Scrapbook of My Life

2007-12-03T02:40:00.000+01:00

Abstract. This paper describes a community of practice on concept mapping that has been established in Turin, Italy by
DSCHOLA. The main purpose of the community is to differentiate the various forms of knowledge representation from each other and to recover the general function of the knowledge representation connected with the learning environment. As a starting
point, the community defined and shared a set of founding documents, which includes the Manifesto and the Documentation template. The community aims at structuring and organizing selective criteria in order to produce and make available documentations dealing with good practices on concept mapping.

Not necessarily a rigorous paper, but it shows what I call "nucleation" pretty well.

Positive Unconditional Regard

2007-10-28T16:37:00.001+01:00

Positive unconditional regard is a neat thing if we manage it well. Most people facing an active listener think that the listener actually agrees with them, while s/he is only saying "it's ok to have those feelings" and "you are not a bad person even if you've made many mistakes".

However, it does not mean "it's ok to be messed up".

The point is, how do you convey positive unconditional regard without passing the "I agree with everything you say" message?

To tell you the truth, I don't think it can be done. What people perceive drastically depends on what they want to perceive. If they want to hear that their MH professional actually agrees with them, there isn't much that can be done.

Am I wrong?

7 Tesla Professionals

2007-10-25T16:42:00.000+02:00

I've always thought that a person, before being able to perform medical acts (which is something one acquires through learning and practice), needed to be a healer. Similarly, I thought that, before being able to perform facilitation acts, one needed to be a facilitator and, before being able to perform volunteer management acts, one needed to be a manager, ontologically speaking.

Somehow in my mind (and it might very well have been the 3 years of Philosophy in High School), I thought that people, in order to be able to do what they wanted to do, needed to be whoever it takes to to be in order to do those things. To my amazement, Parmenides influenced me more than I would have guessed he did. I bought his "for never shall this prevail, that things that are not are" entirely. As a logic (as in formal logic) corollary, I thought that things that are will prevail. So, I couldn't possibly make sense of doctors not being healers, facilitators not being listeners, volunteer managers not being organizers of people and resources.

Among the many lines from Parmenides, this one "For thought and being are the same" is the one I love the most. It's probably because, as a Myers-Briggs ENTJ, I like to look at the world with logic.

I didn't say I only look at logic stuff, discounting feelings and intuition. I did say I look at the world with logic and infer meaning through logic. For example: my heart beats faster all of a sudden so I think that I either feel threatened or I'm somewhat sick. I don't waste time wondering "do I like it or not", "what do I think of it" and the like. I live on the outside, so I FIRST try to understand the world around me and what it means, then I try to understand what my behaviors give away about my feelings about it, then I figure out what my feelings tell me about my inner beliefs. Finally, I try to figure out if I am a fit for that given situation and, if I am not, I move elsewhere. I detect what I feel basing on how I behave, and I figure out what I should believe basing on what the world is.

I don't live my life inside of myself thinking about what I like/dislike or feel all the day long, I don't think that everything I dislike is wrong and everything I like is right, I don't feel insulted if someone disagrees with me, dislikes me or even insults me, I don't live in my head constantly preoccupied about making arguments to prove I'm right or impress the audience, and who does looks to me like a person that is so weak that s/he can't take to look at his/her flaws without having to sweep them under the carpet and pretend s/he never fails.

I needed this digression to explain more of the topic I chose today.

If I were one of those non-healer doctors, I would give up medicine. Granted, it would be painful. It was when I gave it up sooner, when I thought that my bipolar disorder was too much of a hindrance. But because of the way I am, I can't lie to myself and I can't do something useless. In this case, I would look at my interactions with the world, think "you are no healer therefore it makes no sense for you to practice medicine" and would do something else. Also because, in all frankness, there is nobody I think less of the Emperor without clothes. Not because he was stupid but because he was pretending to see what wasn't there JUST not to acknowledge his stupidity. For this reason, I have a hard time understanding how people can choose to "be" doctors, facilitators, volunteer managers when their actions prove that they are not one. I constantly think they might be able to fool themselves, but they won't be able to fool others.

How do they do it?

They live in their head (or, as Parmenides would call it, doxa, the way of opinions) while I live in aletheia (the way of truth). Not because I'm always right, and not even because I'm smart. It's just because that's the way I am: I just look at facts, and I look at actions, feelings and beliefs as if they were facts (ie: observable, reproduceable, enacted). That's why I want to practice science: I am a scientist.

But there are many "Emperors" among scientists.

I saw evidence-based scientists saying they want to "spread the message" of EBM as if it were a religion (have you ever noticed how many scientists workship since as if it were God, just to proudly claim to have no God? Another appalling nonsense). A psychiatrist told me, before my eyes, that there was no point for me to get a Master in Neuroscience since the name "Neuroscience" was already in the name of the PhD program I intended to apply to after I was done with my MSc in Neuroscience. He also added he was going to get a "7 tesla MRI for neuroscience" as if neuroscience = MRI and as if MRI (structural and functional) were enough to unravel the mysteries of the brain! Another doctor I know pretended not to receive emails from one of his patients in order to push a person close to his patient to contact him.

This is by no means exclusive to doctors, by the way. I also know of facilitators who don't facilitate their own groups out of "I'm tired to be a facilitator" (which I would agree with IF such group had in fact another moderator, otherwise it's just inconsistent... it's like touting the virtues of the product you sell while you refuse using it in your life!), as well as volunteer managers who train people on volunteer management but heavily suck at it.

I am positive that all these people should follow who they are deep within, rather than who they (or their parents, or friends) want them to be. Maybe they wouldn't be nearly as rich or as famous, but they would be better persons and after all that is the only thing that people are going to really cherish about us.

Putnam's Latest Work and the Left

2007-08-12T14:35:00.001+02:00

Few days ago Robert Putnam (yes, the one of Bowling Alone) published a study that was disparaged in most left-leaning journals and blogs.

In a recent post on JISCmail listserv, Putnam himself points out how many many people criticized his paper without having read the original, but only basing on the press interpretation of his study.

As a left-leaning person, I can attest how this is a quintessential "regular lefty" behavior... Rather than reading the sources, lefties trust "reputable sources of information" - read: some left-leaning newspapers - that, by blindly attacking (or defending) this or that person, scholar, politician, etc manipulate the audience into believing that the newspaper's opinion or a preference is, in fact, a fact.

Will the "let me tell you what you think tovarish" ever end? Will the left (and the lefties) ever stop patronizing, "educating" people and shaming dissenters and critical thinkers into submission via a partisan use of science?

I hope so... the World desperately needs the Left. But, not this one!

Open Access News

2007-08-04T13:09:00.000+02:00

For the many of you all into knowledge management, open software or any combination of the two, here's something you might love:
Open Access News.

Of particular notice is the Kronenberg Declaration. One would almost believe it if s/he didn't know the roster of UN bidders (and accepted bids) and understood either they can't possibly mean what they say or their hypofrontality takes over and they hire the cheapest unqualified Johnny who presents a bid.

Absurdities

2007-06-11T07:25:00.001+02:00

Recently, scientific studies claim a deterrent effect for death penalty.

Supposing it were true and correct, I ask: sterilizing people who carries genes for potentially lethal disorders presumably lowers the rate of overall disabilities. But... does this make forced mass sterilization right?

It's time for people to start thinking beyond mere convenience, effectiveness, efficiency, and the like!

Emerging Technology: New Opportunities for the Community Sector

2007-06-04T01:31:00.000+02:00

CALL FOR PAPERS -- Academic Paper Submissions now close 1 July 2007

Making Links 2007
Emerging Technology: New Opportunities for the Community Sector

Tuesday 30th - Wednesday 31st October 2007 NSW Teachers Federation Conference Centre, Surry Hills, Sydney http://www.makinglinks.org.au/

The 4th annual Making Links conference is one of Australia’s leading forums for workers in the not-for-profit and community sectors to showcase their work and to explore current and emerging new media and information and communications technology (ICT). This two-day conference has regularly attracted delegates and presenters from many fields including health, environment, education, business, government, philanthropy and human services to discuss their experiences with ICT, multimedia and web technology. This year we are adding a peer reviewed academic stream to the conference and look forward to also welcoming practitioners, researchers, academics and students from a wide range of disciplines.

CONFERENCE TOPICS
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
.. Community networking, community development, community capacity building .. Technology for social action, transformation and community activism, including online campaigning .. Social capital .. Open source software for non-profit and community organisations .. Online deliberation, community consultation and engagement .. Web-based training, education, e-learning and professional development .. New Media, community arts and community cultural development .. Client / constituent relationship management .. Fundraising .. Technology infrastructure, implementation and maintenance .. Strategies of using ICT to give marginalised communities a voice .. Practical workshops in IT, web development and/or multimedia

ACADEMIC PAPER SUBMISSIONS
Academic paper submissions (max 5000 words, APA 5th style) will be subject to a double blind review process and evaluated on the basis of their significance, originality, and clarity of writing in accordance with DEST E1 requirements. This review will be based on the full text of the submitted paper. Selected papers will be published in a special issue of the academic journal 3CMedia. It is necessary for at least one author of any accepted submission to register and attend the conference to have the paper published in the proceedings. Submissions should be emailed to Dr Marcus Foth at m.foth@qut.edu.au

01 July 2007 Full academic paper submissions due: NOW DUE 01 JULY 2007
20 August 2007 Notification of acceptance and review reports sent to
authors
01 October 2007 Revised, camera ready papers due
Program announcement and close of early bird registration

OTHER CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
We seek proposals for non-peer-reviewed oral paper presentations, workshops and interactive multimedia displays. A computer lab and video lounge will be available for multimedia and film presentations.
Abstracts and proposals should be submitted here and will be reviewed by the conference committee.
02 July 2007 Abstracts and proposal submissions due
03 September 2007 Notification of acceptance
01 October 2007 Program announcement and close of early bird
registration

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Conference Chair
Jill Sergeant, Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO)

Academic Program Chair
Marcus Foth, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Organising Committee
Simon Gee, CommunIT, Community Information Strategies Australia (CISA) Jonathan Hallett (Western Australian Centre for Health Promotion Research, Curtin University of Technology) Liz Landray, Infoxchange Australia Liliana Ruti, Information and Cultural Exchange (ICE) Juan Salazar, Media Studies and Production, University of Western Sydney (UWS)

Dental Work in San Diego

2007-05-17T00:26:00.000+02:00

Hello guys,

you've probably been wondered why I've been so silent.

I'm in San Diego now, and it has been 8 days after a major dental surgery. The procedure was long overdue... most of the damage was created by undiagnosed intestinal lymphangiectasia, topped with childhood dental abuse in a culture (Italy) in which if you go to the ER with hemorrhagic cystitis they don't give you a pain killer but just a prescription for an antibiotic that you have to fill yourself while you're in pain.

I started searching for a suitable doctor in 2005. Soon I decided to give up on Italian dentists, who don't even numb you before injecting local anesthesia in your gums and still think they are not sadists. I started searching for a dentist in the UK (so that my American bf too could interact with my doctor) and thought I had found one to flow to in London.

Eventually, things went South. The first impression was ok but he completely discounted my requests (like, starting with the front teeth, loading implants immediately, have as much stuff done as possible at every visit). I was trying to minimize my phobia, he was more concerned about replicating his "perfect" protocol. So I bailed out of the surgery twice and eventually I didn't even tell him "enough".

At the beginning of January, I was in the US and I had a toothache. I needed to go to a dentist so I tried to shop online. And I found James.

James is a surgeon and an implantologist. He also does fillings, veneers, invisalign, fillings, crowns. When a root canal is needed he refers you to a specialist. At my very first appointment, his dental assistant (Aida) gave my dental x-rays in a very gentle manner, and James evaluated my case. At the end of the visit I was given a detailed idea of: (1) type of treatment proposed; (2) reasons for preferring such treatment over others; (3) detailed cost breakdown.

What really blew me away was the fact that we, together, figured out a plan on what I preferred to do first, when to do it, what else needed to be done before the procedures (my two chronic medical conditions, the medications I take, the special dietary requirements, allergies,), etc.

James and I interacted through email a lot, and I like it. For one, given the kind of stuff I do, I was amazed at seeing a person able to convey his feelings and thoughts online without ever resorting to saying "can we have a phone call instead???". Breeze of fresh air!!!! Second thing, James is always ready to ask for your input, explain his choices and probe you with more questions if you yourself are not resolved on an issue.

The first procedure was entirely pain free. However I did find myself in a rough spot because I didn’t expect my gums to swollen that much. Having new teeth and edema just under my nose deformed my face and I did freak out. James was always very patient and reassuring, even when confronted by me.

The major surgery (14 extractions, 11 implants, a bone graft) was actually a breeze and I don’t remember anything about it. I was never swollen or bruised. I needed Vicodin for 2 days only, and discontinued Tylenol after 6 days from the procedure. I actually never stopped speaking for a minute and was walking around town less than 24 hours after the procedure, and taking pictures less than 2 days after surgery! Robin checked on me before and after the procedure and James gave me his cell phone number, not to mention the fact he replied to my emails on both Saturday night and Sunday morning, and to a phone call at 9.10 pm.

I absolutely love James, both the doctor and the person he is. Everybody of you needing a smile makeover, a dental surgeon, both, or "just" a really caring human being, James works in Hillcrest (San Diego) and Escondido.

CVA!

2007-03-06T22:20:00.000+01:00

Today I got the envelope. And, inside the envelope, this:

I don't think I am able to express how happy I am!

I've always believed in AVA and in voluntary certification, to the point that I was thrilled at the idea of taking it as soon as the three year in the field requirement would apply. Right after AVA's demise, I decided to take the CVA no matter what, because associations can day, but beliefs shall not.

Today, Katie Campbell (who I thank for her tireless volunteering hours devoted to this cause!) also let me know that I am the first CVA awarded to a volunteer manager outside of North America. We need to do something about it... don't we?

I still support AVA's mission statement in full, and I wished for things to have been gone differently. I deeply believe that a brighter future cannot be born out of refusing to acknowledge mistakes and consequently changing our ways. I do not think that people involved in AVA have to be kept out of present efforts. However, I do think that, if no mistake is acknowledged on their side, they better be kept out.

Above all, AVA was designed to be international and multicultural. It was designed to be a beacon of tolerance, respect, fairness and knowledge exchange. It failed partly because - like Susan J Ellis said - those are big challenges.

But, because those are challenges that are unavoidable (impending globalization, outsourcing, bilinguism, multiculturalism) especially in light of the UN millenium development goals (read #8!), we do not need to drop them.

We need to try harder instead!

C'mooon

2007-03-01T02:04:00.000+01:00

Long time no hear! I've been in a contemplative mood... other than that, I'm overwhelmed with work and study ;)

All these bloggers, newsletters, newsgroups literally bewilder you with TMI (too much information), which 9 times out of 10 is engineered to confuse your critical thinking till you gave up reasoning and buy whatever they say, nodding.

I want no misunderstanding here: I am ALL for freedom of speech. But being given freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean or imply that it's fine to blurt out the first thing that crosses our mind. Freedom of speech also means freedom to shut up, and the concept isn't germane to what most people think of it.

So, there are all these opinions floating over the net. Somebody calls them folksonomies but so many could be safely defined nonsense, depending on who the user that blurts taxonomies out is and (especially) how s/he formed his/her opinion (namely logical thinking vs mere suggestion).

Information doesn't mean knowledge. Knowledge managers know it but (purposefully) forget it. That reminds me of why the GRE test baffles me so much. It's all there, written into those scripts, question AND answer, and I can't understand HOW ON EARTH it is possible to check the wrong answer. Again, information doesn't mean knowledge. And having an opinion doesn't mean there is a logic behind it.

I know I know, some would lecture me about the importance of feelings. Very very very important, I know, they guide what we learn and the way we choose. Still, they do not inform our logic. Using feelings in logical arguments is like measuring milk in kilometers.

Finally, we're all overwhelmed with the blabbers, ie institutions that should decide something and implement what they decide but get lost in speeches, talks and task forces (read the United Nations, the European Union, etc). The amount of blabbings that are needed just to get a EU grant is ludicrous.

Ah, I love America. The only rule is "make sense" vs "it doesn't". I wish the rest of the world would adopt more of this stand rather than other (questionable) ones.

Creative What?

2006-10-27T04:46:00.000+02:00

Some folks advocate for the use of the so-called Creative License except that it doesn't have beep to do with creativity:

"You are free:

* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:
by
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
nc
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
sa
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one."

You telling me that, under the "creative" license, if I build on top of your work I have to distribute it your way????

What did you smoke last night, fella??

Forum Moderators

2006-09-26T17:27:00.000+02:00

If you belong more than few online fora and groups and if you have belonged to them for some time, you probably are familiar with the kind of "moderator" I'm about to describe.

Usually male, 35-55, claiming to be a professional something. Very energetic and charismatic, he pours all his enthusiasm in sharing resources and providing links and opportunities for fellow members, which of course would never dare shooting on their meal ticket *grin*

If you belong to the same groups I do, you could identify at least three persons fitting such description. In fact, this entry was thought for the three of them, after spotting their "sameness".

Saints, you might think. Not nearly so.

The "professional" moderator, turns out, either spams other fora/groups or recruits members vigorously. He can't wait for being praised for all he does. And here's the problem: what if he doesn't get all the praise he wants?

Techniques I've seen these characters using:
1) "another member" posting compliments for the mod from the same IP address;
2) "another member" arguing with the mod again from the same IP address;
3) the moderator lashing out at whoever doesn't praise him enough, and throwing suspicion on these "uncooperative" others, meanwhile praising gentleness, kindness and forgiveness (that of course don't apply to him).

The lashing out is particularly revealing: it's callous, it allows for no reply, it is a character assassination that mocks at others' ability to be a professional and is totally unexpected by most people (except from online veterans).

By this time, some members of his group (usually the ones with the longest online experience) has already checked many IP addresses and figured out how "sweet D, V, or - say - another D" are a wolf in sheep's clothes. Then these persons commit the mortal sin: they face him and ask for explanation.

He broadcasts the "attack" to his faithful friends (which, may I say, usually correspond with his co-moderators), of course without providing any explanations on what set the other persons off.

The co-moderators, usually, have a few time to spend checking the group let alone checking on whether those accusations are right or wrong. They are completely in good faith and believe in the cause of the group as well as he says, so they regretfully side with him till a person they really trust opens their eyes.

Most members of groups moderated by moderators like him, are like wild cats. Unable to achieve any kind of discipline, disguising insults into polite statements, heck, even unable to read the guidelines and behave accordingly.

When you look at one of these moderators and his group, it is like looking at those women with 30 cats in a 100 squared meter apartment, claiming they would give their life for their cats, while they can't even give them discipline, and the cats dictate her life "gimme more gimme more".

I used to get mad at these moderators.

Now I've understood they are punishing themselves by giving in to the stereotype of the codependent nurturer. They can't say no for fear of being abandoned and yet they can't behave decently either because they want no rules for themselves and that's why they don't give rules to others. And when you yourself have no boundaries for how far you can go, you have no boundaries for how far others can go on you.

So when I look at a group like that all you can see is a bunch of creatures, arguing over nothing, twisting words and concepts, beating a dead horse, just to "show off", precisely like him.

And, precisely like him, to have nothing else to do than posting to this or that group.

McDermott's Articles

2006-09-22T06:45:00.000+02:00

Okay, they aren't rocket science.

However, McDermott never fails to explain, in its usual terse way, both what he thinks and the logic behind it.

You can find a clear example of best practices in what he shared with the Knowledge Board community here and here.

Leadership in CoP -- More

2006-09-21T20:56:00.000+02:00

Today I read a piece "Vigilant vs. Operational Leaders: Changes at Ford, the Coke-Pepsi Fiasco, and Other Management Moments" on Knowledge@Wharton newsletter.

It looks a little bit like a matrioska... however, George Day and Paul Schoemaker built on top of their research (not "expert opinions"!!!) and analyzed the four traits of leadership:

(a) external focus
(b) conceptual ability
(c) organizational role and
(d) time horizon.

Now, does it apply to CoPs and if so, how?

External Focus.
"Vigilant leaders" - they say - "are more externally oriented: They are open to new ideas, seek diverse perspectives, listen to a wide array of sources and foster broad social and professional networks."

Reading this description, one immediately thinks of Kolb's learning styles and of the diverging learning style in particular:
"Diverging (feeling and watching - CE/RO) - These people are able to look at things from different perspectives. They are sensitive. They prefer to watch rather than do, tending to gather information and use imagination to solve problems. They are best at viewing concrete situations several different viewpoints. Kolb called this style 'Diverging' because these people perform better in situations that require ideas-generation, for example, brainstorming. People with a Diverging learning style have broad cultural interests and like to gather information. They are interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, and tend to be strong in the arts. People with the Diverging style prefer to work in groups, to listen with an open mind and to receive personal feedback."

Now I ask: is there any doubt about the fact that, in a CoP, problems and ideas are concrete and have to be looked at from different perspectives, idea are generated mainly through group brainstorming, and the capability of giving and receiving strong and open personal feedback is an asset, especially for the resident facilitator(s)?

Also note how Day and Schoemaker define operational leaders: "more narrowly focused, have less interest in outside opinions and confine their networking to familiar settings". That is, they are concerned with one or few topics, don't like apparently "off-topic" threads and don't like unfamiliar territory, often resorting to ipse dixit (like many people in the CoP field do anytime Wenger is contested, as if his works were an infallible religious book which doesn't even need interpretation).

Conceptual Ability.
Vigilant leaders also "probe deeply for second order effects", that is, they do not stay content with analyzing their experiences through the lenses of process management, ROI or McElroy's first generation KM. In other words, they aren't ISO 9000 compliant.

Their counterparts, operational leaders, are those first generation KM dinosaurs one can stumble when joining KM groups. They are predictable and focused mainly on the task at hand, they rely on past experience and try to avoid mistakes like the plague. In their brain, Popper's philosophy hasn't sunk yet and they think that for their knowledge to be valid all they need is to try to verify it over and over again, often resorting to qualitative descriptions without any rigor whatsover. They still regard induction as the main pillar of science and behave like Russell's inductivist turkey (slide #14), they call deduction a "theoretical approach", a "generalization" and/or a "lack of context". They have what Piaget would define pre-operational thinking.

CoPs strongly need a leader whose culture and interests go beyond first order effects. The ideal CoP leader would look at the CoP s/he leads in terms of Value Networks rather than first order outcomes.

Organizational Role.
But vigilant leaders also enable people in their company by allowing them to explore areas outside their main focus. The dinosaurs I described above are controlling, focused on efficiency and cost cutting and don't explore outside potential. This is particularly unfortunate when leading a CoP which is all geared onto idea generation and sharing.

Even though methods to measure and test a CoP's effect, impact and outcome, existed and there were consensus among scholars and/or practitioners on which one to use first and why, there would still be a lot of problems related to these measurements.

For one the effects, impacts, outcomes of a CoP cannot be measured for months or even years after its institution. For two, some of those outcomes and impacts do not impact finances, so it might happen that financially there is no ROI (or even a loss) but the return on investment happens through the enhancement of a non-monetary value (say I set up a CoP and its members feel better about working, and are more relaxed and available in the workplace). Furthermore, cost effectiveness is reflective of another unfortunate paradigm called the scarcity model). This does not:
1) take into account that some tangibles are, indeed, limited (not scarce!), and yet some intangibles are abundant (not unlimited!), It just assumes that everything is always scarce, which introduces a theoretical bias in the very system that should be objective enough to represent and quantify a pros/cons analysis;
2) realize that not every outcome can be measured in monetary terms and that doing so is yet another source of lack of science in this practice.
It basically measures abundant intangibles as if they were limited tangibles and as if all tangibles and intangibles were to have the same unit measure (it's like measuring liquids in meters.... plain old stupid).

Time Horizon.
Finally, a vigilant leader's time horizon is longer while an operational leader's is shorter.

But in order to be effective at doing so, one needs to come from an abundance perspective. If time is scarce, one has no time to wait for results. If time is limited, one decides which results to wait for. If time is abundant, one participates to the creation of new perspectives, opportunities, concepts without having an agenda on which one to find or explore.

Since CoPs just die if they are managed (or led) toward an agenda, it's particularly evident how one needs to come from abundance in order to get any result out of them, and needs to be patient as well. This also explains why CoPs are so good in getting results about unstructured practices, where nobody has agendas to push.

Academy of Management 2006 Conference

2006-09-13T23:52:00.000+02:00

Some of you know that I was in Heathrow on August 10th when the mess happened. I had departed from Pisa the day before toward the Academy of Management 2006 Conference in Atlanta.

They just issued a full refund for the conference registration.

Now, that's professional!

Online Moderators and Their Communities

2006-08-29T22:19:00.000+02:00

Online moderators have to be autoctone leaders, that is, they have to emerge from the community. However, they very often are "staffed" in a way that reminds me of that game "if you were a fruit which fruit would you be?". No screening, no recruitment, minimal training, minimal supervision, few sources of informal learning (usually other moderators mentoring, coaching, counseling new ones). The hidden or open sponsors of such communities are grossly miscalculating the role and the moderator/facilitator community impact.

By "instinct" (I really don't know how "natural" this is, it could be superimposed out of living in a culture that fosters extrinsic rewards), moderators tend to identify themselves with the community they moderate. Therefore, they tend not to allow it the freedom to make mistakes, because they tend to take the community's failure as their own personal failure.

It takes time (lots of time) and experience (lots of experience) to learn to just let go of the community results while preserving accountability for what really depends on us moderators. I saw some apparently skilled moderators backchannelling feverishly in order to pretend that the community has a "spontaneous life", like in the Wizard of Oz: "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", while I saw other seemingly seasoned ones rushing into each and every conflict with the intent of "smoothing it" (to the point that the troll asked her to moderate him!).

The problem is, leadership mandates the capability of taking a stand, whatever it is, and to be able to submit it to logical scrutiny. So, whoever won't be able to take a stand and back it up, will have no real leadership but just the power to click some buttons. Without leadership, there is no authority, and without authority (as in authoritative, not as in authoritarian) people don't respect one another. And communities (especially communities of practice) get subversive when it comes to incompetent leaders (either permissive or controlling).

Allowing a community to make mistakes is therefore a basic competency of a skilled online moderator. The ones that "play nice" (aka smooth conflicts asap, invites to agree to disagree etc) usually are histrionic persons that can survive as long as the "show" is short-lived, such as in face-to-face meetings. They crave and need the public eye in order to perform, they sense it and put themselves in a position to meet their needs.

However, whenever the moderation/facilitation becomes 24/7 (or 2/3 hours every day), the drama queen needs more and more private time in order to keep on herding cats while keeping him/herself together, and the problems start emerging, especially in asynchronous facilitation, notoriously the most reflexive. All of a sudden, it takes more than a good voice, some charming ways, some right move and a pleasant look to "run the show". However, many don't, can't or won't see it ahead of time. It's like the difference between a theatre and a film performance: the former can be instinct-driven, excessive, groovy, but the latter just has to be precise, factual, professional or else you're out. While in the former tantrums can help you run the show momentarily and fake it till you find a way out, in the latter they hinder the development of an optimal performance and faking its simply not a professional option.

But on-fac is far more challenging than f2f facilitation for other reasons as well. You get to "know" your creature, spend more time with it, you loose lucidity, get more involved and.. find out things about you (like your relationship with power, control, anger, other assorted feelings plus your personal pet peeves) that you won't necessarily die for exploring ;)

I try to always let the group bicker, fight, yell and... solve the conflict amongst them as much as possible. Unless I see insults going on, I don't intervene. If I intervene, I intervene as a member, I don't use my power/authority unless I just have to, because I think that a facilitator that isn't a primus inter pares KILLS any CoP, or collaborative community, or even "mere" online group.

Sometimes, members publicly ask for my intervention. There is NOTHING more empowering to the group as a whole than just calling them to a responsible act! So I say "I'm not your babysitter, I won't force [such and such] to do anything." Then I express my opinion whatever it is as an act of group membership (something like "I think [such and such] is wrong because [this and that]") and reiterate that I can't oblige anybody. At this point, either the disruptive person all of a sudden "gets it", or
s/he will feel empowered and get more disruptive. Now, the group will take
ownership on its reactions and assume leadership. In other words:
governance.

However, there are times in which communities get disbanded because
members, not mods/onfacs, behave like kids.

I can't help noticing how some persons can go on and on about inside jokes without having the slightest idea of the potential they have for originating feelings of exclusion in whoever isn't part of the joke.

My experience is, jokes are tolerated better when either they come from a
small group of tight friends, or when they come from many subgroups. In other words, they are felt as ok when they are either perceived as signs of "few people with higher status", or as signs of "many subgroups with similar status". When the jokes or hints are about a large subgroup then ingroup/outgroup dynamics are unavoidable!

Nothing harms a community (online/offline), more than a clique. One would think participants would know and yet there are long-term communities I know and have been part of, that keep on being cliquish because "they like it" and get regularly puzzled about the "perception from the outside" ;)

Again I would say I can't fathom how people that have participated in other
fora for years managed not to look and listen enough to previous and past exchanges and experiences... so much that they behave as if they have missed to observe such group dynamics, which I'm not sure could be blamed on others.

I can't help thinking that as long as we (generic) decide to engage in community exchanges our own identity doesn't all belong to ourselves only any more. It becomes a negotiated concept, therefore it doesn't depend on one subject anymore, it depends on the group as a whole set of subjects. It gets out of the realm of subjectivism, where the individual is king AND referee, and gets into the relativism, interplay of the perception (right/wrong) that one individual has of him/herself and the fact that the rest of the world will ask him/her for a reality check.

So if the group decides it doesn't like your (generic) idea of yourself (generic again), reality (in the sense of "negotiated identity") will bite.

This will especially bite many (supposed, self-defined) fans of Vygotsky, who somehow manage to hint at the fact that "negotiation of meaning" should/would/could/might imply subjectivization of meaning. Those persons just miss the point, in that Vygotsky's negotiation of meaning implies an iterative dialogue among subjects that keeps going till a mutual agreement on its meaning is reached (note: the mutual agreement doesn't have to happen in a particular way, and it's not objective... these are the many differences with Argyris' framework).

However Vygotsky, in no way, shape or form, leaves room for agreement as "casual encounter of two or more subjects that happens to agree on the meaning of their encounter". I do understand that to a person in pre-operational thinking, the two things might seem the same though LOL

Trainese

2006-08-29T04:02:00.000+02:00

I can't do it.

I've been reading a lot. Namely, I've read a lot of website blurbs written by people with a business in my same topics (online communication, facilitation, volunteer management, CoP implementation, knowledge management and the like). All I was able to extract out of it were two, three, four pages of "content" that wouldn't deliver one single clear concept.

That is especially true for Italian sites and "trainese", bogged down with statements like "proposte innovative per percorsi formativi che stimolino la spontanea espressione dei saperi" that, in English, would translate as "innovative proposals for forming pathways that would stimulate the spontaneous expression of knowledge".

You name it. The only possible reaction to the above statement is WHAT IN THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU.

Hence the conclusion: I can't do it. I seriously need a content management provider. And after having put all my stuff in the wise hands of him/her, I need not to read the results of the translation in trainese or else I'll puke. I don't understand why people hide their ideas behind smokescreens, mirrors, petty words, embellishments, distortions. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. Is it that hard? What's the fun of talking a person into buying something s/he doesn't understand, need, want, agree with? Which satisfaction can a professional get out of making money in situations like those above?

Somebody calls it honesty, somebody else calls it Asperger traits. I don't really care which one is the best fit. I've always been this way, since when I can remember. And I still think that not only one should always be as honest and concise as possible with the client, but also that somewhere on the planet there are guys that are willing to pay you nicely as long as you don't try to sell them some total bs.

In these times where charlatans have monopolized holistic medicine, biologists and engineers have taken over traditional medicine, complexity is used as a pass' par tout to mean "nonsense", sincretism is applauded as a symptom of open-mindness, quantum physics is used to justify irrational beliefs and subjectivism is venerated like God the Almighty, I might very well be dead wrong.

Online Mediation and Culture

2006-08-25T03:04:00.000+02:00

So much for those defining CMC in deterministic terms...

Read here

Dutch Soccer and CoPs

2006-08-24T20:32:00.000+02:00

In Dutch "total soccer" players follow their natural role but *stretch* it
to serve the community (team) and the one having the ball (say, speaking at
a given moment, or having fame etc) has to be willing to pass the ball to
the one in a better position. Plus, when a player is wrong, he better learn
from it or next time the coach kicks him out of the team. Which btw that's
how I see moderation/facilitation in CoPs.

If we espouse the "everything goes" theory we play like Brasil: virtuous
soccer, 85 minutes of *sleep*, 5 minutes of action and no fun on the
observer (lurker) side, a bunch of primadonna worried about them, the, them.

If the lurker doesn't read and enjoy what he reads, something in the "CoP"
is wrong (Miguel?). That's also why inviting people to skip messages is
deleterious (for a CoP).

Mumble mumble

Humanism and Humanists

2006-08-18T05:35:00.000+02:00

There are some persons that are quite puzzling. Defining themselves as humanists, which theoretically should deal with human potential and self-determination, they exhibit troublesome behaviours.

Some advocate psychology as a science, that is, a hard science. What would be the difference between psychology and psychiatry then? And, supposing psychiatry does not exist, what would be the difference between psychology and neurology? But above all, if in psychology you want to find science, why do you go transpersonal?

Others write weird sarcastic poems directed at whoever happens to disagree with them (in full respect of the other person's self-determination I guess), thinking they have proven to be humanists just because they either have

(a) been students of May, Rogers and/or Maslow (as if all the students of Einstein understood what he formulated...);
(b) consistently campaigned for some (pseudo)left-leaning cause (does humanism imply leaning toward the left? I don't think there is an equation that proves a causal relationship between the two things and if there were many of these persons wouldn't have the mathematical background to understand it HAR HAR), and
(c) studied humanism for all their lives (which would, optimistically speaking, JUST prove that they know what humanism means, it still doesn't say jacksh*t about their ontology... but since they are psychologists rather than philosophical guys they miss the difference and dress up the logical findings and implications with a huge lot of rhetoric).

On quite the opposite stand, but with similar consequences, there are the ones that put all human experience in the category of humanism, including absurd stuff like "insight during psychotropic drugs" which is an oxymoron in itself (again, read Parmenides: "the not-being is not, and can not in any way be" --- either "insight" or "psychotropic drugs" folks, but they have to absolutely keep their anti-science dogmatic stand).

Another subatomic pair is the angered pessimistic one (did I say gender-biased, left-leaning, victimist, whiney "professional" that in the name of humanism bashes a human creature -- often George W Bush -- who she happens not to agree with???) and his/her joyful superficial counterpart. The latter systematically overlooks pain and negative situations, speaks of self-actualization while starving or being at war as if s/he has personally endured all those situations (and it's true that most of what one does depends on how s/he decides to react to it, but a little bit more respect for people in pain would be expected from a humanist).

But the angered and pessimistic one goes along with another quark as well: the "I'm-so-holier-than-thou-then-everytime-I-get-p*ssed-I-blame-it-on-your-culture-or-what-you-said-or-what -you-did-or-how-you-understood-Rogers-because-it's-impossible-that-the-problem-is-me" (by now everybody knows she has no problem HAR HAR).

How about self-actualizing, but for real? Not following that relativistic cr*p that we are spoon-fed from each and every school of thought on the planet (religions excluded)... I mean business, real business.

I mean adults able to look at themselves and at their patterns, able to correct them, able to take and give feedback in an HEALTHY way, able to survive and thrive without resorting to the classical defense mechanism (Freud's) and see humanism as a "la la" land where everybody can spit nonsenses and be claimed right, sense-making, or intelligent.

I mean adults "buying" into humanism and self-actualization because it makes sense to the bottom of their hearts, not out of fear of rejection/judgment, fear of being wrong, lack of capability of accepting feedback and criticism, and impossibility to grow up!

I mean adults buying into humanism despite being able to correct one's own patterns (ie: even when they wouldn't need to "forgive themselves", "value their ideas", etc etc).

I mean, adults.

CyberVPM Is Sick

2006-06-23T20:14:00.000+02:00

Not that many of you wouldn't suspect it, however... unless you want to post on the number of baloons you want to use for your next volunteer recognition event and their color, there is no room on CyberVPM for discussion.

Yesterday, Nan Hawthorne posted an open letter to Susan Ellis:
On her wwebsite Susan Ellis writes:

"Todd McMullin from Samaritan Technologies offered his company's software and Web site to the group free of charge to provide a new space without baggage, history, or strings. In fact, he will work with the leadership team to secure a new domain name. "

What is this impllication about "baggage, history, or strings"?? Would you please have the candor to explain what this means? I am not aware of baggage, history, or strings connected to CharityChannel.

And if you don't either, then why fix what ain't broke?

One of the things I have valued about the VRM Roundtable as it is is that it has never dissembled.. it is transparent. No one has so far been cagey or evasive or behind the scenes. At least until now?

I have been asking different people all day where this whole issue comes from.. so far it has all been suggestive, not concerte. I l ook to Susan Ellis to say exactly what she means so we can either deal with it or clear the air.

What is wrong with the current domain name?
Nan Hawthorne"

(the post also lists the initials of the moderator that approved it)

I did feel like replying to Nan, and I did via this post:

"Dear Nan,

Often when we (in general) have a discussion, we (in general again) tend to hear disagreements as insults. I saw it happening in the voluntary sector in general, and in this yahoogroup in particular. Different opinions and ways of doing things make a professional environment richer, not worse.

I can't speak for Susan and tell you what her opinion is. But I can tell you that the statement that apparently set you off, the "baggage, history, or strings" didn't sound anywhere near offensive to me.

In fact, in different ways and for different reasons (either history as far as the former is concerned, or financial support as far as the latter is involved), both CyberVPM and CharityChannel DO have "baggage, history, or strings". The site created by Lastfogel, considering that Michael is a former AVA employee DOES have "baggage, history, or strings".

What the real difference between you and Susan sounds like being is the extent to which each of you considers that "baggage, history, or strings" to be a hindrance to a healthy discussion. And, just to clarify it, a healthy discussion is one that honors *all* perspectives, not just the commonest or the one that is deemed as "more appropriate" by some authority figure of any sort.

I find it appalling that whenever somebody wants to discuss the "meat" of some issue (that is, pros and cons) one has to resort to backchannelling because, sooner or later, somebody else will or will try to hush him/her. I'm deeply grateful to the persons that arrange meetings, discuss and do things. But I think that nobody can/should be allowed to pass on the opportunity of making a contribution to a new initiative as big as creating another voluntary association, national or international just because, say, s/he doesn't "feel like" dialing.

Believe it or not, Susan is trying hard to push for that space to happen and without anybody to "sponsor" the conversation so that nobody can shut it down, steer it or merely passively "condition" it. You may think that her initiative is useless or plain wrong, but if it's an error it is on the side of freedom and *participation*.

I personally think (because historia magister vitae - that is, history teaches you how to live) that sooner or later participative democracy will take over even in the US (like so often happens in, say, Europe where voters reach far above 60%).

It's ironic for it to be a problem for the voluntary sector too, given all
that Putnam wrote about tit. On the other hand, life is often ironic.

Rosanna Tarsiero"

I get a message from the daily moderator (which I won't name because I'm sure they are all in agreement), this one:

"I am rejecting your post because it does not pertain to volunteer management issues and is a direct message to one individual. Please post to her directly. The original post also did not pertain to volunteer management issues and its posting is a concern. Please consider reposting if a connection to volunteer management can be defined. Thanks."

Now, I don't agree with the content of Nan's letter and I made it clear, but no, it does NOT concern me that Nan posted it. It's called freedom of expression and need for a debate, both symptoms of an intelligent mind behind the hands that typed it.

What does concern me, however, is that CyberVPM moderators do not see the extent of their groupthink, to the point that a message (or two) created to fuel discussion about Susan Ellis (renowed volunteer manager consultant), volunteer management boards (namely CyberVPM, CharityChannel's and Lastfogel's) and the bad "nice" habits of volunteer managers are deemed "not to pertain" to volunteer management. I ask: would discussing Judas or Aaron or Ishmael not pertain to the Bible because it's not the main character?

They have a problem, and they have it whenever people discuss openly and honestly. So how do they solve the "problem"? At first they IGNORE it, in the hope it fades away and the person becomes "nicer". When it doesn't happen, they mono-culturally chastize the dissenter (publicly) but don't offer him/her the same right (and they maintain they are nice!). Finally, if the dissenter gets "tamed", they censor all his/her posts unless they speak of the Wonderous Uplifting Properties of Red Baloons for the Spirit of Volunteerism.

Do you still wonder why AVA had to stop operating?

At the very end of this entry, I want to address three final thoughts to three persons:
*to Nan: you told me there was no censorship and no chastizing. Now that you too are the victim of it, how would you define it all?
*to Susan: you, like everything you write, are energetic and full of intuitions and charisma. But as much as those are wonderful characteristics to have, sometimes they aren't enough to convince "quiet" people. You are right, you've always been right on this issue from moment one, but you need to work more on making solid points that back up your ideas, so that less and less people will fall for "nice" antics (I admit I did and I am resentful that I wasn't warned "well" enough) and more and more newcomers will see the lack of meat behind it.
*to Jayne: sorry, sorry, sorry. I haven't understood your "toughness" and how much it was and is appropriate in this context till recently... and I'm publicly asking for your forgiveness on that.

I think it's about time to stop discussing only and start doing something. We need an ethical manifesto for the volunteer manager profession and we ALL need to contribute to it. Above all, we need to remember Mary Merrill and put some ACTION into this endeavor.

The right word for CoP is FERMENTATION

2006-06-14T16:37:00.000+02:00

No I'm not flipped out.. I just noticed a great analogy that I'm going to explain.

Today I was reading a post on com-prac posted by my friend Pete Bond:

"I agree with Fred that they can be seeded but then there's no gurantee that what emerges is what is envisaged by the seeder (no guarantee that a successful attempt to cultivate a CoP will lead to the success of the 'host-sponsor')"

I read it and as I did a big fat "NO" resonated in my head.

Mind you, 95% of my thinking is intuition, so my thoughts don't come with an explanation, unless I decide to find it. Thus, I started thinking it over while I was doing other things. The "no" became deeper and deeper, but no explanation was emerging.

I looked at my watch and remembered it was about time for me to strain my kefir. For the ones of you that aren't familiar with it, kefir is a fermented milk. In order to make the "real one", you need kefir grains.

Looking at my grains, I had the feeling that I was near the explanation of my "no" to Pete's post. My heart was beating fast, meaning a solution was close.

Back typing now and reading some stuff in my emailbox, mumbling. All of a sudden, I get thinking of kefir again. Namely, I think about the grains.

Kefir grains are composed of a polysaccharides that hosts 4 bacteria genuses in a symbiotic relationship: Lactobacilli, Streptococci-Lactococci, Acetobacter and Yeasts. Some individual genuses may be or not be there, it's not important. What's important is the "family" they belong to, and the quantitative relationship among families. My heart is beating faster. A solution is very close.

Here it is!

Like with Kefir, one can not "make" the grains, but it does not mean that kefir can not be replicated! You have to detect the "grains" and put them in the right medium (did I say nucleation of a CoP?) and you have to use special precautions to preserve their aliveness (did I say facilitation). After which you WILL obtain kefir, everytime, even if it will have different thickness, flavour, tanginess and even if you might like it more or less depending on the batch. It will still be kefir.

We think we can't reproduce a CoP because we don't know what the equivalent of the kefir grain is and which kind of facilitation it requires. That doesn't mean we can't produce CoPs. It does mean we didn't understand (yet) WHAT the equivalent of the grains is.

To come to a conclusion, only a person (or a group of persons) that has seen the pattern (consciously or unconsciously) can reproduce it.

And here we get into Jostein Gaarder's world ;;)

Online Criticism

2006-06-14T00:01:00.000+02:00

Just today Jayne Cravens' in her newsletter expressed her take on how to handle online criticism:

"There's no way to avoid it, but there are ways to address criticism that can actually help an organization to be perceived as even more trustworthy and worth supporting. To be successful with online activities, a nonprofit organization MUST be able to honestly and openly deal with online criticism, particularly from supporters and participants. Otherwise, the organization puts itself in a position to lose the trust of supporters and clients, and even generate negative publicity -- and, once lost, trust and credibility can be extremely difficult to win back."

To Jayne's detractors, I can respond by pointing them to Palloff and Pratt's seminal book (p. 27):

"If conflict is not such a bad thing, and if it is necessary in order to achieve group cohesiveness and intimacy, why do so many fear it and attempt to avoid it, especially in this medium?"

Steve Denning

2006-04-14T21:41:00.000+02:00

Today I was reading Steve Denning's newsletter when all of a sudden I was taken aback from what I read here.

What's wrong with it?

Aside from the various logical gaps in the case he builds, you wouldn't find anything particularly bad, unless you were a member of com-prac....

...in which case you would remember how the so-called reflections of Mr Denning did not happen in a vacuum: the link to the article he refers to was posted on that group and his several reflections were generated by an interaction among him and other persons (namely, me who originally posted the link, Roy Greenhalgh, Randall Kindley, Benoit Couture, and Miguel Cornejo Castro, in temporal order of contribution).

Mr Denning (may I say conveniently) does not say he wasn't the one who found such link to the article he is referring to and he does not say that his reflections were originated through interactions with members of the com-prac group. Isn't learning a social activity, Mr Steve? Aren't you a fan of Vygotsky? How come you don't acknowledge it?

Oh, no, wait a moment, you do cite "participants" without putting down names and places... participants to what, one of your workshops? I wonder if you asked them before including their contributions to your pamphlet!

However, the only participants you end up referring to are the ones you do have rebuttals about, because the objections you weren't able to overcome aren't even cited. Aren't you the one citing Popper and his falsification theory? How come it doesn't apply to what you write? Is it about winning an argument and demonstrate how good you are, or is it about understanding more of the environment around us?

So.... how do you generate trust? *grin*

Incidentally, Steve, in case you haven't realized it, you have just proven with your behaviour that such experiment, though conducted in a lab, is valid... just look at what you did!

In a group with no rules and especially no punishments, such as com-prac, free-riders (like you) exploit the good faith of members that freely share knowledge, therefore leading straight to knowledge hoarding.

This is not storytelling, Steve. This is telling stories.

Blind Review???

2006-04-07T20:37:00.000+02:00

Yesterday I had a fat laughter at some people... establishment conservation is stronger than any meritocracy whatsoever *grin*

An association I won't name (but hey it ain't that difficult to find out) has a conference and a listserv. Just recently they "upgraded" (and widely circulated) how they changed the way they choose papers for the conference, introducting blind peer-review.

Their concept of blind, however, is pretty disconcerting.

Since I saw people posting stuff like "hey who wants to do a panel on [such and such] with me?", I wrote to the ED pointing out how that behaviour (and allowing it) may compromise the blindness of their peer-review method.

To which I am replied:

"It may be that a potential reviewer will occasionally see that, but s/he can also try to be objective (still) about a proposal, even if they think they know who is behind it. Certainly I have reviewed proposal where I was pretty sure I knew who the author was, but have tried nonetheless to be objective about the content."

Still, gentleman, this is NOT blind peer-review. Let me assure you, I come from science and I know when it was invented, why, and how it has to be done. The Academy of Management knows how to do it, perfectly.

More and more often, I find people from humanities mingling with terms in the attempt to make one thing appear something else. We might discuss on whether the peer-review should be blind or not, we can't name this way of reviewing "blind".

I guess that's why the impact factor of the association's publication is low, low, low.

Computer-Mediated Communication

2006-03-07T00:34:00.000+01:00

Just to be crystal clear, I need to say this. If I encounter somebody else telling me that "email is less than face-to-face and therefore it limits the ability of communicating" (or something to that extent), I yell.

Emails have less cues than face-to-face stuff. Emails have written words and some paralanguage to convey the message, for sure less than face-to-face. Does it mean face-to-face is a way of communicating that is less ambiguous?

NO.

I'm sorry for the mathematically-challenged persons, but more cues mean adding complexity to the mix, NOT lowering complexity. The higher the number of variables in an equation, the higher the number of solutions. DUH.

And I'm also sorry for the statistically-challenged persons. Supposing to factorize all the variables in the simplest possible way (true/false -- for sake of simplicity) and supposing the probability attached to those variables to be independent (like in the case of two persons not knowing each other and meeting -- aka the case of each person not knowing what a particular voicetone or smile means to the other person), the probability to accurately predict the meaning of a message with lower cues is actually higher than the probability to be able to predict the meaning of a message with higher cues.

For example:
1 cue: 50%
2 cues: 25%
3 cues: 12.5%
and so on.

Hence, the likelihood one has to correctly categorize/interpret the meaning of a message from an unknown person is actually higher through email than through face to face encounter.

The fact one usually thinks it would be the reverse is the same reason for people buy lottery tickets: overestimation of actual probability due to a cognitive bias.

A Vygotskyian Nightmare

2006-03-07T00:10:00.000+01:00

I won't make names, but...

...there are persons that claim to be professionals, but these very same persons don't behave like ones. In fact, they mix personal childhood traumas with relationships with colleagues and that's VERRRRRY unprofessional (regardless of the profession!).

So, the ones that got neglected as kids cry for attention, and scream and yell and pout and pound till they get it. Then there are the ones that were raised by some passive aggressive persons, for which passive aggressiveness is like olive oil for Italians: no matter how unhealthy it is, they keep on using it. Finally, there are the ones that live in the "whatever my impression is, it's reality" frame of mind. A Vygotskyian nightmare.

This very last category is an interesting animal in itself.

For them meaning is constructed socially, so they have to discuss (over and over) what is clear from the get-go in what you've written and said. They hold no certainties whatsoever and they confuse their legitimate conviction with a stand anybody should have. For them, there is no reality, but just an endless "I meant - you meant" dance. They'd argue with anybody and anything just not to be robbed of their illusion (re: lack of reality).

The "best" way you can get in trouble with them is to logically build an argument that robs them of the illusion of uncertainty. They don't really care of whether they are delusional or making sense. All they care is not to be stopped in believing that nothing is certain.

As sad as it is for our sense of self-importance, most arguments aren't personal.

The typical argument goes as follows. There is a person saying something (it doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong, accurate or off-base, etc) and another feeling his/her identity threatened by that statement. The latter will react trying to hit on the former's sense of identity.

At that point, if you are the person that "started" it all by your observations, all you have to do is:
1. smiling
2. looking at the other one straight into his/her eyes, and
3. saying "I'm sorry if it bothers you, but if you can't discern what is being said from your interpretation of it, this is not my problem".

Learn to laugh them away. They aren't worth your time. For all the rest, smile. Thank God there are so many things in life that are more interesting than... persons.

Somebody Asked Me

2006-03-03T11:05:00.000+01:00

What I think about starting a "new AVA" or something to that extent. I took the name of the sender off and posted what I replied here.

Hello,

The biggest of my concerns are the ones I blogged about here:
http://gionnetto.blogspot.com/2006/03/beware-of-nice-people.html
http://gionnetto.blogspot.com/2006/03/beware-of-honest-people.html

Namely, that either the new AVA would be a replica of the former “nice” one, OR that it would be a creature of spiteful anger without constructive criticism. I think that the biggest reason for AVA’s demise was the *lack* of conflict management skills, in a way or in the opposite, lack of skills that is also reflected in the way some members of CyberVPM “contribute” to the forum (on *both* the “nice” and the “angry” sides).

I think the new AVA would have to preserve and take care of both the CVA program and the JoVA, but being open to anything coming from the field, *especially* when the field is open to reflect on its practice rather than just saying/thinking “that’s the way it is because *I* think so”. I wouldn’t be open to help building anything that is divisive in nature or in methods. I also don’t believe in “experts” telling the rest of people how to behave, feel, and think, so I wouldn’t support any organization that has a top-down approach. I think the best venue to organize the new AVA from is CyberVPM, because it’s the only place in which a real and large community is already present. However I stay open to any other venue having a community or forming one for this purpose.

Finally, though I think times are ripe for discussion of and about a new AVA, I don’t think the time has come for founding a new organization, because no time for reflection on our present and past practices has passed yet.

Beware of "Honest" People!

2006-03-02T06:49:00.000+01:00

Yes, today I'm taking another stand of mine. Not "another" as in an opposite one, "another" as in a stand on a different issue.

More precisely, the stand is about those persons that call themselves professionals yet they don't know the difference between asserting their thoughts and being plain old incivil to whoever dissents. This one is a category of violent people that think to be direct, straightforward and inquisitive only when they are rude.

If there is a fight, usually between another "nice" person and a person that "nice" is not, they storm in in order to support the one that they perceive either as having more power, or more merit or as being about to give them "more" of something (read: money, position, attention, consideration, etc). NOT the one they perceive as right.

Actually, they don't even know who is right because their arguments (exactly like in the case of "nice" people) make no logic sense aside from their proposition "let's go to war". They tell you their ideas are superior, but they don't say why. They tell others are wrong, but they don't explain the reasons. Like "nice" people, all they do is covering dissent in shame, even if in a more explicit way.

They call it "telling things as they are" but the reality is that the way they use to put things betray a neglect (when not despise) for whoever thinks and feels in a different way. They take sides, willfully going for the throat of "enemies", like Crusaders, as if the other person wouldn't be human, but an animal or something like that (no no sorry, these persons would protect an animal, but not their fellow humans).

They don't explain to you what they see wrong and how to correct it, they say over and over again that you are despicable because you're not like them. But they do not say the reason for they are right because - surprise surprise - they don't know. They're all slogans, and that's about it. Try to scratch beyond the surface and all you find will be more slogans.

In case one dares bringing to their attention how rudeness changes the whole outlook that listening people have on their reasons (that sometimes, like anything else in life, are valid) and that it might be worthy to tone down and explain, so to convince them and have things their way, they revengefully say they don't like "compromises" and storm elsewhere to do damage there. They don't even care for their own "ideals", or else they would take time to explain and convince others.

It's scary to witness colleagues like that (ie: BOTH "nice" and "honest"). It's even scarier because you can't reach them, even when you want to, do your best to, and even have a glimpse of an idea of what generated those dysfunctional behaviours.

Whatever the explanation you give them, they keep on seeing things in their old reassuring way without realising their are prisoners of their own thinking.

More than scary, it's just plain old sad.

Beware of "Nice" People!

2006-03-01T00:41:00.000+01:00

There is a category of violent people that think to be smart, accomodating and oh-so-great. I'm referring to "nice" people.

If there is a fight, usually between another "nice" person and a person that "nice" is not, they rush to support the former even when the latter is just being honest. This is NOT called "pacification" (as they usually call it), this is called taking sides (no matter how many times they might say they aren't taking sides, and scold you if you dare taking the "wrong" one). Then, from their holier-than-thou soapbox, they proceed to explain to the whole world how the "not so nice" person is rude, inconsiderate, not evolute and not deserving to belong to human race.

In case one dares bringing to their attention that anger and pissiness too are feelings and at any rate they do have their pros, this person will usually say something to the extent that you can't impose your (supposed) anger on others or something like that.

But, I wonder why, "nice" people think they can impose their "niceness" on you! That is, simply put, a violent action. Trying to force people toward appreciative inquiry by sweeping issues under the carpet is, too, a violent action. Trying to force any person to do anything s/he doesn't agree with is a violent action, period.

That speaks books on their (very much supposed) niceness (let alone the fact that they know absolutely nothing about facilitation).

Mary V. Merrill Passed Away

2006-02-20T23:21:00.000+01:00

Ann Bain just emailed the IVMA committee to notify us of the passing of Mary Merrill. My first thought was: today is a sad day, a very sad day, for volunteerism, for us, for ME. In fact, I’ve been crying since then.

We had butted heads many times, on CyberVPM and privately. However, even in that period of time, I’ve never ceased to appreciate her sharp mind, lucidity and commitment to original thinking into this sector.

When we met at ICVA 2005, I was afraid of her. I was petrified thinking to have to present my paper in front of her, because I was afraid of her scrutiny (I’m always afraid of the people I respect, whether I agree with them or not). She looked at me for some minutes with a kind of “hmmm I wonder what a kind of animal she is” look in her face. Then, all of a sudden, she started smiling and nodding and didn’t stop. She made my day, that day. After all, you know, it wasn’t THAT easy to gain her approval (here she would dissent saying something like “Of course it is, all it takes is to have some originality” or something like that *grin*)...

We had several private exchanges since that time, always starting with some news related to volunteerism and ending up sharing something deeper. I understood that her being blunt wasn’t being inconsiderate of another person, quite the contrary. She just was honest, open, and direct. I realize, however, that some might have not had this impression because, like me before the conference, they haven’t known her (and here she’d say: “Why are you smoothing it over? Just say it like it is” LOL).

Mary was a hard worker, meticulous, exact. She was what Schon defined a reflective practitioner: a person that would reflect on her practice every day, dissecting and challenging it, thinking about how it could be better, refining it and then testing it on another reality. She would NEVER be afraid of amending her modus operandi, and that why she couldn’t stand who was afraid of making amends!!!! Mary used to read BUNCHES of research on volunteerism, to test her impressions about the profession and have an idea of where it would be going. To her, being professional meant being lucid. And she was very professional!

She was a very ethical person. She would NEVER write a person off because she disliked him/her, she had her ethical standards: if she didn’t like you but you met her standards then you would “qualify” for her help; if she liked you but you didn’t meet her standards then you wouldn’t qualify (and very likely she couldn’t like a person that didn’t meet those standards).

But Mary also was a very passionate woman, both in her private and professional life, picking up her battles (like she would suggest me to) but giving all she could to the ones she decided to choose. Whenever she was kind and full of regard for you, she meant it. She wouldn’t fake THAT under any circumstances (that’s where we butted heads… I do fake gentleness with acquaintances).

Mary has helped me many times in sorting out my ideas, understanding my feelings but especially deciding which conduct to take, even emailing back and forth during weekends. Just yesterday I was going to fire her an email about a discussion on ARNOVA group that she was missing.. :(

From today one, Mary will not be here with us. Yet, we so desperately need Mary…. Let’s all be a little more like Mary, in terms of out-of-the-box thinking, reading up research, opening up to constant review of our practices and YES, directness. That will also mean NOT rushing to eulogize her with "nice words" that are not felt deeply within. She would NOT want that, she was not a "let's-all-be-nice" person and would not want to be eulogized as such or as a sum of her accomplishments.

Au Revoir, Mary, you will be as greatly missed as greatly appreciated.

CoP Nucleation

2006-02-17T23:05:00.000+01:00

There are two ways of forming a CoP (I say two cause I don't believe in the third, the "built" one):

1) "spontaneously":
I don't believe it is really spontaneous, it's more like somebody is doing the work without knowing what s/he is doing... according to the Johari window, it's the state of "unconscious competence". It's is more or like the case in which an "unconscious" nucleator starts aggregating a CoP not knowing what s/he is doing:
2) "nucleated":
you follow me on this, my background is in medicine. Stones get formed in a liquid that is supersaturated with a given solute. However, supersaturation is necessary but not sufficient for a stone to get formed. It takes a little "piece of something", like a cluster of some 5-10 cells, a kidney cylinder, few bacteria. That "piece of something" in a supersaturated solution starts what is known as stone "nucleation". So, what I do in my practice is to search for the supersaturated solution (aka: a 10-20 member network among 3 or 4 departments, like Verna Allee would say) and then I search for the "piece of something" to shove into it. The piece can be my "formal/informal" leadership, but most often it is my detection of a subgroup of people that could be autochthones leaders, a topic that can create debate (and therefore emergence of a leader), sometimes shifting focus/technology attracts the "right" leader. It depends.

What you have to search for, however, is a particular kind of leader, a servant-leader (if you are familiar with Greenleaf.. if not, see here).

On difficulties in recruiting:

That might also mean a good thing, such as you nucleated a CoP with a peculiar identity, that isn't a fit for everybody under the sun. It might also mean the CoP is functional to the point that members are having productive lives without having to always resort to the CoP. However you are right, there is a danger in that and Gongla and Rizzuto in their "Where Did That Community Go? - Communities of Practice that "Disappear" described pretty well.

Volunteer recruitment (and CoP members are *volunteers*, NOT workers!) works in a different way than workforce, so one reason might be it. Have you tried administering the VFI to your CoP members and see what their motivations are? Basing on that, you might want to craft an announcement attracting volunteers with similar motivations. Dig in the work of Clary, starting from
this).

This paper is the one that explains the connection between motivation and kind of advertisement: Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. Ridge, P. Miene, & J. Haugen. (1994). Matching messages to motives in persuasion: A functional approach to promoting volunteerism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24, 1129-1149.

Person-Centered ICT NGO Consulting

2006-02-15T02:49:00.000+01:00

We finally have a decent model for NGO/NPO consultants in ICT that isn't keeping soft skills out of the picture!

"As a consultant, an eRider’s success depends upon the
level of trust and mutual respect exhibited in the professional
relationship with the client organization. This
relationship is of particular importance to eRiders for
two reasons. First, eRiding is a client-centered approach
in which the client is expected to play an active role.
Second, most eRider clients are not accustomed to such
a relationship."

Happiness in America

2006-02-13T15:09:00.000+01:00

Just today the PEW Project has released the report "Are we happy yet?".

There are some "curious" findings:

1. Married folks are happier than unmarrieds.
2. People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't.
3. Republicans are happier than Democrats.
4. Rich people are happier than poor people.
5. Whites and Hispanics are happier than blacks.
6. Sunbelt residents are happier than those who live in the rest of the country.

While it's understandable that married people are happier than unmarried (because it could mean they get more support and partnership), that people that worship frequently are happier than those who don't (denoting more hope in the former), that rich people are happier than poor (because the former have the resource to self-actualize more often), and that sunbelt residents are happier than others (because of cultural and biological reasons.. don't forget Swedish people are sadder than Moroccans, and that's because of how the light impact on our mood), two things puzzled me. Namely, that Hispanics are happier than blacks (they BOTH are discriminated!) and that Republicans are happier than Democrats (the latter are more idealistic, shouldn't they be happier??).

Equally interesting are the non-correlations:

1. People who have children are no happier than those who don't, after controlling for marital status.
2. Retirees are no happier than workers.
3. Pet owners are no happier than those without pets.

These findings debunk long-lived myths, as the ones that propose parenthood as a panacea for all evils, retirement as the solution to a stressful life and pets as source of happiness.

Did we really need a study to tell us these were false myths? ;)

Intrinsic Motivation Is Scary

2006-02-11T21:39:00.000+01:00

So... today I was mumbling on the responses I get whenever I speak of intrinsic motivation to be fostered and people with intrinsic motivation to be favored over extrinsic folks. I've never been able to understand why, for example, both volunteer managers and scholars alike have trouble with the whole (intuitive!) concept that intrinsic motivation is just better.

A person with intrinsic motivation finds joy and reward in his/her own work, has self-efficacy, is able to correct his/her own work unsupervised, keeps on going despite drawbacks. What's wrong in that???

It must be that people find it scary. I couldn't understand why, then all of a sudden, reading another reply to a post of mine (to my amusement, swinging from calling me a person with methodological gaps to "neo-scholastic") today, I got it.

Intrinsic people, intrinsic volunteers, intrinsic students can not be manipulated through rewards and punishments. They also self-determine their lives, and that means any mechanism of control isn't likely to "tame them" and that is precisely why these persons find the whole concept to be scary and something to be resisted (see Freud if you don't know what it is).

The problem arises when scholars defend the need to use rewards, punishments and control to "train" students into their replica, rather than embracing the universus of the whole possibilities of reasoning.

Ah, by the way, university means, in fact, "whole, entire" and hints at the openness that such environment was supposed to have.

The Motivation of Online Students

2006-02-11T21:24:00.000+01:00

On ARNOVA listserv, somebody doubted about the value of "online" PhD. This was my step-by-step reply.

Intrinsic motivation, according to its definition, is the “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.70 --- to look up other material, most of which is online, go to their Center for the Self-Determination Theory). It means, in this specific case, that when a student is intrinsically motivated, the reason for which he engages into a given activity (in this case, a PhD course) is because s/he derives “something” out of it that is not an external reward.

If you scratch below the definition of what’s intrinsic motivation, you’ll realize (again as per Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.68) that intrinsic motivation has 3 components:

- Competence: that is, having/acquiring functional skills

- Relatedness: feeling that one’s work/skills have some kind of meaning/significance

- Autonomy: the individual has some recognized ability to act on his/her own will.

Therefore (and this is a syllogism!!!!), a student that is intrinsically motivated is a student that also is:

*competent to acquire functional skills
*feeling that his/her skills have some kind of significance
*able to act on his/her own will.

The competence/relatedness pair also is the core of what Bandura (1981, 1983, 1999) called “self-efficacy” defined, in Bandura’s own words, as “people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives”. That is, the conviction to be able to successfully control the outcome of a situation one is presented with. So we can say (with another syllogism) that an intrinsic student also has self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy affects the ability of individuals to adapt and be flexible in spite of difficult situations, BUT ALSO affects aspirations, analytical thinking, and perseverance in the face of failure (Bandura et al. 2001). This last concept is called RESILIENCE.

But self-efficacy is also linked to the locus of control concept (Rotter, 1966): the locus of control is an individual perception that control can be exerted through his/her behaviour (internal locus of control, in this case the student’s pattern of study/research) vs at bay of external forces (luck, misfortune, the professor’s will). So a person that has intrinsic motivation, and also has self-efficacy and resilience (as per previous syllogisms) ALSO has internal locus of control.

Therefore:

A. Because of relatedness, the student with higher intrinsic motivation would tend to think his/her work is significant/meaningful
B. Because of autonomy, the student with higher intrinsic motivation would tend to act on his/her own will
C. Because of A and B and their relationship with self-efficacy, the student with higher intrinsic motivation would tend to have more resiliency
D. Because of the internal locus of control, the student with higher intrinsic motivation would have a lesser probability of being impacted by the professor’s control and supervision
E. Because of the very nature of resilience, the student with higher intrinsic motivation would have a lesser probability of being impacted by the professor’s reward/punishment system

Online students (and a student who got an online PhD IS a successful online student --- that’s another syllogism), in a variety of settings, have been shown to have:

i. higher rates of intrinsic motivation
ii. higher focus on internal locus of control

So, NOW you can understand how conditions A to E apply to successful online students.

On top of it, we can ALSO add that:

Since intrinsic motivation vanishes with the use of external, performance-contingent rewards (Deci, Kostner & Ryan, 1999), students exposed to this method are more likely to have extrinsic motivation.

And, if you allow me to end with an opinion (as opposed to facts previously gathered and exposed), faculties might not like these students because:
*they find worth in their own works
*the usual reward/punishment and control system don’t work
*they keep on going for their own path and keep on thinking that they will eventually succeed because they believe that success lays into their merit and not on somebody’s else “grace” (therefore, supervisor has to convince through hard reasoning, NOT with a "because I say so").

CoPs in Practice

2006-02-11T21:17:00.000+01:00

My colleague Bhojarju posted a set of interesting questions on com-prac.

"How practically these CoPs will work ?"

They will work as practically as you make them to. Groups in general cannot be studied in a laboratory fashion, ie by randomizing a group of people, throwing them in, and see how it goes , UNLESS we are willing to obtain results that cannot be generalized, exported, replicated or even ***talked of***.

Two things are very important from a practical perspective:

1. the goals of your CoP:
supposing your CoP is already a CoP that doesn't need nurturing/cultivation, you still need to create a shared expectation of what its "acceptable outcomes" are or should be. All of it can be obtained through an initiative that generates consensus (I use dynamic facilitation) whenever the outcomes are not mandated or requested from the above, otherwise a set of outcomes has to be clearly stated and subsequently enforced (even if the set of outcomes was generated through consensus).

Remember, there is a difference between a CoP and a mess: the latter has no rules and accomplishes the outcome herraticly, the former has as few rules as possible but still accomplishes the outcomes with fair reliability.

Also remember that two different CoPs can have the same domain, even the same people, and still be very different with respect of the kind of goals they can accomplish. The key word here is the facilitator, whether conscious or unconscious, which is the person that enforces the "tone" on the kind of deliverables that are expected.

2. the values of your CoP:
Again, two different CoPs with the same domain, and even the same people, can have different values! Think of a CoP where the facilitator fosters "experts", and experts on their turn punish/reward others for thinking or not thinking like them. Now think of another CoP where the level of ownership is so diffuse that experts are silenced whenever they don't provide a rationale for their "expert opinions" and frankly laughed at when they go into the punish/reward mode. It's all the difference between a "la-la-land" CoP (that will be a CoP but won't accomplish much) and a practical CoP.

"For Example if we have a any platform say Sharepoint, will they add value in collaboration there ?"
A platform can add OR ***subtract*** to collaboration, depending on:
1. the fit between the CoP and that specific platform in terms of needs, functionalities, customization options;
2. the degree of interest in mastering the software possibilities on the facilitator's side
3. the level of ownership participants will feel toward the choice of platform

"DO they add their knowledge to KMS thro virtual or physical meetings?"
Well, I can tell you through meetings for sure. In my language, the word meeting is translated as "to move forward to another person". That is to say, a meeting will work if it is able to generate an ***encounter***.

Now, many people would say it's impossible to do it online because THEY aren't able to. But some people can have "online encounters". Others get fixated that they can't do it online, and therefore they won't, and will need a physical meeting.

Don't you ever overlook the impact that self-generated bias have one the outcome of an interaction!

Moderating and Facilitating a VCoP

2006-01-21T21:05:00.000+01:00

When you moderate and/or facilitate VCoPs composed of "professionals", the most important word is: beware. And the second one is: beware.

In particular watch out for the warning statement: "how can I get onto digest".

That might mean many things, I concede it, yet one of those meaning can be that the person that says it just wants to search for the "meat" without acknowledging the meaning and importance of negotiating meaning thorough conversation and thinks of an "online community" as a list of links, resources, repositories.

The first danger in that is, this is but first generation KM (definition coined by McElroy) with a codification approach only. The codification approach alone fails, period (see Huysman & de Wit, 2002).

The second danger I see is all in the difference between legitimate peripheral participation (ie: enjoying reading conversations, threads, and the like as well as how insights are generated and shared) and egocentric "what's in it for me, me, me" (ie: adversarial conceptualization of the reader with respect to the community, where the reader has to "bear with" ongoing conversation in order to "get something" out of it). The "proper" legitimate peripheral participant is one that enjoys reading the threads and the conversation so much that sets aside some time to delve into insights/opinions/ideas that are offered, even if s/he participates only occasionally.

What I always do in these settings is:

1. I remind whoever protests about "too many emails" that conversation is precious because it is in conversation that new knowledge is generated (and I add referrals and pointers to the social learning theory, if I really need to shut the dear one up);
2. I remind this very same vocal person that s/he is supposed to enjoy the conversation or else it's no place for him/her to be.

That usually weed out many persons that would later be troublesome for the proper "nucleation" of the CoP.

CoP facilitators/moderators, differently from facilitators in other settings, enforce negative rules mainly: that is, like in Carver boards, they set a rule on what has not to be done, the rest is for free experimentation of the members to find out. Occasionally, posting articles and links elicit some dialogue in case the CoP is kind of "dormant", but a healthy CoP does not need the facilitator to participate, even if s/he might want and/or like to do so.

A CoP facilitator also needs to try to resist the idea of engineering the community life. Sometimes backchannelling with members about the community helps, but it does backfire if you use it too often. A CoP faciliator does backchannel, however, in order to establish a personal relationshipwith those members you find more in tune with your moderation style. If s/he asks something, s/he does it naturally, NOT out of the blue to people s/he has never talked to, and NOT to the "old same buddies", otherwise members would have the impression of being kidded around by a clique.

In order to have a group of people helping the facilitator, complimenting with them privately for something they spontaneously said or posted feels much better, to them and to the group, than it feels to "schedule" the conversation. I am a member in a community in which the moderator often backchannels to ask members to post summaries (still the old repository/codification approach!!). The funny thing is that summaries do get posted, but without *anybody* saying "hey I thought it would be neat to post this" (aka spontaneous contribution), and the posting of the "assigned homework" sounds very artificial.

In short: depending on which kind of members you have and which kind of person you are, you will have different results, however:

1) Always be your natural self: do not play a role
2) Do not distort yourself or your community in order to follow an artificial scheme
3) Keep in mind where you want to go and let go of the controlling attitude most moderators have (enhancing/slowing email flow, having people posting requests/summaries/questions, getting afraid/p*ssed toward whoever posts "too much" or "not enough")
4) Let people be themselves with a list of basic donts.

A community is like a tissue: it will "create" and "heal" by itself whether you are there or not, but if you do your job you will make it easier (facilitation comes etymologically from the Latin word "facile" that is, in fact, EASY).

Sociopaths

2006-01-12T08:00:00.000+01:00

The more I get all into working and networking online, the more I realise the world is full of of sociopaths. Truth be told, it's not exclusive of the online environment, it's just that you can "appreciate" jerks better if you are online *grin*

Cases of the day:

1. a professional networker, IT folk for a well-known association of professionals, online for several years, acknowledges his lack of emotional intelligence in interacting with people. Yet, he still blames others for "being fake" whenever they emote or introduce some nuances in their conversation, because - listen to this - emoticons "distort" the conversation... the dear guy still thinks we're all cavemen and cavewomen, reasoning in black-or-white terms and getting an autistic reaction out of any minuscule world complexity (ever heard of Freud's defense mechanisms, especially projection, Mr Transactional Analysis Psychobabble? On this very topic, I just blasted a person giving me all that cr*p on transitional objects... Try touching a flame without a transitional object and let's see if you get burn and call it being smart, *ssh*l*!);

2. another professional, namely a network-centric one, builds a group up in a wonderful way, like a marvellous lab experiment, just to shut it down because - I suspect - the group developed a shared vision and leadership and could go on without him... in fact, he doesn't accept to transfer the group ownership, period.

From all of this we can gather some cosmic laws:

A. whatever a person proports to be, don't believe him/her UNLESS you have some direct evidence suggesting that s/he indeed knows what s/he means;
B. no matter how intelligent an idea sounds like, the voice that reveals it to the world can still belong to the most inconsistent and unaware of the human beings (that's the beauty of life!);
C. do not confuse the message with the messenger: just because the idea is good, it doesn't mean the messenger is as well;
D. Carl Rogers was DEAD WRONG when he said that anybody could reach their full potential, some people can not, because they prefer to be a slave to their limitations and fears, which they name, respectively, "myself" and "my opinions" and treasure above anything else;
E. some people approach work as they would approach the primordial broth: shove everything that there is IN, inject some sparkles into it and hope to make a living out of it;
F. Life without the power of observation switched on is not very different from vegetative state and coma: either you shake it away, or euthanasia is an option.

That's why, in all of this, I stand firm in my preferring the humble, the marginalized, the "underserved": because there is more dignity in acknowledging the limitation that life, society and God put on you (and that we ALL have, like it or not -- despite Seligman's positive thinking BLABBING) than there is in pretending to be smarter than one is.

CoPs at UNDP

2005-12-19T19:38:00.000+01:00

Hello dear ones,

today I found in my inbox a link to an article The knowledge sharing approach of the United Nations Development Programme for practitioners, and this is the actual abstract:

"This paper shares practical experience gained in establishing and implementing communities of practice (CoPs) – referred to as ‘knowledge networks’ within the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – as entry points for our knowledge management initiatives. The paper outlines the history and evolution of CoPs in UNDP, placing them in the broader framework of knowledge management and practice architecture. The paper also describes how CoPs have generated cultural change within UNDP, taking the organisation from a situation in which staff could not send e-mails without clearance by senior management to one in which staff today are rewarded for sharing rather than owning knowledge. In addition, the paper identifies the ingredients of a healthy CoP, successful operating modalities, methods to promote participation and ways to link CoPs to policy outcomes. It also looks at what has not worked: pitfalls to be avoided in establishing and managing CoPs. Finally, the paper examines our experience with adding new procedures and tools to this initially successful approach, such as enhanced collection and codification, which have yielded mixed results."

Guess what? The "key ingredient for well-functioning CoPs is to
have moderated or facilitated communities" -- DUH!

Virtual Volunteering As-Is Can Not Fly

2005-12-08T07:26:00.000+01:00

I presented a paper in the Research-In-Action section of ICVA2005 and it was a review on online volunteering. A polished version will be published by the Journal of Volunteer Adminstration later on in 2006, but that is not the point.

Online/Virtual Volunteering does not fly. Jayne Cravens herself wrote (in a document uploaded in UKVPM group):
"My presentation marked the first time the majority of attendees had ever heard of online volunteering (and all were shocked to learn how old the practice is)"

It is about time that we, as Volunteer Administrators/Leaders, ask ourselves how come it does not fly (yet, hopefully).

Yet, OV is a well-identified trend since 1998, but it somehow is still considered "new" and non-profits do not practice it extensively. I argue that this is not because ICT resources are lacking. In fact, many studies (Cravens, 2000,
2003; Harrison & Murray, 2002; Harrison, Murray & MacGregor, 2004; Murray & Harrison, 2002)) showed that nonprofits in North America (United States and Canada) do have access to such resources, but they don't use it...

In my review, I showed how most online volunteering manuals and info started as collections of practices on how to manage online volunteers. With the exception of the papers addressing open source developer volunteerism, those suggestions are not based on research findings, but on bona fide observations that haven't been tested in over 7 years. But that's not why people aren't using them...

The "old" fad "if you build it they will come", re-ashed in many of those guides, is a gross oversimplification of human nature in general, and of human nature of volunteers in particular. Not just it makes zero sense from a human-computer interaction perspective (concepts as sociability and usability are what determines participation in virtual environments, NO MATTER how much the "cause" is good -- and no, it's not "just me" affirming it, ask Jenny Preece for one!). As for any other human, volunteer managers do not use OV because it does not make sense to them in the way it is described, packaged, and "sold" to them.

So, what is that keeps them away from OV? They perceive it as "difficult". After my speech, I had many persons telling me: "I have the technology but I don't know how to speak to virtual volunteers"
. And you know what? They are right, because, in those guides, NOBODY addressed, EVER, how to interact with volunteers through computer-mediated communication, aside from a long list of "donts".

Some suggestions are - I beg you pardon - laughable, like "Discourage volunteers from disclosing their home address or phone number to others.". The ones of you that are in any profession do know the value of networking. The ones of you that do not have a consulting business, still wouldn't take seriously any persons/workers/colleagues refusing to share their name, address and phone number and hiding through a NICKNAME. Would you go to your butcher if s/he called him/herself "shiningknife" rather than, say, Charles and refused to give you his/her address and phone number? N-O-P-E.

As much as some persons might be uncomfortable with it, social needs/interactions still are:
(a) one of the ways we learn (see, Bandura, 1997, and Vygotzky, 1987)
(b) one of the reasons we start volunteering (see Omoto & Snyder, 1995)

As for any technology, people adopt it at different rates in different ways. But I don't think that innovation diffusion theory is the whole issue at stake. Like with telephone, some people are afraid of whomever they can't see because, I believe, they can't adapt to subtilties (say, because they tend not to be verbal learners) or belong to cultures where everything has to be clear, explained ad nauseam, and possibly task-oriented (low context cultures, it's a fact that high context populations tend to buy and use telephone more than their low context counterparts, even if phone is a less rich medium than face-to-face communication, and that's precisely because they don't need the repetition of cues that low context folks seem to need).

From all these hints, you might understand how online volunteering, as well as online communication, aren't just about "get a power line, get a pc, get it running, get a software, put up a site, match your needs with a volunteer and vaia con Dios" kind of a thing. It's precisely because it is popularized in this way that people stay away from it.

Oh, the last thing. Here you can find some practical suggestions about OV. And yes, in case anybody was wondering, my next publication is about cultural nuances of computer-mediated communication *grin*

The Albert Ellis Affaire

2005-12-06T07:54:00.000+01:00

I got prompted by a friend's post to dig more into what happened between Albert Ellis and the Albert Ellis Institute. Of course (and as usual) rather than siding with one of them I managed to get an opinion of my own *grin*

Let's start with the very basic notions, so to set the record straight:
1) A non-profit is a corporation: just like in any other corporation, board members are liable only if they make a mistake out of neglect or "bad intention". If the mistake was made in good faith and it was a honest mistake, board members can not be liable. This concept is known as limited liability and it is the main reason for folks incorporate. Corporation activities are disciplined by their by-laws;
2) A non-profit corporation has benefits in terms of income taxes and permission to fundraise;
3) Some non-profits are 501(c)3 bodies: that means they have some additional fiscal benefits and donations are tax-exempt. In order to gain (and keep) such status, the 501(c)3 organization can NOT: (a) lobby and (b) the earnings of such organization may not benefit any of its members;
4) Disqualified persons: this terms has nothing to do with the morality of the person that is disqualified, it is just a description of a category of persons that cannot or should not have financial ties with a non-profit corporation (such as a substantial contributor, a foundation manager, and their family members, such as spouses, descendants and their spouses, etc);
5) Board members are volunteers. As such, they might have their transportation expenses repaid and other benefits awarded, but they cannot be paid for their work, no matter how much they donated, fundraised or contributed in any way.

I am positive that, after reading these lines, many of you will understand what I'm about to say.

Apparently, Section 3 of the Albert Ellis Institute by-laws state
"Removal. Any Trustee may be removed at any time for cause by a vote of a majority of the entire Board at any special meeting of the Board called for that purpose, provided that at least one week’s notice of the proposed action shall have been given to the entire Board of Trustees then in office."

It basically means that the Albert Ellis Institute Board is allowed to remove any board member, Albert Ellis included, provided it calls a special meeting for this reason. Apparently, in the many rebuttal from AEI, nobody said the meeting was called for the specific reason of removing Albert Ellis. So, the removal per se may be not legal and Ellis could be reinstated.

The reason for Ellis was supposedly removed was the "excess benefit" transaction due to the fact the AEI paid his medical expenses. If you get a free account to GuideStar and read the AEI 990 form (2003's), you'll see how it states (verbatim):
"the organization paid for medical expenses for Albert Ellis, President. These expenses are expected to be reimbursed subsequent to year end."

Now, this might mean only two things:
(a) the Board knew Ellis had to reimburse the money but didn't tell him;
(b) Ellis knew he had to reimburse those expenses but didn't say he wouldn't, or thought he might talk them out of that.
One thing is certain: at least one of the parts knew he had to reimburse them TWO YEARS AGO (the 990 form dates back to the end of 2003).

With the incoming end of this year and Ellis not returning that money, the folks at the AEI must have freaked. From the IRS, on excess benefit correction (verbatim):
"A disqualified person [which Ellis is, as substantial contributor and foundation manager, as well as his wife, as spouse of a substantial contributor and foundation manager] corrects an excess benefit transaction by undoing the excess benefit to the extent possible, and by taking any additional measures necessary to place the organization in a financial position not worse than that in which it would be if the disqualified person were dealing under the highest fiduciary standards. The organization is not required to rescind the underlying agreement; however, the parties may need to modify an ongoing contract with respect to future payments."

In these conditions, therefore, it makes sense to kick Ellis out of the board, so that he wouldn't be a disqualified person any longer and, in that capacity, he could still have some form of financial support.

Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, what happen would probably be:
1) Ellis will be reinstated, because he was fired through a procedure that was not in compliance with the by-laws;
2) Ellis will have to repay the AEI, unless he is willing to see the institute loose its tax-exempt status.

Some more thoughts on the many "rebuttals" I've seen on the web:
a) it makes ZERO sense to compare Ellis' medical expenses to Broder's salary: Ellis is the President and a volunteer, Broder was the ED and an employee!
b) it does make sense to question the practice of appointing a Board Member as the ED of a corporation, because of the conflict of interest of having a double hat.
c) the two board members supposedly on Ellis' side spoke only after the "damage" was done and they were given reassurance that they would incur in no liability for disagreeing, which does not speak for their integrity and consistency.
d) Ellis himself donated a lot to the AEI. But the AEI is no offshore corporation or retirement funds and cannot be expected to jeopardize its tax-exempt status (especially regarding the building it is located into... that would evaporate its revenue in taxes!) just to take care of him.

Remember the three irrational beliefs as Ellis stated them:
*“I absolutely must succeed in work and/or love, else I am pretty worthless!”
*“Other people must treat me kindly and fairly or else they are no damned good!
*“The conditions under which I live must provide practically anything I want, or else the world is a horrible place and I can’t stand it!”

I do hope that this affaire would get settled in a way that can satisfy both AEI (that accomplished so much good) and Ellis (that did so much for so many persons), but I think Ellis should think a little bit more about his irrational beliefs and take one little step back.

Managing VCoPs

2005-12-06T02:16:00.000+01:00

Most studies on VCoPs simplicistically equate them to CoPs, while there are
some that doubt that a CoP could even exist in a distributed form (Harasim,
1993; Hung & Nichani, 2002; Lueg, 2000). I do not agree with them, but they
point out some interesting perspectives one has to be aware of when dealing
with a VCoP.

Johnson wrote "A survey of current research on online communities of
practice", that analyzed the state of the art of research up to 2001.

Dube, Bourhis and Jacob extensively wrote on VCoPs.
In 2003 they published "The impact of structural characteristics on
intentionally formed virtual communities of practice" on the site of the HEC
Montreal (which they work for). This very same article, polished to get to a more scientific outlook, has been published in 2005 and is available from EMERALD database:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0230180204.pdf

These articles analyze which characteristics of VCoPs are related to a
favourable outcome of their launching. They also give you some ideas on
which metrics to use to define "success" in a VCoP. An important part is the
concept of structuring characteristics, already considered to be a focal
issue by Neus in 2001.

Dube et al also published, in 2003, a much needed "Toward a typology of
virtual communities of practice", digging more into the managerial aspects and wrote
"The success of virtual communities of practice: the leadership factor"
(2005) and ""Structuring spontaneity": the impact of management practices on the
success of intentionally formed virtual communities of practice".

ICVA Conference

2005-11-12T01:45:00.000+01:00

I was pleased to stay in Jacksonville for quite a while... but I do suck at taking pics (geez do I sound like my mom LOL), so I managed to scr*w up royally on them :)

Anyway, this is me the day after the presentation (I was too nervous to take any pic that day!). The ones that have met me there are formally asked to leave comments ;)

I also went to the St Johns river cruise boat and I found these volunteer managers dancing like no tomorrow:

I'd like to know who these gals were!

Guide to Blogging

2005-10-07T22:45:00.000+02:00

Just today I found on George Siemens' newsletter a link to a Comprehensive Guide to a Professional Blog Site: A WordPress Example I liked the fact it is not the same "old" eMinence-based how-to but has some rationality into it... ;)

Why Self-Help groups are CoPs

2005-09-29T12:33:00.000+02:00

Etienne Wenger and Jane Lave include a group of Alcoholic Anonymous among their examples of CoPs in their 1991 book Situated Learning. But, they never explained how so, or verified such hypothesis aside from noticing some suggestive and striking comparisons between practice in CoPs and practice in an AA group.

The key of such comparison is the fact that, if social interaction shapes the sense of self as Vygotsky claims, then one of the main functions story-telling accomplishes in CoPs is identity formation (the other one being: allowing implicit-to-implicit knowledge flow and sharing).

Just recently, the Scottish Recovery Network started a research project on storytelling, unravelling details on how story-telling reshapes the self. I'm anxious to see the rest of this work!

CoPs or CoBs (Community of Bias)?

2005-07-28T16:45:00.000+02:00

The role that intrapersonal and interpersonal biases have in the life of a person has always fascinating me a great deal.

Emily Pronin is a nice looking person that wrote some very interesting pieces of work. For example, a book chapter whose title is Understanding misunderstanding: social psychological perspective.

Among the many things, she points out how low tolerance to ambiguity makes a person go beyond the real facts and information that s/he is given. It would sound like low tolerance to exploration of ambiguity (that is, presence of more than one meaning in a word/statement) doesn't match with having a meaningful interaction (where meaningful means one that can generate meaning) either.

If men and women are, as Katz claims (1960, explained here), more rationalizing than rational, and therefore more influenced by their attitudes than by logic or evidence, and if we humans have the tendency toward accepting more easily what is congruent with our interest (Edwards & Smith, 1996; Ross & Lepper, 1980), then CoPs can be a source of bias. I am wondering if that plays a role in how a CoP has to be facilitated.

Pronin - and this is verrrry interesting - suggests that such bias fosters harsh evaluations. I would add that it might be worthy addressing this very issue when speaking about CoP facilitation.

I'm amused!

2005-07-14T20:10:00.000+02:00

Today, I am amused, folks.

It has been happening, more and more often, that I get amused at projection, that is "the defense mechanism whereby we transfer or project our feelings about one person onto another. " It can be better understood by thinking of how wrong we are when we suppose a person to feel they way we would feel in his/her same situation.

I'm a victim of projection, guys. Not that I do it, I am a victim of being called names from people that don't know the difference between themselves and the rest of the world that big that their Ego is (and they usually call it empathy, see some examples of empathy vs sympathy here).

So, we stumble in a person saying "it's impossible that non-parents understand parenting" because SHE is unable to understand perspective that are out of her point of views, and in another saying "you overwhelm people" because HE is easily overwhelmed. It's fine if they have those limitations, we all have limitations, even if not the same. What is NOT fine is to suppose that YOUR limitations are another's as well!

But the thing that really chockes me is that, when one of them wants to be right at all costs just puts him/herself in a situation in which s/he can't possibly be called wrong, like for example preaching the exact opposite of what one does. If I preach the joys of motherhood, how can you charge me to be egoist? If I preach selflessness how can you charge me of having an Ego as big as Texas?

It doesn't work. It just does not work. They think it does, but it doesn't. People are smart. People are kids. People see the Emperor doesn't have clothes on. Behaviours are revealing, no matter how many words you spread on top of them to hide their true meaning. And, sure, meaning depends on context, but you still can't claim donkeys can fly, bunny.

I have to admit it here, I am a b*tch. I am talented at getting a person to reveal him/herself and exposing him/her. If I weren't talented at it, I wouldn't be a facilitator. And, note, I am one, I don't call myself one. Big difference (again, how can you see the difference? BEHAVIOURS!).

But, when I facilitate dialogue, I coach a person above dysfunctional behaviours, while when I am just a plain old b*tch, I get them to expose themselves and... leave them in the lurch in front of everybody. Dear, old, shame. So essential, in order to grow up.

And yes, I am conscious that shame is part of my heritage as a Roman Catholic. But what can I say? It's better than being engaged full force into escaping any pain. Sounds like getting drunk, to me.

In fact, paraphrasing Gary Oldman's "someone once described alcoholics as egomaniacs with low self-esteem", wishing to be in heaven without having to live through the pain of life is, at least, a matter of addiction and, at worst, a nonsense.

That's how I get amused! I look around and see people thinking to be different while they are like any other (or so), thinking to be different, generalizing what they are to the whole world, forged on their image (sounds familiar? LOL), experiencing the pain of life mainly because... they just can't enjoy watching without driving!

In CoPs

2005-07-12T22:16:00.000+02:00

Just today John D. Smith in his group wrote:

"Communities of practice are only observable by people who are IN a social web."

This statement has bounced in my mind for all the day long... What do we mean when we say "IN ..[something that has to do with CoPs]..."?

if by "IN" we mean an observer has to be in closeness to members' proxemics (see Hall, 1966) in order to be able, capable and aware enough to observe a CoP in action, I would say "Yes, maybe so" (supposing the term "proxemics" to also include virtual ones, and VCoPs as well) and sometimes even "No" (supposing F2F contact with persons to be so full of clues that it might overwhelm/mislead you... or supposing a person in such F2F situation to have poor social skills);
if by "IN" you mean an observer has to be a "part of", I would say "Not necessarily". In a VCoP, one has to be a member of it, belong to it, be subbed to it, in order to observe it. In a CoP, you can just be an observing.

Denying the role of the separate observer, means undermining the theoretical framework of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (and lurking, in VCoPs), experiential learning and action learning, that is, the very basis of CoPs.

LPP works because it is by observing the active engagement of core participants without taking a part in it you learn how to BE one of them (vs how to make one of them... sounds similar, or the same thing, but they are at least ontologically different).
Experiential learning works because tacit knowledge is passed by through observation of an experience and its reproduction (even when, or especially, when it's not codifiable! -- see Kolb, 1984).
Action learning works because after an action, reflection is necessary for learning to happen (Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith, 1985)

By practising we are in action, but being in action per se does not account for learning. It's reflection after action that accounts for learning from experience (at least, in action/experiential/situated learning, which is the way one learns in CoPs).

Speculating about an experience, trying to find an explanation, a model, a reason is mandatory and far from being idealistic, detached or "not into" the experience. After such "modelization", in action/experiential/situated learning, comes the moment for experiments, which as I said some times before need definitions, methods, and ways to be reproducible. And, of course, next step is.. another experience!

This is all to say, learning is not all from being INSIDE things (ie: practitioners), or all of being OUTSIDE them (ie: academics), but rather a concerted cycle of experience-theory-experiment-learning progressions (or if you prefer, an inside/outside, in-touch/detached cycle).

In this way, from this perspective, system thinking is the way to go. It gives you direction, reminding you that wherever you are at, you have to tilt your perspective before merely hoping to find any grounded solution.

So, how I mean that "IN", is the way we say to one another: "You are IN(to) CoPs aren't you?", where "IN(to)" means "having knowledge of".

Collaborative Disagreements: Negotiating Clashes in CoPs

2005-07-10T12:24:00.000+02:00

There is a lot of fluff over cooperation, namely how to contrast those situations "when the pursuit of self-interest by each leads to a poor outcome for all". Of course (and I say of course because some people, to my astonishment, still doubt about it), if you (generic) want to be part of a group, you have to learn to be cooperative, can't possibly expect the group to do what you want (or not to do what you don't want do).

A CoP is something more than a group. When we look at a bunch of books on a shelf, we might refer to them as a group of books, for sure not as "a CoP of books", and that is because they have no personal relationship with one another.

Some could say that a CoP isn't necessarily the best outcome for all the involved parties, however. I claim - and this is an opinion - that being able to generate meaning together with other people is always better than generating it alone, because one mind is always more limited that many minds, even when your mind (supposedly) know more.

Then the issue becomes a methodological one: is cooperation a better way to have many minds generate meaning, or is competition a more appropriate means? Again my opinion is that cooperation is always better because it harbors the possibility of a more balanced solution to a dilemma, over a one-sided black-and-white I-won-it-all one.

This being said, the focal points become:

Is consensus the best way to foster a cooperative behaviour? That is: do we have to disagree first and compromise after, or try to reach an agreement as first thing in the morning?
Which topics (if any) should be solved by consensus?
When does consensus become groupthink?

Consensus might be dangerous, especially for a CoP, which is said to be (by many) a place where debates and innovations are possible because of a trusting climate that allows members to engage in experiential learning without fear of being corrected, discouraged or reprimanded. So if consensus is the first target, members will go for the agreement right away, rather than being themselves first, and then negotiate.

On the other hand negotiation, handled by an expert facilitator, is mandatory whenever some real problem arises.

I'll go beyond this: if you are a CoP facilitator, whenever clashes don't happen, engineer them. That is: ask controversial questions, post controversial material and let the CoP raise its wisdom above your facilitation skills to learn how solve the clash in action, in a creative way.

Lead your CoP members to:
1) treat other members the way they treat themselves
2) learn to cooperate with one another
3) crash happily
4) enjoy the process
5) be happy with whatever the outcome
6) learn something out of mistakes

They will have fun and better themselves, you will have fun and better yourself too.

Enneagram

2005-07-09T10:31:00.000+02:00

In case anybody had any doubt, this is my Enneagram Type...

Trust in Virtual Teams

2005-07-03T19:09:00.000+02:00

On Duck-Grinned Nancy's group, Nancy Settle-Murphy asked to give her input about remote teams presenting special challenges, following you can find what I wrote to her.

Main challenges are:

attitudes
1) what members think of the medium
ie: do they think the medium characteristics shape the conversation or that it's the conversation to "move along" different paths within the same medium?
THIS impacts on how you accomodate differences, because in the first case members would/might/should choose a software (or a channel or a path) that they deem appropriate, while in the second case they would adapt to whichever the media. Needless to say in the latter interaction members would get more easily to trust, because their mental attitude is an empowering one (ie: "I can shape the media --- I can shape the conversation -- we can make anything we want out of it"), while the former is a disempowering one (ie: "If I don't have the right tool I can't communicate effectively --- I am limited in my communication capabilities --- there are things that can't be achieved online").

2) what members think of written communication
ie: do they find it to be more clear (because it's "all written") or do they find it more obscure (because they "can't see the facial expressions")? Again, it's all a matter of an empowering vs disempowering attitude... can I understand more because it's all clear, since even when something is unclear it can be clarified ("I can choose what to make of it"), or can't I really understand people because feelings can't be conveyed in a written form ("I am limited")?

What really matters is the ATTITUDE of the majority of members. As a general rule, persons with a disempowering attitude (feeling limited by the media, conversation, situation, whatever) tend to perceive others as limiting as well, REGARDLESS of whether they are or not. Achieving trust, in these conditions, can be VERY hard.

values
3) importance of socialization
Trust can't be acquired through rational demonstration that you have to trust colleagues. It IS acquired only by *interaction*. A person devaluing socialization could not acquire trust and would therefore be mistrustful.

4) tendence to cooperation/collaboration
there are moments in a team in which, for the team's sake, the individual has to be downsized and/or "quieted down". His/her compliance with such rule will generate trust in others, that will SEE how the member is willing to put the team ahead of personal convenience and individualism. People without such attitude will undermine trust, and get the whole team rebellious.

The rest (aka "barriers", such as language, culture, etc) is not that much of a big deal IF attitudes are empowering and socialization and collaboration are present and proactively fostered, because basically everything can be discussed in an atmosphere of sharing.

However, such sharing is harder to acquire in Western cultures, because of their individualism (ego vs collaboration) and management style (valuing "professionality" over socialization).

In particular, once the collaboration is broken, very often the only solution is to expel whoever provoked the breaking up, because rarely will members of a collaborative group forgive it.

Theory vs Practice

2005-07-03T15:10:00.000+02:00

Last night I was working on one of my incoming conference papers and I happened to read some criticisms to CoPs, namely Gourlay (2003) and Cox (2004), together with some bits and pieces of Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002).

Aside from the specifics, which will be treated in my paper (and probably in some further work), I got a sense of disillusionment beyond belief, more pronounced on the academics side, I must admit.

Basic, what I see here are two "fronts": academics and practitioners. The former too rigid to reformulate an old concept in ways that could be worthy being explored right here right now, the latter too - again - rigid to give some directions from the field on how to implement studies that might go beyond anedoctal stories.

Cox, for example, criticized Wenger et al. because -guess what?- they face the issue from a practitioner perspective... why did he, Cox, insert that book in his review of seminal works if it is so flawed at its basis, then? It's like saying: "The main drawback of the sun is that it emits light" DUH - I didn't know that!

Gourlay criticized the concept of community of practice and the fact Wenger didn't review the literature on teams and groups, entirely missing the fact that CoPs are neither team or groups.

What can I say? I'd like to read a serious critique to CoP theory, rather than a Gee-I-am-so-afraid-I-didn't-think-of-it-myself-that-I-better-destroy-it.

The main bug of the practitioner literature is the fact it doesn't suggest any design whatsoever for possible validation of anedoctes through clear definitions (even at the end of the book, if you just don't like to give them at the beginning GRIN), appropriate studies, intellectually balanced conclusions. Kind of saying "I know I am right because I saw it happening many times, and even if it's not scientific because I could very well have self-selected only the experience my mind would/could understand, I don't care, because all I really care about is my opinion" -- typical of practitioners I must say.

It sounded clear to me, however, that neither part had a clear idea of about a method, neither proposing (practitioners) or formulating one basing on observations (academics). I care to tell the latter, that yes, we are aware that CoP theory, practice and methodology is somehow different from anything in the past, but that's not enough to claim it invalid just because nobody did that before...! And, to academics again, get out of your discipline: there are others that employ other methods (action learning, story-telling, qualitative research, not just numbers).

So what am I so disillusioned about?

William Blake would call them mind-forged manacles, AKA cages produced and built by the mind ON the mind ABOUT the mind, that generate more misunderstandings, separation and pain.

All of this for what? For playing Who's More Right On The Topic.

Discomforting.

Idealising CoPs

2005-06-29T00:01:00.000+02:00

Sometimes, theoreticians and practitioners alike get into idealisation of a concept. And this is a time in which, sadly, I see it happening to CoPs.

How? Let's see some examples....

A) Theoreticians

One of the most common is, over-reliance on Wenger's definitions , even when nebolous and/or incomplete, as pointed out by Gourlay (though his critique was one-sided on principle it still has some huge merits). Some go far beyond this, thinking that, if Wenger didn't theorize/describe it, then what was added from, by and to the "field" is false/inaccurate.

Another risk I see is overtheorization. Some folks pile definitions on top of definitions and what is said to be informal, dealing with implicit knowledge and not enforceable begins to have more rules and definitions than a Catholic Catechism.

Frequently, you can stumble into nonsense classifications, with people splitting hairs into definitions that aren't operational at all and, often, are all on the same level rather than being branched. The net result of it is a long long list of names, usually "community of something", that aren't characterized well enough to be useful and/or aren't ordered in a hierarchial taxonomy to be applied.

B) Practitioners

Most frequent thing you can see is the lack of and/or allergy to methods, and by that I mean any method. Now, there is a difference (I hope) between a CoP and a mess, and I'd like to see it characterized more often. Methods for both action learning/research and participatory research were hard to find and get defined, yet having a codified method gave dignity to the discipline and (especially) its findings. Wondering why academics "snob" the field...?

Another problem is the lack of conceptual definitions that could help divulge the findings of the practice. Anedoctal stories could be studied and theorized on much better in presence of some unifying concepts (which by the way would help communication, since it happens through language, which in turn is impossible without codified concepts). Still wondering why academics "snob" the field...?

A huge, almost unexplored part, is the way of "nurturing" a CoP climate, how it works, why, etc., which I believe to be a priority, if we want CoP implementation to be a widespread successful practice. Not addressing THIS part means, de facto, preventing others from reproducing CoP implementation, which means none of our findings can be tested. Again... still wondering why academincs "snob" the field...?

And finally (this is for all, practitioners and theoreticians) there is no one-size-fits-all: even CoPs are inadequate solutions for some situations.

Inside Story (Milano, June 11-14)

2005-06-15T15:20:00.000+02:00

All stories have a story, and this is my experience of a common story.

This story sounds simple, but it really is not. Some persons met online, and decided to meet F2F. These persons liked one another. They spend some wonderful days together, till they parted again, bringing in their lives vivid memories of those days. These are the mere facts (but a story is something different, right, Bev?).

Such difference lies ALL in the difference there is between a group, collection of individuals (the definition, Alice), and a community, collection of people glued together by the relationships among them (can you see it now, Pat?). Meeting with each of you changed my life because together we created relationships (and therefore shared meaning, John), and relationships change you the way a shared electron keep two atoms together (or repel them, Elisabeth).

If I try to codify the meaning of my teasing of Patricia, I can explain a joke (maybe!), I can't explain how those jokes linked Patricia and I in a relationship, what happened in that moment and why (I wish you'd find a better way to convey that, Jason!). It's not just a matter of context (Elisabeth and Bev), it's a matter of tacit knowledge. I could tell you many instances of this story, but the bottom line is, what I've felt and done is not codifiable. A mere account of it would convey what was going on, but not what happened.

What was going on is almost all there (if it weren't for John forgetting to record the conclusions -- too much wine I guess or not sparkly enough I guess), how do I convey what happened? Some of the decision I've taken, question I've asked (Alice), things I've said (Jason), I understood them only later (John), when I thought of it, making an effort to "pass" my knowledge. And even though some of you said some decisions weren't intentional (Bev, John and Patricia), I still think you were, like me, tapping into implicit, tacit, awareness of the situation. We were mirroring one another, mimicring each other's behaviour. That's listening, John. That's CoP: learning when you don't know WHAT you are learning, learning when you don't know THAT you are learning.

And this leads straight to next issue, identity. Coming from the online self-help settings, this is of very much interest to me. Patricia is the one that has it more clear, IMHO. She repeatedly addressed her needs, her doubts, her feelings. At this point, John, are you sure Etienne is right and self-help groups are CoPs, or is it the other way around? It was crystal clear how the shared sense of outsiderness related to our interests and professional choices, the relief of finding others like us, the sense of normalcy coming out of it were making us feeling better. And that's self-help! To what extent we are into CoP practice because THAT climate makes us feel better, understood, accepted, meaningful, "normal", more resolved with our insiderness/outsiderness inner tension? Remember the term: normal-smiths (see Lofland, 1969).

Who among us was the normal-smith? Is this the role for a CoP facilitator, ie addressing and "managing" the outsiderness/insiderness tension, among members and WITHIN single members? I told you, a CoP facilitator is not like any other facilitator. S/he has to be collaborative, a normal-smith, addressing feelings as their arising is a threat to the *safety* of the CoP and its members (not intellectual safety, John, calm down). Does a CoP facilitator have to be oriented on goals, like a "normal" one, or on processes, ie creating a "CoP climate", Patricia? If *stating* the goals helps the group performance as a CoP, how far can we go in lying without being unethical, Bev?

I wanted to write a story, I've mixed narrative and analysis, the way I mix practice and theory. I've written CoP material, I guess.

On Dunbar's Number

2005-06-08T12:33:00.000+02:00

I am way late reading onfac posts, so I hope duck-grinned Nancy won't mind if I comment on Dunbar number only now...

The author worked on animal and human groups and argues that, regardless of the habitat ecological specifics which determine group size, there exists a species-specific upper limit to such size beyond which groups loose cohesion and integrity. This constraint is said to be, by Dunbar, of neocortex origin.

This makes sense experientially, since everyone of us is familiar with the sensation of not "keeping up" with his/her address book when the number of contacts exceeds a threshold. It also makes sense scientifically, in that it's easy to understand how a the cortex is circuitry and, just like any circuit, it can go in overload when too many contacts are active in the same moment. More or less, like it happens in generalized epileptic crises, where in fact conscience is always lost.

There has been a lot of fuss, in a lot of articles and blogs, over this Dunbar number. My impression is, most people misunderstood (or stretched) what Dunbar wrote. Let's see why.

What Dunbar himself defined as social grooming, is an activity that Primates get engaged into for social purposes and the time spent in it correlates with group size. Men and women, though, do not engage in such cleaning activity litterally (with the exception of trying make-up and beauty masks on one another LOL).

What is really interesting in what Dunbar said is how the following statement managed to get overlooked:

"the relationship between group size and time devoted to grooming appears to be a consequence of the intensity with which a small number of key "friendships" (the primary network) is serviced rather than to the total number of individuals in the group."

which explains why so much bs on the size of online groups has been said.

Re-read the above quote and reinterpret it in light of online settings:

"the relationship between group size and time devoted to grooming appears to be a consequence of the intensity with which a small number of key "friendships" (the primary network - also known as 'close ties withing the group') is serviced rather than to the total number of individuals in the group - also known as group members."

Which means that the Dunban number applies to the number of close ties we can have in a group or, if you prefer, the number of nodes another node can be connected to (from a social network perspective).

In fact, Dunban adds:
"These primary networks function as coalitions whose primary purpose is to buffer their members against harassment by the other members of the group. The larger the group, the more harassment and stress an individual faces (see for example Dunbar 1988) and the more important those coalitions are. It seems that a coalition's effectiveness (in the sense of its members' willingness to come to each other's aid) is directly related to the amount of time its members spend grooming each other (see Cheney & Seyfarth 1984, Dunbar 1984). Hence, the larger the group, the more time individuals devote to grooming with the members of their coalitionary clique."

Dunban himself goes the extramile to define "natural conditions" under which studying Homo sapiens sapiens groupings, but in a technological world, with less physical cues, is such number the same? I mean, if we hypothesize, like Dunban did, that there is a threshold beyond which the neocortex gets too stimulated, how does this change in conditions in which the tie, virtual encounter, stimulation, is weaker because of the lesser amount of cues? It would make sense that we as humans would be able to tolerate a higher amount of online group members, vs F2F ones....

The trimodal distribution Dunban discovered (ie: bands 30-50, clans 100-200 and tribes 1000-2000) could still make sense in an online environment, but... for the same numbers?

What however does tickle our imagination is that the size of clans tend to varies very little, thereby making plausible Dunban's assumption for it to be a cognitive restraint. But again this might tell us how such restraint does apply to online clans as well, but it does NOT tell us that the number would be the same. Fact is, the kind of interaction is different and it makes sense the number be different as well.

Here Dunban helps us by writing (emphasis added):
"It is important to note that the intermediate level groupings do not always have an obvious physical manifestation. Whereas overnight camps can readily be identified as demographic units in time and space and the tribal groupings can be identified either by linguistic homogeneity or geographical location (and often both), the intermediate level groupings are often defined more in terms of ritual functions: they may gather together once a year to enact rituals of special significance to the group (such as initiation rites), but for much of the time the members can be dispersed over a wide geographical area and, in some cases, may even live with members of other clan groupings. Nonetheless, what seems to characterise this level of grouping is that it constitutes a subset of the population that interacts on a sufficiently regular basis to have strong bonds based on direct personal knowledge."

So, summing it up and translating it into our online life:

the intermediate level groupings do not always have an obvious physical manifestation: this property is shared by online groups
the intermediate level groupings are often defined more in terms of ritual functions: this property too can be shared by online groups, especially communities of practice
for much of the time the members can be dispersed over a wide geographical area: this is shared by online groups as well
it constitutes a subset of the population that interacts on a sufficiently regular basis: this is the definition of a social network

From all of this, we may reasonably think that it does exist a number beyond which our mind is constrained even in online settings. There are no reason, however, to think such number to be the same that applies to F2F interactions. There are reasons to think such number to be higher.

CoPs and complexity: Conversation and culture (featuring Peter Bond)

2005-06-07T01:13:00.000+02:00

Peter Bond who I consider to be one of my mentors, wrote yet another excellent piece "Communities of Practice and Complexity: Conversation and Culture".

CoPs, as Peter writes, have been confused with anything under the sun involving more than two persons getting together for reasons related to work.

"The self-organising quality of CoPs can put them at odds with those who would seek to control them"

Ah, the management! Aren't they the same folks speaking in terms of job descriptions, reports and external rewards? How many of them do practice the management by interaction?

"the very knowledge they create serves as the basis of their continuous reinvention."

How many times some smart*ss in some "smart group" b*tched about "not reinventing the wheel"? Such statement betrays a haughty attitude, a general lack of interest for how another person implements a solution to a common problem (the fact a problem is very common does NOT mean the implemented solution will be as common....) and a naive faith in the wheel, meaning "everything that could have been invented has already been invented, kiddo" (again, "best practices" can not be improved, there is nothing better than what is already there, etc etc).

"For them to be effective vehicles for competence development and knowledge transfer, and conducive to creative solution making, they must maintain a certain degree of autonomy (from host organisations), flexibility, and responsiveness."

OR the manager/leader/facilitator has to proactively foster autonomy, flexibility and responsiveness... ;) Meaning, a CoP needs a flexible and responsive leader that changes managerial style according to the situation, in order to foster self-organization (ie: gives more structure when CoP is chaotic, pushes on more autonomy and flexibility when CoP is too rigid).

"The key to maintaining the creativity and inventiveness of a CoP, bearing in mind it is emotional energy we are speaking of, the CoP needs to be continuously challenged by problems that excite its members, and if this is not quite enough, by appropriate forms of leadership, which will be dependent on the context from which the CoP arose."

It is important to stress out how such excitement is emotional in nature and cannot be elicited through a job description or anything rational like that. Being able to motivate and excite people means being able to be a good coach and mentor, and present managers need to have coaching and mentoring skills as well.

"The key to understanding how a community forms is the role of the independent learner, how her natural motivation is to share her knowledge of the result-of-actions, and how they are produced, which leads to the formation of social relationships."

So the key to form a community is NOT about sharing results or "best practices", but to explain even mistakes, how they happened, why,and the like. Interesting! It does, indeed, explain some things to me, such as, for example, why people spreading "best practices" (or always the same old concepts/links) tend not to be a part of a successful, vibrant community. It's because they cut off the conversation: "follow these best practices and shut the f*ck up".

"The more an individual learns and the more she shares, the greater the variety of situations and events she and her community are able to handle. The more problems she is able to solve, the more strategies the community has for dealing with unanticipated events."

And I reiterate: the more she learns (as opposed to: saying the same old things and practicing always in the same old way), the more the community is able to handle.

"Conversation is a process that can, but not always, give rise to strong emotioning, which may influence a decision to share a result-of-action, individual and collective, with others. Järvilehto also associates the production of results of action with emotions. The depth of emotioning experienced during and after the production of a result, might also influence the value an individual attaches to it. Similarly, the value placed on a particular means or process of production, and the components thereof, will also be influenced by the depth of emotioning produced."

These lines do not need any further comment *grin* The days in which people thought that conversation was a mere information exchange are OVER.

Next question is: when will they get it? ;)

Gionnethics

2005-06-03T01:12:00.000+02:00

Folks,

on June 1st I've bought a domain and am presently building my site for my Gionnethics.

I guess this will only be a tentative version of it, because the ideas I have all take time *grin* Can any of you suggest one software package over another (please, don't say Yahoo Site Builder!)?

So far, I am working on contents and structure, not to mention some soul-searching about the life purpose/mission statement. For the ones of you who know me either IRL or from other groups, it might help to have a little sketch from you, just to see how I am perceived, what I am able to communicate and such. Last thing I want is to describe myself the way I would like to be and am not!

Given the name I chose, a merge of my nick, gionnetto, and ethics, I want to be honest and upfront, also in order to avoid problems with clients later.

Ah, forgetful that I am. The business will be about online facilitation, especially applied to CoP nurturing and especially thought to suite the nonprofit world and other mission-based businesses. Add here and there some coaching and volunteer management consulting work.

Accountable to Whom?

2005-05-05T16:30:00.000+02:00

Yesterday, opening my emailbox, I was very very pleased to find Hildy Gottlieb's newsletter latest issue. In fact, I was very fond of her Board Accountability: A Model for Community-Driven Governance, because these have been things I've mulled over for a long time.

So, who are nonprofit accountable to?

Many dear ole boys would say donors, of course. That's because they come from the business world, where the ones that have money are The Bosses and where no matter what your convictions are about, you serve the business you are into, or you leave your job. Ethics, unless it belongs to the official business policy, is no business of the worker, that just thinks about feeding his/her family, buying what s/he wants, and the f*ck with the rest of the world. At least, this is the American rendition of the business world.

From this perspective, the donor is the one with money, therefore only s/he has the authority to tell you what s/he wants and you nonprofit worker have but to obey, even when it does not correspond with your idea of serving your community.

Which by the way IS who we are accountable to.

A nonprofit is not about making, generating, managing or distribuiting money in an efficent way. A nonprofit is about doing things that are not-for-profit, that is being involved in providing goods and services that could not be provided (either at all or with that level of money) without donations.

The for-profit paradigm is INSUFFICIENT to determine realms of action of nonprofits. That is precisely the reason for thinking it could be accountable to donors, and comparing donors to stackholders, are Freudian slips witnessing how such world is populated by businessmen and businesswomen trying to lead nonprofits as if it were for-profits, ie: missing the difference BIGTIME.

Besides, such perspective, proported to be a "modern business perspective" is behind the times. In fact, modern businesses are about accountability to CLIENTS.

But the nonprofit world, yet another time, stands still into the eighties, and has a hard time get over those years. Rampant capitalism is over and even poor Mr President Reagan is dead, does it tell you anything NEW???? What about social enterprises and consumerism?

There is no other place so behind times, when it comes to consumerism, like the nonprofit world.

Food banks can distribute expired food to their consumers cause the nonprofit has to save money for the cause... but should it happen that a market did it to clients, its principal could not use the same justification, would be in fact kicked out of business and probably have a lawsuit against him/her. For the same crime, nonprofits will have impunity. This just shows one more time how many modern businesses ARE respective of clients/consumers, while many nonprofits are NOT.

So Hildy's model, gearing accountability into community, is a blast of fresh air in a polluted environment.

For that, thanks a bunch Hildy.

ICT, its challenges to organizational practices and nonprofits

2005-04-18T22:19:00.000+02:00

Just today I found in my emailbox the Nonprofit Times newsletter. One of the articles in it was a book review of Carol Barbeito's Human Resource Policies and Procedures for Nonprofit Organizations.

I did NOT read the book. However, I care to comment on the rendition of it that was in the newsletter because:

it might be what the book actually says
even if the book says something different, the attitude that shines out of such review is revealing of something "more".

Quoting the NPT newsletter:

"Among the items that Barbeito said should be spelled out:

Use of the Internet is for nonprofit use only, and the organization may monitor members' use of the Internet to ensure that it is being used for stated purposes only.
Users must abide by all existing federal and state laws regarding electronic communication. This includes, but is not limited to, accessing information without authorization, giving out passwords or causing a system to malfunction.
No advertising, either for profit or for campaigns for political office, is allowed.
Users must not use language that is abusive, profane or sexually offensive.
Email is not guaranteed to be private."

Point #1. This create a legislative problem, ie: definition of organizational purposes. Plus, I am not sure AT ALL that personal communications can be PROHIBITED, being them a human right (that cannot be violated by any person, policy or even law -- See Universal Human Rights Declaration, Article 8). Personal communications could be restricted, in space and time, to something like "no more than such and such minutes (or percentage of time) a day/week", but not prohibited (this is illegal even when done to people in jail!).

Point #2. Organizations must abide to all laws as well. And especially a nonprofit, if not for reason of ETHICS at least for reason of convenience, should not violate Human Rights Declaration.

Point #3. The first lines only apply to those nonprofit whose tax-exempt status would be jeopardized by "siding" with a political candidate. As far as the rest of it, referring to abusive language, it is already a law and need not be re-stated as a policy (I suspect this reiteration is put in place in the perception it could avoid lawsuits... false twice, first because some stupid people will always sue another even when having no grounds to, second cause it is the actual breaking of the law that puts you at risk, and your statement of compliance does not change this fact).

Point #4. Email IS private and failing to consider it as such is in overt violation of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, Article 12.

But aside from the legislative aspects, from these suggested policies we can see how the new technologies are dealt with through OLD paradigms: prohibitions, limitations, negative rulings. NO mention of exploiting existing and newly formed social networks for organizational purposes, NO mention of fostering trust among staff and volunteers through new ICT management solutions, NO mention of organizational change due to a more open, networked, organization.

NO WONDER there are only TWO academical works on knowledge management applied to nonprofits EVEN IF the field (KM) is old of at least a decade!!!!

As in the article I commented about yesterday, we can either try to "improve" old practices with as less change as possible OR we can try to make our organization innovative and sustainable. We can legitimately decide to go for no/few changes, but without forgetting how it is adaptability to change that not only denotes intelligence but also overcome challenges, ultimately.

Leadership - Commented Article

2005-04-16T21:14:00.000+02:00

In John D. Smith's community of practice group, Jen Hunter posted a very interesting link to the Berkana Institute. I dare to comment one of the many articles written by Margaret J. Wheatley, namely Supporting Pioneering Leadersas Communities of Practice.

Margaret on practices:

"We are living in a period when many of our fundamental beliefs and practices no longer serve us or the greater world. Worse than that, they are causing great harm and disabling us from being effective sponsors and facilitators of healthy change. I believe that the longer we continue to use familiar Western beliefs and practices, the more impotent we become to create the world we want."

It's not a case if Asian Tigers are taking over, in fact. It's a whole new concept of management, a whole new concept of productivity, and a whole new concept of working. It's a sustainable one, in that it encompasses community needs and gains.

Margaret on beliefs:

"We wove the following beliefs into our practices: that humans are motivated by selfishness, greed, and fear. That we exist as individuals, free of the obligation of interdependence. That hierarchy and bureaucracy are the best forms of organizing. That efficiency is the premier measure of value. That people work best under controls and regulations. That diversity is a problem. That unrestrained growth is good. That a healthy economy leads naturally to a healthy society. That poor people have different motivations than other people. That only a few people are creative. That only a few people are willing to struggle for their freedom."

Beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies. By supposing people to be greedy and individualistic, a company selects that kind of persons. It's even inconsistent cause it's all about giving incentives to ego and then b*tching about how employees only think about their personal rewards!

Margaret on leaders:

"There are many brave pioneers experimenting with new approaches for resolving the most difficult societal problems. These new leaders have abandoned traditional practices of hierarchy, power, and bureaucracy. They believe in people's innate creativity and caring. They know that most people can be awakened to be active in determining what goes on in their communities and organizations. They practice consistent innovation and courage-wherever they see a problem, they also see possibility. They figure out how to respond. If one response doesn't work, they try another. They naturally think in terms of interconnectedness, following problems wherever they lead, addressing multiple causes rather than single symptoms. They think in terms of complex global systems and yet also understand this world as a global village."

This doesn't just explain why new paradigms usually are born in Asia, but also why KM inNPOs has been implemented in Asia first too. Societies like Asians and Mediterraneans, all geared on communication and sharing are THE places where to implement KM solutions.

Margaret on challenges:

New leaders must invent the future while dealing with the past
It is difficult to break with tradition
Supporters want them to look familiar
There is no room for failure
We want them to fail

The thing I find the most challenging is when you pioneer "invent" something new, show it and the Old Boys look at you saying "you have no data". To which I reply "You have stagnant mistakes, and no vision at all". But somehow they prefer to repeat the existing rather than trying something new.

This, too, is about crushing the ego. In order to be a pioneer, you (generic) need to be able to make mistakes and learn from them rather than be defensive of your work. But Westerners, raised to value ego, find excuses over excuses to claim their work remarkable even when it is not. The world will belong to Asians and Mediterraneans, sooner or later, because they have the cultural capability of correcting their mistakes.

Furthermore, most of such "scholars" are completely uneducated in philosophy of science and think that when you (generic) contest their results you have to prove yours valid rather than theirs wrong. Amazingly uneducated folks.

Margaret on scientists:

"Thomas Kuhn described the behavior of scientists when confronted with evidence that pointed to a truly new world view. (see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1996, 1974) When the new evidence clearly demonstrated the need for a change in paradigms, scientists were observed working hard to make the evidence conform to their old worldview. In defense of the old, they would discard or reinterpret the data. (This was always done unconsciously.) And in the most startling instances, they actually would be blind to the new information-even with the data in front of them, they literally could not see it. For them, the new did not exist."

This fits with the constructivist approach to learning: in order to learn you (generic) reinterpret new knowledge in light of your (previous) mental models. That basically implies: if your mental models aren't flexible, you're toasted. And that also explains how scientists, that are supposed to be able to criticize theories (theirs own included), if they aren't flexible enough to self-criticize, they can't accomplish much as far as science is regarded.

Margaret on learning and Freire:

"When people understand the forces creating the adverse conditions of their life, and how they might change those forces, they become eager and rapid learners. They are capable of learning sophisticated skills that far surpass traditional assumptions about their intellectual capacity. And they learn these skills faster than anyone would have thought possible."

This is, basically, why support groups do work and also why communities of practice generate new knowledge. Sharing generates new understandings, that are shared, and that generate more knowledge.

Without loosening the sense of ego there is no leadership, no KM, no learning, no sustainability, no CoP. It's all about building some schemes, calling them "best practice" and refusing to hear anything else.

2005-03-22T12:52:00.000+01:00

Vera Wang 1997, the Barbie with my face!

Ashamed of Belonging

2005-03-21T23:13:00.000+01:00

There are times in our lives in which, for leisure or professional reasons, we join communities and/or groups (tightly or loosely led), online and/or off-line. And there are times in which belonging to such communities is a source of deep shame.

This happens whenever a member of such communities takes an either/or stand (Kierkegaard would be fond of such an aut-aut approach... but I am with Hegel, so I like the et-et one!).

Some examples...

In a beauty forum, the moderator (a little not balanced enough) censors positive comments on cosmetic brands that test on animals, valuing respect for animals more than respect for humans. In the same forum, the interest for beauty products goes along with prejudices and false myths, fuelling the "blonde" stereotype.

A professional category like Volunteer Management doesn't fly simply because it's (almost) all about "warm and fuzzy feelings", like Jayne Cravens defined them in her Topic of the Months at Merrill's, with no or few managerial skills, yet calling themselves "managers".

Among online professionals ("techies"), most are as intuitive, empathetic and warm as a piece of iron at the North Pole.

Then, my favourite topic, politics. I belong to a political side, the Left, whose interest in valuing people's feelings, fears and sentiments in general (save few spare enlightened persons here and there) is below zero. And when I come out and say which side I belong to, I am afraid of being taken for one of those rabid idealists willing to sacrifice anything and anybody to animals, plants, a sterile principle or anything else inanimated, trying to convert you to their own unrelenting self-punishments.

If I say "Hey I am Roman Catholic" I am afraid of being taken for those fanatics trying to impose their legitimate life choice onto others, forgetting how religion is an individual choice, or rabidly rallying against people needing a Mosque to pray "another G*d".

If I say I am Italian, I get ashamed of being exchanged for a fan of Oriana Fallaci's, whose shameful book is more full of hate and resentment toward Muslims, than 10,000 Osama speeches against Westerners. If the poor woman would get more concerned about improving herself (for example by accepting that feedback that she has been refusing for over 10 yrs -- she doesn't read what people think of her --- pooh oooh---- betraying a huge ego and its lack of capability to correct herself) and more loving toward humankind, she might get some chance to beat that cancer that is eating her alive (and that won't abandon her, since "similia similibus facillime congregantur", which equals to "birds of a feather flock together").

Even my belonginess to the bipolar legacy creates me some problems, cause very many of us use the illness as an excuse (and I did it myself!), "helped" in that by both the medical model ("it's all your genes' fault") and the sociological one ("it's all society's fault") to think "there is nothing I can do about it". WRONG.

So, how do I reconcile my respect for human freedom, for animal dignity, for people's feelings and for online communications? Sometimes it's really hard.

I don't want to "take a side" that is useless to be taken. I don't want to choose between a person and an animal. a Christian and a Muslim, an Italian and a citizen of another nation, a bipolar and a "normie", an animal over a plant, etc. I do have the guts to take a stand, but I won't take ANY stand that isn't needed to be taken. Why do I have to sacrifice one side over the other? It is just plain stupid.

Sometimes I am ashamed of being taken for one of "those", sometimes I am discouraged, sometimes I am just plain mad.

Like right now.

Ethics

2005-03-09T15:08:00.001+01:00

Let's say it clearly: I am p*ssed. So this will probably be a ramble with links, rathen than a blog entry, anyway...

I hear over and over again the word ethics blabbed around by coaches as well as nonprofit guys and gals, to name a few. And I say blabbed cause none of these persons show any real, factual, knowledge of what ethics means.

In the most optimistic case, they take ethics as "observance of laws", missing how you can be observant of the law and STILL a completely unethical person. In the more pessimist stances, ethics becomes a matter of appearing (ie: as caring persons, better ones, etc etc) and you hear the disgusting words: "I don't want to SOUND unethical".

Do you want to understand what ethics is?

And yes, I said "you" cause I am European, thank G*d, and I live in a land in which even if you don't go to Medical School, most prestigious High Schools (Liceo Scientifico and Liceo Classico) force you through three year of studies in Philosophy. In short: when we speak of something, we usual know where it came from, we don't suppose it's sooo coooool what we have just invented! And THIS is what is happening in the US and Canada with ethics: they don't know where it comes from, they don't know what it is, but they shove their rendition down your throat cause they think it's them who invented yet another cooool toooool.

Let's start with this, ethics is a branch of philosophy. Both words come from ancient greek language:

Philosophy: from "phileo" (=love) and "sophia" (=knowledge), in other words "love for knowledge".
Ethics: is the study of human conduct

There are several kinds of ethics:

descriptive ethics: ethical standards/principles;
normative ethics: theories systematically denominating right vs wrong actions;
applied ethics: using theories for practical cases; and
meta-ethics: analysis of the meaning & justification of ethical claims

This being said, you will certainly understand why I am so p*ssed.

What people get out of the word ethics is about either prohibiting/getting rid of something prudish (see poor Millard Fuller, whose life is being jeopardized by persons that not even in 10 lifetimes could do as much as he did, in name of a supposed ethics that NOTHING has to do with real ethics) or about an accountant-like concept of ethics, "accountability" (meaning: MONEY, the f*ck with all the rest).

All of this, very typically, is North American: denial of sexual impulses (and any other "bad" impulse) in the workplace (but not only... it sounds like being INTO Brave New World or 1984, even if originally written as a satyr to Communism) and major preoccupation with money money money. So being ethical becomes being a frigid person, stuffing desires inside, being afraid of complimenting a person (cuz you know saying "your blouse matches your complexion and look so good on you" is claimed to be sexual harrassment --- GIVE ME A BREAK!!!) and replacing vital energy with things you need money for. And btw also avoiding malpractice is not really about avoiding to harm the poor/weak/innocent person, it's about avoiding to loose money to malpractice lawsuits.

Not that consumer/clients suing are better! Who are they suing? Philip Morris, the Red Cross, or some wealthy professionals. For sure they won't sue the shaman giving them an intoxicating potion, they sue the doctor giving them a medication they are allergic to. These both are mistakes, but how is that the doctor gets sued while the shaman doesn't? Cause the shaman doesn't have the money and people are not interested in justice, they want the MONEY. Equally unethical to whom covers his/her *ss in fear of loosing money.

Ethics is the preoccupation to think about our conduct, when it is right, when it is wrong, and why.

In short, we (generic) should think about ethics WHETHER OR NOT there is the actual possibility of a lawsuit.

Nonprofit Corporate Blogging

2005-03-03T03:36:00.000+01:00

Though I am not working full force, I still read and browse full force and I have 3 juicy links for you today....

I won't assume you know what a blog is (even though you are actually reading one!), because too often we do things we are not aware of, or we don't know enough about, so here it is the definition.

Up to a couple of months ago, I stayed away from blogging. Mainly because I thought it to be a narcissistic exercise... blurting out all my thoughts as if people really cared about reading them! Fact is, I found out there was somebody that cared to, so I decided to go for it.

Apparently, blogs are very appealing to people. I understand how appealing they are to their authors... it's like standing at a corner of the street screaming "Repent! The End of the World is coming..!". You actually feel important.

What escapes my capability of comprehension still, is why should another person want to hear my screams at the corner of the street? As I said, I still don't know, but I'm working on a better understanding.

I am more attracted to wikis, for what that matters. Probably because, like in Star Trek, my social/egalitarian nature led me to have a special affection toward Borgs:

"According to themselves, the Borg only seek to "improve the quality of life in the universe" and add to their own perfection. To this end, they travel the galaxy, improving their numbers and advancing by "assimilating" other species and technologies, and forcing captured individuals under the control of the Hive mind by injecting them with nanoprobes. They harbor no ill will to anyone; they merely fulfill their biological or programmatic imperative to assimilate. As they say, "You will be assimilated – resistance is futile." They make good on that threat by their ability to quickly adapt to any attack to render it harmless. "

I happened to stumble in a Beginners' Guide to Corporate Blogging, from
Fredrik Wackå, Sweden, explaining:

what a blog is (not just the definition)
what a corporate blog is
reasons for having a corporate blog
types of corporate blogs (from page 8 on, it's very interesting, and stimulates some reflections on how to use blogs in a nonprofit environment and - why not - in volunteer management)
steps to a business blog

Once you decide you want a blog, you can get some nice hints on the how-tos from Mike Rundle. Those are, basically, tips on writing for corporate bloggers.

Finally, e-CIVICUS divulges the news that Citizen Lab offers free weblogs to all people in civil society using their civiblog service.

I started thinking of using blogs for keeping real contact with donors, getting input from citizens and clients, branding, but especially the hyper-used word... ENGAGING....

Million Dollar Baby and Respect

2005-03-01T18:40:00.000+01:00

I am really pleased that Million Dollar Baby won 4 Oscars, and so important.

I know, I know. A persons with disability (PWD) should b*tch about it instead, but I frankly don't understand why. To me such b*tching is a nonsense, for several reasons.

Whenever this movie is taken to interpret that somebody is advocating the mass-killing of PWDs, I wonder if they didn't watch a nazi-movie instead, cause this interpretation is pure science fiction. The movie is all about a person, a "normal" person, becoming disabled and deciding to die.

That's it. You won't see any laws about killing all PWDs, any train sending them all to Bergen-Belsen, any californian mass-sterilization, and such. None of that sh*t. Just a girl that breaks her neck and wants to die as a result of it.

It's a matter of feelings. The way a person without disability can not, possibly, understand how having a disability feels like, we can not, possibly, understand how they feel in loosing "all", unless we became disabled ourselves and have been "normal" at some point of our lives we remember of.

I've heard of many persons taking their lives after a car accident in which they became paraplegic, so I suppose this feeling to be quite common in similar situations. It's no screenplay. We can't deny it does indeed exist and it is indeed common just because that shakes the way we chose to live our values and our lives. That is called denial.

We can't distort such human, personal feelings about one's own situation and generalize their portrait to mean that "a life with disability is not worth being lived". That is our own sense of prosecution and our own fears of the past to be back that blind us. What a person contemplating suicide in those settings thinks is very likely to be: "MY life with disability is not worth being lived by ME". Sorry, it's not about us. It's about THAT person, HER/HIS pain, HER/HIS decisions. Let's leave our egos out of it.

We may agree with him/her, we may disagree. We may decide to help him/her finding a meaning in it, or to help him/her fight for legally achieving her/his right to die, rather than those persons having to resort to painful, degradating, sub-human ways to take their lives. For sure we can not tell him/her that his/her feelings are wrong, just because OUR choices are the opposite to what his/hers is being. We also can not, possibly, forget how that it is a personal reaction of a suffering human being. We, the disabled, can NOT deny, step on, or victimize any other person's sufference just because our big egos make us think we should be involved in deciding what somebody else wants.

It's a matter of choice. We find our lives with disabilities worth living, WE. We can help them finding their lives worthy, if THEY choose to. BOTH options are choices, and ALL choices deserve respect. In NO CASE WHATSOEVER we have the right to trumpet an ideology on a suffering person, nor to impose it.

WE cannot tell another person, just because s/he is disabled, that yet another person will decide for him/her, keeping him/her in a life that, to HIM/HER, has no meaning and satisfaction. It is the same reason for we don't want somebody else to decide to unplug the machine for us and decide that we "have to go" without our own consent.

It's matter of respect. The debate about physician-assisted suicide is very similar to the one about abortion. There are pro-life people, there are pro-choice people. But, they all are people and NONE of them have (or should have) the power of impose their choice on another person, because they have no right to. NONE of us should impose a person with disability to live on, or not to live any more. It is a PERSONAL choice, PERIOD.

And when we are bothered by the right of choice of somebody else and think it is ok to restrict it, I feel we should look inside and ask to ourselves:

1) why we feel the need to impose our views on others,

2) why we have double standards in thinking others shouldn't impose their views on us but we for some reasons are allowed to, and

3) how we think we could be able to respect ourselves, if we can't even respect others.

Online Communication, CoPs and MDGs

2005-02-25T03:00:00.000+01:00

Every now and then, reading here and there, you find some neat piece of information, that prompts some nice reflection.

I have some of them today, so... I've been lucky! ;)

In her Computer Mediated Communication, Jennifer Geary, a PhD candidate, digress on the characteristics of such kind of communication:

"The nuances, processes and structures associated with computer-mediated communication need to be explored and developed so that its full potential can be realised. In this article my thesis was that computer-mediated communication is a form of text paced dialogue that enables challenges associated with time and space to be transcended to unite knowledge based professionals including adult, community and distance educators throughout our “world villages”.

I had been writing for a loooooooooong time on how the supposed "inferiority" of computer-mediated communication (CMC) becomes a big advantage in some situations, for example in self-help groups for anxiety disorders, like the imponent work of Katelyn McKenna.

The second kudo for you all is something on One World, an article on building CoPs in order to achieve the MDGs. And guess what? Using ICT!

The world of dinosaurs claiming CMC communication to be "less" or "just like" f2f one are fading off.

FINALLY!

Dialogic Listening and Dynamic Facilitation

2005-02-22T01:52:00.000+01:00

Few days ago, I was reading GRP-FACL posts while stumbled on a post of Jim Rough's who despite the surname is a really enjoyable person ;)

Anyway Jim invented what is called Dynamic Facilitation. I am intrigued by it because:
1) I work with CoPs where trust is important and dynamic facilitation is said to develop trust;
2) it is choice-creating (I get bored at usual facilitation, cause its outcome is often too predictable for me);
3) it creates a win-win situation (which I like, while I absolutely hate the patronizing/condescending traditional way of beating people into a consensus nobody really agrees with, but everybody pretends to buy into).

I have to admit, I tend to like more "confrontational" styles of interaction, like dialogic listening as opposed to Rogers' active listening.

I love dialogic listening because it:
1) emphasizes conversation as a shared activity (ahem... otherwise why should I take any part in it?);
2) values an open end (if I already know the outcome, why am I playing the game???And I can't stand overbearing egos fighting for having the upper end..);
3) focuses on what happens between the parts, rather than in their heads, or around them (if all happens in my head, even when I speak with you, what's the point of interacting? Can't I just read a book to get the stimulation I need to think on? *grin*);
4) stresses being in the present (if I do things now thinking about the past, or the future, what's the sense of doing them now????).

It's funny how dialogic listening (and "confrontational approaches") could be culturally unacceptable for Americans and other anger-avoidant cultures in which open discussion of the conflict is a taboo, while "tiptoeing" facilitation, the one so respectful of egos and their trips is so popular....

No wonder we (Westeners) go to war... we don't know how to have a real, honest, dialogue, possibly before the H*ll breaks loose!

Maybe what I really like of online settings is that there is more flame, more confrontation and thereby more occasions to be real, authentic, rather than politically-correct, anesthetized, "polite".

When I say "consideration for people", I do not mean we should lie or tiptoeing around others. I DO mean, however, that if we want to be honest, we better learn not to be brutal. Being unable to carry a conversation in a graceful way is not a fine quality, no matter how many times we twist it into a rational explanation. Otherwise the only beings that will bear with us will be our animals and plants.

And NO, being unable of meaningful relationship with fellow humans is not a compliment in my book, mo matter how many animals, plants, or whatever we end up adopting!

Whiteness

2005-02-19T09:01:00.000+01:00

Now, some background here.

My complexion is very fair, and I am very fond and proud of it. I actually like it so much that I never sunbathe, and not just because of skin damage. In fact, I never ever put self-tanning lotions on it. I do, however, put all the moisturizing and nourishing creams I need, since my skin is pretty dry too. Anyhow, I am white candid and like to be as white as the milk is.

Some days ago, I had a bad reaction to the sun. I don't know exactly if it was because I hadn't be out in a while or because of some pollutant being activated on my face by the sunlight. I wasn't wearing make up and my usual creams weren't enough. So, I started browsing the net for an appropriate sun-block screen. Then I thought I'd check into a whitening product cause anytime I get a sunburn my skin stays uneven for a while, and it's really yukky (to me anyway, who am the only person whose tastes I am concerned about).

Trying to decide which one to buy between a Lancome and a Dior product (and I ended up with a Chanel in the end), I was browsing the net more and more, till I found this article, which really enraged me. I am going to comment on several nonsenses I found there.

First of all, the supposed "popularisation of skin-whitening practices amongst 'non-white' cultures that has occurred in recent years" did not occur in recent years. Go to China, go to Japan, and you'll find ancient tales of Princesses that were said to keep their complexion fair with special herbals. No, wait a moment, by their own admissions authors contradict themselves later when they wrote: "In ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman societies, mercury and lead compounds were used to whiten the face of high-class women". Authors claim it all is "with relation to historical and colonial contexts", strategically forgetting how ancient Chinese and Japanese masks are and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN as white as ancient Greeks'.

They also claim to explore "the performance of 'whiteness' by young women in Southeast Asia, who are encouraged to whiten their faces with cosmetics to become 'paler'". Well such encouragement dates WAY back, so long ago that you can find it present in ancient Indian tales (again, not born yesterday, or with colonialism).

Asian skins, other than being oilier than white one, are much more dermatologically vulnerable to dark spot, so there are scientifical reasons to doubt that "changing skin colour possibly fulfils a role in the maintenance of literal and symbolic debt structures". Very probably, what was sought after, was the extreme eveness of white skins (the way white people envy Asian's resistance to wrinkles).

"Lipsitz coins the phrase the 'possessive investment in "whiteness"' to describe how European Americans have used whiteness to create and secure economic advantages, while 'white power secures its dominance by seeming not to be anything in particular'.": how could I forget THIS????? The white man made the awful mistake of inventing racism and therefore now he has the culprit of being white, in a sort of "reverse racism". He is even to blame for others' (SUPPOSED) inferiority complexes.

For some reasons, the authors decided that skin-whitening cannot just be "the old feminine ideologies that still [have] power to control women" as Wolf's proposes: That is mainly because their critique is a feminist one, which translates into "whatever you woman do, what's in between your legs influences your actions and make them different NO MATTER WHAT YOU DECIDE ABOUT THAT -- did I say chauvinism -- with an important corollary: "The uglier you are, the better you are to us" cause being ugly means you don't give a d*mn about what your father, brother and husband think of you but you also don't even give a d*mn about the most important person to you, YOU, liking YOURSELF). They even go so far to define being white "passive, non-threatening femininity associated with whiteness", as if being tanned and full of wrinkles to sun damage were a beauty to behold.

"In analysing the meanings of whiteness in colonial economies, Richard Dyer argues that the construction of 'whiteness' is dependent upon belief in the mind/body split, and on Christian spiritual values that support imperialism.": don't you just love these things? I understand it's a hypothesis, but usually they should make sense to be held as credible.

On one thing they are right though: being white expresses a priviledge, not just figuratively, meaning that's what people think when look at a very white person. If you are that white, chances are you either don't expose to sun or you have bad reactions if you do, so usually your skin is younger, more beautiful. In any case, even in Europe, being that fair is not usual. It is considered being special.

It sounds to me as if all the supposed bad intentions behind the whiteness are out of a misperception of the priviledge "less-whites" see in whiteness.

Coming to think about it, don't you find persons as white as Nicole Kidman or Greta Garbo to "feel" somehow superior, snotty, snob, while "darker" (like, say, Penelope Cruz or JLo) persons are seen as "less distant"?

I don't mean authors are right, I mean the reverse.

They blab endlessly about those "critiques" just to sell you a (SUPPOSED) justification for a mere prejudice against very white people, explaining in details why you should think what your guts already do... that they are distant, icy, and isolated. Yeah.. I think somebody else tried to prove that black people stink too...

Next step is to pick all snobby whities up, shove them into a train like anchovies (so that they stop being so isolated) and send them to Russia to have their brain reformatted in a psychiatric ward compliant with the regime...

Wait a moment! Hasn't it already happened??????????

Background Screening

2005-02-07T22:56:00.000+01:00

I have mixed feeligs toward background screening for volunteers....

First of all, because they tend not to be effective, especially about pedophiles who notoriously (95%) belong to the family of the victimized child or to "close family friends". Substance abuse screening has a little more sense, in that a subject can lie or even say "I am done with it" in good faith, but then be overwhelmed with symptom of dependence and give in, jeopardizing the safety of coworkers and/or clients.

Background checks sound to me like a definitive sentence, kind of "you made one mistake and you will pay it forever". It denies any possibility of recovery and real change in one's lifestyle. I know by experience that you can be manic or obsessed, situations in which your insight is impaired to the point you can commit a crime you later regret. I wouldn't feel like denying such opportunity to another fellow human, because I am not sure (not at all!) that people who make one mistake do so because they are evil, and/or beyond "repair".

Plus, people who made a mistake once and want to volunteer now, usually are persons that are trying to straighten their life up, otherwise they wouldn't choose to freely give some time away for the good of others.

Ultimately, background checks enhance in the public the perception that, in order to volunteer, one has to be perfect or so. That DOES deter people with low self-esteem, or the ones that don't feel like heros, from volunteering, which is a pity cause they would get to be the most dedicated and devoted ones.

However, it is a fact that some persons get to volunteer in order to take advantages of minors, or elderly people.

But are they the ones that have previously been in jail?

RARELY.

Leadership and Volunteer Management

2005-02-04T13:12:00.000+01:00

Sidenote: yes I am still alive, even if this flu has taken a heavy toll on me. Thank you for your emails... now down to business....

I have various kinds of friends, interested in different topics, and I like various topics myself. I had been accumulating links over links till I got an email from Jill, which gave me an idea on how to sew them together, so here I am.

Starting with AVA's motto: "Every volunteer, effectively led".

Few months ago, a discussion about leadership on cyberVPM brought to my attention how there are persons that, surprisingly, oppose the term "leading volunteers". They think it to be somehow offensive to volunteers: "they are not animals, you don't lead them anywhere" they say "they go where they want to go". In fact, I said leader, were they animals I'd use shepherd instead. *grin*

All that fuss over hierarchies and leadership is yet another excess of such politically correct "person-centered" (and brain-alien) language.

The fact we all are usually given the right to choose where to go doesn't mean we need no hint about which direction to take. Even if the whole politically corrected world rushes out (usually, yelling at whom disagrees...) to level differences with some kilos of white let's-all-pretend-to-be-equal paint. And has even the nerve to call it "respect for differences"! I for one am humble enough to admit that yes, there ARE fields in which I DO need directions and no, I am not ashamed of it, nor to admit it, because there is nothing bad about it. I also am not envious of leaders and leadership roles, so I guess it's easier for me to accept the term and concept. Plus, I realize how the world needs hierarchies in order to work (on the danger of upside-down hierarchies, like putting ideals before feelings, I'll write another day....).

Others would prefer the term manager, or adminstrator. I don't like any of them. The former assimilates people to things to move from one place to another, the second to money that runs from pocket to pocket. I stick by Volunteer Leader.

But back to the leadership thingy... what is leadership?

In most countries, as well as in most persons' minds, leadership is something you obtain especially when you don't deserve it, provided you are willing to yell long enough to. The concept is dangerously similar to that of advocacy. Pick up a subject, it's not important whether you are right or wrong, whether your claims make sense or not. It is important that you yell so loud and for so long, possibly throwing all you can find on your path at whoever dare disagreeing with you. That way, they will become afraid of openly going against you, and you'll feel you won your war for celebrity and are the biggest expert in the world. But there is a problem: while you feel all contemptuous, the rest of the world will be laughing at you, your idiosincrasies and your intellectual blindness. If they sound respectful is because they are waiting for an occasion in which they will be granted impunity. At which time, you will see who is the winner and who is the sucker.

So again what is leadership and who is the leader? Leadership is when a consistent portion of a group of people follow the opinions, behaviours and/or ideas of a person that is but expressing him/herself in such process (meaning: no show-offs, no manipulations). They decide who the leader is and the leader can only accept or refuse the role. Get real: you cannot be a leader if nobody but yourself designates you as one. Period. You can't say: "I am the boss therefore I am the leader". PERIOD.

That's why self-proclamed leaders and experts are persons that, at minimum, are being blinded by their own ambitions but, usually, by their own stupidity and limitations.

Being a leader has something "animal" in it. It's a matter of sensing the temperature of persons & groups, of interpreting non-verbal language (and, for God's sake, remember Mehrabian!), of having & displaying feelings, of motivating folks and of knowing how to speak in meaningful spontaneous discourses. It is NOT about sending cold informal "personal" messages and newsletters, interpreting ONLY verbal language, keeping feelings and "important stuff" private, beating people into submission about some "ideal" and giving long technical/numerical/idealistic speeches. A leader is a person that after you listened to, you feel you can do what s/he is doing, with the result that s/he is having, if only you get into his/her attitude.

It's not about what the leader says, or thinks, or is. It is about how s/he makes you feel when s/he speaks to you. Even when you dissent from what s/he says, you feel that S/HE made you think, S/HE inspired you, S/HE fuelled your actions. Even when s/he prompted you to disproof what s/he just wrote! THIS is a leader. A person whose post you never skip, a person you want to listen to, and not just because s/he pesters you if you don't.

And no, being a leader is not a bed of roses, like false leaders think and claim to experience. You have no pauses or few, because their eyes, the eyes of the people that chose you as a leader are on YOU, whether you like it or not, want it or not, feel like it or not. Whether you feel you are enough for the role, the task, the goal or you are not, they chose you. The fact you wouldn't have chosen yourself doesn't change their mind. If you watched the Matrix, it was Morpheus to choose Neo as the leader, regardless of Neo's personal opinion. THAT is what leadership is like, and it's not easy or nice.

So the point is, of course, not all Volunteer Managers (or Adminstrators) can be Volunteer Leaders. Yet, they can still be intelligent enough to understand when volunteers recognise them as leaders and when they don't. And humble enough to detect who is that they recognise as leader and how to cultivate this person into a Volunteer Manager Assistant, or a Supervisor of Volunteers.

Another problem is that, usually, a person that is comfortable being a manager is a pretty anal one as well. Thus, s/he will have issue on letting go of control, watching volunteers too tightly, endlessly writing job descriptions (cuz they think job descriptions can't be misunderstood, you know), supervising "too much", having delusions that "if I am not here, things just don't get done" and so forth. The idea that there is life outside of what they think is just hard to get into those heads.

So, the social life of volunteers? "It's not important, it's important that the job gets done". Appreciating volunteers? "Well, why don't we just thank them as much as possible and that will cover most of the feeling stuff?". Facilitating social exchanges among volunteers? "As I said, it's more important that the work gets done". Well, if these three aspects improved the quality and quantity of work at Xerox, WHO in the #@ç* tells you that it wouldn't work at your organization, Einstein?

It's because those people are mistrustful of all that can't be controlled, rigorously duplicated and measured. If they help humankind out of duty (or loyalty to some ideals), they can't imagine you can perform the same action out of love, gratefulness or any other feeling.

So yes, I basically think that there is another way to manage volunteer, a happy hybrid between the "all fluff" everything-goes and the North American managerial style.

It would help, and a lot, if we recognise that:
1) group of volunteers have social hierarchies, inner leaders, social networks, likes and dislikes that are "reflective" in nature and individual in the way they present themselves. That means, each volunteer carefully select who to buddy up with, for reasons that have to do with their background, values, motivations and upbringing;
2) they way groups of volunteers behave is inherently different from group of workers. Most works on groups of volunteers have been conducted on open source software developers or on communities of practice. In both cases, and in a surprisingly myope way, findings have been analyzed through the lenses of groups of workers. In other words, the fact they weren't being paid hasn't been taken in account OR such volunteers have been considered motivated by having their name inserted in the acknowledgement file (that already happens for workers, but how is that they still want to be paid???? Hmmmmmm.....);
3) belonging to such groups is a big part of why they decide to start volunteering and of why they decide to stay at our organization (or leave).

For all these reasons, the Volunteer Manager can't possibly go on "letting these groups happen" because too much of what gets done (and especially, of what does NOT get done) depends on the mismanagement of this very precious resources.

And remember, when you doubt about your own leadership and don't know what to do, don't search the "expert"... identify the leader in that group and build on top of it.

It works.

Professionalism and Volunteering Styles

2005-02-01T18:42:00.000+01:00

Susan Ellis' January Hot Topic Why Can’t We Make Progress on Public Perceptions about Volunteering? and a link to an article posted by Jayne Cravens on cyberVPM highlighted how very many times, the word "volunteer" is associated, in people's minds, with something negative and, how some volunteers refuse to be identified as such, preferring other titles.
I think it is because of two reasons:

the public perception of what a volunteer is
the reality of what a volunteer manager is (and, I am afraid, is not)

Volunteers. Hustinx and Lammertyn (2000) began realizing how the meaning of volunteering was changing. The traditional framework, they found, was (and IS) old and not appropriate for reality that is changing. Volunteers are no more and no longer altruistic martyrs, whether secular or religious ones. They are no more and no longer all about community, since they find reasons to volunteer in themselves (may I add a big fat "Thank God" for that?).

Therefore, those volunteers are no longer people with a huge inferiority complex, trying to "give back" to the community out of guilt for being richer, healthier or luckier, and whose guilt we can take advantage of through some recognition event. They are trying to self-actualize and are WAY healthier than they were before. Logical consequence is, we better behave healthier too, but... are we able to?

Again the same authors found out that volunteers aren't as ideologically loyal to an association as they had been in the past. So trying to play the guilt trip on how they should "build a community", "save the environment", "owe their to their fellow humans" and similar things is not just dangerously similar to the "forced volunteerism" of the Soviet Union, but is just not going to work. Better find another trick to engage them, but... again, are we able to?

Volunteer Managers. Ever since volunteer management was invented as a profession, we started giving volunteers some well-deserved training. Thus they stopped being incompentent do-gooders, at least theoretically, a long while ago. In case they still are, we can look in the mirror if we want to find the culprit. It's a matter of professionalism. VPMs should not accept people unwilling to get trained, period. No matter how nice they are, or how well they rub us.

Many many times, in the field of volunteer management, we interrogate ourselves on the meaning of the very word "professionalism". My rendition of such word is "person that does her/his work at her/his own best".

Susan Ellis' December Hot Topic, Chicken or Egg: Why Are Our Professional Associations Weak?, was all geared on why volunteer management professional associations are so weak. In that occasion, I wrote to Susan's:

"VPMs don't belong to professional associations because they feel they don't need to. Since every situation is so peculiar, VPMs feel they don't need a pre-packaged, anecdotal opinion from experts but some sound, reliable guidelines to build their knowledge onto. Because so rarely evidence in best practices is given (beyond anecdotes), VPM voice is (and will stay) unheard, not even listened to, by those who takes political actions. I think the only way out is to change our practice and accept we have to back up our theories if we hope to become influential."

So I am asking you:

Shooting from the "mountain" of our personal ANEDOCTAL experience, can be classified as "doing our best"?
Can't we really go beyond and raise above it?
Can't we demand our leaders to refer to facts, studies, research, when they explain their opinions, so that we can understand how they "got there", so to speak, and have a dialogue that creates meaning, rather than imposing it from one "superior" side, on another?
How is that our associations aren't fighting for having "best practices" that are more similar to science than to fiction?

If I were a competent professional in another field and were considering donating my time, if I were a person upgrading my knowledge regularly, reading research rather than just best-sellers and make a truth out of them, well, if I were one of those persons I for sure:

wouldn't accept to be called unskilled/untrained do-gooder by associating myself to an organization that tolerates such behaviours, and
wouldn't accept to be supervised by a person that most of the times doesn't know the reasons (if any exists) for something "has to be done" the way it is presently done.

I am not saying, of course, that all or even most Volunteer Managers are or behave like that. I on the contrary know many of them that share my same discouragement at the present situation.

I am saying, however, that it is baffling, to see professional associations, advocates, and "experts" not coming out to improve the image of the whole category by raising their own standards (rather than "showing the truth" to others).

If nobody follows you, it's because they think there isn't that much to follow. It's up to you to change their minds, IF you want to be followed, OR to just shut up, IF you don't feel like working as hard.

Open Source Software and Nonprofit Organizations

2005-01-31T02:22:00.000+01:00

Doug McKay is a gentleman who has a newsletter for volunteer managers (by the way, most people ask me what a volunteer manager is and what s/he does, so I thought you might want to know more on the topic.. I mean, it's a real job, and it is definitely more than a Human Resource Manager, in that Volunteer Managers also do project development).

His newsletter is a collection of interesting links on topics like volunteerism and nonprofit management that Doug gathers from several thematic listervers.

Open Source Software (OSS) is said to be of interest for the nonprofit world for several reasons:

it is free: this reason is often used as a good one for endorsing OSS, even though nobody really understands (and for sure not me) why the same organization insists to have a free software because of budgetary constraints, while goes on paying pricey nonprofit consultants without blinking an eye...
it is open source: that means that the code, too, is given together with the software you get so that if you want you can modify it. This is an advantage only if your nonprofit organization has software developers among staff or volunteers
its licence: most people are only familiar with copyright, because it's widespread. HOwever, there exist other kinds of licences, such as copyleft and creative commons deed. Main difference between the last two is that while under the latter you can not modify the original work, even when you acknowledge the author, under the former you can.
no discrimination: the software can't be used to discriminate persons, groups, or fields of endeavour (NOT EVEN if it is a for-profit, because yes, sometimes some persons in some nonprofits DO discriminate toward business people).

However, one of the main factor limiting the use of OSS in nonprofit organizations is that OSS often comes with how-tos that are written in technical jargon, and thereby unaccessible to people with low computer literacy.

In developed countries, nonprofits usually have access to technology, but access and use don't go hand in hand (see McDuff & Dwyer-Morgan, 2001). Similarly, Foth (2003) showed how connectivity (in terms of technology access), does not ensure usability. For the same reason, it's braindead to think that just throwing some technology at developing countries will allow them to "bridge the digital divide". Cultural aspects have to be addressed, possibly without cultural imperialism to be involved.

Why are people afraid of using technology?

From a sociological perspective, most scholars, either pro- or against technology, took an ideological black-and-white stand, i.e.: technology is either "all good" or "all bad".

Schuler (1996) took a melioristic stance (that is, belives that improvement of society depends on people's efforts to improve it), highlighting how the consequences of technology has depend on how we shape its use. Under this respect, it's very important to "translate" technical jargon into less threatening (but not oversimplificated) language.

NOSI did exactly this! Its Choosing and Using Open Source Software: A Primer for Nonprofits is a mirable example of non-threatening language making difficult concepts accessible without making the reader feel patronized.

Many thanks to Doug for having brought this link to our attention!

Love, Maturana and Empedocles

2005-01-30T13:10:00.000+01:00

Thanks to Pete, from the com-prac group, I've just come in contact with Maturana's work, which is way too complex and fascinating to be blogged about it in few minutes (or even few days, it takes more chewing).

However, skimming through it, something reminded me of
Empedocles, and how his two forces, philia (love) and neikos (strife) ,ruled the combination/distruction cycle of elements. This too, like Maturana's, can be applied to organizational settings, I believe.

I've always been very fond of pre-socratic philosophers, or the philosophers of nature, because they all postulated how the first principle of everything (archè) belonged to nature. Most of them were scientists as well, and started philosophy of science de facto.

Even thought it is a typical product of Western society, philosophy is almost absent from educational curricula in the United States (with the exception of its by-product critical thinking) while in Europe it is taught in High Schools. That puzzles me to no end, cause I think such technological country without the guidance of good (=logic) thinking, can be a serious danger.

Communities of Practice and "Best Practices"

2005-01-30T01:44:00.000+01:00

I was reading John's group and JMH posted a link to a Guide And Toolkit For Communities Of Practice so I got side-tracked and started reading the pdf files I want to comment.

On Part 1 I find a stimulating:
"Clear and visible analysis of the type, range and location of information, knowledge and expertise that the organisation collectively holds."
that reminded me of Miller's and Stuart's wonderful Network-Centric Thinking: The Internet's Challenge to Ego-Centric Institutions I bugged NG with.

On Part 2 I found an astonishing:

"CoPs have four major roles: helping, knowledge stewarding, best practice development and innovation." (p. 2)

Wait a moment!!! "Best practices" OR innovation?

As Etienne Wenger said:

"As a consequence, a community of practice that spreads throughout an organization is an ideal channel for moving [emphasis added] information, such as best practices, tips, or feedback, across organizational boundaries" (1998).

which is in fact what Xerox does, but creating best practices via CoPs is a whole other thing! That is, something meant to fail.

CoPs are communities of:

implicit knowledge, as opposed to explicit
practice (experimentation): as opposed to academical/theoretical understanding
situated learning: as opposed to analytical one
people that share, as opposed to personal achievement
peers as opposed to (academical/managerial) hierarchies
knowledge as opposed to tasks
self-selecting people

For all these reasons, CoPs with a task especially when this task is about "best practices" (as an academic I know defined them: what is always best for everybody --- helloooooooooooooo) are a nonsense. Even if they were the best for most people, it still doesn't mean they would be the best thing to do in that situation...

I want to reiterate how CoPs are well-known to foster creativity (rather than "best practices") and unusual solutions (rather than solutions that are good for most people). So again, I can't see why to force them into producing "best practices" when a team would be enough.

I am perfectly conscious that I don't like the term "best practices"... and I don't like because:

It implies that there is nothing better, which is simply impossible, since they were made by humans;
It is discouraging in that, since there supposedly is "nothing better", what's the point in trying to find new solutions (Sounds like Hercules Pilasters: "Don't go ahead, there is nothing after them" YEAH RIGHT)?
It curbs down innovation, shaming anything that goes out of what they are able to understand (same old narcissistic refrain: "Since I can't understand it - and you know how intelligent I am, it must be wrong" YEAH RIGHT);
It reveals a shameful holier-than-thou attitude in who uses and backs them ("I am better than you, cause I follow best practices" YEAH RIGHT);
It is stupid because if something is really best it doesn't have to be crammed down other people's throats (this is what they don't understand, speaking of leadership Dan!!!!).

This one-size-fits-all approach puzzled me a whole deal even when it has nothing to do with supposed (and often self-proported) "best practices".

I also remembered of the work of Dubè, Bourhis & Jacob in 2003 and 2004 and their conclusions... their studies were specifically on intentionally formed virtual communities of practice (VCoPs) and showed how there is no such approach that is valid for any VCoP, but it has to be tailored on that specific VCoP's characteristics.

Anyway, more when I will be reading on :)

Qualified to Be Intelligent

2005-01-29T22:33:00.000+01:00

I was exchanging emails with NW and thinking about a couple of episodes that happened to me some time ago.... To be exact, that have been happening over and over again. GROWL

Two examples.

A woman, some time ago, read some written stuff of mine that I was writing for USPRA 2005 and that in the end got accepted. Anyway, she read it and started complimenting me for how "intelligent" I was and bla bla bla.

And because I am a provokative b*st*rd, I sent her my pic right after. Can you believe it? She replied by a "from all your writings, I wouldn't have thought you were beautiful".

Now, I am an Italian and my blood was boiling!

That also happens in real life (IRL) when I go having a test and I hear stuff like: "Oooh, goooood moooorning.... is there anyyyything you would like to speeeeak of?". In which case I morph into a snake and rebutt: "Anything belonging to the course syllabus is fine with me".

I tried to avoid going to tests and classes all dressed-up, with make-up and such, scaled down on clothes first and then on make-up. But it's something impossible to avoid during formal speeches.

Yet, the stereotype survives, and I am either treated like a stupid (IRL) or supposed to be ugly until otherwise proven because of "how intelligent I sound" (in online communications).

No wonder I enjoyed Legally Blonde so much.

Ro'

Welcome to My Scrapbook

2005-01-29T19:49:00.000+01:00

It is to keep in touch with Nancy Gaston, Nan Hawthorne, Dan Oestreich, Beverly Trayner, Nancy White and all my many other colleagues and friends that this blog was created.

Given my eclectic nature, it will be a pretty eclectic bunch of stuff as well, collecting all successes and failures, ideas and brain f*rts that come to my mind.

Sit down and have fun. When you feel like to, please reply.

Ro'