and engagement. Organisations need to reevaluate and move from primarily process based, closed heirarchical systems and allow creative thinking and innovation, increase nimbleness and time to market, and change their cultural approach to structures and work practices or find themselves falling off the cliff as the new social paradigm fully takes off. It is apparent to me that collaboration and innovation are high on our priorities list within Australian organisations but in actuality appropriate investment, both monetary and personnel, are not being invested to encourage and support this.

More
Williams summed up his core themes on the Deloitte Digital Blog.
View Neil Shewan from Tank Studio’s response to Design Capital.

1 Comment

Filed under design thinking, innovation, organisational culture

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

July 5, 2009

Planning vs action…a mid year reflection

Note: This post purposefully focuses on personal planning vs action, don’t get me started on organisational planning vs action!

Drawing up the plans courtesy of Ronn Ashore on Flickr

Courtesy of Ronn Ashore on Flickr

June 30 has passed….most of us have or are about to be subject to mid year reviews whether that be organisations tracking against KPI’s, performance reviews, even financial reviews ready for tax time but what about a personal reflection, how are you tracking on your goals and aspirations for the year, or for your life and career as a whole?

As Ross Hill stated on Twitter:
status update

In addition its soon approaching time to commence thinking about and planning for 2010…how do you balance the never ending struggle between action and planning?

I recently had a friend move overseas, in a discussion about his decision to move he explained that 2009 was his ‘Year For Exploration’. Two things struck me, the first was I wasn’t the only person who named their year! The second was the call to action within his statement…I had always termed my year, ‘Year of…’ which implies being passive and something happening to me whereas his ‘Year for…’ is a plan, a call to action, assertive and in control in determining and fulfilling his goals for the year.

It is too easy to get lost in the planning and to not take action. Both aspects are important as planning provides structure and direction to action however it is easy mistake planning for action as well. I was challenged by Derek Sivers blog post Shut up! Announcing your plans make you less motivated to accomplish them. It focuses around the idea that research conducted in 1933 indicated that people who spoke about their intentions are less likely to make them happen…and that for some merely announcing their goals and intentions satisfied the brain enough to no longer need to actually take action and achieve them.

As Sivers states:

Once you’ve told people of your intentions, it gives you a “premature sense of completeness.”

Wray Herbert also wrote an article on this http://www.newsweek.com/id/197006 Again he discussed a study where law students who had publicly announced their intention to read more law journals had an inflated sense of their legal capabilities. He states:

That is, simply stating a strategy for becoming a good lawyer made them feel like they were real lawyers, and this inflated self-image paradoxically made them less hard working. They had become legends in their own minds, and legends don’t have to get down and dirty.

I have to admit that I fall victim to this often…there are so many things I want to do and achieve that I manage to make myself feel better by stating my intentions to complete them and then not follow through (this is not intentional but reinforces the studies above). This seems to be particularly true when its finances that keep me from doing exactly what I want for example the University course I would like to study next (there is always at least one bubbling over in my mind) but the exorbitant cost (and the insane balance of my HECS debt to date!) prevent me from pursuing it seriously. I have also been ‘planning’ to visit Japan for at least the last 3 years however…and yes there is always a however…annual leave and finances have constrained that also. Anyone that knows me knows that I am an ambitious and quite determined person and that I will find a way to make these things happen if I really want them. So perhaps the power of ‘planning’ is in the dreaming?

There are some tools available to help track your goals and keep habits.
1. Don’t Break the Chain! is a visual motivation technique where you mark the days off a calendar that you work toward a particular goal.
2. I am also a firm believer in the overlooked aspect of reflective practice and Lifehacker provides a series around the weekly review habit to assist in getting things done.
3. I also like Satisfying things I wanna do this week dammit! to establish a work/ life weekly balance and holistic view to week by week planning and action.

So as we are now mid year through 2009, take this opportunity to reflect on where you are at this year, in your career, and life as a whole and review how you tracking in your planning vs action. Are you a planner? Are you an action taker? Or are you one of the few who manages to balance both?

Take off or bust courtesy of sgs_1019 on Flickr

Take off or bust courtesy of sgs_1019 on Flickr

Leave a Comment

Filed under performance review, planning, reflective practice

Tagged as , , , ,

June 18, 2009

The answer is in your end user…not in you

Last night I had the privilege of attending Future of Design Thinking: a conversation with IDEO hosted by Design Victoria. The IDEO representatives, Arna Ionescu Domain Co-Lead Connected Health and Jose Colucci Health and Wellness Lead, discussed design thinking and how IDEO implement this within their organisation. This is the first in a yet unknown IDEO/ deisgn thinking series.

IDEO focus on human centred design which involves designing products with the user at the core of the process at all times. (Note: I know it sounds logical that the design process should always be focused in this way but surprisingly it is not.)

They come to each project with this:

People don’t do what THEY SAY they do
People don’t do what WE THINK they do
People don’t do what THEY THINK they do

Understanding and fulfilling this is critical to developing the best possible solution for the client. As it assumes that all participants in the design process bring their own personal bias and the end user are the best source of input. To illustrate this they told some telling and powerful stories (Dear IDEO, if you ever read this and I have gotten minor details wrong apologies)

Image: Grandma's hands by sparktography

Image: Grandma's hands by sparktography

People don’t do what THEY SAY they do
In Germany they were speaking to an elderly lady with rheumatoid arthritis. They asked her if she could remove the top from her medication bottle. She replied she could. To be sure they asked her again and she replied ‘Yes, it’s easy’. They asked a third time but this time ‘Can you show us how you open the bottle?’. ‘Of course’ she replied. The lady then got up from her chair, took the two gentleman to the kitchen, proceeded to turn on her domestic electric bread slicer (think circular saw, but smaller, embedded into the backsplash) and ‘sliced’ the cap from the bottle.

The moral of this story is: being in the natural environment with the end user allowed this conversation to progress to this demonstration, and the realisation of how people complete tasks. Jose Colucci said that if they had’ve been in a focus group situation and she answered yes, they would tick off the check box on the list. She could do it but not the way most people would assume…people don’t do what they say do.

Image sourced from IDEO website

Image sourced from IDEO website

People don’t do what WE THINK they do
IDEO designed the first defibrillator to be used by a lay person and approved by the appropriate authorities. IDEO were able to simplify the process to two steps – turn the machine on and then another button shock the body. However they found users did not like this – and wanted three steps – which is counter intuitive. IDEO introduced a false third step to the process and in testing discovered adding an extra step shaved a few seconds off the time for people to complete the process. Big difference when it comes to bringing someone back to life!

As professionals, it’s very easy to develop assumptions about our clients/ users/ customers. This is particularly prevelant the more experience we have with an organisation/ user group/ industry – we believe our experience provides enough knowledge of our clientele…but IDEO show that people do not do what we think they do (or want them to do).

Image: Opposite Day, courtesy of hartboy

Image: Opposite Day, courtesy of hartboy

People don’t do what THEY THINK they do
Okay…so this one is not and IDEO story, this one is mine…which some of you may have experienced. I have done a number of presentations in my time…and I am an extremely nervous presenter. I often am nauseous for at least a day before the actual event – even if its just a simple short talk, sweaty palms, racing heart, the whole kit! Because I felt like this I assumed that I presented like this also until I had was video taped presenting last year (very scary!). It turns out I turn my super power calm on, I don’t have any odd twitches, nudges, scratching, or stammers. I can even pace myself reasonably well. (I am not a great speaker by any means but I’m definitely not atrocious as I thought!). This is a perfect example of what goes on outside does not match at all the inside – I did not do what I thought I did.

From these three statements, it is easy to see how important it is to remove yourself from the process and heavily involve your end users in anything you create. Assumptions are very powerful in the way we conduct ourselves and our work – both our assumptions of the project, as well as personal assumptions of the clients and end users which are easy to go unnoticed, and which they may not realise exist! This is not just a lesson in talking and working with your end users, but knowing them, and teasing out the real solutions to the challenges and issues they face (some of which they may not even know about).

Leave a Comment

Filed under design thinking, innovation

Tagged as , , ,

May 27, 2009

Do you trust me? Play in the workplace

This evening I attended KMLF in Melbourne and had the privilege of listening to Stuart French discuss corporate culture and choosing appropriate collaboration tools based on application rather than on the actual tool (amongst other things).

On his blog, Stuart French presents the central ingredients for creating knowledge cultures:

  1. Trust
  2. Behavioural integrity
  3. Ability
  4. Benevolence
  5. Situational strength

Trust is the largest issue with 2-5 still seeming to include components of trust within them.

On my tram ride home I watched Tim Brown from Ideo ‘s TED talk on creativity and play.  His talk focused particularly on the importance of play and the creative process for designers.

His three major points:

  1. Exploration: Go for quantity
  2. Build: Think with your hands
  3. Role play: Act it out

These two quite seemlingly unrelated events & topics converged for me though.  After watching Tim’s talk I couldn’t help but think about the importance of play in any workplace – and how this may transform any individual worker or organisation.

The overtones in both brought me to the core concept of trust in the workplace.  At KMLF an example was discussed where 5 people were standing around a computer trying to solve a legitimate problem – however a senior member of staff told them to ‘go back to work’ (forgive the paraphrasing those who attended kmlf!).  The implication is clear.

Trust enables collaboration and the opportunity to innovate without looking over your shoulder to make sure noone is watching.  Trust allows exploration, attempts, mistakes and failures without judgement.

Often strategic plans, process and history mandate organisational progress with little slack given in the work week for critical needs of reflection, exploration, building and scenarios. Tim Brown in his talk says ‘co-negotiation leads to productive play’ whereby if everyone knows the ‘rules’ for collaboration, working together, problem solving in the workplace then it can lead to innovation and transformation.  This implies the ongoing relationship required to maintain effective work relationships where the underlying ‘rules’ continue to be fluid as the task and/or situation requires.

Trust in the workplace is rare – it often happens within small teams or organisations but as workplaces grow in size so does its complexity and often the levels of trust lower at similar pace as growth increases.  If more organisations empowered employees through trust and allowed the freedom to (productively) play as progressive design companies do I wonder how organisational culture would be impacted?  And at what rate innovation would progress?

Leave a Comment

Filed under organisational culture, organisational learning

Tagged as , , , ,

April 15, 2009

We are all Big Brother in a popularity contest

Big Brother WAS watching! by David Maddison

Computers, video games and the web were all at some point labeled as causing people to be more insular and solitary, and less social.  This has now come full circle with people now being more connected and social than ever – but do we actually have more friends? Or are we simply broadening our horizons and networks to include the thousands of ‘acquaintances’ we may RT or @ in our Twitter lifetime? Or share a wall post on a Facebook group trying to get 1 000 000 members so someone will call their child Batman?

A Google search using keywords ‘increase twitter followers’ retrieves approximately 907 000 articles – everyone has a strategy to become more ‘popular’, some are worth reading and embrace the essence of what Twitter is about (see Collective Thoughts) and others, (like Shroom Heat – who blogs in capital letters?!?) are disappointingly shallow.  It seems that social media and web 2.0 tools appeal to the high school student in all of us – wanting to be popular and if possible the most popular – Prom Queen, School Captain, Head Prefect or whatever was the ultimate accolade at your school.  We want to feel accomplishment that we are more successful than the student who was dux and more popular than the football star. Mike Arauz has developed a Spectrum of Online Friendship: Spectrum of online friendship

We are not only competing in a popularity contest but judging it too – the ‘Passive Interest’ section or the ‘Big Brother’ column, where we seek out and pursue someone across online spaces but often don’t actually interact -  follow them on Twitter, read their blog, view Flickr images, see what they’ve tagged in their Delicious bookmarks, their professional history on LinkedIn.  We are now all cast in the role of ‘Big Brother’ from 1984 knowing almost everything about a person except their social security number.  The opportunity to monitor one another so closely had not existed until the web 2.0 explosion. There have been multiple reports in the media of people losing their jobs, getting dumped and being evicted due to social media faux pas (primarily on Facebook). Stephen O’Grady considers how he should present his personal  life to ensure it does not interfere with his professional life. Ultimate control is still with us as we decide what we will post but as the professional blends with the personal at an ever increasing rate people will use this information about us.

Our lives in public written by Gavin on Servant of Chaos takes this issue one step further:

The most pervasive aspect of living in an online, socially connected world is not identity –- but the traces of our identity that we leave with every click of the mouse. For every time we visit a website, download a PDF, leave a comment, buy a song or write a blog post, we leave something of ourselves behind.

This also includes all the social networking and web 2.0 tools you have used or signed up for over time and leave your presence on, no matter how small.

Social networking and web 2.0 tools are extremely valuable – both on personal and professional levels but left unchecked we are all Big Brother in a popularity contest.

1 Comment

Filed under twitter, web 2.0

Tagged as , , ,

March 9, 2009

Organisational re-learning: the five R’s

Today I presented the ideas of organisational re-learning to a group of librarians at the University of Colorado, Denver.  It is perhaps the most unattractive powerpoint presentation I have ever developed however shortness of time did not allow the usual beautification.
The organisational re-learning system I propose incorporates the four ‘R’ steps of:
  1. Reprioritising which includes a renegotiation of organisational foundations and operations
  2. Repurposing according to identified needs established from new and changed priorities
  3. Reframing occurs to align staff thinking and behaviours
  4. Retooling happens to develop staff skills to the level required for new strategic directions
Framed within:
5. Reflection
And specifically a reflective evidence based practice process which I adapted from reflective and evidence based practice literature.  This model proposes a fluid cyclical process of evidence based practice with critical reflection occurring at the beginning and end of the cycle.  Each stage of organisational re-learning occurs concurrently utilising the reflective evidence based practice process as a strategic pathway to accomplish each step.
Reflective evidence based practice process

Reflective evidence based practice process (Callahan & Howard, 2008)

The principles I presented of organisational re-learning are founded in a paper I co-authored in 2008 entitled Planning for Success: Reprioritising, repurposing, and retooling with results presented at the 5th International Lifelong Learning Conference in Queensland.

Since this paper was completed I have further developed the ideas to incorporate the ‘Reframing’ stage which is in many ways the most critical as it focuses on encouraging behavioural changes across an organisation, both on an individual and holistic level, in order for the organisation to move forward in delivering new strategic directions and goals.
The ‘Reframing’ stage is the people stage where the importance lies in engaging each individual and building relationships to encourage growth in professional confidence, professional possibility and empowerment.  If there is the need for organisational re-learning – there is also the need to build trust and confidence which occurs primarily through relationship building and demonstrating genuine care.  For me, I come back to my personal leadership philosophy ‘If I don’t have my staff, I have nothing’.  This focuses on the idea that people are the organisation and that as a leader/ manager it is my role to support and nurture them appropriately toward success.  If I am successful in this, there are two probable outcomes: any organisational re-learning initiative will be a success and the organisation as a whole will be a success.

Leave a Comment

Filed under evidence based practice, organisational learning, professional development, reflective practice

Tagged as , , ,

February 17, 2009

From Twitter sceptic to convert (and slight addict) in 7 days

Twitter is the buzz word and ‘it’ tool of the moment and as a newly immersed social media girl I am officially jumping on the bandwagon with my journey from being Twitterless to Twitterfied.

A little over two weeks ago now I walked down the garden path, closed the front gate to the  library world and moved across the street to begin decorating my knowledge sharing and social media home.  At this stage Twitter to me was nothing more than a version of a Facebook status update.  As I had just moved in, I had no Internet privileges for the first week and lived a social medialess existence yet my neighbours spoke about the world of Twitter with such energetic gusto that by the end of week 1 I felt like there was a never ending party going on that I was missing out on.

Commence week 2: Internet privileges received, @zaana is reborn!  When best describing the evolution from Twitter sceptic to convert I refer to minxuan’s presentation.  If only I had come across this  I may have been converted earlier.

After being an active user of Twitter now for 7 days I reached two milestones yesterday: I had my first retweet and passed the 100 follower mark.  I have been most intrigued at my inbox filling up with emails stating ‘God is now following you on Twitter!’ and after looking at their profiles thinking either of two things: How on earth did you find me let alone decide to want to follow me? or ‘Another spam follower telling me how to make money from the Internet’.  So despite my followers reaching a good round number of 100 it is really comprised of four sets of people: people I know, people who I follow and reciprocated the follow, people who are building their following numbers arbitrarily and spam followers (this is what I call them – there is probably a better term out there!).  I am sure there is a minority fifth group also who actually found me and follow me because they are interested in what I have to say but I am yet to uncover any evidence of this – although obviously this is what I hope to build.

After my 7 days according to Twitter Grader my mark is 87 out of 100.  There is a whole explanation of how it is calculated but I don’t really know what it means, although I do feel that tug in my tummy that I want to get 100 (but then I have always been an overachiever).

It is the ‘Why?’ factor of Twitter though that has me converted – and yes slightly addicted and in trouble at home when caught sneaking a Twitter glance in the evening.  I like Daiv Rawks blogpost on Why do you use Twitter? where he put out a call on Twitter to his followers asking why they use it.  Amongst them were these:

Mark Shimko

@mybiziz To connect with & build a like-minded community. I place a lot of weight on the adage *united we stand, divided we fall*

meznor

@meznor I use it as a new source, to do research, and to find and keep in touch with people who have common interests.

Sherry Main

@sherrymain 1) to learn, 2) be in the know – latest and greatest, 3) stay in in touch, 4) share my interests, 5) easier than blogging

Valerie Maltoni’s post You’re on Twitter Now What? provides guidance on using Twitter to best benefit your goals.  Have you set what you wish to accomplish from Twitter?  Is there a particular way in which you wish to portray yourself?

From these kinds of comments and from my own experience the real value in Twitter lies in the ability to be instantly connected with a likeminded community – and a community you can contribute to and draw from.  According to Ajesh Patalay’s article Life is Tweet from The Observer Twitter is the ‘new cultural forum’.  Melbourne in particular has felt this over the past two weeks with the huge amount of Twitter activity resulting from the recent devestating bushfires.  The key to Twitter is that you are the creator of your own Twitterverse allowing you to define the connections and level of engagement you choose. This means there are of course fringe benefits too, like being connected to news (ABC Radio Melbourne), respected authors (Neil Gaiman), favourite musicians (Imogen Heap) and just for fun (Hamish and Andy).

So from sceptic to convert – for me whose foundations lie in the theories of face to face supported by technologies, Twitter is challenging this perception as I create connections and networks not defined by time and (physical) space.

4 Comments

Filed under twitter, value, web 2.0

Tagged as ,