The Project Shrink

If everybody has access to the right and real information, better and faster decisions would be made, right?

Transparency sounds like an awesome enabler for adaption.

I was chanting all about the healing power of "shining light" (being transparent) a few months ago in "How Open Is Your Project":

"If you are working in a closed system with feedback just from within the system, the information can get contaminated. Unchallenged groupthink can lead to biased opinions about the state of the investment."

So yeah. Transparency. Yay!

But throwing all our stuff into the open also has a drawback. A huge one.

One drawback that makes transparency almost useless as an enabler for adaption. As The Creator of Resilience.

Transparency makes sure people’s behavior will be noted around the globe. Although with a good reputation a lot is to gain, having a bad rep puts a lot at stake. So people will play things save. They will create low-risk behavior, resulting in the end into mediocrity.

A good example of this is illustrated by the following:

“While the typical CEO is only too happy to pocket the lucrative financial rewards that come with the mantle of leadership, some seem reluctant to accept this degree of accountability – especially if it means personally taking the rap for non-compliance with the law. I guess not many corporate heads are convinced that a minimum-security sabbatical in an orange jumpsuit will be as good for their careers as it seems to have been for Martha Stewart’s.”


An example from a country where radical transparency is practiced for years in government, Sweden:

"But even as it takes its transparency laws for granted, Sweden has long debated whether absolute openness leads, paradoxically, to greater secrecy. In 2004 Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swede working on transparency issues within the United Nations, […] tried to review government files, she found only “empty boxes.” “The principle has come to discourage its original purpose,” she added. “It is quite logical: if you are concerned that things will be made immediately public, you do not write it on paper.”"


Total transparency can result in a mediated information flow and "playing-it-safe" behavior.

Disastrous for resilience.

Humans have a preference to fail conservatively.  The idea behind this is that people would rather choose an option that they know, that they have done in the past, even if the outcome is likely to be unsuccessful, than try something new, where the outcome may be positive, but unsure. If they fail, they can also hide behind the notion that they did everything everybody else is also doing.

So. When stress is on the system, when changes occur and resilience is required, transparency leads to mediated information flow and "playing-it-safe" behavior.

In the situation that "transperancy" is most needed for resilience, it is the least effective.

That's the transperancy paradox.

I think the problem lies within total transparency. If information flows freely within the boundaries of a safe place, less negative side effects will occur.

But protecting these boundaries, that is another challenge.
 

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

A few years ago I was fascinated by the concept of "personal branding".  Carefully craft the image of yourself. Conscious about your mission. Radiating what you're about.

Stuff like that.

Especially in the online space it's a phenomenon that has taken off beyond imagination. Presenting yourself as an "event", right next to Nike, Coca-Cola and Mac Donalds. Dan Schwabel summed it up quite nicely  with the title of his book about personal branding: "Me 2.0".

I am still fascinated by this topic. But for a different reason.

Originally I was keen on finding out how this would work. How do you write your mission statement? Do you need a suit in your profile picture or not? Are you a nice person online or opinionated?  Do you use formal language or just yell "whatever" on every occasion?

Branding is work.

Writing an elevator pitch is an awesome exercise in self-awareness. Tell in 20 seconds what you are about? Why are you fantastic? … Go!

Branding is also incredible powerful in communication. Your conversation partner can look you up online before a conversation and get some context about you. A context that helps them understand your message.

A context you carefully created.

In here lies my current fascination.

Is it correct or not? When you yourself are curating your own personal brand online, the best we might get is a "plausible me", a phrase coined by Laurent Haug. The context provided online is not necesarely true, it's plausible.

Your online digital footprint, the digital trail of your online activities over the years, provides important clues. How long are you online? Do you stick with one topic or are you switching back and forth every year?

But this digital shadow of "you" might not be sufficient. It might still be curated. So the best we can do is "plausible".

You need face-to-face interaction with someone to validate the profile.

Or. You need a continuous raw feed of data, not curated. This might be provided by the mobile real-time web. With for example pictures taken with a mobile phone directly uploaded to Facebook you get a transparent stream of information.

But this kind of transparency has it's own troubles and doesn't solve the validation issue.

You loose the benefit of a single context. Even if at best we can hope for is a "plausible" perception of our conversation partner, it seems better then an entirely wrong context. Out of context.

Sometimes politicians say stupid things during newspaper interviews. Luckily, they can always claim it was taken out of context. Politician really want to control their message.

But even the most notorious evangelists of “being yourself”, “awesome authenticity”, “just say what’s on your mind”, “let your message flow free” a.k.a. The Social Media Advocates (yes, that’s me included) have concerns about message and context.

As Jonathan Fields writes:

“When I’m at an event, a gathering, meeting or just having lunch, I’ve come to learn that every word out of my mouth is fair game for social media attribution and distribution. … And, that freaks me out a bit. Because when I put the message out there, I give it context. But, when others translate it to social media, especially media that only allows for cherry-picked snippets… who knows?”

The continuous  raw stream provided by the real time web will increase this "out of context" phenomenon. It is fragmented, without direct context, waiting to be copied and published, and misrepresented. In that sense, the worse has yet to come.

Perhaps in a few years I reflect back on personal branding, and will think it  wasn't that bad at all.

Who knows?

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

Closing time.

Last day of 2010. Time to put up my Amazing Reflection Hat.

This year for Blogging-Me was all about finding the right words to describe what I am trying to say for the last few years.

I am writing on the crossroad between personal development, change management, project management and social systems. With a dash of sociology.

And for four years I am explaining you about "border control". Only, I didn't know that.

Border control.

Making sure that you're comfortable under every circumstance. It's easy to be Your Great Self when there is no stress. It's doable to let your freak flag shine when people are not screaming into your ear.

But what happens when stress is put onto you? When you get tired?

Using personal development practices you can solve this by creating a bubble for yourself. Create a zone in which you feel comfortable. Creating boundaries with the language you use, the social cues you sent out, the identity you choose to express, the room you sit in, the music you play and the songs you sing.

Containers. Shelters.

It is a membrane. You don't close yourself entirely for your surroundings, you just pay more attention to the environment you create for yourself.

Border control.

This scales up to projects.

In my writings I focus on projects that are interventions in larger organizations. It is easy when no interruptions are made. But you change things for other people. You change how other people work or operate. You cause stress into their social system. And they push back.

You have to shelter you and your team for this. Set boundaries.

This works identical to the border control around Self.

You create an awesome working environment for the ragtag crew you are having your incredible adventure with. One that creates a homogeneous team. Of course without losing the cognitive diversity.

This working environment, this culture, works as a boundary. Some will like it (hopefully your team) and some don't. People in and people out.

You set filters. Like a change procedure. Or a dedicated time slot for a meeting.

Boundaries.

That control your borders.

It took me four years to see it this simple.

I hope you have an incredible 2011.

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

As a kid I played this little game at school we called ‘telephone line’. Twenty kids were hurdled up into a circle. One kid started by whispering a sentence in the ear of his neighbor, so the other kids couldn’t hear what was said. The neighbor would say the same sentence to his neighbor, and so on, until the sentence was ’round circle’. The fun of the game was comparing what the last one had heard with what was originally said.

In a normal setting it didn’t come close.

Now try to imagine how this would work if the children didn't all speak the same language.

What would happen if instead of whispering they needed to express themselves using sock puppets?

The end user tells the department head, who tells the business analyst, who tells the consultant, who tells the system architect, who tells the developer, what is needed.

Que?

And the end user is in the US, the developer in India, and every one else somewhere in between.

QUE?!!

You get an email from someone you have never met before, offering you thousands of dollars. He needs to get millions of dollars out of his country and would like you to help him. For a nice fee of course.

Do you trust the sender?

Why not?

Why do you think some people still fall for this kind of spam?

Why do you trust a team member you have never met, never worked with and can't see face-to-face because he is at the other end of the globe?

I think we have a process to communicate in an online context where face-to-face communication is not possible, trust is not established before, and our channel is unprotected from noise.

Cues. Feedback. Validation.

We pick up social cues from our conversation partner and match this with our preconceived ideas. If he uses the word "awesome" a lot, he must be a surfer.

Dude!

In step two we exchange information, you get feedback on the image you have of the other person. Some cues are filled in. New cues arrive.

With validation we need to establish a first hand experience with our conversation partner to validate our perception.  In pure online communication validation is the key problem.

These phases are inspired by how online dating develops between two people.


In an online setting we need profile descriptions. Head shots. Short descriptions of "Self".


Earlier this year I wrote on this blog "How Social Media Solves Communication Problems."

Guess what? Guess how it solves communication problems?

By filling in the blanks, providing cues about your conversation partner that you can use to construct a mental image.

And by facilitating feedback. Interact and get those cues clear.


Cues. Feedback. Validation.

Bas de Baar is a writer who draws about people in transition. He loves to make visual maps and travel guides for the collaborators of our brave new world.

Finally, after months without Project Potion, episode 18! 

Dave and Bas discuss Dave’s recent visit to the Oredev developers convention in Malmo, Sweden. And Bas explains why he is a fan of his new iPad: “It’s truly an amazing experience.” Seriously.