An interesting realm to look into that can be used to determine the efficacy of a currency (and/or various forms of capital) is done by monitoring news media conversations.
In this work by Joe Brewer and team, they have accrued media outlet topics tweets and found huge disconnects around common themes. The resulting diagrams show digital clusters of self-truths that create walls between each other, undermining the potential for any deeper understanding emerge and meaning-making to arise. Meaning by the way, is humanity’s primary pathway to spirituality.
One of the primary valuations of the dollar (or any currency) appears in how we connect with each other. Under today’s currency, money creates inherent competition forcing isolation of truth into bubbles of self identification and increases the desire for self-centering power, that is then used to downplay and denigrate other’s truths in the name of their own.
Imagine instead, news outlets shifting from being informational channels, to becoming a common medium (media) for integrating (rather than isolating) shared knowledge. This would allow for measurable correlations between conversational depth, monetary exchange, and world wealth (used here in its broadest meaning) to help humanity monitor its own transformation of rising (or decaying) values, where that value can only be done through second degree assessment of conversational relationships.
This approach would turn organizational ‘valuations’ (which are presently determined almost completely by dollar potential only) inside-out. Allowing for currency to return to its original intent, which was to represent the meaning (rather ‘be’ the meaning) of how we determine value in one another.
Thus, the analysis of news through social media becomes a critical tool in creating capital as a dynamic (no longer static) meaningful world.
This short video gives me that spinal shiver we humans get when ‘awe’ is present. When’s the last time you’ve felt it? What moves you? What draws on your desire to be in life? Who are you not to stand up to what is your own momentum into amazing, incredible, awesome!
How does one go about building social innovation and creating social capital?
Creating more grounded transformative work is done by formulating a collective research process that builds shared capacity. If done well, an emerging social system moves itself (self adaptive) into momentous collaborative action.
CREATING SOCIAL INNOVATION – RESEARCH STAGES
Asking powerful questions within dynamic interactive feedback loops is key to establishing a foundation for the collective to stand on. Some general advice about how to do social research is as follows:
Inquiry: Starting everyone of my questions with ‘open ended’ question words including the 6 ‘W’s: WHY is it this way, WHAT is it exactly, (w)HOW does it work, WHO is involved, WHEN is it enacted, WHERE does it reside or show up. In this way, your research will expand from isolated assumptions into broader understandings and improve data outcomes.
Clustering: The next step is reducing the content you have found by clustering or mapping common synergistic principles or concepts into groupings.This can often be found by creating keyword maps and phrase streams that appear and link across your data.
Synthesizing: The last stage is integrating your results into something meaningful and valued. This happens by testing some of your new gathered insights “with others”. In other words ‘meaningfulness’ is key to a social movement and thereby social action, and this can only occur through interaction and feedback.
These are my 3 stages for developing new insight and interpretation for social innovation. They are based in the understanding of collaborative learning and design.
Next you will need to put your research to the test; not just proving whether it is true or not, but also (and even more important), using your synthesized research to enable social action – a community of practice.
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING – TURNING INFORMATION INTO SOCIAL ACTION
A more challenging but (in my view) more fun part of development, is enabling your research into a ‘social performance’ process for creating social capital and social innovation. This is done through 3 phases as follows (note ‘phases’ are different than ‘stages’):
Concentrix Management (CM) is a model for distributing and managing information with the intent to cross pollinate ideas and concepts across sub-groups so that each part of the system knows about the ‘whole’ (of which all working groups within it reside) without overloading any one person.
——————————————————– We are each at the center of our own Universe.
How does yours relate to mine?
——————————————————–
CM is an important communications tool that allows innovation to emerge with an enterprise. It is a way of distributing (rather than isolating) knowledge capital within an organization. It is based on new physics theory that proposes there are infinite centers to the Universe. Thus each of us defines our own unique perspective; one that is partial and necessary within an infinite whole. At the same time, each of us carries responsibilities for identifying with other unique parts, thereby sharing knowledge both within our own group(s) also with others that are beyond the boundaries of our group’s identity. These ‘crossings’ are otherwise known as COMMUNICATION.
Thus, CM allows for broad levels of interdependent knowledge sets to be transferred and stored within different sub groupings (such as divisions, committees, etc.) of a greater whole (such as a company, community, or other organizing fractal). This interdependent webbing process creates an inherently more sustainable system than one which isolates knowledge through traditional proprietary or need-to-know behaviors. It encourages relationships through shared trust rather than through today’s more traditional ownership method for containing knowledge. The result is an enterprise that is not only more resilient to change, more innovative, and responsive to its surrounding environments and markets.
Using CM, a company’s behavior becomes ‘morphic’ (new myth) rather than ‘phoenix’ (old myth) oriented by nature, meaning that the whole-system can now shift itself from one state of being into another without a physical death in between. Just as the phoenix bird needed to die in order to generate new life (old myth), instead now our organizations can begin to rebirth themselves more like a caterpillar does as it changes into a butterfly (new myth).
CM also addresses community size issues and helps to incorporate aspects of human(e) behavior that collaboration tools do not address well. Tools look at ‘informational relationships’ and not ‘communal relationships’. You know; that (de)humanizing part we keep trying to avoid? This model keeps groups small and safely interactive, even when the overall size of the community gets large. This approach can be applied to create safe environments so that all are heard, not just a few, while also generating a communication system that keeps everyone within their bandwidth of time to manage. It also helps to accelerate knowledge creation through the differential learning that occurs across groupings.
Essential for this type of transformation, is ‘Concentrix Management’, which allows the enterprise to unlock itself from a common center, way of thinking, or method of behavior.
1- CM provides method for delegation of responsibilities
2- Ideas relating to ‘Building Sustainable Learning Communities’ using concept of creating a ‘Sustained Technology Renaissance’ for the 21st century.
3- Decision Making Process Chart : 1-What, 2-Time Frame, 3-Considerations, 4-Costs, 5-Team(s), 6-‘Fluential Resources (input/output)
4- Method(s) for reporting: (i.e. communication to other stakeholder individuals and teams
5- An info-structure based on communication
6- Project investment strategy to be based on value-add money sourcing
7- Open door policy (contracts describe alternative view … privacy yes, proprietary no)
8- Description of an RTC Free Agent
9- Allow agreement
10- Whole-part-whole cycles of a meeting
11- A mediation process for when issues are not resolvable within supporting spheres (managed by main RTC large sphere)
12- Use of business template to account for time and money and people issues
13- A protocol guide generated by multi-sphere collaboration, managed by main RTC large sphere)
14- Permission for groups to dissolve (core pod as example)
15- Feedback learning loops that includes a synthesis stage: experiment (source of innovation), evaluate (based on the question), correct (no absolute answers)
16- Tactical (immediate term activities) vs strategic (long term envisioning)
17- Communication Tools: Virtual: Use of collaboration tools such as Google Groups, Sites, and Docs for online communications, Physical: every Wednesday is an open-technology meeting to align CM ‘fluential spheres
18- Board’s responsibility/role
19- Relationships (circle) and strategic development (triangle)— fractal nature (one in the many in the one) spherical onion-like ( center 1 -> first layer 12 -> second layer 44)
20- Multi-centered organization
21- 12 cells around 1 cell (total of 13 centers)
22- Simplest form of company (internal community)
23- Each of 13 cells responsible for/to 12 other cells within company, first layer of onion
24- Simplest form of stakeholder relations (external relations)
25- Each of 13 cells responsible for/to 44 cells outside of company, second layer of onion
——————————————————-
Concentrix Management and Collaboration Structures
(Items in the Package)
– FUNDAMENTALS: rules?, and/or principles of CM (must be simple and no more than one page) (dot in center)
– TASKING: time, money, resources, people chart/array
– COMMUNICATIONS: people responsibility connection map/matrix
– 3BL (triple bottom line): Conceptual tools for integrating sustainable management into planning and practices
– Individual Sphere meetings use Learning Circle process diagram
– Individuals from each group are self-selected as responsible for each other group to report and note other group alignment issues
– Sphere PROTOCOLS
– PROCEDURAL: Individual – Each sphere creates and manages their own protocol procedure doc and make it available to all other spheres
– REPORTING: Collective spheres- All spheres together decide on a common reporting template to be used by all spheres for cross-sphere reporting (monthly or weekly) RTC sphere manages it)
– Both single and group of spheres meets on a Common day for all meetings, Monthly Learning Exchange Market, Weekly Spheres Meetings: (except for day of exchange market)
– Groups are responsible to each other via listserv reporting and scheduling
– Cross-pollination of spheres done by each individual in each sphere choosing 1 or more other spheres to connect with someone in those spheres (not necessarily facilitator for they are merely a focal point for delegation, report holding, etc
-Organizational charting
– Global circle people connections (org-like) chart goes with individual spherical org chart
– Global hierarchical task chart describing basics: what, time, costs
———————————————————
Keys to concentrix management strategy development:
Conversations done irregularly (1 to 2 month window), for individuals … company staff & external stakeholders, the blood/fluid of the organization, amorphous [process/flow], 13×12=156 maximum number of employees
Type 2 : POD CLUSTERS
Meetings done weekly at same time, for company group relations, the emotions/personality of the company boundary(s) [patterns/identity], 13 fixed groups of spheres
Type 3: COLLABORATORIES (or Colabs)
Held monthly, all involved, (for whole company, managed by 13 self-selected facilitators) the body/shape of the organization, crystalline [structure/constructs]
Type 4: CHARRETTE ACCELERATORS
For internal/external stakeholder alignment, provides the conscious movement/direction, managed by OL team, the spirit/essence of the organization [wholeness, integration of structure, pattern, process]
Imagine a new way of thinking regarding what government is …
Rather than government being the provider of fixes, it instead becomes a convener of stakeholders, thereby allowing ‘we the people’ to generate our own solutions, which is how a real democracy should be. This shifts our systemfrom a STATIC governMENT institution into a DYNAMIC ‘governANCE’ system. We go from rigid structure to flowing process. The governing body becomes a manager (or governor) of the ecology of interactions that happen by the people. Collaboration then, becomes the vehicle that acts as the governor, as it enables the flow of action and change.In this way, collaboration and governance become synonymous.
Watch this youtube on collaboration as government …
We no longer have to wait for government to get on board to see a change we want. Instead the governing body builds an infrastructure that allows connection and decision-making to happen. Decisions are no longer made by government. Instead they are made by us (we the people) and government merely create the tools and processes (many now will be via the internet) that allow everyone to have more access to both the learning and decision-making process. This becomes a healthier form of control.
The relationship between Principle, Practice, and Policy
Click for relationship to sustainability
Rather than government directing and making the decisions, it instead becomes an enabler or ‘governor’, as it was meant to be, by acting as policy makers, but with a different understanding of the meaning of ‘policy’. Government monitors rather than polices collaboration outcomes that publicly occur through induced design. Government evolves along with the society by being inter-twined within the overall feedback system. They become watchers of the difference between consciously derived guiding principles and the actually applied experiences and practices that occur within a community of practice.
The diagram shows a model of how the interaction between PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, and POLICIES can help to build a healthy collaboration system. It suggests that an over-focus on any one of these three can not sustain the system, as it must have flow and movement in balance or the system gets clogged or breaks down. Each of the 3 P’s must act interdependently with the other two.
The policy box represents a more evolved government, or in other words, the convener of a dialog between principle, which is generated out of desire, need, vision, and design possibility. Policy is the way to keep healthy FEEDBACK going between the Principle and Practice boxes, in the same way a governing valve acts on a physical pipe – too much or too little puts the system into instability. There has to be balanced flow of energy, materials, ideas, etc. Note that the people inside government (policy) do not make decisions, which is incorrectly being done today. Rather they merely adjust the flow of information and choices that are being made. They do not alter the information or choice-making themselves. Rather, they create and maintain the channels to be ‘flow’ happens in a balanced way. This is a truer term for the term ‘policing’, which comes from policy, and allows for collaboration processes to INFORM the system as a collective. This is a self-generating behavior and occurs via the interactions between the engagement of the people involved within each of the principle, practice, and policy domains.
See THIS LINK for more on Principle Practice Policy configuration.
So, YES … Collaboration “IS” the New Government.
My considerations here are meant to be a starting point for an expanded dialog for considering how to evolve our present republic system into a truer form of democracy, or something beyond that can hold life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness FOR ALL, not just for a few.
Inquiry: Starting everyone of my questions with ‘open ended’ question words including the 6 ‘W’s: WHY is it this way, WHAT is it exactly, (w)HOW does it work, WHO is involved, WHEN is it enacted, WHERE does it reside or show up. In this way, your research will expand from isolated assumptions into broader understandings and improve data outcomes.
A more challenging but (in my view) more fun part of development, is enabling your research into a ‘social performance’ process for creating social capital and social innovation. This is done through 3 phases as follows (note ‘phases’ are different than ‘stages’):
