Category: systems

Connecting Infrastructure and Power

I was intrigued by a post from my wonderful friend and colleague, Eva Schiffer, on LinkedIn a while back. Coming off a conversation with the creative Gianluca Gambatesa, Eva quoted him with something that opened up a lot of questions in my mind about power. Gianluca said “There is a tight link between power structure and infrastructure. By making infrastructure more accessible, we can destabilize and open up power structures. Oh. So. Much. To. Unpack! Then Eva went on to ask for examples.

Before I can mine examples, I want to understand what we mean by infrastructure and power structure. In my group process work most often the aim is to distribute power out to engage everyone and support work that distributes agency and responsibility across a group. It is rarely a goal to destabilize power, but to distribute it. So the idea of “opening up” power structures resonates.

Decision making can be a good place to test ideas. In practice that might look like clarity of decision making (as opposed to fake consultation – I’ll listen to you but I already made up my mind), clarity of how power is exercised and by whom in decision making processes. Power structure is expressed in this case by who makes what decisions, how they are communicated and enacted.

So what is infrastructure in this case? In the LinkedIn thread most references were to collaboration tools: Google drive, Slack, etc. Accessibility to tools requires they are available, properly configured to distribute control of the tools, backed up so useful experiments don’t risk mass destruction of stuff, and skills for people to use those tools. Who can choose and mess with the tools is super important – something we learned in our research for Digital Habitats.

I immediately wondered about the role of transparency of tools, how they are configured and who controls them as one sort of accessibility. There are other layers of accessibility: is a tool friendly for those who cannot hear or see? Is it free of embedded bias? Are the use practices built on shared values and goals or is it a free for all? My bias here is finding the sweet spot between over control and under control. For a diverse group, is the tool accessible ENOUGH to allow access and support diversity? Eva, in a latter comment, noted “Transparency is part of it. But also: Does this structure make it easy for me to fully contribute if I’m not highly privileged?”

That takes us to the less visible side of tools-as-infrastructure – the processes we use with the tools, each other and our shared work. Who has the power (there is that word again) to, as Eva called it, “fully contribute” regardless of one’s priviledge and power.

Process is infrastructure. Lack of process is infrastructure. Workarounds to avoid or change process is part of infrastructure as far as I’m concerned. Yet it is rarely noted in ones “infrastructure plans,” eh? It is the place where power is exercised with little visibility, or perhaps little accountability.

Some other stuff:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2019/08/08/facebook-and-electio
n-influence-will-history-repeat-itself/

Renee Diresta gave a superb talk at Long Now about the difference
about social media which Long Now retweeted about:

"When people say propaganda has always existed, they're absolutely
right. But what has not always existed is inexpensive,
sophisticated, precision targeting."
- Renee DiResta (@noUpside) on how social media algorithms help
spread propaganda on altogether new scales.

https://twitter.com/longnow/status/1518706648730140672

From the Blog Archives: Stewardship

Blue door locked with a ladder leaned against the wall to the right of the door.
Blue door and ladder in Tunisia

David Schmaltz wrote an amazing blog post back in 2013. It took me a while to track it down. (I suspect that many of us with WordPress have a problem that somewhere along the line permalink URLS changed, so finding things can be a bit challenging.)

Below is a quote from his longer post. Worth a read. I think now, more than ever and particularly in the US we need to shift our mindsets and behaviors to be more accountable, to initiate public good and to get out of our own self-absorbed ruts. Here David writes about Stewardship.

I believe that attributing Stewardship to an organization qualifies as a mistaken attribution, because Stewardship can only belong to individuals. And, I believe it doesn’t matter what an organization’s underlying organizing principle might be. Stewardship might thrive anywhere. It requires no permission, for permission would render Stewardship into just another form of paternalism. Stewardship has to be the sole and personal responsibility of individuals like you and me.

Thinking about how I exhibit Stewardship popped the funky trance. I am nearly incapable of passing an abandoned shopping cart. I consider it my responsibility to return to its proper place every one I find. I feel offended when I see one left to block traffic or rudely shoved up onto a median strip. Clearly, whomever abandoned it there lacked a sense of Stewardship.

The Muse makes the distinction between what she calls Renter and Owner mindset. The Renter mindset knows it’s not getting any appreciation in the value of any real estate, and easily justifies letting the yard go to seed on their watch. The Owner mindset embodies the practice of Stewardship by assuming full responsibility for the ongoing well-being of whatever they engage with, whether they actually own the property or not.

This house we’re presently renting gets cared for as if it were my own. The neighbors can’t quite understand why I would dig out that stump and improve the quality of the soil at my own expense, and why I mow to more exacting standards than the owners on the block. Stewardship explains it. I feel a deep need to care for whatever’s in my charge.Trying to create an organization that values Stewardship seems to discount Stewardship, and withholding Stewardship until it’s sanctioned and safe might sour any possibility of experiencing it. Stewardship isn’t difficult once the Owner mindset kicks in. The challenge might be to shift my own mindset first. I always have opportunities to care about what follows after me, and I can even see them when my head’s screwed on Stewardship straight.

I’m learning that my sense that I should wait for permission prevents me from practicing wise Stewardship. Stewardship thrived even under Nazi occupation, where it was deadly dangerous to care about preserving civil culture. I think we might be hard-wired to prefer it, though frequently short-circuited by the distracting demands of modern life.

Don’t ask when your company will wake up, wake up yourself. Own yer own shit, Man. Stand up even when nobody’s counting because you’re counting on you. And so are we all.

Here’s a link to a YouTube recording of this Webcast.

via Stewardship | Work | Pure Schmaltz.

Bev Wenger-Trayner Place, Pulse, Party

Beverly Wenger-Trayner’s old Eudaimonia blog post “What makes something a place?” is no longer online but in my archives of draft blog posts, this bit of text was saved. It seems to elegantly follow the words of Gardner Cambell in yesterday’s post, that I’m adding it into the slip stream. What do you think, Bev? Your description still resonates for me

Funny, I have been thinking about “place” related to another line of inquiry, and that is place as a recognizable border when I feel I am shifting between community and network. In my networks, I don’t feel the absence of place, but instead focus more on PULSE. In community, and even moreso in TEAM when I am intricately reliant on my partners, place becomes MUCH more central.

In communities of practices, I think I slip between place and pulse. Hm, I think I need to think about this concept some more and blog about it. After I do more housecleaning. (On a roll. Painting.)

Network. Resonance. Place. Pulse. There is something there….

Pen and ink doodle with lines, eyes, hearts, hands, flowers and words.

Hey Networks! Don't underestimate relationship

In strolling through the archives of unpublished blogs posts, I came upon one which was simply a link to a great blog post from the Interaction Institute in 2017. And boom, it is still resonant today.

Network members making sense of their own data…

The wonderful author, Curtis Ogden, offered 10 principles for thinking like a network. I want to pull out a few things in each one to share with folks in some projects I’m working on. So why not share it here too? This is dynamically incomplete… be forewarned!

The groups I have been and am working with are quite different in some ways. One is an internal organization. Another is a tripartite collaboration that is ready to grow into a network. A third is a group that has done amazing F2F training and capacity building and has had to regroup in a COVID-Virtual world. All three, however, are motivated to act their way into their purposes in new ways. So first is the mindset and practices. In a later blog post I want to explore snap-back, the falling back into our old ways of being and doing.

Curtis’ intro to the article is great context:

Over the past several years of supporting networks for social change, we at IISC have been constantly evolving our understanding of what is new and different when we call something a network, as opposed to a coalition, collaborative or alliance. On the surface, much can look the same, and one might also say that coalitions, collaboratives and alliances are simply different forms of networks. While this is true, it is also the case that not every collaborative form maximizes network effects, including small world reach, rapid dissemination, adaptability, resilience and system change. In this regard, experience shows that a big difference maker is when participants in a network (or an organization, for that matter) embrace new ways of seeing, thinking, and doing. 

https://interactioninstitute.org/thinking-like-a-network-2-0/

I think we all confound different forms of collaboration, try to be all things to all people and then we are frustrated when our ambitions are cut short. Working in new ways requires two things: discernment about what is possible, and a repertoire to make the possible real. I think these principles from Curtis support both these things. I encourage you to read the original article, because below I’m short cutting into some specifics.

Adaptability instead of control

This shows up so strongly in “strategic planning.” We tend to equate a detailed, task descriptive plan as a proxy for strategic action, especially in grand funded projects where plans, and executing on the plans, are key points for accountability. Yet, most work these days is in complex and changing contexts. Can we shift to adaptive planning which defines the purpose, direction and then iterates forward with strong accountability during, not just at the end?

Contribution before credentials

Equity has been in so many conversations. What seems to constantly block equity and its precursor, access, is that we continue to worship at the alter of credentialed expertise, rather than tapping all kinds of expertise. Whoops, look at the word “tapping!” We have extractive approaches to knowledge generation. How do we move to more contribution versus extraction that honors all, regardless of the title certain parts of society wish to attach to some and not others?

Giving first, not taking

See above about extractive mindsets!

Resilience and redundancy instead of rock-stardom

See above regarding stepping away from single views of expertise for the rock stardom stuff, but the resilience and redundancy needs a post of its own. The practice-based approach I’ve been working on for this is that we backfill for each other across departments, organizations, networks. No one these days can afford to hire all the skills they need at any one time. Trading labor across our networks builds redundancy and a sense of mutual support. There is a limit to this — we can’t keep ADDING work without taking something away.

Diversity and divergence rather than the usual suspects and forced agreement

This is why we work in networks!

 Intricacy and flow not bottlenecks and hoarding

I struggled with this one until I went back and read Curtis’ words on this one. The word that emerges for me is abundance. (In all senses of the word, including mindset.)

I’m running out of steam, so I’ll leave the last four for YOU to flesh out, annotate, expound upon. If I leave this as a draft for another year… well, you know what happens!

Self-organization and emergence rather than permission and the pursuit of perfection

Shift focus from core to the periphery

From working in isolation to working with others and/or out loud

 From “Who’s the Leader?” to “We’re the Leaders!”

Moving Online in Pandemic #3: What to STOP doing!

This is the third of a series of posts to support anyone working to move their offline/face to face group interactions online. It is pretty “drafty” and hopefully there will be energy to improve.

The preamble is here and Part 2: Ecocycle here. If you are an online facilitator or finding yourself in that role, join our group here. If you are looking for resources, check here.

In the race to do SOMETHING as we are forced to move many group interactions online, there is something we MUST NOT DO. That is replicate terrible offline meeting habits online. They only get worse. If it was bad F2F, you will have total turn off and rebellion online.

So the first step is to figure out what to STOP doing, before you make a list of all the things you are GOING to do. There is a fantastic Liberating Structure called TRIZ, which works really well online (as well as offline!) Here is the intro from the Liberating Structures website.

Making Space with TRIZ* – Stop Counterproductive Activities and Behaviors to Make Space for Innovation  

Every act of creation is first an act of destruction. – Pablo Picasso

What is made possible? You can clear space for innovation by helping a group let go of what it knows (but rarely admits) limits its success and by inviting creative destruction. TRIZ makes it possible to challenge sacred cows safely and encourages heretical thinking. The question “What must we stop doing to make progress on our deepest purpose?” induces seriously fun yet very courageous conversations. Since laughter often erupts, issues that are otherwise taboo get a chance to be aired and confronted. With creative destruction come opportunities for renewal as local action and innovation rush in to fill the vacuum. Whoosh!

*  Inspired by one small element of the eponymous Russian engineering approach teoriya resheniya izobretatelskikh zadatch.

http://www.liberatingstructures.com/6-making-space-with-triz/

This post will take you through step by step doing TRIZ online, supported by slides on Google Drive. Here is the visual on the LS site that gives a great quick gist of the process.

I’m assuming you typically get your team together in your video conferencing space. Ideally you are using a tool that allows breakout groups like Zoom. (Pssst, someone told me today that breakouts are possible on Microsoft Teams. If you have instructions, leave a comment!)

The preparation:

  • Prepare a Google Doc, Slides (one slide per group) or something similar for each breakout group. Set the permissions so everyone can edit. Have the urls handy to paste into the chat room at the appropriate moment.
  • Have the step wise instructions ready to copy/paste into the chat room. One instruction – they go do it – then the next. Don’t put them all in at once.
  • Refine your invitation. The one below is for specifically stopping bad meeting habits before they go online, but you have many options!

The invitation: In plenary in your online meeting space welcome folks and then dig in. “First alone, think about how we could reliably design our online meeting so that nothing got done, everyone had a TERRIBLE time and our leadership and credibility is seriously damaged. Make a list of all the things you would have to do to make this happen. Go wild! I’ll post this instruction in the chat to keep it top of mind.” Paste these first instruction in chat. While people are thinking alone, prepare your breakout groups. 2 minutes

In your group: In a moment tell folks you are going to put them into breakout groups (If you need to, describe how that works on your platform!) In chat paste the next step instruction, and then the urls for each breakout group Google Doc – so doc #1 goes to breakout group #1. Sometimes people get confused. If they all end up in the same google doc, that is ok. They can figure it out!! Here is their task: “In your group, share your ideas and compile a master list in your Google Doc. You have five minutes then I’ll pull you back into the ain room for a touch point. In the template I’ve drafted, you can do the lists right into the Google Slides too! Make a separate slide for each group. 5 minutes

Touch point: At this point you can quickly bring everyone back to briefly check in and set up the next step. “Have you created the design for absolute failure? Give me a few examples of the most horrendous things you can do.” This gets people riled up even more!

Next Step: What is real? Tell them you are going to send them back into their groups. “Now run through each element. Which of these elements is currently present in your work practices. Highlight those in your Google doc. Calculate what percentage you are actually DOING? You have five minutes then we’ll come back for a touch point. Paste in this instruction then send them on their way!

Touch point: Quickly ask what percentage are highlighted. This is where it gets real, my friends!

Next Step: Tell folks you are going to send them to breakouts one more time. “Next pick one or more of those things to STOP doing before you design your online meetings. What is the first step you need to do to STOP it? Make a plan to do that. Be as concrete as you can and identify who has to be involved to make it happen. Be prepared to share your next steps when we return to plenary. You have 10 minutes. Paste in this instruction then send them on their way!

When everyone is back, prioritize your collective next steps to STOP doing. Then reflect on the process. What is liberated when we identify what to STOP doing? What is made possible?

Riffs, Variations and Hacks:
There are some hacks here, too. The timing may vary, don’t go too slow. People can start turning into a complaint session and that is not the intention. If your group is small, keep them all in the main video conferencing room. If you are in a tool like Zoom where you can send messages to the breakout rooms, you can help them keep track of time.

In the second post of this series I wrote about Ecocycle. TRIZ is great to move past being stuck in the “rigidity trap” in the Ecocycle, and into creative destruction. It is great to help people get out of their individual and collective ruts. The example here is focused on stopping bad meetings, but your invitation can be anything that needs a little creative destruction!!

Thoughts? Feedback?