Showing posts with label doctorate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctorate. Show all posts

Monday, 21 September 2009

Thinking Together

As I continue to read on the theme of collaborative thinking, a number of key themes do begin to emerge:
NUMBERS are important: The issue of numbers is an interesting one. The more people that are involved, the more "human resources" are available. On the other hand, the scale of the collaboration, particularly if it is voluntary, can result in a great imbalance in contribution between those who do a lot and those who do a little. Collaborative endeavours enable you to harvest the creativity of a large group of people - which is good - but there can be issues of management or governance for a larger group.
NETWORKING enhances collaboration: The networking of smaller groups is not just a convenient way of managing larger numbers. "Small Worlds Networks" provide increases in speed of communication and creativity. New ideas often emerge in the connections between smaller groups. It is the most connected, rather than the most intelligent, who often seem to be the most creative.
SELF-ORGANISATION is essential: Attempts to organise or manage collaboration often end in failure. Teams need to set their own goals and work our how they are to function by themselves. This can be a challenge for larger networks and requires a particular approach to leadership.
Learning takes place in CONVERSATION often resulting in individual action: Collaborative organisations seem not to make decisions very often. Meetings are essential but they tend to take the form of conversations in which ideas, facts and other information is shared. Change takes place at and individual and collective level resulting in consequent individual action. This raises the question of how group decisions can be enforced - and on what level collaborative action is possible.
We need a DUAL ECONOMY: Collaboration works best when it takes place on a voluntary basis. On the other hand, we also need a dependable and equitable "resource" economy to provide infrastructure - and basic human needs. This suggests a dual economy of paid and unpaid individuals co-existing in a creative tension. Such a dual economy is already emerging in many spheres of life, including media, information sciences and the Church. Collaboration makes failure cheap - which is great for creativity - but failure is not an option when it comes to individual or organisational survival...
TECHNOLOGY affects collaboration: It is important not to overlook the impact of our technology on our ability to think, share and act together. This has always been the case, but the current explosion of "social tools" is transforming our ability to collaborate.
SPIRITUALITY should not be overlooked: I am using the term "spirituality" here in a fairly loose way - perhaps in a similar way to the term "world view". Our understanding of the basic realities of human existance and the way we view the world can have a marked impact on our ability to collaborate and the way we understand collaboration. Many spiritual traditions regard each human being as containing, in some way, an expression of the divine. Some world views regard human beings as "fallen" - others as instinct-driven animals. Our spiritualities are therefore significant for the way we work together.

These, I think, are the big brush themes that I need to explore further. What do you think? Have I missed anything?

Saturday, 19 September 2009

Here Comes Everybody

How change happens when people come together
Clay Shirky
Allen Lane, London, 2008

This is a well written and interesting book about the way the social tools created through the internet have an impact on the way we communicate, share and collaborate.

Clay Shirky has some very interesting things to say about online collaboration based on stories and empirical evidence. Some of these are fairly counter intuitive; for example his observation that the contributions made by different individuals can vary dramatically in quantity – but that this is normal for large scale social activity.

He raises some difficult questions; for example, who decides what is right in a piece of self-organised mass collaboration. Is it those with power derived from their determination, enthusiasm, ability or appearance?

The following notes were taken as I read the book and are for my own future reference:

Chapter 1: It only Takes a Village to find a phone

Shirky opens with the story of stolensidekick and the way this was returned after a huge collaborative/on-line effort. “…the power of group action, given the right tools.” P7

Dan Gillmor “…the author of We the Media, calls “the former audience,” those people who react to, participate in, and even alter the story as it is unfolding.” P7

Shirky reflects on the story: “It demonstrates the ways in which the information we give off about our selves, in photos and e-mails and MySpace pages and all the rest of it, has dramatically increased our social visibility and made it easier for us to find each other but also be scrutinized in public. It demonstrates that the old limitations of media have been radically reduced, with much of the power accruing to the former audience. It demonstrates how a story can go from local to global in a heartbeat. And it demonstrates the ease and speed with which a group can be mobilized for the right kind of cause.” P12

“But who defines what kind of cause is right?” p12

Shirky observes that some of the comments on the site were racist or sexist “… the point is that once a group has come together, those kind of issues of community control aren’t simple. Any action Evan took, either letting the conversation go or stifling it, would have created complicated side effects.)”p13

The story could be read as a fight for justice or of a rich white man bullying a poor Puerto-rican and the NYPD into doing what he wanted.

“The story of the lost Sidekick is an illustration of the kinds of changes – some good, some bad, most too complex to label – that are affecting the ways groups assemble and cooperate. These changes are profound because they are amplifying or extending our essential social skills, and our characteristic social failings as well.” P14

Shirky discusses the inherent social nature of human beings: “Building an airplane or a cathedral, performing a symphony or heart surgery, raising a barn or razing a fortress, all require the distribution, specialization, and coordination of many tasks among many individuals, sometimes unfolding over years or decades and sometimes spanning continents.” P16

“..almost everyone belongs to multiple groups based on family, friends, work, religious affiliation, on and on. The centrality of group effort to human life means that anything that changes the way groups function will have profound ramifications for everything from commerce and government to media and religion.” P16

“…new technology enables new kinds of group thinking…”p17

“The transfer of these capabilities from various professional classes to the general public is epochal, built on what the publisher Tim O’Reilly calls “an architecture of participation””p17

“When we change the way we communicate, we change society.” P17

“So it is with human networks; bees make hives, we make mobile phones.” P17

Intriguing point: “..the costs incurred by creating a new group or joining an existing one have fallen in recent years, and not just by a but. They have collapsed. (“Cost” here is used in the economist’s sense of anything expended…” p18

“The difference between an ad hoc group and a company like Microsoft is management” p19 – coordination

“In a way, every institution lives in a kind of contradiction: it exists to take advantage of group effort, but some of its resources are drained away by directing the effort. Call this the institutional dilemma – because an institution expends resources to manage resources, there is a gap between what those institutions are capable of in theory and in practice…”p19-20

Change: “We now have communication tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordinating action that take advantage of that change.” P20 “…we are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to share, to cooperate with one another, and to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional institutions and organizations.” P20-21

“By making it easier for groups to self-assemble and for individuals to contribute to group effort without requiring formal management (and its attendant overhead), these tools have radically altered the old limits on the size, sophistication, and scope of unsupervised effort (the limits that created the institutional dilemma in the first place). They haven’t removed them… but the new tools enable alternative strategies for keeping that complexity under control.” P21

“For most of modern life, our strong talents and desires for group effort have been filtered through relatively rigid institutional structures because of the complexity of managing groups.”p21

Shirky observes that the world is changing although old institutions continue to exist – in fact they must exist since they are necessary – government, media multi-nationals, denominations, etc… “None of the absolute advantages of institutions like businesses or schools or governments have disappeared. Instead, what has happened is that most of the relative advantages of those institutions have disappeared – relative, that is, to the direct effort of the people they represent.”p23

Change is inevitable, the only question is when and what….

Chapter 2: Sharing Anchors Community

“Groups of people are complex, in ways that make those groups hard to form and hard to sustain; much of the shape of traditional institutions is a response to those difficulties. New social tools relieve some of those burdens, allowing for new kinds of group-forming, like using simple sharing to anchor the creation of new groups.”p25

Shirky illustrates the complexity of human connection through the “Birthday Paradox” – which demonstrates how the number of possible links increases exponentially as the number of people rises.

Fred Brooks, Mythical Man-Month – “…adding more employees to a late project tends to make it later, because the new workers increase the costs of coordinating the group.”p29

“The typical organization is hierarchical, with workers answering to a manager, and that manager answering to a still-higher manager, and so on. The value of such hierarchies is obvious – it vastly simplifies communication among the employees.”p29

“.. no institution can put all its energies into pursuing it mission; it must expend considerable effort on maintaining discipline and structure, simply keeping itself viable. Self-preservation of the institution becomes job number one, while its stated goal is relegated to number two or lower, no matter what the mission statement says.” P29-30

Ronald Coase, 1937 – hierarchies are better than open markets because they reduce complexity and transactional costs… p30

Richard Hackman, Leading Teams, “Because of managerial overhead, large groups can get bogged down…whenever transaction costs become too expensive to manage within a single organization, markets outperform firms…” p31

“Activities whose costs are higher than the potential value for both firms and markets simply don’t happen.” P31 – this would be a good measure to use to track why things don’t happen in our organizations…

Shirky contrasts this with the ease of picture sharing made possible with digital media and flikr. Note concept of a tag as a way of making links. Flikr doesn’t manage collaborative events but it does provide a platform… Question: how to create the tag?

Shirky discusses the 7/7 London Bombings and the way Flickr provided a mechanism for reporting and sharing…

“The basic capabilities of tools like Flickr reverse the old order of group activity, transforming “gather, then share” into “share, then gather.””p.35

Reflecting on the role of new media in big events: “The groups of photographers were all latent groups, which is to say groups that existed only in potential, and too much effort would have been required to turn those latent groups into real ones by conventional means.” p 38

The first org chart was created to help deal with the complexity of railway management.

Shirky discusses Coase’s theories about institutional costs and observes that small changes in transactional costs can have a big difference in the function of an institution. “So long as the absolute cost of organizing a group is high, unmanaged groups will be limited to undertaking small efforts – a night out at the movies, a camping trip. Even something as simple as a pot-luck dinner typically requires some hosting institution. Now that it is possible to achieve large-scale coordination at low cost, a third category has emerged: serious, complex work, taken on without institutional direction. Loosely coordinated groups can now achieve things that were previously out of reach for any other organizational structure, because they lay under the Coasian floor.” P47

Cooperation is the next rung of the ladder. Cooperation is harder than simply sharing, because it involves changing your behavior to synchronize with people who are changing their behaviour to synchronize with you.” P 49-50

“One simple form of cooperation, almost universal with social tools, is conversation…” p 50

“Conversation creates more of a sense of community than sharing does, but it also introduces new problems.” p 50

Collaborative production is a more involved form of cooperation, as it increases the tension between individual and group goals… no one person can take the credit… at least some collective decisions have to be made.” P 50 – see Wikipedia

Collective action, the third rung, is the hardest kind of group effort, as it requires a group of people to commit themselves to understanding a particular effort together, and to do so in a way that makes the decision of the group binding on the individual members.” P 51

“…collective action creates shared responsibility, by tying the user’s identity to the identity of the group…” p51

Tragedy of the commons – sheep grazing – selfish overgrazing of common pasture reduces the available pasture for all… - similar to prisoner’s dilemma…

Two solutions – elimination of the commons by private ownership or governance. Hardin: “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.”

This is why taxes are never voluntary.

“Collective action involves challenges of governance, or put another way, rules for losing.” P 53 “For a group to take collective action, it must have some shared vision strong enough to bind the group together, despite periodic decisions that will inevitably displease at least some members.” P 53 “In the current spread of social tools, real examples of collective action – where a group acts on behalf of, and with shared consequences for, all of its members – are still relatively rare.” P 53

Chapter 3: Everyone is a media outlet

“Our social tools remove older obstacles to public expression, and thus remove the bottlenecks that categorized mass media. The result is the mass amateurization of efforts previously reserved for media professionals.” P55

In this chapter, Shirky discusses the development of publishing and news distribution from scribes to printing to the internet. On the way, he makes some interesting observations about professionals and the link between professionalization and scarcity.

“A profession exists to solve a hard problem, one that requires some sort of specialization… Most professions exist because there is a scarce resource that requires ongoing management…” p57

Q. Wilson, Beaurocracy: “A professional is someone who receives important occupational rewards from a reference group whose membership is limited to people who have undergone specialized formal education and have accepted a group-defined code of conduct” p 58

“A profession becomes, for its members, a way of understanding their world…” p58

“In any profession, particularly one that has existed long enough that no one can remember a time when it didn’t exist, members have a tendency to equate provisional solutions to particular problems with deep truths about the world.” P59

Shirky notes that universal availability of publishing does not equate with mass professionalization of amateurs – but mass amatuerisation of journalism.

He also notes that the invention of the printing press did not cause the reformation, but the reformation was possible because of the printing press. Radical social change can lag behind technological change by a couple of decades…

“A professional often becomes a gatekeeper, by providing a necessary or desirable social function but also by controlling that function…” p 69

“Professional self-conception and self-defence… become a disadvantage in revolutionary [times], because professionals are always concerned with threats to the profession… What was once a service can become a bottleneck…” p69

“Journalistic privilege is based on the previous scarcity of publishing. When it was easy to recognize who the publisher was, it was easy to figure out who the journalists were. We could regard them as a professional (and therefore minority) category. Now that scarcity is gone…” p 73

Shirky also discusses the issue of professional photographers…

N.B. Jeff Howe - Crowdsourcing

“…what seems like a fixed and abiding category like “journalist” turns out to be tied to an accidental scarcity created by the expense of publishing apparatus… What was once a chasm has become a mere slope.” P 76-77

Shirky notes one “professional” organisation which attempted to reclaim its previous status. This was a French bus company that sued three of its former customers when they decided to try carsharing… p78

The talk about professions and scarcity is interesting since it has direct relevance to the de-professionalization of ministry and the rising ecology of collaborative ministry. Now that most people can have access to theological learning and knowledge – and even to training or supervision – where is the distinction between lay and professional in the church? The concept of “setting aside” remains helpful in some form – but for a smaller and smaller range of activities…

Chapter 4: Publish, then filter

“The media landscape is transformed, because personal communication and publishing, previously separate functions, now shade into one another. One result is to break the older pattern of professional filtering of the good from the mediocre before publication; now such filtering is increasingly social, and happens after the fact.” P81

In this chapter Shirky discusses the issue of the ease with which user generated content can be produced. He establishes a distinction between material produced for public consumption and personal messages uttered in public spaces.

“In this world the private register suffers – those of us who grew up with a strong separation between communication and broadcast media have a hard time…” p89

He also discusses the problem of fame, ie the more people you could interact with, the less you are likely to do so. “The web makes interactivity technologically possible, but what technology giveth, social factors take away… Fame is simply an imbalance between inbound and outbound attention… Though the possibility of two-way links is profoundly good, it is not a cure-all. On the Web interactivity has no technological limits, but it does have cognitive limits…” p 91

“Whether Oprah wants to talk to each and every member of her audience is irrelevant: Oprah can’t talk to even a fraction of her audience, ever, because she is famous…” p 92 “Egalitarianism is possible only in small social systems…” p 93

For many of us, dealing with emails is a similar issue – many small messages come in – but how many are we capable of returning? (see illustration on p 94-5)

Filtering is crucial, but it is no longer done by professionals before publication.

Shirky concludes that the internet can’t be compared to broadcast media.

Cory Doctorow: “Conversation is King. Content is just something to talk about.” P99

The web provides a platform for what Etienne Wenger called “communities of practice” in which people discuss what they do and how they could do it better. P 100

Chapter 5: Personal Motivation Meets Collaborative Production

“Collaborative production, where people have to coordinate with one another to get anything done, is considerably harder than simple sharing, but the results can be more profound. New tools allow large groups to collaborate, by taking advantage of nonfinancial motivations and by allowing for wildly differing levels of contribution.” P 109

In this chapter Shirky discusses the origins, development and functioning of Wikipedia as an example of collaborative production. He makes a number of interesting observations, including the following:

“A Wikipedia article is a process, not a product, and as such is never finished…” p119

“…since anyone can act, the ability of the people in charge to kill initiatives through inaction is destroyed.” P121

“…many more people are willing to make a bad article better than are willing to start a good article from scratch. In 1991 Richard Gabriel, a software engineer at Sun Microsystems, wrote an essay that included a section called “Worse Is Better,” describing this effect…” p 122

There is huge imbalance in participation, illustrated by a chart on p. 123 A tiny proportion of the participants usually do the greatest proportion of the work – and this pattern is similar for all social tools…

“…the imbalance drives large social systems rather than damaging them. Fewer than two percent of Wikipedia users ever contribute, yet that is enough to create profound value for millions of users. And among those contributors no effort is made to even out their contributions…” p 125

“To understand the creation of something like a Wikipedia article, you can’t look for a representative contributor, because none exists…” p126

Shirky tells the story of a Shinto shrine that is not being classed as a historic place even though it is 1300 years old – because it is demolished and rebuilt with fresh wood every so often on the original design.

“Wikipedia is a Shinto shrine; it exists not as an edifice but as an act of love. Like the Ise Shrine, Wikipedia exists because enough people love it and, more important, love one another in its context. This does not mean that the people constructing it always agree, but loving someone doesn’t preclude arguing with them…” p 141

Chapter 6: Collective Action and Institutional Challenges

“Collective action, where a group acts as a whole, is even more complex than collaborative production, but here again new tools give life to new forms of action. This in turn challenges existing institutions, by eroding the institutional monopoly on large-scale coordination.” P143

In this chapter Shirky explores the catholic abuse scandals which became significant during 2002. He looks at the way new forms of sharing and simple group formation made collective action possible.

“The communications tools broadly adopted in the last decade are the first to fit human social networks well, and because they are easily modifiable, they can be made to fit better over time.” P 158

“…many of the significant changes are based not on the fanciest, newest bits of technology but on simple, easy to use tools like e-mail, mobile phones, and websites, because those are the tools most people have access to and, critically, are comfortable using in their daily lives. Revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new technologies – it happens when society adopts new behaviours.” P 166

Chapter 7: Faster and Faster

“As more people adopt simple social tools, and those tools allow increasingly rapid communication, the speed of group action also increases, and just as more is different, faster is different.” P 161

This chapter is about protesting with flash mobs, twitter and facebook as tools for collective action.

Judge Richard Posner: “Conspiracies are punished separately from single-offender criminal act, and often as severely even if the conspiracy fails to achieve its aim, because a group having some illegal purpose is more dangerous than an individual who has the same purpose.” p 161

“The military often talk about “shared awareness,” which is the ability of many different people and groups to understand a situation, and to understand who else has the same understanding.” p 163

Shirky discusses large scale group protests in Liepzig (1989) and Belarus in recent years. He concludes that the mechanism of protest has changes: “Now the organization of group effort can be invisible, but the results can be immediately visible.” p 168

Shirky discusses the success of Blitzkreig and attributes this to the use of radios by the German tank commanders: “The ability to turn a collection of tanks into a coordinated force rested on two very different kinds of things, in other words. First, it required the media with which to coordinate the tanks. No radios, no blitzkrieg. Secondly, it required a strategy that took the new possibilities of radio into account. No new strategy, no blitzkrieg either. Neither the technological change nor the strategy alone was sufficient to ensure German victory, but together they changed the way the world worked.” p173

Howard Rheingold: Smart Mobs

Shirky tells the story of a protest against HSBC coordinated through Facebook. He notes that social tools “lower the hurdles to doing something in the first place…” p 181 “Having a handful of highly motivated people and a mass of barely motivated ones used to be a recipe for frustration. The people who were on fire wondered why the generl population didn’t care more, and the general population wondered why those obsessed people didn’t just shut up. Now the highly motivated people can create a context more easily in which the barely motivated people can be effective without having to become activists themselves.” p 182

Shirky then talks about Evan Williams who invented Blogger and Twitter. He lists some ways that Twitter is used by activists in the middle east.

Chapter 8: Solving Social Dilemas

“There are real and permanent social dilemmas, which can only be optimized for, never completely solved. The human social repertoire includes many such optimizations, which social tools can amplify.” p 188

In this chapter Shirky raises the question of the Prisoners Dilemma.

He then references Robert Putnam Bowling Alone, 2000 – and the issue of social capital. Societies with high social capital – living in the “shadow of the future” – do better than those with low levels – where trust and mutual cooperation are low. This involves direct and indirect reciprocity – indirect reciprocity means that you do something for someone else knowing than a completely different individual may do something for you.

Putnam observed that social capital was important but that is was also in decline. Better communications have contributed to the problem.

Shirky discusses the concept of cyberspace noting that “The overlap is so great, in fact, that both the word and the concept of “cyberspace” have fallen into disuse. The internet augments real world social life rather than providing an alternative to it.” p 196

N.B. Scott Heiferman launched Meetup to help people realte geographically on the basis of online interests.

Shirky discussed the issue of groups that exist for purposes that we may disapprove of – such as a self-help network of Pro-Ana (pro-anorexic) girls who were swapping advice on how to get thin.(!) He observes that it is easier for such groups to form and harder for society to police them.

Latent groups become real groups if the transactional costs drop low enough for them to form.

Three kinds of loss:

  1. “people whose jobs relied on solving a formerly hard problem” p 209
  2. “damage current social bargains…” p 209 e.g. definitions about who does what…
  3. “The third kind of loss is the most serious…” – better organisation for crime and terrorism… p210

“This is going to force society to shift from simply preventing groups from forming to actively deciding which existing ones to try to oppose…” p 211

Chapter 9: Fitting our Tools to a small world

“Large social groups are different from small ones, but we are still understanding all the ways in which that is true. Recent innovations in social tools provide more explicit support for a pattern of social networking called Small World pattern, which underlies the idea of Six Degrees of Separation.” p 212

Shirky discusses the fact the you are likely to find a connection with a random individual that you might meet on a plane. He explains that this is because people social connectedness follows a power curve – i.e. a few people are very well connected and you – or the other person – are more likely to know one of those than any random average individual.

1998 Duncan Watts and Steve Strogatz “Small World Network”: “Small World networks have two characteristics that, when balanced properly, let messages move through the network efficiently. The first is that small groups are densely connected… The second… is that large groups are sparsely connected…” p 215

“When you list the participants in a Small World network in rank order by the number of connections, the resulting graph approximates a power law distribution: a few people account for a widely disproportionate amount of the overall connectivity. Malcolm Galdwell, in The Tipping Point, calls these people Connectors; they function like ambassadors…” p 218

Ronald Burt, The Social Origins of Good Ideas – “…most good ideas came from people who were bridging “structural holes,” which is to say people whose immediate social network included employees outside their department.” p230

Chapter 10: Failure for Free

“The logic of publish-then-filter means that new social systems have to tolerate enormous amounts of failure. The only way to uncover and promote the rare successes is to rely, yet again, on social structure supported by social tools.” p 233

In this chapter Shirky discusses the fact that most social networks/activities are latent – and only a few of those that are tried are successful. Failure is an essential element of social behaviour – and yet it can’t be tolerated in traditional business structures. The use of social tools lowers the cost of failure and therefore enable greater risk taking…

“Open source is a profound threat, not because the open source ecosystem is outsucceeding commercial efforts but because it is outfailing them.” p 245

“Why? The most important reasons are that open systems lower the cost of failure, they do not create biases in favour of predictable but substandard outcomes, and they make it simpler to integrate the contributions of people who contribute only a single idea.” p 245

“This metaphorical environment is sometimes called a “fitness landscape” – the idea is that for any problem or goal, there is a vast area of possibilities to explore but few valuable spots within that environment to discover.” p 247

Chapter 11: Promise, Tool, Bargain

“There is no recipe for the successful use of social tools. Instead, every working system is a mix of social and technological factors.” p 261

In this chapter, Shirky sets out his theory that in order to succeed, each social endeavour needs three things:

1) A Promise – this is the offer or possibility of benefit that can be gained from engaging with the activity.

2) A Tool – this is the social tool, media or space which makes the activity possible.

3) A Bargain – this is the conscious or unconscious deal struck between the host, organiser or provider and the users or contributors. The Bargain can be a legal contract (as with UNIX or Wikipedia) or it could be an informal understanding (as with the StolenSidekick…)

Shirky argues that most collaborative activities fail because one of these elements is absent. He also speculated that collaborative action has yet to be significant because we are only in the early days of establishing effective methods of creating a Bargain – he thinks that legal structures may arise to make this possible.

In the epilogue Shirky discusses the Sichuan earthquake and the impact of social tools in the aftermath – particularly relating to the protests about badly built schools.

He discusses the growing impact of social tools on ordinary life. He notes the “network effect” which is that “networks become more valuable as people adopt them.” p 301

“Most of the work on supporting collective action around starting or sustaining work is speculative at this point.” p 318

Thursday, 17 September 2009

Can you Crowdsource Vision?

Yesterday I was given an hour to talk to new MK ministers at a Mission Partnership Orientation Day. I think I was there to talk about fresh expressions, but combined my input with something about local shared and supported ministry - and then drew the conversation off onto collective thinking.
I argued that we need fresh ways of expressing Christian faith in an emerging culture. In other words, like Paul before us, we need to re-make church so that it is able to challenge the people who live in this culture and help them to become authentic disciples of Christ. Hence the term "fresh expression" should not be capitalised since it defines a phenomenon rather than a movement or programme. A fresh expression is any form of church activity or community that follows a journey from radical listening through community and discipleship to some form of Christ focussed existance.
On the other hand, fresh expressions can only flourish in our age if we have an alternative model of ministry. We need to view ministry as something primarily derived from the local disciple-community; in which ministry and decision making are shared; and which is supported by the wider church. As with fresh expressions I am increasingly keen to see local shared ministry as an emergent phenomenon rather than a strategy, programme or structure. In other words, it is not possible to direct, manage or govern the development of a local shared ministry, but it would be possible to recognise, nurture and encourage its development.
In conversation this innevitable led to questions of authority, organisation, power and decisicion making - as I fully expected that it would. I was interested to see how readilly concepts of local collaboration flowed from the participants. We talked about the self-organising power of the hive - and the need to release people to explore their own calling.
At this point we started to get theological - exploring issues of boundaries and the role of the Spirit. We spoke about the need to recognise God at work in all people and the difficulty this causes with tradtional concepts of a boundaried church. We recognised that the concept of the Holy Spirit means that the voice of God must be listened for in all people - particularly members of the community. Everyone seemed to find it easy to grasp that both local shared ministry and fresh expressions can only flourish if there is a clear understandning of the church as a spirit-filled, collaborative community.
One of the organisers raised the question of power and organisational structure and we could have begun a conversation about collective intelligence and so on, but time was short. I have been thinking about this since then and have been wondering (as I have been recently) about the interplay between conversation and action...
The question that this raises for me is how a group is able to make authentic decisions without resorting to formal business structures. It stikes me that the key to this is a shared vision and purpose - but is it possible for a group to generate these without having them impossed from above in some form. Hence the question: Can you crowdsource vision?
And this drew me back to thinking of a small forgotten element of the SHIFT process in 2001. We asked each church member to write three ideas on a small piece of paper. These could be their hopes or dreams for their church - although they often expressed a fear or a simple statement. When we anlysed the slips we found there were some remarkably common trends. These were then used to create a list of six values - which reflected, as far as we were able, the common mind of the community.
Now some of these values would not have been chosen by those in power - I mention "tradition" in this category - but that is exactly why this process was so interesting and so useful.
Can you crowdsource vision? I would say yes - although it probably requires a very large sample group.

Useful Links for Collective Thinking

Thursday, 4 June 2009

The Mind of Christ: Collaborative Leadership in the Emerging Church (Outline)

Introduction
Section 1: What is Collaborative Leadership - Defining Terms
In this section I will define terms like 'fresh expressions', 'emerging church', 'collaborative leadership', 'collaborative ministry' and so on...
Section 2: Thinking about Collaborative Leadership
Christian Scriptures
- The Tyranny of Rightness - black/white perception leads to pathological behaviour
- Patriarchy and Theocracy - Biblical models of authority in tension ("might is right" vs "acts of God")
- The Word and Reign of God - only God is capable of being right
- The Mind of Christ - the Body of Christ through the Spirit
Christian History
- The conciliar movement
- The voice of the other - Benedictine tradition
- Radical Alternatives - Quakers, Diggers, etc...
- The democratisation of the Church - synods and councils, etc...
Political Theory
Leadership and Organizational Theory
Postmodernity and the Information Age
Section 3: Observing Collaborative Leadership
The Local Ministry Movement
New Ways of Being Church
Emerging Churches
Fresh Expressions
Section 4: Analysing Collaborative Leadership
Case studies...
Section 5: Describing Collaborative Leadership
Theories...
Conclusion

Church Next

In this book Eddie Gibbs and Ian Coffey look at a range of issues concerning Christian ministry in the twenty-first century; looking at transitions "from living in the past to engaging with the present", "from attracting the crowd to seeking the lost" and so on. Inevitably they have a great deal to say in the area of decision-making and I believe that their writing in this area focusses on three key themes: networks, permission-giving and subsidiarity.

It is also worth taking note of their observation that post-modern culture has an impact on the way each individual understands their identity and place in the world: "Each individual has to create his or her own meaning and associate with others to increase his or her power base in a fragmented society of competing interests. Everyone is entitled to his or her point of view, because, for the perspectivilist, what you see depends on where you stand. The world of postmodernists is a world of image rather than of substance. They are concerned with immediate rather than with the long-term, because history is meaningless and the future is too scary and unpredictable to contemplate. Meanwhile, the present is lived out as a tumble of fleeting experiences." (p29) This has an inevitable effect on the way postmodern people engage with leadership and decision-making. In their list of transitions between modern and postmodern Gibbs and Bolger observe a move from "Change initiated at the centre" to "Change initiated at the periphery". The centre is no longer trusted but the margins can be significant if their voice is recieved by the network.

"In traditional and 'modern' contexts it was possible to engage in long-term strategic planning, either because society was stable, or because change was predictable and evolutionary. In the culture of postmodernity, however, change is discontnuous rather than incremental. It comes rapidly and without warning. This culture has been described as a 'plan-do' environment." (p 36)
A very different cultural context requires a very different approach to leadership. Those in leadership positions can no-longer be 'directors' with 'master plans' but must become 'permission givers' who work to release the potential in other people and create an environment in which co-ordinated but fluid action and response can take place. Decisions must be made at the level at which there is most knowledge, skill and relevance, but there is still a role for 'over view' or co-ordination - possibly within a network model.

Gibbs and Bolger note a couple of reports from the evangelical tradition which propose criteria for functional, growing or "missional" churches. These suggest a number of relational factors which would have a baring on decision making, for instance: "The church is a community that practices reconciliation", "People within the community hold themselves accountable to one another in love" (p 56), "A strong, high quality leadership" [?] and "A high level of involvement from skilled lay-workers" (p57).

When it comes to the issue of 'control' Gibbs and Bloger ask the question, "Do denominational leaders disempower others?" (p 73) They note that "Leaders operating within a hierarchical structure see their role as delegating and granting permission. People who function within a network empower and grant resources to those around them without trying to exert control. Controllers bring a mentality of suspicion and inhibit individuals from exercising initiative. They thereby deprive others of the opportunity to grow and mature through learning, through having their faith stretched as they reach for the unlikely and the seemingly impossible. Many valuable lessons can be learned only from failed attempts." (p74)

They observe that those churches who are most closely tied to a rigid hierarchy have suffered most during the twentieth century, but there is a "new reformation" taking place (p 75) which is affecting both new and old churches. This is resulting in significant changes to the way individual congregations are managed and in the way that churches and individuals relate to each other. They suggest, in fact, that traditional denominations are being superceded or suplemented by "new apostolic networks" (p 76) and parachurch organisations.

They describe this as "The age of Networks" (p 83) and observe that there has been a change in the way organisations are structured: "The network-based movement should not be regarded as a place where everyone is free to do his or her own thing. This would simply transform the network into a tangle that would rip itself apart. Rather, it represents a significant change in th edecision-making process. In the hierarchical pyramid, decision-makers are removed from the scene of action and delegate their decisions to the people responsible for thier implementation; but in the network, decision-makers are available when needed to ratify a decision. At the same time they resist the temptation to let decisions float to the top of an organization, emphasizing that each key decision must be taken and acted upon at the appropriate level... Conversely, decisions are often not made in isolation but are communicated to the network for input by anyone who can make a worthwhile contribution." (p84)

Gibbs and Bolger note that networking requires a different approach from those in authority. Relationships, rather than status or position, become more significant. "Individuals who can build strong relationships and expand networks of people are those who relate well to one another and who exercise incredible influence within networks" (p85) - but this has challenging side - "Leadership in a network is precarious because the authority of the leaders can be challenged at any time. Individuals and groups are free to sever their links and to start independent networks" (p85) - although in practice this may be difficult when resources are shared. "When network leaders over-extend their authority or lose credibility, they are likely to find themselves increasingly isolated. Knowing this, they tend to work with supportive teams around them. These teams function not simply as a workforce but as a mutually supportive group of people who affirm one another and relate informally." (p 86)

Gibbs and Bloger quote William Easum: "Relationships and the flow of information are the two most valuable assets of the permission-giving network... The sum of an organization is the sum of its parts plus the relationship between the parts..." (Sacred Cow pp 22-23)

All this requires a significant change in management and leadership style. Delegation needs to be replaced by permission-giving. Control needs to be replaced by mutual accountability. While controllers tend to be insecure and delegate responsibility with out commensurate authority (p87) permision-givers tend to be "secure" and exercise trust. They key facet of relationships between them and others in a network is "mentoring". Organization is fluid and permission-givers "are ambitious for the people working around them and are not intimidated by people more able than themselves. Permission-givers are in the business of growing people, not 'cloning' people." (p 87)

Other key aspects of network leadership are values, training and empowerment. Teams are "self-organizing" and imperminent (p 90). Organizations are decentralised (p 9-91) and only work if there is mutual-accountabilty rather than one-way. (p 91). Gibbs and Bolger observe that networks represent an "open-ended system" (p 91) and have unlimited potential for growth.

Further comments of note:
Team-building skills are an essential skill for professional ministers. (p 108)
"Entertainment is no substitute for participation" (p 162)

Eddie Gibbs and Ian Coffey, Church Next: Quantum Changes in Christian Ministry, Intervarsity Press, 2001.

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

Books to read?

Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, 1992 x2
Anderson, R.S. (2007) An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, Oxford: Bible Reading Fellowship
David Kantor and William Lehr, In the Family, San Fransisco, Jossey Bass, 1975 (four player model)
Charles Handy, The Age or Paradox
Charles Handy, The Age or Unreason
Peter Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity - Knowledge based ecconomy

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Practical Doctorate

I hope to use my blog hope to focus my research, reading, writing and data collection for my work as part of a Practical Doctorate with Anglia Ruskin University. At the moment I'm still waiting for a formal letter but it seemed sensible to start gathering information and reflections now.

The title of the overall research project is, at the moment, "Thinking Together" and I plan to focus on the issue of collaborative decision-making, particularly in the context of fresh expressions and collaborative ministry.

I will need to write a 7000 word literature review, a 6-8000 word research presentation and a 7000 proposal before starting on a 60,000 word thesis. My hope is to produce the initial work within the fifteen month minimum period, enabling me to finish the whole thing within three years. This is fairly ambitious but the time-scale may be essential in order to fit all this in with my work...

Wish me luck.

Unit 1: Practical theology: context, practice and performance

I've just been looking at the guidance notes for unit 1 and am thinking about the kind of work I will need to do. Assuming that I'm focussing on collaborative leadership I should be able to build on work I did last year in my sabbatical but focus on this issue in a more systematic way. The guidance notes suggest that I will need to present a "critical review of the performance, ideas and methods of an established scholar within or associated with the field". This does sound worth while and will probably be good fun - if that's not being too enthusiastic. I suspect it will be best to identify the scholar after an initial period of reading around the subject, but potential suspects would include Robin Greenwood, Kevin Thew-Forester, Stewart Zabriskie or Fredrica Harris Thompsett. Alternatively, I would be tempted to focus on "Skills for Collaborative Ministry" which does seem to be well respected and present a good account of current thinking about good practice.
In the meantime, I'm going to start a systematic survey of the books I already have on my shelf and see where that takes me.

The Road to Growth

Bob Jackson has carried out a great deal of research about church growth and the factors that affect it. In The Road to Growth he looks at a number of reasons why churches have been in decline and makes a few suggestions about strategies for future development.
It could be said that he is obsessed by attendance as the principle measure of a church's success. There may be some truth in this assessment, but attendance could equally be regarded as a "proxy indicator" for a range of other less easily measurable qualities like vibrancy or health.

Team Ministries
Jackson regards team ministries, and LEPs, as one of the "own goals" that the Anglican Church has scored against itself. He notes that there was great enthusiasm for the setting up of teams during the 1970s and 1980s in diocese that had a "teams enthusiast" in their senior staff (p.17).
Unfortunately "it does not seem that there was any systematic attempt to monitor or assess their progress." In fact "stories of dysfunctional teams began to circulate." Jackson quotes data that seems to indicate that attendance in team parishes has declined by nearly twice the level of that in non-team parishes.
He suggests a number of reasons for this, including the tendency of teams to turn inwards and focus on internal conflicts, or the "ambiguity of relationships embodied in the team setup." (p.19) "Who is in charge of the team vicar's parish - the team vicar or the team rector who has legal charge and may feel entitled to tell the team vicar what to do?" (p.19)
This alone says something about the nature of decision-making in team ministries and the challenge of working in collaboration. Although other writers point out that teams were originally set up to include lay people (check reference re Andrew Bowden) the reality is that the challenge of collaborative decision-making in team ministries really concerns the relationship between the rector and the team vicars.
On a more serious level, Jackson suggests that multi-skilled clergy teams may actually disempower lay people. "A vulnerable vicar with obvious gaps in his or her ability or gifting may leave more room for the growing of lay ministry than an omnicompetent team able to turn its collective hand to anything." (p19) This has interesting resonance with Rolland Allen's concept of "retirement".
In team ministries the emphasis on collaborative ministry and decision-making is undoubtedly focussed on the clergy team rather than on the whole body.

Lay Leadership
Although Jackson is negative about team ministries, he is very positive about lay ministry. "Around the world, churches without professional leadership have better growth trends than churches with it. Those who take an active part in church leadership and ministry tend to grow in commitment, confidence and stature as a result... it is no surprise that churches that have been changing in the direction of increasing the involvement of lay people in their running and leadership have also tended to grow numerically." (p70)
Jackson quotes statistics that demonstrate growth in churches that have positivley involved lay pepole. He mentions a process in Lichfield in which churches grew when at least half the PCC were involved in day conferences "- the lay leaders were seeing the issues and making decisions together with their clergy." (p71)

Local Ministry Teams
Although Jackson is positive about lay leadership in general he has some challenging things to say about the kind of local ministry schemes that have been set up in some dioceses. These have involved teams of lay people who have been trained over a two to three year period, often with a locally ordained minister as part of the package. He notes that in one diocese they were succesful in setting up twelve pilots, but attendance dropped by 25% during the period of implementation. (p142) Another diocese invested heavily in 'mandated ministry teams'. "Attendance in 98 churches with such teams fell over 18 per cent over a five year period while attendance at 353 churches without such teams fell only 16 per cent." (p142)
Jackson has a number of suggestions to explain this: "First, the group of lay people set aside for training usually contains some of the most effective and committed leaders in the church." This creates "gaps and weaknesses" which were not there before. Secondly, Jackson suggests that these people may actually have been more gifted for their previous areas of work.. Thirdly, Jackson suggests that "clericallizing a few of the laity" may be unhelpful. "Lay ministry schemes may be more a way of avoiding real change than of brining it about. The structures of church life can continue as before because the gaps have been filled - a group of square pegs have had some carpentry attention to make them fit into the round holes vacated by the clergy." Finally he suggests that teams often focus on the internal workings of the church rather than on mission, although he does quote on church in which a three year decline was followed by a period of growth. The vicar in question said, "Those were the years we were training our ministry team and our focus was all inward looking. Now the team is trained we are trying to look outwards again and hoping to grow." (p146)
From the point of view of this study, it is significant that collaborative ministry and decision-making often move from the exclusive domain of the clergy to the slightly more collaborative domain of the team - but this does not imply "leadership as a body" as Gibbs and Bolger put it in Emerging Churches. (check quote)

Networking
Perhaps the most significant thing that Jackson has to say about collaboration is this: "The realities of how to grow churches are not invented by experts, they are discovered by the churches themselves." (p147) Jackson notes that churches who's leaders are part of networks in which stories are told and ideas are shared are more likely to be growing. "The answers to the growth of the Church are laready out there - in order to turn the whole national Church around it may be enough simply to expose the churches to each other in networks of mutual learning and sharing." (p147) This is worth comparing to material on mass collaboration in Wikinomics and The Wisdom of Crowds, etc...

Bob Jackson has some invaluable data that can help us asses diferent approaches to collaboration in terms of its affect on church attendance. It seems to me that when these approaches focus on clergy or clericalisation, the effect is usually negative, but when collaboration arises through decision-making processes or organic development in response to missional needs there are usually positive results. Networking is good, as is the creation of space in which lay ministry and leadership can develop. The trick is to create the structures in which this can happen.

Jackson, B, The Road to Growth: towards a thriving Church, Church House Publishing, 2005

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Practical Doctorate

Went to Cambridge to talk to Zoe Bennett-Moore about the possibility of doing a doctorate through Anglia Ruskin. It sounds achievable if I'm fairly disciplined about it. We talked through my research proposal and the work I would have to do. Now I just need to wait for the letter...