JA NOTE: June 29, 2007

Last night I had a thought provoking call with Tish Grier further to her reflections posted here about the Assignment Zero experience.
With that grist and miscellaneous ideas bubbling from emails and browsing today I'm thinking about the human dimensions of effectively leveraging connected intelligence in organizations.


One of the topics Victoria and I often discuss is the mindset changes needed to effectively leveraging social tools in organizations.
It's a theme in presentations. This slide from a presentation to the Organizational Development Network Greater New York last December attempts to capture the balancing act between directing from the top of the organizational hierarchy through "control" versus allowing the open-ness to support innovation among smart, energized, social tool enabled people in the grassroots of organizations.


Mark Bonchek June 28, 2007 via email:

"Issue might be about control and trust, although often just about habit. People usually ask for answers to questions. They rarely ask others for the questions they should be asking." (Caps JA)

COMMUNICATIONS STYLE-- Notes from call with Nancy 7.2.07

As we connect harder to benefit from network effect

Connected Intelligence.. no nirvana..

All continuums.. indiviidual v networking working learning
A place for all things and all things in then place.
BUT Nancy says..
Connected intelligence is knowing when to act"
"You're getting too personal, back off"
Challenge is managing the relationships..
Nancy says some say in a networked world networks work around feelings, style, and those advocates think if true for them true for all..
When look at technology space, a networking elite who has time to do this..

World not changing for many people, Leading or deluded edge?

When tools change every 5 minutes how do we get widespread enough adoption so a network rather than a connectorati adoption?


Read quickly on a network
Learn new tools
Recognize patterns
Global v linear thinkers.. NB kids with global skills struggle in linear organizations (bureaucracy?)

Both and thinking needs to be part of the entire article. Either or or "this vs that" is a trap. Linear thinking is appropriate for certain classes of problems, even parts of complex problems have linear solutions. By global are we placing the emphasis on well traveled, expansive mindset, diversity of thought/philosophy, ability to wrap mind around paradox?

Note Tim O'Reilly interview with Steve Hargadon
Description from JA blog post May 7, 2007
In the //Steve Hardagon// i//nterview// Tim O'Reilly talks about his college education in Greek and the classics and argues for the value of "mental models of how the world works" and figuring it out. //O'Reilly also expresses skepticism// about formal education, and describes observing in the computer industry how creativity comes from those with different backgrounds, with their formal education almost always not in the area where they have made an impact. Important is the ability to apply knowledge in a new context, to bring fresh thinking.
In a //"Whole New Mind"// Dan Pink makes the case for "Moving from the information age to the conceptual age". .


Education system not supporting.. An industrial age form.