McDermott's Articles

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.

Online Mediation and Culture

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

Read here

Steve Denning

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.

CoP Nucleation

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

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

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? ;)

CoPs at UNDP

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

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*

Managing VCoPs

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".

Guide to Blogging

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

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)?

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.

In CoPs

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.

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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".

Theory vs Practice

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

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.

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

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? ;)

Online Communication, CoPs and MDGs

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!

Leadership and Volunteer Management

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.

Communities of Practice and "Best Practices"

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:

1. It implies that there is nothing better, which is simply impossible, since they were made by humans;
2. 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)?
3. 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);
4. 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);
5. 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 :)