This is a Hack about creating a collaborative community of trust online to spark innovations in management. We believe that our best ideas are the ones that will not only increase trust in the workplace and trust in the world, but ideas that can also be applied right here and right now in how we work together on the MIX.

Inspired by our experiences and observations within the MIX community, this hack is posted collaboratively by Dan Oestreich and Annie McQuade (who struck up an online conversation a few days ago through this site), and is directly linked to Erika Ilves’ hack, MIX Post M-Prize – Ideas for MIX beta. The similarity in title is intentional. Erika’s hack leads with one example of WHAT we could do. This hack follows and focuses on HOW we could do it – and many other things -- together. Cross-commenting is encouraged.

Problem

MIX is a fabulous website. There are so many really great ideas here and so much work and thought has gone into their presentation and into the dialogues that have emerged in comment threads. But reading through some of those threads has left us feeling that debating and defending our ideas as individuals is more the norm than sharing, building on, and supportively exploring them. Too often, the threads suggest a zero-sum, “my idea is better than yours” or “you need my hack to make yours work” tone that gradually introduces defensiveness rather than appreciation, openness and learning.

It’s not that we don’t all need the push of new and different perspectives, and to be frank, some genuine conflict, but how can this be done so that the result is a community of innovators who trust each other and produce implementable ideas that people want to share in and own? If we want to increase trust and reduce fear, we believe we need to walk our talk.

We ourselves question whether aggressive debate and defense alone will result in the best ideas emerging in the end. Will the self-interest of obtaining the advertised prize and competitively pitting ideas against one another actually produce the most radical innovations in trust? And what happens after the contest? Will it create sustainable relationships that build value over time? Will we want to stay here and want to keep learning together? There’s doubt in our minds because defensiveness is already here. And defensiveness may very well limit a willingness to engage, innovate and learn in any person, team, organization or society.

Solution

This hack is an open invitation to share your ideas on how to now move beyond our “contest culture” to one of greater mutual support, partnership, joint action and meaningful exploration. This is an invitation to trust. We are not limiting difference or conflict, but we aim to use that tension more productively to move us all toward discovery and management breakthroughs. We are not sure entirely how to do this and we are absolutely sure we cannot do it alone. There is no single idea or single person that is likely to “change the game.” So we instead invite you ALL to share your observations and thoughts. We want to open the door to fresh insight on the whole process of trust and genuine collaboration that might unfold at MIX.

Some ideas that we have been talking about include these:

Making it easier for people to connect to one another in real time, to actually talk to each other.
Changing the hack presentation format itself. The current problem/solution format may not best facilitate connection or possible synergy. For example, we would like to submit a joint Hack! Imagine that!
Building partnerships: asking for and offering to partner with others at MIX, sharing and building on the original ideas that are presented here as individual hacks, and then presented as models for how differing philosophies and approaches can result in learning and innovation.
Develop some general principles about how we relate to one another. What will be our norms? What would allow you to trust others on this site -- and be trusted in return?
Use appreciative approaches to encourage and support the human beings who are presenting ideas here. We are all looking to have our ideas valued. Can we find ways to reinforce the strength of ideas rather than only nag at their weaknesses? Frankly, it is our sense that competition begins to turn into synergy at the moment appreciation becomes real. In this regard, the enclosed video (linked here and in the Materials section) of The Compliment Guys offers one, entirely voluntary and light-hearted solution.

These are simply initial ideas to help get us started.

Practical Impact

The first impact of this hack will be – hopefully – on our own community, but that won’t be the last. We can begin by creating a list of ways in which we can come together to share our best and to build our best, knowing that we all have much to learn. We just might create a powerful force for change as a community, not just as a collection of individuals vying for the title of “greatest idea for building trust.” We probably already know that it is our combined capability that will mostly likely generate the next real innovation in management practice. We could be the group that finds a way to genuinely release collaborative potential for innovation. Wouldn’t that be cool? And in the process we will likely find methods and tools and solutions that transform the workplace. That will help people who feel tired, defensive, isolated or scared step out and reach their potential.

First Steps

This hack is our first step to reach out to the MIX community to ask for your ideas. We don’t know exactly how this might come together, nor what you believe needs to be done with the ideas that are generated. We are open to your thoughts there, too. That’s why we are genuinely asking for your advice, ideas, questions, comments, and thoughtful support.

We do have some requests. Watch the video: The Compliment Guys. We are not saying that critique is not welcome, but we are saying, and we hope you don’t mind the frank language: Don’t be a buzz kill. Ask yourself, what is good about these ideas? How do these thoughts inspire you? How can I help advance these ideas. And, before you post a critique, and your critiques are surely welcome, ask yourself, am I truly trying to advance the cause of management or am I nagging? Am I interested in helping these people build something, or am I more interested in tearing something down so that it can be replaced by something I’ve created? Is there a way to offer my critique and still build trust? For example, if your first comment was to tell us that collaboration is not the answer because of X,Y, and Z, please spare us. Seriously. If you want to help us overcome the real issues with collaboration -- and there are plenty -- put your shoulder into it, think it though and help us BUILD the real thing.

Second, present something vulnerable here. Show up personally. Take the risk to share your experiences and observations within and outside MIX in an open way. Speak from your heart about your personal vision for what this community could be and how we can get there together. What could MIX mean to you?

Third, in your responses to this hack, please don’t feel you have to have some perfect view, insight, or solution. This is about more than ideas. It's also about relationships and comfort zones. We know people are doing their best here. So relax and just be who you are. We trust that will help also make it safe for others to speak, as well.

Fourth, let’s keep our eye on the real prize: synergy, the creation of something more than the sum of our parts. Not compromise, not some politically correct view of what collaboration is or might be, but empowered synergy by design.

So in a nutshell, take a look at the video and then share with us according to four principles for input to this hack:

Genuine appreciation and furthering, not critique alone
Vulnerability – take the risk to trust
Imperfect, incomplete ideas are okay
Synergy – help us all design and participate in a true collaboration

Finally, although this hack is posted under Dan’s name due to the limits of the technology, it was created by Dan and Annie as partners. So please, if you use a salutation, address your comments to Annie and Dan or Dan and Annie. Thanks so much!

Credits

This site would not exist without the example and support of many people including Gary Hamel, Michele Zanini, Polly LaBarre, and David Sims. Reading through the baseline values and expectations for MIX, it’s clear that the intention behind the work continues to be an incredibly positive and fruitful means to create the future. Let’s realize the full potential of those intentions.

Our greatest thanks are to all of you, the hack, barrier, and story sharers and presenters. We deeply believe that with your help we are all on the way to the very thing we create together.

Videos

You need to register in order to submit a comment.

Sort By: Latest Oldest Likes Replies

January 7, 2011 at 5:44am

Mike Richardson

Hello Dan - I shared some comments at Chris Gram's blog, "What are the core values of the MIX?" at: http://www.managementexchange.com/blog/what-are-core-values-mix) which was building on your Hack here, and wanted to be sure you saw them.

I wholeheartedly agree with the kind of "structure influences behavior" adjustments you suggest and have suggested some others along similar lines. My sense is that we resonate on the point that we can wish for changes of behavior, but until we find ways to institutionalize structural enablers and remove structural disablers, that will remain wishful thinking, which will decay into the kinds of frustration and venting we occasionally see.

Also wanted to say how much I enjoy reading your contributions, whether they be your own sketches or your comments on other's sketches, and your access to the deep seated aspects of trust. Would therefore love to get your thoughts on my Story, "The Power of a Peer Group: How come something so proven is not more pervasive, and what are we willing to do about it? (at: http://www.managementexchange.com/story/power-peer-group-how-come-someth...) and the concept of a "circle of trust" which I mention.

Thanks again for sharing. Best.

October 15, 2010 at 3:58pm

Dan Oestreich

I want to reiterate the invitation to all who read here to add your comments, thoughts and experiences. On a personal note, the work to develop this hack, and comment here and elsewhere, has caused me to reflect deeply about many things, including the relationships that are possible here. I love the connections I am finding. While reaching out to one another to build trust and to invite collaboration is not easy work, I believe we have not just a great, but an enormous opportunity.

In my mind, the most important word in the title of this hack, is "community." What does it take to create it? And how is trust involved?

In the comment thread below, I spoke of some work many years ago with a man named, Peter Scholtes, who died last year, a major figure in the quality movement. In our project together, we were facing the need to quickly develop a sense of community about our work. I found myself trying to come up with a metaphor for something that i believe is not just about brainwork, but work, as Annie and I said in the introduction, that you might have "to put your shoulder into." Your shoulder and every other part of the body; lungs, heart, and muscle. But there's a lot of joy in it, you know, a lot of fulfillment and celebration. I was struggling to come up with a metaphor in my work with Peter, and so I put out to the crowd one day this poem by William Stafford, about a walk to the beach on a stormy day with his child:

With Kit, Aged 7, at the Beach

We would climb the highest dune,

from there to gaze and come down:

the ocean was performing;

we contributed our climb.

Waves leapfrogged and came

straight out of the storm.

What should our gaze mean?

Kit waited for me to decide.

Standing on such a hill,

what would you tell your child?

That was an absolute vista.

Those waves raced far, and cold.

"How far could you swim, Daddy,

in such a storm?"

"As far as was needed," I said,

and as I talked, I swam.

In my talk, I suggested, gently, that perhaps building a community is like swimming after your own child. Surely it was true in that moment: "while we talked, we swam." The question we can always ask ourselves, is how far we would go. I don't think that's a question that can be answered in a simple way -- except through our own actions, and time will tell. But I do think it's the fundamental question for me behind this hack. And so, gently, I want to put the question before all of us here, to you reading these words right now, how far would you swim?

October 14, 2010 at 6:21am

Raj Kumar

This is a fitting cap to this innovation process: a way forward to assist us unite for superior contribution.

I agree with Ellen on her observations on a more transparent rating system. Nayantara was angered enough by the volatility and destructive potential of the MIX method to update her ire to all my posts! Where I do not agree with Ellen and others is the need for ‘a positive stance’ for two reasons:

- Innovation is not a goody goody process. Perhaps I am talking about innovations of the basic kind. They emerge from a sense of mission. And they need honest stimulation, both of the positive and negative kind. Positive kind provide encouragement but perhaps the negative kind, so long as they are not crude, are more effective in creating perspective and driving the creative process forward. They need to be harnessed.

- Stance can so easily become hollow, a matter of form and therefore dumbing. In essence it is impersonal and suggests a poker face. It can also serve to hide the truth. I would much rather know the contrary opinion and feel it as well. That does not mean I have to accept it. It can have a grain of truth and serve the valuable purpose of driving me towards a deeper realization of truth, the real force for innovation.

I would like to recommended as follows:

- Only those who comment on a Sketch should have the right to Rate the Sketch
- The right to Rate should commence 72 hours from first post. This will provide enough time to owner of Sketch to rebut.
- The Rating by a person should be identifiable. If the Sketch owner is dissatisfied by the Rating (s)he should have the right to suspend it. The editor will finalise the Rating wherever it is suspended based only on the merit of the dialogue recorded between the two participants at the site, i.e., independent of own opinion.

In addition:

- Only those who contribute a Sketch to MIX should be allowed to update Comments and Rate.
- Contributors should be granted a neutral identity by MIX like Tom, Dick or Harry for purpose of Comments and Rating. This identity should be kept strictly confidential by MIX and not revealed to other participants. If possible it should be computer generated so that even the editor is unaware of it.
- Each week a panel of three pseudonyms should be identified by the Editor for Commenting and Rating new Sketches to set their ball rolling.

Other Editor rights: Can Rate provided (s)he observes the rules of Rating. Can Comment only under the Editor's identity. No pseudonym allowed. This also implies that Editor's Rating cannot be suspended by the Sketch owner as for other Ratings.

Regards, Raj Kumar

October 14, 2010 at 5:37pm

Dan Oestreich

Hi Raj

Thank you for stopping by and helping us with this hack! I am glad you mentioned Nayantara's anger and I do hope she feels encouraged to speak for herself on this hack as well. Her frustration reminds me again of how anonymity may undermine constructive dialogue rather than further it. If I have no chance to ask questions or understand a divergent perspective or a low rating, how can I improve? I compare this to some management feedback processes and employee surveys where the sources of negative comments stimulate "dump and run" behavior, the product of which is only pain and little learning. So I take from this that transparency would be another very core principle that we could work from in the future.

The other point, which I totally agree with you on, is that "innovation is not a goody goody process." Difference and conflict are needed. The very best collaborations can start from a real conflict. The issue for me is how honesty is applied in the process. Are we just searching for holes in others' theories in order to bolster our own theories or are we furthering one another's search for a breakthrough and furthering a complementary sense of what we could find out or create together? I would certainly hope the goal, as Annie says in a comment below, is to help build. I think our recent conversation on your Feedback hack is an example of building. I start by saying I'm having trouble understanding your writing, which was very straight-up. I bet you felt that, too, but I also dearly hope that you also felt me to be on your side and genuinely curious -- because I am. I didn't say, "Raj, I don't get it, communicate better." Or worse, I did not just end the commentary and go away, giving you a low rating anonymously. I certainly didn't try to say something "smart" in order to demolish ideas that I don't actually understand. Instead, I shared my reality, my truth with you and I asked for your help. You replied non-defensively with a great exposition that enabled me to connect. We then were able to get into a positive conversation about how to categorize knowledge and whether that system needs to include data about feelings -- because we both have questions about that. In this environment I feel we could debate these and just about any other point freely. And, along the way, I'm also thinking about your feedback regarding the energy for change I am applying through my survey and how fragile that is! You have a point there!

My point here is that there are ways to connect with a person as part of a community while exploring and critiquing ideas -- even, I believe, in the midst of a competitive "contest." Again and again in my work with groups where mistrust and negative assumptions prevail, I've found that there is a belief that somehow connecting and appreciating other people prevents them from telling the truth to each other, rather than the other way round: that it is precisely the connection and appreciation that in fact enables the truth to be on the table and also, even more importantly, enables the truth to be heard and acted upon.

I am reminded of a story about a group of engineers who were frequently locked in argument that is shared by Peter Koestenbaum in his beautiful book, Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness:

‘As engineers, we viewed our lack of teamwork and cooperation as a

problem, and engineers are taught that problems have solutions. In the

world of construction, they do have solutions: here is the formula, and the

structure either stands or falls. But we now understand that thinking of

people as if they were objects is fundamentally wrong. We knew that in

theory, but we did not understand it in practice. It leads to distortions and

ends in failure.

Instead of attempting to go from problem to solution, and then

failing, we changed our language. Now we say we have pain, not a

problem, and then we talk about the pain. The problem was not the

disagreement but how we handled it, how we spoke to each other, and the

emotions we allowed to rise within us as a result of improper

communication. Now we say, “I feel, I understand,” rather than “You are”

and “You believe.” We communicate, we speak, we listen; we try to see

the other person’s point of view. We establish relations. We accept that we

feel good or bad about each other. We learn, and the result is that our

perception of the problem shifts: the energy has left the problem; the pain

has diminished. We cannot explain it, but we like it.

We call that growth. Rather than going from problem to solution, we

go from pain through dialogue to growth. We grow as persons, as

managers, as executives, as human beings. We treat each other better.

We are more willing to make compromises. It is not how we behave that

matters, it is the character and maturity of our souls—the heart behind

those actions—that come through and are convincing. The bottom line is

that productivity has increased significantly, not to speak of the healthier

atmosphere around the workplace.’

The assumption is that somehow we can detach thinking and ideas from the people who are doing the thinking and hold the ideas, but in the process, we can also inadvertently make people objects -- and then we can stop listening and stop learning. I've been in lots of organizations where this devotion to argument (which is not the same as debate in my mind) especially among senior managers, simply results in the isolation and dismissal of the innovators, and the stagnation of the enterprise. I wouldn't want to see that happen here.

So in the end, I think all I am saying is that if we want to learn about trust through the MIX process, we also have a chance to live it here, and in so doing gain knowledge, something I know, you believe in, too. And that means to me that our relationships, right here, right now, are a perfect laboratory.

Many best wishes

Dan

October 15, 2010 at 6:37am

Nayantara Prasad

wish I had thought constructively in August when the Phantom of the Mix drove me around the bend. Not that it would have made a difference to MIX. Rajkumar has noted that he made his suggestions to the editor in August itself. I would then have had a Hack to my credit! Right now all I have is a Barrier and that too, it appears is opposed to your view.

Objects, Arguments and Debates are three different concepts. They may have different well springs. An organization with poor regard for trust and empowerment is likely to look upon personnel as employees working for a salary and may not look to them for Knowledge. I have seen such attitude in an economy sheltered from competition. Arguments are common where there is poor identification with the goals. Responsibility is low. Common in Government. In the private sector incentives can queer the pitch.: One could get paid for arguing in smart language!

Do have a look at my Barrier. Dhiraj has made a comment there which communicates the substance of my Barrier. Possessiveness is half the problem of Knowledge. The flow has a force. Seen minutely it is personal but in perspective identities fall away and the reality emerges.

This effort you have initiated deserves serious action. I am sure it will inspire me to a Hack if it comes through.

Nayantara

October 15, 2010 at 10:15am

Dan Oestreich

Nayantara

Thank you for coming here! I do get a strong sense of your frustration and the belief that you have been downrated unfairly. I've read through your Barrier description, and loved the quotations you pulled from the late Peter Scholtes, who I knew from work in and around Madison, Wisconsin and his presence at many of the conferences I attended in the '90's. He saw me as a friend and I saw him in exactly the same way. Our approaches might have been different -- but only by a degree or two -- and we shared a deep mutual respect. We did some work together once, attempting to help a community come together around improvements to city government. I remember how shocked he was in one meeting I was facilitating where people from the community voiced their suspicions of the project and the people who had gathered to help them, using Deming's ideas. They wanted to know what was this project about, really, what was the true agenda, and who were these people? To use Raj's language, it was an "untamed" interaction (I'm really beginning to love this word) surrounding the intentions of people who absolutely believed, as Peter did, that the systemic issues won't be solved by some type of teambuilding! It is an example of what you and I may both be talking about. How do we create transparency in a way that unearths and supplants the negative assumptions and the strong feelings which accompany them, so that we can work on the system together? How can we create sufficient safety for people to share the concerns they've been expressing after the meeting rather than in it -- and learn from these interactions? What I mean by people being treated as objects is the easy process of defense used to dismiss these human, very emotional realities that are in the people and controlling the meaning of other interactions. Raj's system, and your own, may address this and I think that's great. AND, to my mind, there is always another way to see things. So Nayantara, I am not interested in a debate so much as the linkages, the bridges, and synergy, and that is what this hack is about, how to create those things rather than to defeat them with a contest that makes innovation an either/or proposition.

For example, I have no idea whether there is a phantom presence rating you or Raj or me down. But the fact that you believe that is happening and you are angry about it and it seems to reflect incompetence of those managing this site (if I am reading your thread correctly), is very important. Is that actually happening? I don't know, but your suspicions are important because as long as you hold them they will interfere, I believe, with you wanting to be here, wanting to engage, and so we need to pay attention. It would be so easy, based on these suspicions, to draw forth an untamed interaction, particularly if your feedback is heard as an attack (and in my experience, "incompetence" is always a trigger word) that disables genuine dialogue by causing a set of defensive reactions in others. This is a living and immediate example. Can this energy be converted? And how would that happen? Only, I believe, if you are heard, appreciated, and people connect with you, rather than trying to disarm or dismiss you. THEN, we can really talk, and we can create the safety needed for you and I and the community to examine the issue of transparency together -- just as in the meeting with Peter. I have to say you do seem to be carrying assumptions about what is going on at MIX, assumptions and emotion. That is why I believe we cannot separate people from their ideas, and why emotions are important data. If we don't want people to withdraw their contributions, we must attend to them. The system, from my standpoint, includes everything: the work process, the goals, the mission, the IT system, policies and strategies, the staged values, the latent unshared knowledge of people, and also the relationships, the culture, the inner beliefs and thoughts of the people who are part of the community. This absolutely includes our feelings about the system, the actual values and norms in use, and our assumptions about how we are being treated. I don't believe you can shut out any part of that System, capital S, so the question is how do we embrace it all, and change it, realizing we that we ourselves are part of the problem we say we want to solve? Only if, to my thinking, our self-knowledge helps forms the container and we can connect, partner with each other, and listen in a very deep way, not just to the ideas but to the person who is behind those ideas. I absolutely hope this inspires you to a hack! I will be grateful to continue to engage with you here, or on any other page in MIX. It may not be my place to say so, but I personally would like you to stay, to continue to engage, and to help create the container that will help all of us the most.

Many best wishes

Dan

October 17, 2010 at 11:47am

Nayantara Prasad

Hello Dan,

“We must create systems that routinely allow excellent work to result from the ordinary efforts of ordinary people.”

I did not readily recall this quote from Scholtes but searched for it when I learnt you were friends. I was wide awake when I used the word ‘incompetence’ and the quote explains it. MIX is not only an excellent conception but is designed to give the intrepid a great chance. Give yourself top rating and begin with a bang. People will notice your idea and simply because you are on top they will be moved to make a statement. That feedback is valuable. It will progress you. What an excellent opportunity. But no, MIX did not understand what it had created and did not bother to understand. They used the system to irritate and depress and it happened repeatedly. I know Ellen Weber and Chris Grams lost heart. MIX created an opportunity but failed to fashion it into a System for excellence. They did not listen and have yet to commence listening. Look at the direction of their effort – cosmetic changes. They have lost the good functional aspects of the site. We do not get intimations of updates now. And that is incompetence. I said it then without feeling, to be part of a flow, and I was ready to justify it if questioned. I regard that as constructive. But there was no enquiry. After a few days there was this vindictive double jab at my ratings which up until then were doing quite well. You have suggested my thinking could be an assumption. Well, I did not keep it to myself. I expressed it and there was no move to correct me.

I am with Raj. The negative thought can play a powerful constructive role if it is backed up and not delivered as a final judgment. I was enjoying the site. I felt it my responsibility to speak up. However, I am with you in the constructive use of energy. I could have taken the initiative in developing rules for MIX engagement. They are still missing. Raj has created some.

You appear to believe in reasoning with Feelings. I respect them but believe they are illogical. They respond to action and not reason. I favour a flow because it reveals how genuine they are. Genuine feelings must be addressed with action. Where I am not clear I would favour questions. Thus I treat feedback as the core of Trust & Teamwork and not feelings. It is possible that a culture for feedback will reduce defensivness.

Great interacting with you. Best wishes,

Nayantara

October 17, 2010 at 11:47am

Nayantara Prasad

Hello Dan,

“We must create systems that routinely allow excellent work to result from the ordinary efforts of ordinary people.”

Great interacting with you. Best wishes,

Nayantara

October 20, 2010 at 9:44am

Dan Oestreich

Nayantara

So sorry I did not get to your comment sooner! I thought I knew the count of comments, which is what I watch, but apparently miscalculated.

Nayantara, thank you for helping me understand your frustration. Your experience deserves some form of contact.

I sense there are things we share, especially about flow, and it is understanding those that is most important to me. I am glad you are here and engaged and I believe you are a teacher. These days, it's the integration of all factors, inclusion rather than exclusion, logic and feelings, deeper engagement and wisdom at a higher level rather than a contest between ideas or people, that has become most valuable to me. Conflict and difference can be turned into treasures, I believe, if they compel us in that direction of wisdom.

I was sitting next to a stranger on a plane once. We got into a conversation and at the end he said to me, "Here's what I've learned in my 70 years: if you want to know the truth, you must live the truth with your whole life." I'm not sure we can find it any other way.

I think the challenge for all of us, including those who guide MIX itself, is to communicate openly without alienating one another, and as an invitation. Your experiences have taught you something else. Unfortunately, silence is also a form of communication, and painfully so.

Many best wishes

Dan

October 21, 2010 at 10:42am

Dan Oestreich

Nayantara

I want to add one additional thought here, which comes from my work many years ago developing and writing my book, Driving Fear Out of the Workplace, circa 1990. The experience of repercussions that you have described on MIX and how you have addressed it does fit extremely well with patterns of organizational culture my co-author and I observed and with one premise of that book: silence promotes ambiguity, and ambiguity generates tension, frustration, suspicion and shutdown -- the exact opposite of a workplace that encourages and promotes innovation. In this sense the environment of MIX needs to be considered very, very carefully. If you have had a negative experience, others may as well. That is one reason I wrote this blog post, considering how a culture that moves from one form of competition to another is not fundamentally changing, but simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. My hope in co-posting this hack with Annie is that it will provide a place for open problem solving for all. I think there is much to hope for as this community becomes conscious of itself and chooses to improve.

What do you think might best help foster this "awakening"?

Best to you

Dan

October 15, 2010 at 1:46am

Raj Kumar

Hello Dan,

I was enjoying your comment and then, much to my disappointment, I reached the end. While nodding in agreement through the reading the theought 'honesty is a powerful form of stimulation' coursed through my head. Besides, the words of Koestenbaum express the philosophy behind my Compelling Energy. A pity that a phantom has derated my hack on Creating A Common Language For Stakeholders. In my own laborious way I had defined the problem articulated by Koestenbaum.and presented a solution.

I have a feeling the phantom who derated me is the same one who axed your hack on Trust. So we have a Phantom of the MIX! Will (s)he try to fight back like the other one? Has the fight already commenced? Interesting. For the moment I shall say the apparition has brought us together. Cheers.

Nayantara receded into hibernation following her anger. The last I heard from her was excellent advice to me to update my story. I shall leverage that to guide her here. Do not misunderstand me, but I think she shall have a laugh at your second last para on reducing people to objects. She saw the ability to progress from people to their Knowledge as a constructive power and actually, so did I. She has a barrier by that name so I will leave the counter argument to her.

This is not a hack so I am not rating it. If it goes off the first page I shall do my bit to bring it back since it needs to be noticed and supported.

Warm regards,

Raj Kumar

October 15, 2010 at 10:27am

Dan Oestreich

Raj

Thank you for your encouragement and also for identifying your point of disappointment, Raj. I know we would probably not agree everywhere, but I, personally, do not feel disappointed at all. I feel encouraged that you and I are talking and that this is such a great place for an exchange. I have replied to Nayantara, as you probably have already noted, and so do feel free to pick up on any threads there that are of interest to you. The frame could be how we can best collaborate through MIX, and how we build trust and a sense of connection to do so, since that is what this hack is devoted to -- using both honesty and care as our guides.

Best to you

Dan

October 12, 2010 at 7:15am

Ellen Weber

Annie, thanks for your kind words, since this topic is one I care about deeply. Thanks also for the question, which I find compelling. Founders of this site hold a great vision, and it feels safe when we all pulling toward that higher target of inclusion. When we respect one another’s suggestions to improve management by not using tactics that crushed innovative folks in toxic settings during the past business era. (ie more that 70% dislike going to work, and research now shows there are actually brain parts such as cortisol that promote or stomp out change in any culture, and because of mirror neurons one player’s poor tone tactics can rob an entire group’s safety )

Transparency helps us to respect opposing views more and I'd like to see more transparency in the rating, if possible. Perhaps we could show one's average rating number or perhaps we can only rate a piece when we also make building suggestions that leaves our name beside the rating. Trust becomes evident to me across our differences when transparency defines both communication and actions. It's the difference between combative words spoken and lateral words supporting what does work in a person's article. It's about seeing more than any one way and helping one another move forward for innovation differences that offer dividends for a finer future:-)

I feel safer in a forum where folks look at articles as if they owned them, and then offered new ideas that might help to foster parts of it, as if they cared to see it grow. In that mode the comments help me to grow, without making me run for cover. We see lots of terrific ideas here, but it takes taming the amygdala to ensure each comment shows evidence of the innovative vision to move forward as a group of leaders.

You and Dan said it better than me. I also feel safer though, when opposing views are valued and not truncated by poor tone, that shuts down brainpower literally, with cortisol surges to the brain. In addition, it gets safer for me when people here treat folks as respected colleague - who they'd support and learn from as innovative ideas differ. ‘Nuff said, except that it’s an honor to collaborate with folks who share the same hopes for a new kind of management!!!! Thanks for your keen input and thoughtful ideas on this topic.

October 12, 2010 at 9:27am

Dan Oestreich

Hi Ellen

Thank you for coming back so quickly, Ellen. Your statements here offer one great model for how to respond and build on the ideas Annie and I initially presented. I really resonated with your opening comment about where many of us stand as a result of a recent climate that crushed innovation, and the innovators. We do well to learn from that and not inadvertently reinvent the problem on the way to finding the solution!

I'm also totally with you on the transparency issue around the ratings. In my own work I've often found that anonymity, often thought of as a friend to truth, in the end becomes a problem because it signals a fundamental mistrust that we can only be truthful when identity is hidden. In theory anonymity creates safety, but I believe it also creates ambiguity in our relationships, in turn opening a door to fear, and the interpretations of one another that follow. So if we are going to create safety, let's do directly with one another. And this, in turn, reminds me of your wonderful ground rules for tone listed in your barrier: Tone Will Make or Break an Innovative Venture. That's what we have here at MIX, an "innovative venture" of a high order.

And this statement also really touched me: "I feel safer in a forum where folks look at articles as if they owned them, and then offered new ideas that might help to foster parts of it, as if they cared to see it grow." This speaks to how important our care for these ideas really is, how we are in a process of actively nurturing them. Fabulous! Thanks again and many best wishes, Dan

October 12, 2010 at 10:18am

Anna Stillwell

Hey guys,

I like this statement a lot and think you are on to something, "I feel safer in a forum where folks look at articles as if they owned them, and then offered new ideas that might help to foster parts of it, as if they cared to see it grow." So totally agree. Maybe a principle is emerging?

The ratings are not an issue for me, anonymous or otherwise, but if they are important to you guys, then they will become important to me.

October 12, 2010 at 12:34pm

Dan Oestreich

Nice one, Annie. I think that's right. We all could be on the hunt for some key principles to create the basis for a trusting online community. Then, maybe, if we put those principles together and ask, "What would it be like, what could we be if these principles were our norm?" we would move toward a shared vision, as well.

October 13, 2010 at 10:39pm

Anna Stillwell

Well I think Ellen and I may be using slightly words to get at a similar need. We said in the Hack that if you are interested in building, in helping us understand the problems and the solutions, then please, contribute. If you are just "nagging" then, keep it to yourself. I'm using strong language to make a point. When I first came to the MIX and saw that one of the response options was entitled, "Build", I got excited and thought that was a genius word for the designers of this community to use. What does that word really mean? Build on what I have done. If you can't build on top of it, help me reconstruct the foundation, or don't bother. Don't confront unless you are willing to commit. For me, all of this was represented in that one word and it was, literally, one of the reasons I signed on to this site. So I think some of what we might be getting at here is how to realize the potential of that one small word: BUILD. In my mind, build includes critique, but not a hit and run kind of critique. If we are truly working on these big issues, our critiques must also be a build in some ways. This is not a demolition site, in my mind. It is a construction site. And Rome was not built in a day. There are a lot of things that need doing in the 21st century. We have to find ways to build solutions.

October 11, 2010 at 8:47pm

Robyn McMaster

Dan and Annie, I support your desire for collaboration throughout a community that leads to discovery and management breakthroughs. We come to this community with so many different gifts and talents. When we build together rather than tearing down, we could see innovation that rockets us all forward. A trusting community makes a difference.

October 12, 2010 at 8:14am

Dan Oestreich

"We come to this community with so many different gifts and talents."

Yes! I've been absolutely amazed at the different angles from which people come at the issues. We have an absolute abundance of riches here and the only question is how to best leverage that. Thanks so much for dropping by, Robyn, to help get this thread started! Many best wishes, Dan

October 11, 2010 at 8:50pm

Ellen Weber

Wow - Dan and Annie thanks for saying so well what we at MITA call a serotonin tap. All that you offer here jacks up serotonin in the human brain so that trust, safety and vulnerability are possible. Serotonin is actually a chemical that can add focus and higher problem solving skills to transform any ordinary idea into an extraordinary one. Thanks for saying it so well, and modeling the tone that creates a challenging but safe community that Scott Peck and Parker Palmer claim we all crave, but at times forget to give.

Here are a few power punch enablers that serotonin offers by way of saying thanks for your thoughtful ideas! They are backed by research that impacts our outcomes and builds community.

1. People possess naturally about 5 to 10 mg of the chemical.

2. Serotonin is 90% within your intestines.

3. The hormone’s additional 10% surges through the blood and brain.

4. It’s neurotransmitter roles regulates:

Sleep

Memory

Appetite

Learning

Cardiovascular functions

Moods

Muscle contraction

Temperature regulation

5. Increase serotonin through foods such as milk, plums, pineapples, turkey, and bananas, as they add amino acid called tryptophan for manufacturing natural serotonin.

6. Neurons in the brain release serotonin, and the levels of release impact many behaviors.

7. Low serotonin levels can cause anxiety, fear, self-pity, insomnia, stress, and depression.

8. Certain drugs, such as Prozac, and even LSD will mimic serotonin in the brain.

Brainpower can increases for those who raise their serotonin levels in natural ways, and without drugs – simply by choosing to do so. Can you see why serotonin is deemed the brain’s miracle drug.

There’s more good news yet. Each time you choose to raise your serotonin levels, you literally rewire your brain’s plasticity to cultivate more brain benefits on a regular basis. Your suggestions sound like a winning idea. By following these, and helping to build great innovative ideas, we’ll raise our own and each other’s serotonin for the work we all love to do – innovation. Again, thanks for stating it like a pro!

October 11, 2010 at 10:50pm

Anna Stillwell

Robyn and Ellen,

You guys are great. Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you taking the time to pass along some good vibes. Thanks for letting us know some of the biological benefits of what we are up to, Ellen. I think my serotonin levels went up just reading that.

I don't know if you have the time, but I wonder if either of you have any ideas, however crazy, half-baked, or seemingly unrelated, about what might help you trust the members of this community more. It doesn't need to be thought through or polished. What would keep you coming back here... to be inspired by the ideas or to inspire someone else? Is there a time when you felt trust that potentially has a lesson in it for us all? So you have a story we might learn from? Do you know of anything that might help us build trust online?

Thanks for stopping by. Annie