Author: fms

So what should I be writing about?  The two main projects I have on my mind at the moment are my dissertation and this emerging research around the self-organizing groups and the challenges of growing and sustaining such organizations. At this point, the dissertation is a set of routine tasks that need to be completed and as I go along new ideas and thinking added.  In terms of the self-organizing project, what is it that I have to accomplish?

Well, an initial literature review would help.  I think I might be able to have Matt work on that during his summer internship.  He has 10 hours a week for 12 or 13 weeks.  That is a120 hours or so.  The literature review stuff should take about 40-60 hours.  He will also want to come to a couple of 119 Gallery board meetings and I may have him do an analysis of some things I have for my dissertation research.

I am also thinking that I will test out the ED interview questions for my dissertation on Jessica.  I want to use the autobiographical sketch exercises with this.  So could she spend 10-15 minutes doing that and I’ll then need to go back and look at the other questions I have.  For instance, talking about the dynamics of the funding, board interactions, staff interactions, interactions with youth, vision for future.  What are the challenges the organization is currently facing, etc . . . . depending on how that goes, we will see.

So what am I bringing from this workshop back into my own work?  Certainly the idea that collaboration in any environment is indeed a difficult thing.

If I were to design a research study on the 119 Gallery what would it look like?  I think more of a grounded theory / ethnographic / participant observation type of endeavor.  I would want to know how does a group like the 119 accomplish its goals and are there lessons to be learned that could inform larger scale environments that have a common goods production aspect to them?  What is the key question then?  Or is it that I am more interested in the lessons learned by individuals within such environments about their roles as active participants in their own lives?  The idea would be to talk to selection of people or maybe as many people as I can and see what issue arise out of those interviews.  Perhaps I can enlist others in doing this.  So what would I ask?

An autobiographical sketch and also the narrative exercise from Woods Hole.  What were you doing and what was your life like before you first started to get involved in the 119?  How did they first hear about the gallery and how did they become involved?  How long have they been involved?  What sort of things have you done here? If you were to think about yourself contributing to the space and its community, what do you bring?  What is it you get?  Can you tell me about one of your best moment here?  How about something that was really challenging?

Ok so now I have a beginning set of questions that are really about how folks grow and develop, etc.

So what about a sampling strategy?  First let’s see about roles – past and present — “board members”, event organizers, artists (musicians, exhibitors, performers), audience members (from guest list).  Survey about general perception of the 119 Gallery and what it does.  This would be anonymous and sent to – Facebook fans, Constant Contact folks, selection of city leaders, funders, etc. . . . Go through old website materials as well as board materials, and other things to reconstruct the space.

I am mostly concerned with the organization during its existence at 119 Chelmsford Street.  I should also place the Gallery within the context of larger collectivist art movements and the growing interest in “creative” economy.  I am wonder if I could have Matt do a search and literature review on this.  I also wonder if he might do some searching on small, community-based arts organization and think about designing a survey that could be sent to them related to their management challenges.  I could show him the NCCS database and we could request datafiles and then seek organizations in the arts and culture category with budgets of under a certain amount.  How would we capture very small organizations?  Perhaps those who only filed a 990-N?  I think Matt might find this to be of interest.

My conversation with Rita yesterday about her vision and intents for the research group makes me realize how one individual with a desire to transform a workplace can have real impact.  My conversation with Nelson also solidified for me how working at the individual and small group level can really have concrete impacts in the transformation of individual lives and subsequently larger social environments.  Education and training in new processes for working and living can have ripple effects.

Also I am beginning to understand Peter’s desire to create spaces that allow individuals maximum space for their own creative and exploratory processes.  By creating space for individual knowledge and creativity, do we then create environments that allow for more individuals to be actors and agents in their own journey’s?  In some ways, these workshops seem almost like therapy for group and institutional environments that have closed down these impulses.

I am also wondering why it is that I am experiencing some inner tension and stress.  I clearly have to work through my issues with authority and my inclination towards subservience that are highly detrimental to my own sense of confidence.  What is it that is causing me to be in tension?  I think some of it is my own misinterpretations or readings of things said.  I am doubting my own intelligence and knowledge.  Why is that?  I struggle with some of these concepts.  I too often present my language as certainties.  What is that about?  I often feel like such a dullard when Peter is explaining things as though my mind simply can’t grasp what is going on.  Is part of the issue that I’m tired.  I think there is part of me that still feels like that tween who was told she could be part of things and felt that there were too many controls in her life.

So what does this mean for collaborative knowledge?  I suppose that for all to be present and participating in such environments, that those who feel less confident or weaker need to be supported.  They also need to have the space to develop and present their own ideas and voices.  They need to feel safe and have trust in others and they need to be comfortable in having ideas battled and challenged.

So what is it that I’m going to focus on today?  Well it seems to me that to think about collaboration and working with others that that initial connection has to be made.  I am also thinking about power dynamics within collaborative environments.  The LCTC worked in part because LTC had resource and there was an expectation of working together as a condition of the grant.  So I wonder, would folks have worked with us if we did not have the opportunity control the funds?  My feeling is that the collaboration may still have worked.  We had begun to meet because we individually needed support in our work and found that working together helped that.  We shared similar goals and missions.   That idea of negotiation and compromise that Daniel was talking about seems to be a good way to talk about tension and conflict.  What do you need to have in place for good negotiation to happen?  Daniel and I had started to talk about power dynamics.  What else is required?  Perhaps literature on dispute and conflict negotiation as well as mediation might help here.

Again ideas of autonomy and control arise.  Those with little autonomy and no authority may find themselves in positions that constrain their ability to act.  When I think about the 119 Gallery and the issues we have attempted to resolve in trying to make different parts of the mission work, it seems to me that we have spent a lot of time on communication.  I know that I often play the role of “mediator” or “negotiator”, but also the tensions that arise are often about conflicts in procedure or systems.  These are easily resolved by looking for a common solution.  However, there have been times when the priorities for each program feel at odds with the others.  Here I am thinking about the art work that was damaged.  It took a lot of discussion on this one, with several solutions happening including a change in the performance programming.  I know seems as though these two area work much more smoothly together.

Collaborative knowledge production, how does this relate to my own interests and work around engagement and institutional / organizational design?  From yesterday’s introductions it would seem that those who are aware and sensitive to difference and the need to acknowledge and use difference are keenly present in the room.  Individuals who feel comfortable moving in and out of multiple spaces and across boundaries.   How do you create environments in which heterogeneity informs the creative process?  What are the necessary elements required to keep these differences productive rather than alienated, disengaged and aloof from another?   How do you prevent the flattening out of difference into monolithic thinking?  Yet how do you build consensus and agreement or at least present the variety areas of contestation in the knowledge environment?  How do you get folks from different perspective and knowledge spheres to listen and learn from one another?  Thinking about the conversation with Annabella and Lilliana, how do you work with those whose knowledge have been privileged (i.e. scientists) to see that other knowledges and perceptions are valid and also powerful?   Vice versa, how do you get those whose knowledge has not been privileged to see themselves as knowledge producers?

So I wonder how access to communication tools factors in here?  Do those whose ideas have not been heard, are they finally heard or are they simply part of a large mesh of voices without focus and direction?  How do we determine the direction of knowledge production?  At the 119, creation happens simply because space is provided and the door is opened.  There is no attempt to weave together east expressive element.  Rather, each elements is allowed to exist and the weaving together happens for each person who attempts to come to an understanding of the space and its identity.  Still, each creative elements holds to some over-arching ideal or sense that it belongs.  So the idea of creating a boundary or contour to the creative space or knowledge space seems important here.

So to curtail monolithic thinking or knowledge construction, can we create spaces that allow for a diversity of ideas, perceptions and discussions, but at the same time be bounded enough to hang together as a whole.  What then will allow these spaces to be created and sustain themselves?  How do the expand or contract as needed?  What are the mechanisms that allow for that “identity” or “bound” to be created and maintained?

What are the takeaways and future directions from this workshop?  It is abundantly clear that structure, coordination, and facilitation make the workshop run.  A group of strangers, with some minimal connections.  I should make sure to draw a network diagram of the workshop participant relationships soon.    All of the participants have strong process skills and are open to the activity.  So even for folks, like myself who favor structure, having an open mindset is good.

Peter, Kurt and Atsushi indicated at the dinner last night that the autobiographical statements are key to the creation of connection amongst the participants.  How can this be brought into the work?  Can I use this technique in my interviews for my dissertation?

I am also thinking back to the scenario exercise.  Did we come to conflictual stereotypes because that is how folks experience academic institutions?  Or is that how many institutions are?  Are there new ways to create organizational and institutional structures that use tension and disagreement productively? Organizations that resist dehumanizing others, that seek connection, and work towards dialogue.

There is a deeper transformation possible here.  This I think is what Kennan is talking about in her work.  Yet, I wonder how open would others be to the use of these techniques in their daily work?   How would even the 119 be if we did a simple thing like a “check-in”?   I am thinking that I really miss Eric.

So how will these dynamics play out in Portugual.  The group knows each other better.  Will that be a help or a hinderance?  How will they experience these sorts of activities?

In terms of emerging themes, the first that comes to mind is the balance between individual action and autonomy and group demands and control.  How do we preserve the core of what allows individuals to act and how do spaces / organizations / endeavors enhance and support individual motivation.  At the same time, how do we ensure that collective needs and goods get produced?

The other theme that has emerged is the idea of boundaries.  Where do we construct boundaries?  Can we create boundaries within boundaries to allow for multiple purposes and uses and still remain open.  Here Alex’s story of his grandfather’s land reminded me of the 119 and it ability to constantly reconfigure.  How mutable are boundaries?  When should the boundaries expand and when should they contract? How do we define and mark the boundaries?  These boundaries can also work to define who is included and who is excluded from the space as well.

Trust also emerged and with that I think the idea of reciprocity is important.  By being open do we trust others enough to co-opt or override the space.  The “tragedy of the commons” comes to mind here.  Are participants and those we engage able to understand and share our values.  Here I am reminded of Kennan’s challenge with her new staffer that doesn’t understand the value of the relationships her organization has built.  How do we create, evolve and pass down a culture of norms and practices that ensure our spaces are valued and maintained in the way in which they have been envisioned.  At the same time, is there enough flexibility to grow, change and adapt as needed?

Authority and power, especially of centralized entities has come up a lot.  Are there ways to bring decision-making to its lowest levels?  How do we create spaces where all feel valued and have a voice?  At the same time where does collective accountability come in?  How much are we willing to give up individual liberty for the collective good?  Do we trust too much in individual responsibility?  Are there gentle ways to encourage responsibility for individual and group decisions and needs?

Finally, elizaBeth’s story circle exercise brought up the issue of feedback and how do we manage and deal with feedback into our systems?  How do we ensure that negative or detrimental feedback is not amplified and positive feedback is?  At the same time, how do we constructively use negative feedback to improve and adapt.  This then seems to be more about creating and maintaining a mindset of constructive criticism.

I just read a few bits from Margaret Wheatley’s book on leadership and the new science.  In particular, chapter 5 starts to talk about self-organizing systems.  The idea of moving from a concept of closed systems that tend towards entropy (2^nd law of thermodynamics) towards open systems that exchange entropy with the environment is of interest.  Moving from a concept of decay and deterioration where equilibrium is fought for to one of energy and growth where disequilibrium is more appropriate.  Also the idea of looking at system dynamics rather than system structures.  The use of positive feedback loops as necessary for growth, despite what may initial feel discomforting and strange.  Adaptability and reorganization are other concepts here.

When I apply these concepts to the 119, there is a good deal of resonance here.  I start to wonder though are we currently in a process of becoming rigid rather than adaptable.  Like the crisis of bureaucratization in the Grenier Management Curve, how can we sustain a constant state of adaptability, fluidity, disequilibrium and positive feedback?  Wheatley talks about the need to maintain a strong identity as critical to these self-organizing processes.

In my brief conversation with Kennan Kalleris Salinero, how do continue to deal with tension in organizations especially for those who find disequilibrium confusing, fearful, and strange.  She started to talk about the idea of “holding the question.”  I should make sure to follow back up with her about this idea or seek out new ideas related to this concept.  I also need to continue to read through Wheately’s book to find additional thought points and reflection triggers.  I definitely think that Walter would find this book of interest.  I should get him a copy.

Looking forward to the NewSSC workshop I should think about how these concepts might work.  So is accountability within a self-organizing system really more about communication and positive feed back?  For example, if the gallery needs to create or ramp up new revenue streams (i.e. grants, sponsorships), is it a matter of calling the alarm and solving the issue collectively and then finding the necessary human resources to make it happen.  What if those sounding the alarm, don’t have the energy or time to follow through?  How do they engage others with equal passion?  Or, is the challenge to raise enough funds to make it a person’s “job”?  Or perhaps the idea is to bring the financial issues much more sharply into focus for people.  Make the work and effort Walter and Maryann put into the running of the gallery visible.

I wonder if I should ask Walter to write a detailed description of all of the things he does and ditto for Maryann.  Or perhaps we should do that with each really engaged person.  What are the tasks? What do they like doing?  What don’t they like doing?  How many hours?  What would their ideal effort look like?  Then perhaps we can put that into some sort of visual model.  How do you make visible the work that is invisible?  Perhaps then folks can become more aware of the need to release certain aspects of the work.

What I want to take up in tomorrow’s writing is read more from Wheatlely, see how today goes and then continue to write on how self-organizing systems can tackle work that is hard, difficult, long-term, necessary, and perhaps lacks a champion who can see it through.