![]() | by Kent Aitken | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

And so, even in recognizing that I'm
preaching to the choir, I have a little more exploring to do. I wrote
this:
I think the most amazing thing about effective collaborative platforms is often not the mechanism for collaboration, but rather the mechanism for finding others who are interested in the same thing. It's easier to get past our natural incredulity: “I can't imagine how I can contribute to X,” or, “I can't imagine who'd be interested in Y.”
I want to expand on the value of
finding others with similar interests - and part of it is leaving rough edges of your
life, for others to latch on to.
Small Talk
Here's the simplest example. You get
asked this question near daily: “What have you been up to?” And,
broadly speaking, there are two possible answers: “Not much,” or
“Something.”
“Not much.” It's almost certainly
untrue, but it's easy and doesn't impose any social duty to
investigate on your listener. It's also boring and unlikely to lead
to more interesting conversation.
On the other hand, “I've been really
busy volunteering with a conference” or “I spent the weekend rock
climbing” leave rough edges for others to latch onto, to identify
commonalities, and to create conversations around. It's the cocktail
party game: we engage in small talk in an effort to hit something
really worth talking about. It's not much fun spending a few hours
learning what every attendee thinks of the last few days of weather.
Professional Rough Edges
This principle easily expands into
professional lives. You can blog, attend conferences, contribute to
employee networks, engage on Twitter, discuss ideas at
speaker events, or get involved with working groups. Anything you do
whereby your ideas become known – whether right or wrong – gives
potential collaborators better information on whom to productively
involve in future problem solving. These rough edges give people a reasonable
context to offer advice, insight, research, or perspective. It's the
equivalent of the cocktail party's “Oh really! Did you hear that
rock climbing at ______ is half price on Tuesdays now?”
You don't know what you don't know. So,
you want to give other people – other people being a demographic
that knows a metric boatload more than you – opportunities to help you fill those gaps. But, to open that door, make it
apparent what it is that you're interested in and working on. Be
open.
Open Living
Being open about ourselves leads to connections and results.
I could write the value proposition, if
not a reasonable facsimile of a résumé, for dozens of colleagues
based solely on their contributions to community platforms (we can
even exclude LinkedIn profiles). Anyone can show you a paper degree;
now we publicly embody* our expertise and interests, over time. The
difference is that I know, beyond a doubt, that my colleagues didn't
earn their degrees with 51% averages – they are experts who care deeply about their fields.
From an organizational perspective, it
matters that I can do this. It facilitates productive teamwork and
advice-seeking. From a personal perspective, this is important
because hiring managers can do this. 2013 is the year of social HR.
Technology doesn't change the
foundational principles behind the importance of being open –
networking and reputation-building have always been crucial. But it
does change the application. In a hierarchy, credit and expertise
recognition are muddied by the game of telephone that information
gets run through from officers to executives. Open platforms are
disruptive here, making it increasingly clear who the contributors
are.
Open Government
I'm barely even going to touch open
government, because there are so many people with a better
understanding. But increasingly, it's hard to ignore the case
for open government and stakeholder engagement. My short version, in the context of this piece:
the more that government is open about what it's thinking, planning,
or researching, the easier it is for appropriate stakeholders to
latch on and help said government improve its strategy,
build legitimacy for ideas, and avoid potential pitfalls. As Un Tacons commented on my last post, the greatest
potential for collaboration is providing clarity on complexity. Or,
as Einstein put it:
“If I had 20 days to solve a problem, I would take 19 days to define it."
Multiple eyes are particularly useful
for figuring out exactly how wicked the problem you're facing really
is.
In Sum
High school was a long time ago, and we
can stop trying to be cool and detached. Own up to what you care about, and recognize the value of
erring on the side of oversharing. In a hyperconnected world, the
Venn diagram of whose business is what is messy and mobile. Accept,
and appreciate, those ideas offered in good faith.
Economically, it's building
positive-sum games out of even-sum games. It's analogous to $20,000
of GDP representing a car purchase. If privately owned, it creates
$20,000 worth of value, for one person. If shared through a service
like Vrtucar, the increase in GDP doesn't reflect the real-world
value that many people get out of that one car. Just by being open
about their needs and interests: “I need a car for four hours on
Sunday.” That's it.
More importantly – and this applies
to my post on collaboration, as well – if we can derive
value from openness and collaboration (and we can, massively), and don't, it's an economic opportunity cost. We may as well be burning money.
So be open. Leave some rough edges.
*I debated different words here: prove, or demonstrate. But I want to make the point that it's not,
necessarily, a conscious effort. Some people use open platforms to
market themselves; others, more convincingly, contribute to
communities and, in doing so, cannot help but prove their expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment