Effective civil leadership won't develop behind a login

Dave Pollard's justly popular blog How to save the world fortunately offers great lists on how to make a start. Recently he posted Ten ways to make a difference based on Peter Singer's work, with a link to How to change anything explaining Dana Meadows systems thinking. Inspiring stuff. But can I apply some of these 'Made in Canada' ideas (as Dave badges them) to developing civil leadership in London.... or at least pass on the ideas in usable form? The immediate challenge for me lies in the continuing conversation about how to further inspire and support thousands of people who have become 'graduates' of the Common Purpose London programme. The key issue: can it be done behind a login? I think not.

As Jonathan Briggs reports, he and I met Common Purpose staff on Friday to discuss how to use the Net to follow through a recent speed networking event. Many graduates already volunteer, on an individual basis, as Board members on nonprofits. The challenge now is how to help them connect with each other to do good projects in their communities.
The off-the-shelf solution might seem to be to create an online community or social networking system. It is tempting for Common Purpose because, unusually for a nonprofit, they have a highly competent in-house team who could do the development work.
However, Jonathan and I found we were both arguing strongly again this for a wide range of reasons. Jonathan pitched in with his own compelling list of why he doesn't generally like online communities, or social networking sites. Partly mechanics, partly poor design, management and hosting. Most important, in this context, he felt they don't help you get to the action.
I followed through with arguments about the need to focus on the would-be leaders and their different levels of skill, confidence and communication styles. Just because people can use email and web doesn't mean they will take the time and trouble to use new systems. There's a social software divide out there. What's first needed is a better understanding of what moves people from interest to action, and how they really share ideas and experience.
Here again Dave Pollard offers important lessons in his Principles of Knowledge Management .
These are cast in terms of KM in large organisations.... but people are people, so some general lessons apply. Most KM tools are over-engineered. Everyone uses information differently. Knowledge is best transferred by conversations. Stories are critical to knowledge transfer.
And 'Humans are inherently poor collaborators: You can't just blame poor tools for the lack of progress in virtual and asynchronous collaboration in business, and the failure of team and community knowledge tools and 'spaces' to get much traction -- at least beyond the short life and limited purpose of specific projects.'
That's written in a business context, but in my experience just because the goal is community benefit, the nature of many people doesn't change. Because they care doesn't mean they'll share. As Dave says "You might even have to change our human culture (or at least fire all the males)."
I find that if, in most collaborative endeavours, you ask what's the biggest problem, and the main solution, the answer you get (after moans about funding) is 'people'.
But instead of taking that answer seriously, and designing systems as if understanding people and what they want to do are the most important issues, we are tempted to look for the latest tools. The Internet changes a lot of things, but not everything.
So what did Jonathan and I end up suggesting? I'm embarrassed to say that some of it was about tools. Don't do a a new community - do blogs. (There is, however, a non-tech rationale.)
For example, instead of creating a new closed space, encourage CP participants to develop blogs recording their activities, and linking to others during their year. That way they will research possible linkages and build confidence for later online communication - and learn about collaborative conversations online. Blog events using cameras, video, audio. Find who, among London graduates, is doing this already and host a get together.
What we were trying to say, I think, is that if the design solution is people-centric, then experiment with tools that start from that premise.
The tools may or may not do the job, but they get people into the right mind-set and good ideas will follow. Do, of course, mix online with face-to-face events.
This open approach does pose problems, of course. Will the newly-enthused bloggers breach confidentialities in reporting events, and so maybe offend funders that support them? Will it lead to divisions between online communicators and others? Will it encourage people to challenge their mentors - in public - and maybe put off potential recruits?
It seems to me that these are problems that should be embraced - not ignored - by any organisation that is trying to foster community leadership. It's what people are going to have to deal with if they want to do good stuff.... and also what organisations supporting them will have to learn to live with and use creatively and positively. Effective civil leadership can't be developed behind a login.

Update
Jonathan Briggs posts on How would I build a blog-based community?

Comments

[Jonathan Briggs]

I had a go at defining the things I would do to create a blog based community. These would include open access, choreographed postings and ways of contacting the commentor and posters.

[Colin]

I am experiencing this issue first hand having set up a phpbb site for a voluntary organisation including some people without broadband connections. I will let you know how I get on but so far its slow. Getting them to do blogs will be even slower though I think. So far I am part of several email communities. I am interested to know if other types of online communities develop outside of developers, students with fast connections at college, people at work, or settled down people with broadband?

[David Wilcox]

Colin
I think it is horses for courses - what works depends on people's motivation, skills, connectivity... and how many there are. Small web-based forums are difficult unless really useful to people that spend time online. Email lists are a bit easier because there isn't any 'go to' beyond the mailbox. Even then one in ten people active is usual. Blogs are interesting because they are led by the committed.... so something gets posted. As usualy it is down to the people.
The best place to find online community managers is the emint list - details at emint
Interestingly they still use Yahoogroups. Nancy White has good resources at Full Circle