I was scanning down the tweets from my Twitter “friends” yesterday when I was attracted to an entry by Joe Gerstandt. It contained what I took to be an invitation to sign-up for a web discussion on the topic of “commonality and difference”. Since these characteristics are fundamental to my thoughts on individual and organizational identity and the dynamics of change, I clicked the accompanying website link to see what he had in mind.
An unfamilar webpage
The link 'beamed me up' to a page in the SXSW Panelpicker. And, since I’d never heard of SXSW, I took the page to be a sort of Squidoo Lens or rudimentary blog site. Here Gerstandt had listed eight questions related to the topic, which tended to confirm the ‘fact’ that he was seeking responses from readers, as a contribution to the forthcoming debate.
Nobody had commented at that early stage. So, as I had some time to spare, I thought I’d scribble down a few preliminary thoughts off line. When I returned to the site, two people had added their comments. And it became immediately clear that the original invitation had been to support Gerstandt’s proposal to speak at the South by Southwest (SXSW!) Interactive Festival in March 2010! The focus of this is on emerging technologies, with his particular desire being to explore the conditions needed to foster “inclusive, sustainable and generative communities”.
However, I found it quite stimulating to reflect on the questions. So I decided to use the blog to record my partially-formed thoughts on the topic. These are very much in the form of informal jottings and, since the web discussion was a figment of my imagination, they are likely to remain so!
Questions and 'answers'
1. What is difference?
Lack of sameness. Sameness (or commonality) and difference are at the core of identity, whether thinking in terms of individuals, groups or organizations. One is defined by reference to the other.
2. What are the attributes of difference?
Usually perceived either as marginal to the mainstream i.e. a negative attribution or exceptional in relation to the norm, i.e. a positive connotation.
3. What is the value of difference?
Necessary to escape from established patterns of thinking and acting, which will tend to be preserved and reinforced by commonality (of experience, thinking, behaviour etc). Essential, therefore, for such things as humour and creativity.
Provides the means to compare and contrast – people, things, experiences etc. Therefore essential for learning.
It’s “the difference that makes the difference”: Valuable in pattern-breaking – the ‘lateral’ movement away from an established pathways (ideas, concepts, ways of doing something, assumptions etc).
Effectiveness (v. efficiency) i.e. challenge to the status quo to ensure that we “do the right things” (Drucker).
4. What is commonality?
Sameness is lack of difference. In some instances, commonality might go beyond sameness to imply some deliberate coming together, as in a community or coalition.
Perception of sharing – as in shared purpose, shared values, shared attributes - although there are likely to be differences (of understanding, say) within the guise of a shared perspective.
Has the sense of a majority, as opposed to the minority ‘feel’ of difference.
Has the sense of patterning and expectancy (as in organizational culture).
5. What is the value of commonality?
The coming together of people in pursuit of a common end is valuable in ‘implementation’ – issue coalitions to mobilize action in pursuit of a goal; and the ‘vertical’ processing of an idea/plan to its realization.
Efficient (Drucker's "doing things right") processing, through shared experience, understanding and expectations.
6. What is a generative relationship, community, culture?
One that embraces the paradox of sameness and difference and leads to constructive outcomes.
A relationship that is ‘healthy’, in the sense that it is neither stuck in repetitive patterns through excessive commonality nor chaotic due to excessive difference and lack of cohesion/ coherence.
7. How can difference and commonality be facilitated to create generative relationships, communities and cultures?
In a socially complex world, it is not possible to guarantee in advance that a particular approach will generate a positive (generative) outcome – even if that approach bears all of the hallmarks of collaborative thinking and inclusivity. The important thing, therefore, is to focus on what’s happening in the ‘here and now’.
Paying attention to the themes that are organizing the day-to-day interactions of people, and to the sense-making and use-making conversations through which outcomes emerge.
Highlighting issues arising from the impact of difference and sameness – especially where these dynamics are masking potentially generative relationships (e.g. ignored similarities between competing parties and/or exaggerated differences - see below).
Drawing attention to the conversational dynamics that might be blocking movement and progress and/or using a deliberate framework to facilitate more parallel thinking as opposed to debate(after de Bono).
Seeking to avoid extremes. Too much commonality might lead to group think and lack of creativity. Too much diversity might not have enough threads of common experience to draw upon to make progress.
Raising awareness of the paradoxical (both-and-at-the-same-time) nature of commonality-difference.
8. What are the common dynamics that get in the way of generative relationships?
Clash and confrontation – in institutions (e.g. Government and Opposition; Prosecution and Defence; Management and Unions) and in problem solving (e.g. ‘Black Hat’ thinking, argument).
Polarization – Tendency for differences to polarize and move further apart (e.g. ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’, with commonalities within groups and differences between groups being emphasized and the opposites – such as similarities between groups - ignored).
Natural, political dynamics of organizations: people are brought together to form an organization, where they are then split up into different departments, sections, teams etc and required to work together. This inevitably leads to well-intentioned confrontation and conflict (as well as negative politicking) in relation to the use of resources, since these are invariably limited and choices have to be made.
Psycho-social dynamics. Throughout our lives we each develop and seek to maintain a ‘personal frame of reference’. This shapes the ways in which we interact with people and is, in turn, shaped by those interactions. This ‘frame’ helps us to maintain our sense of identity, competence and self-worth, as we seek to maintain all of our important relationships in a desired state at the same time. This means that, quite properly, there is a self-interested thread to all conversational interactions, which means that outcomes are negotiated in the moment of interaction. Power relations are also a significant aspect of these dynamics, which might work against the development of generative relationships (although they will also be at play within "generative" relationships).
__________
You can vote for Joe Gerstandt's session at next year's SXSW Interactive Festival here
Comments