9 changes towards transformation

I’ve been thinking a bunch about the challenges of making cultural transformation in the organizations I work with here at Groundwire.  It’s a tough challenge.  The first step, it seems, is about naming the changes we want to help folks make.

Here are some rough notes that popped out as I was gathering my thoughts for a meeting.  I’d love to know what thoughts they provoke for you.

From –> To

    1. Broadcast –> Dialogue
    2. Formal –> Conversational
    3. Organizational voice –> Personal voice
    4. Goals –> Values
    5. Centralized communications –> Distributed through many channels
    6. Intuitive decisions –> Data driven decisions
    7. Master planned –> Continual refinement toward clear big picture goals
    8. Set the agenda –> Respond to what’s hot that fits your goals & values
    9. Always the center of collaborations –> Partner more, and more informally

      Groundwire is hiring a strategist!

      Come join our team at Groundwire (formerly ONE/Northwest) and help us build a better world!

      Groundwire is growing, and we’re looking for an experienced strategy consultant to join our team.   Our ideal candidate will have real world, senior level organizing and/or fundraising experience (online and offline), believe in the importance of relationship building for achieving social change, and understand the power of technology to support relationship building at scale.

      Groundwire is a pretty amazing place to work — I should know, I’ve been there for thirteen years!  We have a world-class team of kick-ass people, amazing clients and are constantly pushing the intersecting wavefronts of technology and social change.

      Job description and application instructions.

      I am the only one who finds Change.gov disappointing

      I’m really surprised by the adulation that the Obama transition team’s website, Change.gov, has gotten.  To me, it looks like a pretty design (all of Obama’s design work has been really excellent!), and a few web forms that dump your information into a black hole, never to be seen again (so far).  This is what “listening” looks like?

      I applaud the speed with which they’ve gotten the site up, and I suppose I appreciate the symbolism of the gesture.  But unless they actually build some sort of actual conversation on top of this, or somehow reflect back what they’re hearing (“active listening” anyone?) I’m not going to be very impressed.

      Liveblogging “Political Campaigns and Technology”

      [18:00] I’m liveblogging from the event ONE/Northwest is hosting tonight, titled “Political Campaigns and Technology.” We’ve got about 50 people in our office here in Seattle, gathered together for a fast-paced peer-to-peer learning session in which we’re going to explore the various ways that political campaigns are using technology to build and sustain relationships, and what nonprofit activist organizations can learn from the fast-paced world of political campaigns.

      Gideon Rosenblatt — ONE/Northwest Executive Director

      Gideon is welcoming people, explaining the concept, how it relates to our work. We’ll have three speakers, followed by some group discussion and general socializing.

      Karen Uffelman — ONE/Northwest Program Manager

      Questions to audience:

      • In the last 12 months, how many have seen a candidate website? Lots
      • How many have been contacted by a candidate? Lots
      • How many have taken action on behalf of a candidate? Lots
      • How many would have 4 years ago? Lots (!)

      [18:05] Karen: dramatic changes in how candidates are using technology. Karen posed several discussion questions for people to consider in small groups, which they are now doing…

      [18:10] Report outs:

      Group one:

      What’s the most innovative use of interactive media you’ve seen this campaign season?

      • Viral videos used to hold candidates accountable for what they’re saying

      Group two:

      Have candidates lost control of their message because of new media?

      • Yes, but some campaigns have done a better job than others at using new media to get their messages out there. The technology itself is beginning to shape how candidates present themselves and their communications style. Think that Obama is less concerned with controlling events, more focused on explaining things as they occur. George Allen’s “macaca” video is an extreme example of loss of control. Control models are going to work less and les in the future.

      Group three:

      Have candidates lost control of their message because of new media?

      • You can’t control what people say about you online. The blogosphere has some tendency towards self-correction, though. Retractions and debunkings can happen very quickly.

      Most innovative use of interactive media?

      • Email from Obama campaign: you’ve donated before, would you like to match a first-time donor? Can send personal message to the first-time donor, and they can respond to you. Very gratifying way to make a small personal connection with a fellow supporter.

      Group four:

      We talked mostly about the “relentlessness” of the Obama campaign’s online organizing work this year. In 2004, seemed more episodic than continuous. Lots more use of video from candidates; e.g. video of Obama on his donation page. Very slick.

      Group five:

      We talked about some of the tools we’ve seen on Facebook and their longer-term potential. How social networking has been used as a fundraising tool, ability to raise money very quickly. Rapid response of Ron Paul campaign around specific issues. Blast updates vs. segmentation.

      Group six:

      Increased turnout of youth vote during primary cycle. Challenge ahead is how to translate election excitement downballot and to ongoing long term issues. How can we get people to care about the fights that follow. League of Young Voters Facebook application attempts to find people through the campaign opportunity, get a sense of issue priorities as well.

      Group seven:

      Unexpectedly viral things. Change in tone of campaign emails from “donate now” to fake(?) insider emails. New phonebanking tools. Washington Trails’ experience creating a small Facebook application.

      [18:25] Three Speakers

      Brett Horvath – Your Revolution

      A new nonpartisan nonprofit.

      Show of hands: who has a Facebook account? (Many) Who actively uses it? (Few)

      Your Revolution: building a Facebook app focused on voter registration. Hope to scale up voter registration efforts by leveraging the reach of the Facebook platform.

      What differentiates Facebook from other social networking platforms: Facebook is a “social utility” that allows people to actively do things. Some stats about rapid growth of Facebook.

      Massive protest in Colombia, organized via Facebook. Something different is going on here that’s not going on elsewhere.

      • Big difference between a website and a web presence. Facebook gives you access to lots of people who are already nearby and comfortable consuming information there.

      Obama online: my.barackobama.com — allows users to self-organize, plan events, build groups. Houe parties, fundraisers, phonebanking etc. All outside of the control of the campaign.

      Quick rundown of Your Revolution features:

      • Register to vote from within Facebook
      • Tell you which of your friends are registered to vote
      • Send a reminder/invite to your friends to get them to register to vote — peer pressure!
      • Ask about issue interests during process
      • Connect you with groups that are working on what you’re interested in.

      Your Revolution gives nonprofits some collaboration and project management tools for their constituents.

      Working with students to bring online voter registration to states around the nation (!) (Now: WA and AZ are the only two states that allow it, but Rock The Vote has technology for generating paper forms online.)

      Questions for Brett:

      Q: What kinds of privacy safeguards are there? How exposed is your personal information?

      A: You can control how much info people see on Facebook. Your Revolution doesn’t keep or use any data from FB.

      Q: Is hard to get off of Facebook?

      A: Actually, yes. Hard to fully delete all of your profile information. This is generally pretty true of anything you put on the internet these days.

      Q: How do you prevent voter reg. fraud?

      A: Require valid drivers license info, which is verified by Secretary of State.

      [18:50] George Chung – Win/Win Network

      How Democratic Party technology has trickled down to interest groups.

      An example: anti-immigrant ballot measures in Washington in recent years. Hard to defeat hot-button ballot initiatives like this. Insight: find all the people who voted against a previous anti-affirmative action initiative. Problem: it was virtually impossible to find, and we had to start from scratch. A “learning moment.” Each campaign should build long-term organizing capacity, win or lose.

      Democratic political campaigns have consolidated their voter file databases and interfaces. Catalist, Voter Activation Network are two companies that were started by major Democratic party donors to consolidate disparate voter file, demographic and consumer data and then provide sophisticated applications built on top of that, e.g. phonebanking systems with real-time feedback. Trickling down to state parties and the precinct captain level.

      Campaigns don’t end when the election is over. Then we go to elected officials and push for policy change. More thinking about cycles of accountability. Elections are means to policy ends.

      Win/Win Network – started by Washington Progress Alliance. Goal is to defragment progressive issue communities at the state level so that we can work more powerfully together. Shared services, e.g. voter mobilization tools from Catalist/VAN.

      [19:00]

      Q: Doesn’t sharing of names among organizations like this pretty much amount to spamming people without their permission and run the risk of inundating people?

      A: Learning from the work the environmental community has done here, how to get the word out without violating permission. We don’t actually share emails among groups.

      [19:15] Steve Andersen – ONE/Northwest

      I work on CRM systems for environmental groups. Constituent Relationship Management. Technologies and techniques for helping organizations develop relationships with their supporters. Companies use CRM to sell stuff. Nonprofits use it to build power. We use Salesforce.com as our main CRM tool; it’s not nonprofit-specific… it’s used by businesses, political campaigns, and nonprofits.

      Four very quick demonstrations of how political campaigns use CRM.

      1) Raising money…

      … and reporting on that fundraising. A core component of any CRM system, but also one of the least interesting. 😉 Moving on…

      2) Managing speaking opportunities

      Candidates need to keep track of where they and their surrogates are going to appear, from a huge field of opportunities and possibilities. Nonprofit activists have the same problem. We’re currently working with Van Jones of the Ella Baker Center on a system for managing hundreds of speaking requests per month.

      3) Influencing key decision makers

      e.g. Superdelegates and precinct leaders. (Or, after the election, running issue campaigns for nonprofits). Quick demonstration of a system we built for Futurewise to track their success at influencing regulatory decisions around land-use. The same model can also be used to track efforts to secure endorsements for a candidate. Track decision makers, people & organizations who influence those decision-makers, whether they support or oppose us. Campaigns to our members who relate to that decisionmaker. Share all of this data with the campaign team.

      4) Media tracking

      How to keep track of all the blogs, viral video and online news coverage that campaigns are getting? Can’t just follow three networks and a few newspapers anymore. Quick demo of a media tracking tool we built for Futurewise. Media clips are connected to decision campaigns (above). Simple bookmarklets make it fast and easy to save items that you find in your web surfing.

      “We haven’t had the need to clip YouTube videos for very long.”

      Salesforce lets us build little tools like this really quickly. Took us about an hour to be able to clip & watch YouTube inside of YouTube.com.

      [19:25] Questions

      Q: Can you spit back out stuff that you capture?

      A: We can get stuff back out through Salesfore’s APIs and show it via a website to the public, or pull it into an email message.

      Q: Can data be linked to projects?  Groups of people that might take action?

      A: In principle, yes.

      Q: How do you assess if an organization is ready for powerful new tools like this?

      A: It’s hard.  🙂

      [19:30] Gideon Rosenblatt – Thanks, Closing and General Hanging Out Time

      These are the facets of a new kind of democratic process emerging.  It’s all about putting power back into the hands of self-organizing groups of people.

      With that, your loyal liveblogger went off to get a well-deserved beer. 😉

      The Technology Understanding Gap

      Please go read this incredibly insightful reflection by Eugene Eric Kim. If you’re too lazy, I’ll clip the most important part for ya:

      The following day, I co-led a session on this topic with AngusParker. Two of the participants were dealing with the specific challenge of connecting members of a national network of leaders in reproductive health, so we used that as a case study. We decided to use Clay’s contention to frame the problem, resulting in this whiteboard:

      http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2234544757_9be3c47dd2_m.jpg


      What do you notice about this picture?

      Obviously, the Tools column is completely empty. That’s a dead giveaway that I’m facilitating this discussion. (That and the horrific handwriting.) Figure out the basics first. Don’t let the question about technology drive the discussion.

      During the discussion, one of the participants asked, “What tools can we use?”

      I responded, “Let’s not worry about that now.” So we kept talking and talking, and I noticed the two non-technical participants in the group squirming like crazy.

      So I stopped, noticed how gaping the Tools column looked, and said, “You’re uncomfortable about not having discussed the tools, aren’t you.”

      She nodded.

      “Don’t worry about it,” I responded. “The tools part will be easy, once we figure everything else out.”

      “Easy for you, maybe,” she said. “You already know what goes there.”

      That was not quite true, but I got her point, and the force of it struck me so hard, I had to stop for a moment. I looked at the gap, and I saw possibilities. She looked at the gap, and she saw a void. That was upsetting for her. It made it hard for her to think about the other aspects of the problem.

      It made me realize how much I take my technology literacy for granted. But it also created an opportunity to discuss how easily we are sidetracked by technology. “Tool” does not have to mean software, and making that assumption prevents us from exploring other viable, possibly better solutions.

      I’ll add in a kicker: too often, people who are less technically literate think that if they only fill in the right answer in that middle “Tools” column, that their problems will all be solved. When, really, it is more important to get the Promise and the Bargain right. I like to call this pattern “magical tool thinking.” It results in a lot of wasted time and effort trying to identify that magical, right tool — effort which should go into thinking about process, objectives and how to sustain the non-technological parts of the organizing effort.

      How Network-Centric Warfare Failed: The Networks are Social, Not Electronic

      Michael Gilbert picks up on an important piece:
      How Technology Almost Lost the War: In Iraq, the Critical Networks Are Social — Not Electronic

      A couple of key ‘grafs:

      The network-centric approach had worked pretty much as advertised. Even the theory’s many critics admit net-centric combat helped make an already imposing American military even more effective at locating and killing its foes. The regimes of Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar were broken almost instantly. But network-centric warfare, with its emphasis on fewer, faster-moving troops, turned out to be just about the last thing the US military needed when it came time to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. A small, wired force leaves generals with too few nodes on the military network to secure the peace. There aren’t enough troops to go out and find informants, build barricades, rebuild a sewage treatment plant, and patrol a marketplace.

      Continue reading How Network-Centric Warfare Failed: The Networks are Social, Not Electronic