This is my first post following ChangeCamp London (there will likely be one or two more) in which I’m suggesting points for probable improvement: mostly things I actively promoted through the planning process, and which I hope to see emphasized more in the future.
This post argues for the need to be open throughout the process. There are some specific benefits I’d like to highlight:
- Efficiency: the more eyes on a project, the faster you’ll find mistakes (per “Linus’s Law“) and opportunities (per Zittrain).
- Simplicity: assume everything is already public and you stop having to worry about it; by comparison, managing who’s allowed to know what and trying to protect everything costs a lot of time, attention, and lawyers’ fees — and in a digital age is often futile — that could otherwise be used to create value.
- Accountability: a preemptive strike against critics and mudslingers (though without context and narrative, people might lock onto one or two pieces of info that look bad on their own).
- Sustainability: individuals who select their own role in a project to suit their strengths and recognize their personal contribution are more motivated, and the group as a whole is more adaptive and resilient.
Obviously not everything can be done openly, but it’s a lot easier to manage balanced approaches when we have experience at both extremes (i.e. we need to make the mistakes and appreciate the benefits of both in order to fully understand the nuances in play when we combine them into new projects and enterprises).
ChangeCamp ought to be the vanguard of openness & engagement in the city. Wherever we think politicians and City Hall should be on a scale of openness, we need to set an aggressive example several degrees further along. If, for whatever reason, ChangeCamp can’t be the vanguard (i.e. maybe I’ve grossly misinterpreted the example set by ChangeCamp Toronto) then we ought be using the momentum from ChangeCamp to develop something else to serve that purpose.
We need to create examples that are open-by-default from start to finish: assume that everybody can listen, actively provide opportunities for people to do so, actually adapt to new information as it comes in, learn continuously in dynamic social contexts, iterate the general aspects of the initiative to embody new contributions coming in at each phase, and when some exceptionally sensitive or mundane work needs to be done we can always choose to be strategically closed for those specific tasks and decisions.
The experience with ChangeCamp London was, after an initial burst of self-organization (nudged by Mark Kuznicki, ChangeCamp’s founder), the process in London reverted back to a closed-by-default mindset: we became mired for almost two months as we spun hypothetical scenarios around in isolation. Things improved immensely, but there’s still a lot to learn before we really master the open approach.
My understanding is that in those early stages there were worries that openness would make decisions too difficult — though nobody actually advocated seeking community consensus on every single decision (I’d already called attention to the hazards of trying to do that, not just on this blog but later in print as well). There was a misunderstanding of the difference between the providing information about the process (good) vs. explicitly framing requests for feedback on everything (ineffective).
When you say, “hey, here’s what we’re doing” and indicate that people are welcome to respond and participate, then you’ve provided an opportunity for people to self-select (i.e. conversely for organizers it’s an opportunity to start identifying people who are most committed, or have special attributes to contribute, to start nudging people into complementary roles), to start developing a deeper sense of responsibility for the outcome, and maybe point out potential problems and opportunities.
Maybe you get a few bad suggestions but addressing those is a part of doing things now: at least the interactions will be out where everyone can judge for themselves.
(Charlene Li’s Open Leadership has a lot of practical guidance on maintaining confidence while relinquishing control. As in Groundswell, she advises establishing the objectives before choosing strategies and tools…)
It also means the process is accountable — so for instance, if someone now wants to claim that ChangeCamp was designed to promote a particular group’s agenda (not inconceivable, given the political atmosphere and the fact that “perception is reality” in politics), we can refer back to show how the process developed over time, instead seeming to emerge fully-formed out of the ether one day, casting long shadows of doubt and providing the impetus for potential opponents to speculate about our aims and motives.
(We witnessed the kind of commotion and conflict this approach can cause when ActionLondon launched.)
As long as key organizers make accountably sound decisions and are willing to listen to people who have the best knowledge that applies, when appropriate, then there won’t be many complaints about the few closed discussions and unilateral decisions that have to happen sometimes.
What everyone wants is a way to contribute according to their unique interests and abilities; people will happily defer as long as they’re occupied in a role that’s personally gratifying. But if people feel thwarted or ineffective, then they tend to become more generally agitated, critical, uncooperative, and apathetic.
As a local example of a good, fairly open approach, I’ll point to Kevin Van Lierop’s PARK(ing) Day initiative (Kevin or anyone can correct me if I’ve misrepresented this slightly):
- after hearing about the worldwide movement and being inspired to try it in London, he started mentioning it on Twitter and in conversations;
- based on the feedback he got from that, he decided to present about it at PodCamp;
- based on the validation & momentum generated there, he organized an orientation & brainstorming session that was open to anyone to attend;
- people who attended that session felt a greater sense of responsibility to help make it work by investing their time, knowledge, and interpersonal capital to grow the network…
Kevin doesn’t seek everyone’s endorsement for every decision. But the fact that it’s open enough for anyone interested to stumble upon it, then self-select and participate in a way that’s appropriate to them, then nobody resents Kevin’s authority. It’s also working because Kevin has been listening to feedback rather than arguing that people’s suggestions are wrong.
It’s also essential to be aware of the unique knowledge, interests, and style of the people you’re asking for suggestions (if and when you do ask explicitly).
If you make an open-ended request to me (for example) for feedback or advice, you’re almost certainly going to get advice about the big picture, your project’s vision, concept, and strategy — because that’s what my background and competence is — rather than what kind of sandwiches to serve or what font to use on the website. My advice on tactical and cosmetic things like that will have a negative value to both of us: the information will be bad and I’ll feel uncomfortable giving it. Other people might be delighted to offer advice about food or web design. It all depends on asking the right person — which in a lot of cases means asking nobody in particular, but rather just getting it out and responding appropriately to whatever signals come back from people.
More positively, by being open-by-default, Kevin is feeding off of the energy that’s freely circulating about PARK(ing) Day as word gets around and cycles back to him in the form of inquiries, encouragement, and offers to help. Like a financial investment, it’s working for him while he’s busy with other things.
People are more willing to share it with others because they aren’t afraid they might be over-sharing, stepping on Kevin’s toes, undermining his leadership, or violating his confidence (notwithstanding what might be said in private conversations): virtually everything’s already out there.
Note that being closed has important functions too. There are often good reasons not to be open.
Other than the obvious need to respect confidentiality and not affect negotiations in progress (e.g. not talking about a specific venue until arrangements are finalized), withholding info before formal announcements is an effective way to generate a spike in attention and enthusiasm. But for something like ChangeCamp I’m not sure that’s necessarily beneficial. I’d prefer to have a relatively small number of participants who’ve seen the process develop, understand the aims, and feel personally responsible for the outcome, rather than draw a larger but perhaps less committed crowd.
No doubt we can (and should) have both kinds of events — workshops and spectacles — just as we ultimately need to combine closed with open approaches. And we should continue to discuss the relative merits and applications of each.
Nobody expected ChangeCamp London to be a perfect event: everybody expected it to lead to ongoing conversations and projects.
As we proceed, I hope we’ll be more explicit about our objectives, so we can have grounded conversations about best practices as we expand the network and build momentum — as efficiently, simply, accountably, and sustainably as possible.
Pingback: Local Blogs – 2010/06/27 – From My Bottom Step
Pingback: Openness by Default «