permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

- maybe useful when thinking about establishing and reinforcing the
standards of permaculture and building a supportive network of people and
organizations that will make this happen
- this could also be useful in bringing together Alan Chadwick's knowledge,
experience and methods for presentation to the greater permaculture
community - it might be worthwhile
incorporating the methods of Chadwick, Bonfils, Fukuoka, Hazelip, Jeavons,
Coleman and a few other outstanding gardeners into every PDC with
reverberating local workshops and potluck gatherings to
extend and develop practical applications of what these masters offered the
world - LL

The Real Importance of Networks: Understanding Power
http://fasterthan20.com/2014/01/the-real-importance-of-networks-understanding-power/?utm_content=bufferb3ebd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The Real Importance of Networks: Understanding Power
January 13, 2014
by Eugene Eric Kim

Over the past several years, it’s become en vogue to talk about networks.
For the most part, I think it’s healthy and important, I’m glad that it’s
happening, and I’m glad to be contributing to it.

However, I’m often troubled by the direction I hear these conversations
taking. In the nonprofit sector and especially in philanthropy, I often
hear people use the term as a new way to describe the same old rigid
command-and-control worldview they’ve always had. The easy way to test for
this is to substitute “organization” for “network” when people are talking
to see if the meaning changes. In the for-profit sector and especially in
tech, I often hear networks framed as an extreme reaction against the
status quo. “Hierarchy is wrong,” people say. “Teams are dead.”

Why does so much of the conversation about networks fall under one of these
two troubling and incorrect extremes? Why do people struggle so much to
define them, much less talk about them?

What’s so special about networks?

Networks are special because they are a lens that help us better understand
power.

Why should we care about power?

Because our ultimate goal with groups is to maximize power. The basic
premise underlying collective
intelligence<http://fasterthan20.com/2013/12/maximizing-collective-intelligence-means-giving-up-control/>and
effective collaboration is that the whole should be greater than the
sum of its parts. In other words:

1 + 1 > 2

You can frame this equation around power, where the goal is to maximize the
power of every individual in such a way that the collective power is
greater than the sum of its parts.

For example, imagine you are teamed up with two other people — Alice and
Bob — and are asked to grow and cook your own food. Only Alice knows
anything about farming. Only Bob has ever cooked anything before. You know
nothing about either.

You would probably want Alice to be responsible for farming, and Bob to be
responsible for the cooking. Being responsible means making sure it gets
done right, not necessarily that the person responsible is the only person
doing it. For example, once you all decided what you wanted to grow, Alice
would be responsible for figuring out what needs to happen and for
assigning the roles.

In this case, the assumption is that the people with the right knowledge
should have the power. But how should the three of you decide what to grow
and cook in the first place? Alice and Bob have relevant knowledge, but
it’s not the only knowledge that should count in making this decision.

There’s no universally correct answer for how that decision should be made.
However, we can explore some scenarios for how that decision might be made:

   - You are the designated, formal leader of the team, and hence, Alice
   and Bob defer to you.
   - You are bankrolling the assignment, and hence, Alice and Bob defer to
   you.
   - You and Alice are both 14 years old, and Bob is 32, so you and Alice
   defer to Bob.
   - Alice and Bob went to college together, so they naturally gravitate
   toward each other.
   - You and Bob are both men, and so the two of you naturally gravitate
   toward each other.
   - Alice is significantly taller than you and Bob, so the two of you
   naturally defer to Alice.

Let’s complicate the scenario further. What if you were an incredibly fast
learner, and in the course of working together, you rapidly became a better
cook than Bob? It might follow that, at some point, you should be
responsible for the cooking, not Bob, or at least you should be
co-responsible. How would the group get to that conclusion?

Power can come from many different places, some more explicit than others.
Organizations are simply a form of formalized power. It’s easy to talk
about and work with formal power, because we can see it, and because
there’s some agreement behind it. But to assume that formal power is the
only form of power that matters is faulty. This is typically the flaw with
an organizational lens. It’s not that the lens is wrong; it’s that people
fail to use other lenses to examine their groups.

Networks are the ultimate meta-lens. Networks consist of people and their
relationships to each other. You get to decide how you want to define those
relationships. An organizational lens is a network lens where the
relationships are defined by the org chart. You could also define
relationships by who talks to whom, or by who share certain
characteristics<http://christopherlandry.com/blog/2013/8/7/privilege-communications-part-2-men-right>(e.g.
race, age, gender, etc.), or by how physically close people’s offices
are.

All of these are valid, potentially important ways of looking at power
within a group, because the “right” structure — the structure that
maximizes the power of the group — may have nothing to do with the formal
org chart.

Networks are not a rejection of
hierarchy<http://eekim.com/blog/2013/06/in-defense-of-hierarchy/>.
Networks are a rejection of rigidity. A hierarchy is an efficient form of
decision-making, as long as it’s the “right” hierarchy. Powerful networks
allow the right hierarchies to emerge at the right time.

If you’re trying to figure out how to get the best out of your network (and
remember, an organization is a type of network), don’t start by looking for
recipes. Start by asking the following questions:

   - Where is the power in my network?
   - Where should the power be in different situations?
   - What kind of structures can we put into place to support this?

Starting with these questions will help you better understand the true
meaning behind the many ingredients of successful networks — the importance
of relationship-building, of sharing, of diversity, of distributing
control, of openness, and so forth. It will give you a broader perspective
on the structures — both implicit and explicit — that make your network
perform.

Networks are a powerful lens for helping you understand and maximize power.