Self-publishing challenges hierarchies - and facilitators

Former intelligence agent Matthew Burton provides a couple of insights from his world that have much resonance for me elsewhere. First, that networks reflect the culture of the organisations that run them, and second the importance of self-publishing to release creativity and challenge hierarchies. Matthew offers these in a comment to the item I wrote about his article on intelligence agency knowledge systems.
I've been to a couple of meetings in recent weeks where a day's discussion among participants drawn from a wide range of backgrounds, and mainly freelances, released a wealth of ideas for the convenors. In each case the purpose of the day was to develop ways forward for the organisers, working with the freelances - but of course people also saw many ways in which they could work together in pairs and groups without detriment to the central purpose. The network energy could add to the centre.
As each meeting closed, I made the suggestion, prompted by comments among participants, that it would be a good idea to have a better-than-email system to enable people to share ideas and work together since there were no plans for a further get-together for some time. I offered to set up a 'neutral ground' system since nothing was in place.
In each case the response was the same .... don't do that, we'll get around to doing it. They may... but I'm a bit sceptical, and by the time they do the momentum will have gone.
I don't have a great desire to manage yet more network communication systems ... whether email lists, forums, wikis or Basecamps. I was simply saying we needed something good-enough quickly so that we can build on the social and enterprise capital developed.
If the organisers had been social software enthusiasts, committed to a self-publishing, distributed approach to networking I would be fairly sure they would follow through quickly with a system we could all use flexibly. In the the two cases I mention the organisers didn't have that experience and I suspect instinctively reacted against losing control. They were fine about people making contacts during the day, and developing ideas together. They could see what was going on. But the notion of that common space continuing somewhere else, in a way that they didn't control, was problematic.
I'm perhaps being a little unfair because in each case it was a rushed conversation at the end of the day ... but I think I am right in detecting some instinctive anxiety about giving people a space with freedom to publish and a network structure different from the tightly moderated approach in the workshops.
A little self-reflection makes me think that behind my practical suggestions was also a desire to offer up that challenge. The great thing about social software is that the individual has that capability. In future I'll try and raise it earlier in the day.
Previously at Partnerships Online: Describing networks: joining us, joining in, or joining up

Comments

[Matthew Burton]

This comment is a diversion from this post, but not from the blog's topic.

I made the suggestion...that it would be a good idea to have a better-than-email system to enable people to share ideas and work together since there were no plans for a further get-together for some time.

I've been at meetings where this was suggested, and in each case, everyone agreed to do it. It's easy for the energy to fizzle the second you walk out the door, so people want to maintain momentum. But also in each case, this post-meeting electronic dialogue never materialized. It seems that once you get back to your own cube, you see the stack of other issues in front of you, and you reprioritize. That commitment you just made goes out the window.

David, it is possible that the people in your meetings were afraid of losing control, and judging by their reactions, that's probably the case. I've seen countless coworkers grimace at the suggestion of open discussion. But even if they were all for your idea, do you think it would have happened? In my experiences, I was not the only social software enthusiast in the room. Still, we couldn't get it to work.

We wanted to continue the discussions online because the meetings were successful, and the meetings were successful because we were able to devote all of our attention to a single issue. Our shared presence created a buzz, ideas flew across the room, and we were actually disappointed when the meeting had to end. So we loved the thought of continuing these discussions the second we got back to our own offices.

But when follow-up emails came, we were surrounded by dozens of other jobs that needed our focus, and they were easily buried in a stack of other more important emails. The energy created in the boardroom couldn't be replicated online.