For the first part of today's series of posts, I'd like to introduce to you a book that I've read written by Daniel Coyle (2018) called "The culture code". This week, we've been mostly reading about web 2.0 technologies that facilitate a user-centric environment where users are both the producers of knowledge and users of it (produsers). I however, have been attracted to the notion of community. For produsage to work, it is essential that a community in which collaboration and not self-aggrandizement is cultivated.
This lead me to the culture code's examination of key facets of successful groups. In one of the studies listed in the book, it noted that in a simple experiment where groups of business students and kindergartners (all groups were homogenous) were told to build the highest tower with twenty pieces of uncooked spaghetti, one yard of transparent tape, one yard of string and one standard-size marshmallow (to be put on top of the obelisk), the kindergartners almost always beat out the business students. This was despite the fact that the business students were strategizing, examining and generating ideas as compared to the kindergartners' haphazard material selection and almost trial and error like approach.
The key success factor of the kindergartners however, was their ability to collaborate in a smart and efficient way - it involved little amounts of discussing, but rather a collaborative almost hive mind approach of solutioning with risk-taking, observation of outcomes and mutual assistance. On the other hand, the book notes that the business students were actually engaged in status management - figuring out the leaders and followers of the group, protecting their image as opposed to committing to the success of the group's endeavor.
Now at this juncture, anyone would be wondering why I'm rambling about this book. My thinking is that an effective produsage community should resemble the kindergartners' behavior - the outcome is treasured over personal ambitions, indeed all personal actions are enacted to engineer the success of the group's objective. However, this kind of behavior emerges under a specific set of conditions. In this case, Daniel Coyle (2018) argues that it is necessary for the community to represent a safe environment. This safe environment facilitates - trust, cooperation, risk-taking and self-sacrifice for the purposes of meeting the group's objective. Now, if every individual of the produsage community displayed these characteristics, the community would be capable of accruing quite a few excellent products under its belt.
The question now is: How does one create such a community? Daniel Coyle (2018) posits three broad areas of focus: (1) Creating a safe environment; (2) Sharing Vulnerabilities; and, (3) Establishing Purpose. Creating a safe environment involves establishing connection (physical and emotional) to create belonging and a communal identity. Sharing vulnerabilities is about creating a culture of mutual risk and risk-taking that compels trust and cooperation. Finally, establishing purpose is about using narratives to create a shared enterprise/ goal and values, both of which are critical to a collaborative culture.
Having said that, the key assumption here is that there is some manner of leadership/ facilitator in the group to enact the areas of focus. Not all produsage communities are necessarily organized in this way. In my next post, I will be looking at some of the difficulties of facilitating/ moderating online communities let alone produsage one.
Here is a video introduction I found on youtube on the culture code. Enjoy!
References:
Coyle,
Daniel. (2018). The culture code. Bantam
Books.
I really like your position about removing status management from learning tasks. Unfortunately, I believe this mentality is taught unintentionally. I think a lot about vulnerability and the human dimension of teaching process, but I think its sorely underdeveloped in education programs. How would you establish relationships of trust in the work that you do?
ReplyDeleteHey Danielle, great question - one that I'm not sure I can answer sufficiently, but I'll give it my best shot. The answer to the question really depends on the context that we are talking about. If we are talking about removing status management, I would probably suggest two things - firstly, crafting a compelling narrative about the importance of attaining the group goal at all costs, over and above that of status; and, secondly, leading by example through practical means, getting leaders involved with the ground work rather than orchestrating activities from above. Though I could see how leaders could still end up trying to protect their status on the ground - a possible work around is through role-modelling by senior leaders.
DeleteThis brings me to my next point that trying to establish relationships of trust might not always be possible if there is a prevailing organizational culture that is not conducive to trust and vulnerability. If so, I like to adopt one of Dr Stephen Covey's 7 Habits - operating within our circle of influence. I've noticed in my work, that I can help carve out a small circle of trust simply through repeated small acts of kindness and self-sacrifice. For example, at presentations for projects with junior members, if one of them has a slip up and the big boss starts flaring up, I personally move in to take the hit for them. That's just one practical way to build an environment where individuals know that it is relatively safe to fail.
Thank you for bringing up this interesting book and sharing your insights! I've checked out this book from the library once but could not manage to complete it. Like you've noticed, the term community attracts very much attention. The experiment also sounds quite interesting, look at those kindergartners! I loved three dimensions that may help creating community and they're crucial, I guess. I can't wait to read and learn from your next blog post about facilitating online communities!
ReplyDeleteI'd love to share a paragraph from Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity as your post reminded me that paragraph; "The world as we shape it, and our experience as the world shapes it, are like the mountain and the river. They shape each other, but they have their own shape. They are reflections of each other, but they have their own existence, in their own realms. They fit around each other, but they remain distinct from each other. They cannot be transformed into each other, yet they transform each other. The river only carves and the mountain only guides, yet in their interaction, the carving becomes the guiding and the guiding becomes the carving" (Wenger, 1998, p. 71).
P.S. Have you seen this book? (Link: https://amzn.to/2X1gLjj)
Hey Omer!! Yes! I'm actually very interested in Communities of Practices and spent quite a great deal of time looking at related ideas in my independent study module that I did last semester. I read the following two books:
DeleteLave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press.
I do think there is a strong linkage between produsage communities and communities of practice = but I can't seem to get over the notion of a shared enterprise. Must produsage communities necessarily have a shared goal and/ or enterprise? If they don't can they be called communities of practice? Alternatively, aren't all communities of practice technically produsage communities if we see technical advice acted upon by users as a product of other users?
Ahhh don't mention Situated Learning! I love Jean Lave! Even seeing that book makes me feel good and I keep it along with CoP from Wenger on my table all the time, just next to me!
DeleteAlso, I'm not seeing those concepts as deep as you do, at the time being. Those are great insights/observations and it seems like you're digging up with these terms! Again, thanks for sharing.
I'm curious about your future blog posts!
Hey Dan! Thanks for the sharing! I'll add that book to my reading list hahaha! But more importantly, I've been thinking - is it possible to be too vulnerable? Are there risks involved and are there certain contexts when you do not want to be vulnerable? For example, what if you are not working with mature individuals or individuals who are self-serving and seeking to exploit vulnerabilities? This is probably where the tension lies in the application of vulnerability and its probably why someone would adopt myth #5 of vulnerability where they need to trust the team members before they become vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteDoes Brown talk about this in the book? (Requesting spoilers please :) )
Hi, thanks for sharing. I remember I played the marshmallow game several times before. I will refer back to your post for produsage assignment.
ReplyDelete