This is Igniter's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Igniter's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
An excellent case for why 'social tech' is the best growth opportunity for capital and humanity right now. Also, this fits really well with the transition illustrated by Ervin Laszlo in Macroshift. This is a systemic civilizational shift. Sparked by new technology with trajectory determined/dependent on values/mindset. Tyler in effect looking at this from the old perspective, while you're seeing it from the emergent perspective. You're are standing on different civilizational trajectories. Some of my earlier thoughts on this: Some excerpts from Macroshift:
I think we'd all be a lot better off if we were to recognize that there is 'wisdom IN the crowds' rather than be distracted by the 'wisdom OF the crowds'. By participating in 'the crowd' we gain experience, experience that mixes with the rest of our individual experiences and motivations... which then maybe, just maybe... becomes a seed of something new. That seed doesn't come from the crowd, it comes from the individual. And it's that individual that still has to grow it in the face of a crowd which will probably ignore it and often attack it. Expecting more of 'the crowd' would be like expecting more of the soil in which we plant our seeds.
1 reply
Hi Deb, just caught this. Another track that I've found interesting is Paul Lawrence and Nitin Nohria's work Driven. I got there through exploring 'gamification' and through a @jobsworth pointer, but it really cuts core to human motivations that I think are really interesting in shaping conversation and relationship. They boiled the core human motivations (sub-conscious) to acquiring, bonding, learning, defending and show how they've played out in different phases of civilization and human development. Particularly interesting now in the context of the 'social web'. Cheers!
Toggle Commented Aug 15, 2011 on Catalysts = Tummlers at Deborah Schultz
1 reply
#pastefail in that last comment... but I think you'll get my point :-)
Having just read John Hagel's 2010 update on the Shift Index, it was interesting to see the growing focus on passion and the addition of the connecting disposition to the questing disposition. As our institutions have been built on production oriented models where humanity is subservient, passion is definitely an underdog. In my experience, it is particularly challenging to those who have established themselves in institutional careers but have yet to realize their version of success in their career path. On the other hand, those recently retired and those yet to establish themselves seem most eager to embrace the notion, language, and role of passion. To me it indicates that this hits right at the core of a person's identity and sense of worth. Brene Brown has some interesting research on vulnerability that relates to this. Strategically then, nurturing passion in the workplace is a tricky task. Both the culture and individuals at an institution's core are likely to deeply resist - even if officially endorsed. Nurturing individual rediscovery of passion and then letting it weave its way into our organizations, institutions, and society seems to be the opportunity. How that happens will be interesting to observe. It's clearly critical to our future and, I believe, will prove to be one of the most interesting social phenomena in our history.
Very interesting. Particularly the notion of 'opt-in'... that's the turning point. Just thinking about linking 2billion people, coding skills being taught in rural africa, and the revolution of micro-apps to meet micro-needs. There is a massive economic opt-in ecosystem in the making there, one that doesn't need permission or endorsement... but rather opt-in to learn, make, use whatever we want. Thinking somehow this is what will lead to a future fit for humanity.
At a recent event on Open Source Democracy* we actually talked about the issue of prized competitions and motivations. The sense I pulled from the conversation is that deep innovation is not likely to come through prized competitions. They are good for solving specific problems (like solving a complicated math problem) and can be good for surfacing activity that is already happening. Wikipedia came up as one example of something that would likely never have shown up through a competition. Certainly part of that comes into the scope and design of the competition and the purposes of the competition host. Most funders are constrained in their theory of change and their culture and mindset and likely to encourage incremental change vs. systemic innovation... and that is something that will be very hard to overcome by design as the design criteria themselves will likely be held back by those same things. * the event was part of a seminar series of the Waterloo Institute for Complexity & Innovation.
We're actually experimenting with some stuff right now in startup mode and an existing non-profit. We're blending facilitation methodologies, aspects of the agile approach, and social tech. Part of the cultural shift that underpins this needs to show up in the tools and approaches that support it - and that is shifting from 'working to live' to work being a part of our life... an expression of who we are and what we are drawn and able to do. It's much more social than process. It's about stories that guide us and deliverables that tell those stories... or something like that. We're feeling our way through to working tools.
Toggle Commented Jan 27, 2010 on JUST IN TIME WORK at Global Guerrillas
Igniter is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 27, 2010