Category: collaboration

As we finish up with collaboration in class I wanted to one last post regarding my observations about one things which is necessary to effective collaboration: hierarchy. Anyone who has been following my posts about social media in our society will have noted my big emphasis on social justice. So it might seem strange that I feel that hierarchies are necessary for effective collaboration.

However, human beings tend to form hierarchies whenever there is more than one person in a group. Thus, I actually think it is far wiser to consciously choose the working hierarchy, otherwise the hierarchy spontaneously generated will likely just reflect the current inequities of our society.

In my group’s wiki project one member immediately set themselves up as the project manager, creating the overall structure for the project but allowing us all the freedom to decide our own involvement. He also would have likely and willingly given up the leadership role if one of us had wanted to do it instead.

Over the last year in library school I’ve had to participate in my collaborative projects. The most successful one after the wiki project is one where we specifically elected on person to be the project manager. It allows everyone more time and freedom to work on their individual pieces if only one person needs to worry about deadlines and the more admin level concerns. It also allows everyone to view that this organizational role is an important contribution: even if the person ends up creating less content for the actual project.

For me, effective and fun collaboration has always relied on the recognition that everyone has different skills and, thus, something to contribute to the overall end product. Collaboration provides a cleate method to recognize and understand how these different ways to contribute are all important and necessary, without privileging only one kind of participation.

** Note: I wanna make it perfectly clear that I think this Wiki assignment and the one I mention are examples of hierarchies done *right*. Also, it they were both examples of collaboration done right and structured properly for success. Great experiences and very educational.**

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)

Howard Rheingold, and the people he refers to in his TED Talk (social scientists, evolutionary psychologists, biologist, etc.), have reached a point in their explorations as to ‘discover’ (or finally recognize) the importance of cooperation and collaboration. To some of us, this realization is so obvious that the true insight one can gain from a talk like this is how utterly oblivious the Western ideology and conception of history, the world, economics, and society really are.

Rheingold discusses the competition between businesses as if it were different than hunter/gatherer communities a long time ago. Actually it is the same thing. Co-operation and collaboration within the community and competition with other communities. Co-operation and collaboration within a big company like Google and competition with other companies. People discuss capitalism today as if it were still grounded in the classical notion of capitalist competition — when nothing could be further from the truth.

So, if there isn’t anything inherently insightful about the notion that human society, by necessity, depends on collaboration, why are we continuously raising the question with social media in mind? The difference is not that people are collaborating or how they are collaborating but why they are collaborating. And how this motivation makes a big difference for how the collaboration plays out.

In evolutionary psychology, one of the reasons given for the fact of religion is that it helps societies grow beyond kinship ties and reciprocal altruism (check here for an abstract to an article about this). It does this by creating a standard by which to measure the trustworthiness of others (adherence to religion indicates trustworthiness, one reason why atheists are among the least trusted groups). Now, it is also a known fact that the affluent societies of Europe and North America have been decreasing in religiosity. However, in these societies we use secular notions of democracy, freedom, etc. to play the function that religion used to for creating an atmosphere of trust (thus a good citizen is inherently trustworthy in the same what that a religious person is).

Okay. So, if we pick on one of the models of modern collaboration that has everyone one in a tizzy, the free software movement, we immediately begin to see both why and how they function. People who believe in free software use this belief to create an affirmative environment of trust: this is where their community is built and what facilitates the effective collaboration.

The key difference I see in a community like this, versus the traditional company model, is the way that hierarchies are not (and could not) be enforced. The very founding principles of this movement mean that it would be difficult for any one person to exert and undue amount of influence over the software being developed. This horizontal, instead of hierarchical, approach to collaboration is what is new and exciting about the introduction of new technology supporting collaboration.*

It allows for trans-national communities to be built on one guiding principle. It allows for these people to find, identify, and work with one another in a collaborative creative process. What those who are used to perceiving Western society as a collection of individuals in competition are surprised by is that this horizontal modality of collaboration is effective. That it works. That it can create some of the best products available today.

This is what is challenging and beautiful about something like Wikipedia: it does not allow one person to arise to authoritative standing but uses the many contributors to create an authoritative document. It is the cacophonous voices of hundreds of people speaking at once that becomes the authority. More than anything, this is the revolution brought about by collaborative software and 2.0 technologies. It is a structural change, not a new creature we haven’t seen before.

We have always collaborated and co-operated. We always will. The beauty of 2.0 is in the chaos it creates.

*Note: hierarchies tend to spontaneously spring up in every community but the definition of free software means that if you don’t like what someone does with it, you can change it — putting a distinct limit on any individuals influence.

Collaborative idea ever:

I have often thought that their should be more mixed-use facilities, where several public organizations are all available under one roof, such as a public library, a small police station, and a social services agency office all in the same building.

I realize that I said I wouldn’t mention social justice stuff anymore… But perhaps what I meant is that I would bring it up in a discussion thread, because I (honest to god) cannot let this pass. I’m biting my tongue so hard it is bleeding. No joke.

A classmate (a smart and intelligent classmate, mind you) wrote this on a discussion about collaboration. I do like the idea of a more one-stop shop for civil services and eliminating the service silos provided by cities and municipalities (or, heck, even the federal government).

I don’t like the idea of there being a police station in or near a library. Actually, I don’t like the idea of police being anywhere near my place of business, my home, my recreational areas, etc. Basically, I don’t want the popo anywhere near me. Why? Because they frighten me — I’m more likely to be attacked by the police than a random person in the street. The police are not on the side of any marginalized person, as they represent the direct fist of oppression in our society (and often do the oppression *with* their fists). I’m not the only person who feels this way.

Putting a police station in or near a library *would* be a great way to discourage racial minorities, gender divergent people, poor people, homeless people, and any other group who the police traditional attack instead of protect. This is a great example of why diversity is needed in organizations: to prevent things like this from happening. Unless, the shift from institutional exclusion to direct oppression was the intention (but knowing who wrote that, I doubt it).