permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>wrote:

> - 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.
>
Useful comments here:

Jay Cross says: <http://gravatar.com/internettime>

 Eugene, I like the article and think it has merit. It helped me
recalibrate some thoughts about networks.

One minor word you use bugs me. It’s maximize in the sentence “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.”
The goal is actually to optimize, not maximize, every individual’s power.
Maybe Bob and Alice create more power by eliminating the third player
entirely. 1 + 1 > 1 + 1 + 1

   -

   Eugene Eric Kim says

    Thanks for your feedback, Jay! I appreciate your careful wording. While
   I’m not sure I like “optimize” better, I agree with the nuance that you’re
   emphasizing, and I agree that it’s super important. I tried to capture that
   same nuance by stating, “in such a way that the collective power is greater
   than the sum of its parts,” but I could have been clearer.

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.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Lawrence F. London
lfljvenaura@gmail.com
http://www.avantgeared.com
https://plus.google.com/+Avantgeared
Skype: lawrence.f.london