"It's the networks, stupid."
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
New York Times
May 26, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Obama Connection
By ROGER COHEN
It’s the networks, stupid.
More than any other factor, it has been Barack Obama’s grasp of the central place of Internet-driven social networking that has propelled his campaign for the Democratic nomination into a seemingly unassailable lead over Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has been so 20th-century. His has been of the century we’re in.
That’s not surprising. Obama spent only 10 years of his adult life in the split world of the cold war, double that in a post-Berlin Wall world of growing interconnectedness. MAC — mutually assured connectivity — has replaced the MAD — mutually assured destruction — of cold-war days.
For Clinton, born in 1947, that ratio is different. Her mental paradigm is division. When her husband last ran for president in 1996, the Internet was marginal. The thinking and people from that campaign have proved unable to fast-forward a dozen years. They’ve been left like deer blinded by the Webcam lights of the Obama juggernaut.
This cultural failure has been devastating for Clinton. As Joshua Green chronicles in an important piece in The Atlantic, Obama has used social networking and his user-friendly Web site to develop the money machine, and the youthful engagement, that has swept him forward.
Green notes, “Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete.” He gives some other Obama campaign numbers: 750,000 active volunteers and 8,000 affinity groups. In February, a month in which he raised $55 million ($45 million over the Internet), 94 percent of donations were of $200 or less, a number dwarfing small contributions to Clinton and John McCain.
Obama has been a classic Internet-start up, a movement spreading with viral intensity and propelled by some of Silicon Valley’s most creative minds. As with any online phenomenon, he has jumped national borders, stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home.
He could not have achieved this without a sense of history, a conviction that the nature of the post-post-9/11 world — the one beyond war without end — is going to be determined by sociability and connectivity. In the globalized world of MySpace, LinkedIn and the rest, sociability is a force as strong as sovereignty.
I’ve searched in vain for a sense of this pivotal historical moment in Clinton. Her threat to “totally obliterate” Iran, her stomach-turning reference to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason to stay in the race, her Bosnian fabrications, all reflect a view of history as something that’s there for political ends rather than as a source of inspiration or reflection.
It’s history as “Me, me, me.” That tends to be blinding.
Her most crippling blindness has been to networks, national and global, the threads that bind and have changed society. As David Singh Grewal writes in his excellent new book, “Network Power,” a core tension in the world is that: “Everything is being globalized except politics.”
Grewal continues: “We live in a world in which our relations of sociability — our commerce, culture, ideas, manners — are increasingly shared, coordinated by newly global conversations in these domains, but in which our politics remains inescapably national, centered in the nation states that are the only loci of sovereign decision making.”
The Bush administration has accentuated global awareness of this disjuncture. Connected people around the world were appalled by Bush policies — from the trashing of habeas corpus to renditions — but felt powerless to influence them.
The overwhelming global interest in the current U.S. election is tied in part to a spreading belief that America’s leader may be as important to French lives, for example, as the incumbent in the Élysée Palace.
Obama’s people get that. Connectivity means going it alone is a fool’s errand: that’s a basic lesson of Iraq. If Obama has promised to appoint a chief technology officer, to open up government via the Web, and to make dialogue rather than war a centerpiece of policy, it’s because he knows he must speak to a 21st-century world.
Grewal writes: “Politics is the only effective countervailing power that we have with which to refashion the structures that emerge through sociability.” Accumulated personal choices expressed through networks fashion sociability. Short of global governance, only sovereignty can channel that will.
In concrete terms, you won’t make globalization more equable in its distribution of income without politics. But first you must see sociability for what it is: a form of 21st-century personal sovereignty that rivals national sovereignty.
Clinton never saw this. McCain, whose Internet fund-raising has been negligible, also shows little grasp of MAC.
Of course, connection is no panacea, or guarantee against violent threats: Al Qaeda uses the Web effectively. But without understanding connectivity, you can no more beat terrorism than win an election.
It’s the networks, stupid, and the generations that go with them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
---------------
Network Power: http://www.amazon.com/Network-Power-Social-Dynamics-Globalization/dp/0300112408
kpkfusion
Innovation Layers in Governance. web.mac.com/kpkobza So thank you. I
am also speaking to the National Association of Public Administrators
and the Public Managers in July, so this was a very helpful reference
as it is hitting mainstream. They are grappling with how to make the
best use of social media technologies and don't necessarily
differentiate between various forms of networks, supporting networks,
or the purpose for network support. For many jurisdictions they are
well into centralization and management. It will take many years to
change those behaviors. But we have the opportunity to guide the
dialogue. Thank you. K>
On Jul 11, 8:32 am, "John Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"
> &oref=slogin
>
> ---------------
>
> Network Power:http://www.amazon.com/Network-Power-Social-Dynamics-Globalization/dp/...
> 408
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi Kim,
Thanks for the note.
"It will take many years to change those behaviors."
I agree, it will take 'many years' -- if you set out to 'change behavior.' That is the dead wrong approach. VNA practitioners, value network though leaders and network stakeholders hold a very dim view of the change management movement/fad ca. 1980-1990s. Same for the "b-mod" (behavioral modification) and kooky 'OD' craze they teach in MBA programs. (?) It flat out does not work, is hugely expensive, harmful to people and entirely counterproductive. Besides, beware of any 'change' method using its current context as reference (?). They do nothing more that perpetuate problems by expurgating network thinking. That's why it takes 'many years.'
It is critical to recognize that no matter how rigid, bureaucratic or ossified an organization, they are all networks inhabited by people with roles, links and exchanges. Once you have the capability to see the informal networks, for example, to x-ray the organization, a profound understanding occurs immediately. (In fact, in rare cases, I've seen dysfunctional orgs reject network visualization for just that reason - it reveals too much, too fast, tramples empire, reveals organizational pathologies, etc.) For the vast majority value network analysis sets the path forward because it is focused on real people and on real outcomes -- not organizational artifacts or context or positions. In many/most cases dramatic results occur overnight. Really.
So, in fact, instead of trying to change behavior, feel free to simple tell your constituents, "It's the networks, stupid."
Remember, Galileo, "The Father of Science," died miserably in jail for using telescopes and advancing Copernicanism. Change management, organizational development and behavioral modification are simply a modern day Inquisition challenging the heresy of network science. Beware.
Cheers,
John
Verna Allee
For me it is a question of where do I want to put my energy? People often ask me how I “sell” my ideas or convince people of the importance of value networks. I always respond. “I don’t.” It is not my job to sell or convince people of anything. My job is to help people who DO get it and are eager to move forward. There are more of those coming forward literally every minute and they are desperate for solid, proven, easy-to-use tools and robust methodologies. My job is to provide those and show people ways to work with internal and external value networks. My philosophy is to work with what is emergent, what wants to happen. Trying to change the old guard takes an enormous amount of energy. If I tilt at windmills all I ever seem to get is a bloody nose. If people are starting to get curious and asking questions then I will happily engage with them. People (and their organizations) simply must change if they want to be successful in this business environment – and many organizations are quickly getting on board. If they are curious and interested we are ready to help.
Verna
Michael G. Cayley
When I listen for authentic engagements I like to think about book retail before Amazon and after Amazon. The change business is facing is that dramatic.
The question I ask myself then is: are you a new team that will change your industry forever or an incumbent who is terrified and wants to emerge intact from this tsunami of change?
If we have anyone with these kinds of motivations then I am completely prepared to begin with any kind of language that bridges current thinking with value network thinking and to run like hell from there.
Here is a question for the group ...
How many publicly traded corporations in your city are led by "game changing" teams or execs who are completely committed to embracing and emerging at the top of the heap through this change?
mc
From: ve...@vernaallee.com
John Bordeaux
gone differently had I followed Verna's advice a year ago...
Michael? "How many publicly traded corporations in your city are led
by 'game changing' teams or execs who are completely committed to
embracing and emerging at the top of the heap through this change?"
My city is Washington DC. Let's go with "fewer than necessary..."
- jb
Charles Ehin
Christian DE NEEF
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:02 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "It's the networks, stupid."
kpkfusion
before there is an understanding of the value of networks in
government processes. I did not mean to say or imply that either
behavior or networks will or should be engineered. But government
agencies have the prerogative to establish their role in networks,
their contribution or participation in enabling networks, and how they
consider dialogue within networks in deliberative processes. Is there
agreement on those points?
The reality is that not all network participation will flow from a
desire to do the right thing or to achieve optimal outcomes for the
network. I couldn't agree more that most efforts of change
"management" have very low probabilities of success. I understand
that that is a hot button term in this lexicon. Choose another term.
Enabling and understanding network participation when there is change
occurring, or that will occur, can help avoid many problems that come
from change. Take for instance the case of mergers and acquisitions
where half of them fail.
There usually is no pre-existing network of employees or executives
between the two companies. Yet enabling networks to form by
participating in them would help anticipate business issues well in
advance of the formal merger. That might lead to avoidance of the
reasons that often cause the failure.
How would you approach mapping value networks when there is no pre-
existing network, or when there is limited recognition of networks
existing (as is often the case in governance settings), and the goal
is to better support those networks and to learn from them, so as to
make deliberative decisions that optimize the network value?
On Jul 14, 3:07 pm, "Christian DE NEEF" <christian.den...@telenet.be>
wrote:
> little time at hand right now, but I wonder if this article on Communities
> of Change is of interest -- copyright by Innovations (
> Christian De Neef,
> Management Consultant
> mobile: +32 47 729 4756
> <mailto:christian.den...@telenet.be> mail -
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisdn> profile
>
> _____
> From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:02 PM
> To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: "It's the networks, stupid."
>
> "My job is to help people who DO get it and are eager to move forward." Well
> put Verna!
> Charlie
>
> 256KDownload
Verna Allee
In response to your question of how to map the value network when none
exists I will tell you how we typically approach this. By the way your
observation about pre and post merger networks is right on target.
We always start with the "as is" picture, not matter how bad it is.
After all the reason we are undertaking a value network analysis (VNA)
is because we want to make things better, right? Or as you so well put
it, "enabling and understanding network participation when there is
change occurring, or that will occur."
From the "as is" picture we then build out a scenario (or scenarios)
of what kind of network would best meet the change. Since there may
not yet be any kind of network, the "nodes" are definined roles, not
individuals. That is the "missing" element that development of
strategies to move a social network towards a true value creating
network. Once the needed roles and interactions have been definied
then a more classic SNA can be used to link individuals to those
actual roles and determine whether the pathways are even open to
create the desired value network.
Verna
On Jul 15, 11:48 am, kpkfusion <kpko...@neighborhoodamerica.com>
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Maloney (IM: jheuristic)
Hi Kim --
" Let me be more precise in my choice of words. "
This is the most important step. Innovation travels on language. Using precise vocabulary & language accelerates the network narrative and network innovation.
"How would you approach mapping value networks when there is no pre- existing network"
No such thing. As much as people 'wish' it to be true, value networks aren't something to be created like pottery or transmissions or processes or functions. Networks are perpetual, omnipresent.
However, it is possible to propose an outcome, or ‘scenario,’ if you prefer.
Consider recombinant DNA. It is more akin to VNA than the naïve, failing notion of "creating a network." (?) DNA is the mother of all biological networks. DNA might not know it is DNA, but it is. DNA does not take a vacation. Same for inter-organizational networks. They exist, just as DNA exists.
Here are the recombinant steps for DNA.
1. Isolation of the genes of interest.
2. Insertion of the genes into a transfer vector.
3. Transfer vector to the organism to be modified.
4. Transformation of cells of organism.
5. Separation of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified.
Sound familiar? Here are the steps for recombinant VNA:
1. Isolation of the network, outcome(s) of interest.
2. Insertion of the roles, links, exchanges into a VNA transfer vector (visualization).
3. Transfer of VNA vector to the organization to be modified (analytics).
4. Transformation of value cells of the organization.
5. Optimization, diffusion of the value modified organization (VMO).
What you are referring to are simply dysfunctional network patterns, structural holes and ineffective network configurations. These are legitimate, extant. Networks are never absent; networks do not go missing.
Networks are impossible to discover, remediate or recombine w/o visualization and analytics like VNA.
For example, next time you go to your doctor, or if you have surgery, kindly ask the doctor or surgeon you prefer she use no visualization technologies like x-ray or MRI, no analytics, and no arthroscopy, laparoscopy or stethoscope. (Say hello to Queen Victoria, too.) Oh, no anesthesia either, please. This is identical to nurturing networks, establishing high-performance organizations and sustaining innovative ecosystems without network visualization and analytics.
Contemporary ‘OD’ is tantamount to Victorian-era surgery.
Anyone here that has experienced the 90s era ‘BPR’ knows the Victorian-style ‘re-org’ experience. Today they have new code-words like ‘SCM’ and ‘black-belts.’ They even use Greek to confuse people! -- as in 6-Sigma. So language is very important, but everybody, for starters, let’s try and avoid Greek and kung-fu terms.
Cheers,
John