Piran’s Page

Piran’s Page

On the 24th of June 2018 when Piran asked me to honour my promise that when his cancer became unbearable I would do the kindest thing a dog owner can do. I said on my personal Facebook page that ‘Maybe I should write a blog about canine listening without pre-judgement, faithfulness & trust. All traits we have lost in human society, if we ever had them, though empathy & reciprocity may go some way towards.’

Well Piran gave us just over 15 years of non-judgemental listening & friendship during which time we went through some really life destroying episodes. So, to have a friend who sits down next you and gives you the hope & reason to carry on is just life changing.

Be honest how many times have you been in a conversation where you are forming your own opinion/ response before the person speaking has completed their story?

Now be really honest how often is your opinion influenced by your assumed viewpoint of that person, whether it’s their dress sense, vocabulary / accent or ‘social’ status.

Or even worse, have you been engaged in a conversation where you sense that you are being watched for your response, feel isolated from the social situation or find yourself under tremendous pressure to confirm to the group’s norm?

According to Fels Institute of Government at University of Pennsylvania. “Whenever we listen to a statement, particularly one that is charged with emotion, our immediate tendency is to evaluate it from our perspective. That’s natural and human and an impediment to communication if we don’t deliberately put on the brakes and control it”.
Step One in Effective Communication – Listen https://www.fels.upenn.edu/recap/posts/813

Time-spent-communicating

Based on the research of: Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L. and Proctor, R. (2001)
Interplay: the process of interpersonal communicating (8th edn), Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.

•             canine listening without pre-judgement,

So, if 45% of our time spent communicating is actually listening, are we? No, I don’t believe we are, primarily because we’re too full of our own self-importance rather than truly caring what the other person wishes to say.

This conversation we have with dogs is communication at an unspoken level, where there is an emotional response so lacking in many human situations that I can recall.

How many reading this have been bullied by a ‘so called friend’ into behaving not how you would wish to from your heart? On reflection this is usually as a result of their fear causing a manic desire for control & need to dominate.

If we looked at this from the other side of the mirror as in seeing what the speaker is seeing in us would we possibly change? To do so we should enter into the conversation as a truly humble listener where the speaker has the most important subject to talk about – well it usually is to them. Does your dog actually care about your dress sense, vocabulary / accent (unless you’re screaming at it) or ‘social’ status? A lot of which has been manipulated for a sense of power.

  • faithfulness & trust

What a dog probably cares more about is faithfulness & trust. Both of which can be established in human conversations through listening as a service to the person speaking.

Maybe it is time to quite our human cleverness both with ourselves and other species. The review below of Donna J Haraway’s When Species Meet expresses this clearly.

In this deeply personal yet intellectually ground-breaking work, Haraway develops the idea of companion species, those who meet and break bread together but not without some indigestion. “A great deal is at stake in such meetings,” she writes, “and outcomes are not guaranteed. There is no assured happy or unhappy ending-socially, ecologically, or scientifically.

There is only the chance for getting on together with some grace.” Ultimately, she finds that respect, curiosity, and knowledge spring from animal–human associations and work powerfully against ideas about human exceptionalism.
ISBN 978-0-8166-5046-0

For further insights to the trust that street dogs put in soldiers in war zones please visit
https://www.nowzad.com/our-work/soldier-rescues

  • empathy & reciprocity

If empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another, which we seem to naturally have with dogs. Then why do we struggle in our human relationships? Is it because this relationship between a dog & it’s owner could be described as a form of mutualism as in the symbionts benefiting from each other. https://spencerbh.com/not-a-tree-hugger/
Or are we just pre-conditioned to mistrust our human relationships from a survival aspect?

Reciprocity originates from the Latin reciprocus as in ‘moving backwards & forwards’ and thus if empathy is not quid pro quo as in Often times the concept of reciprocity arises when thinking about both the honour of giving and the honour of receiving as the basis for Native American philanthropy. Reciprocity is defined as “the obligation to return benefits for benefits received” (Moody, 1994). Further, Rebecca Adamson suggests that “The reciprocity [in Native America] is not quid pro quo but the gift is given, the beneficiary is expected also to give, not necessarily back, but on, so the gift is always alive” (Wells1998)

https://www.learningtogive.org/resources/native-american-philanthropy-paper-i

Then is your gift of listening always alive and moving backwards & forwards?

So how can we practice our genuine listening skills to be of service to others?.
One amazing way is through the work of programmes such as Karma Rescue’s Paws for Life Prison Programme in the USA

https://youtu.be/UlkM-eySqR8

where rescued dogs who don’t have much hope are trained to be sociable by inmates who have usually had nobody listen to them all their life. So that the dog develops social skills aiding its chance of finding a forever home & in reciprocation the inmates gain life skills enabling them to contribute to society after release.

If you would like to join in a conversation about creating a social-impact network to forge confidence respect & trust among rescued dogs & disadvantaged people please contact me at:

https://spencerbh.com/contact-me/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/spencerbhodgetts/

This blog is dedicated to the memory of Piran pup 11/06/2003 to 24/06/2018
Thank you for listening without pre-judgement & your faithfulness and trust.

Network-ing Does NOT Equal Network WEAVING

Network-ing Does NOT Equal Network WEAVING

 

Network-ing Does Not Equal Network WEAVING

Those of us who work with change networks could sometimes do a better job of clarifying the distinction between ‘networking’ and ‘network weaving’. Leaving that distinction un-articulated and merely implied inclines those who are new to the discussion to default their hearing to the generic-mainstream meaning of ‘networking’. It leaves much of what is important and different about network weaving either un-said, un- heard, mis-understood, or suspect.
Now don’t get me wrong – generic ‘networking’ is indisputably important. Contrasting something to it doesn’t mean devaluing it.
And in reality, there’s a world of overlap. Either can merge into becoming the other. You could personally be doing one, in the context of the other. And what you think you’re looking at depends on where you fit in the network. There isn’t a bright line. My pretense at precise distinction is merely for the sake of nudging us a little further along the spectrum of what’s possible.
Because – there’s more power and potential in a social network than we’ve been taught & have grown accustomed to recognizing. And it’s hard to access that ‘more’, if our words limit our imagination.
So this is as much about what we’re IMAGINING we’re doing while we’re doing it, as it is about
precisely WHAT we’re doing.
For those of us who don’t resonate to Harvey McKay’s ‘Swim With the Sharks’ and that ilk – the default, mainstream meaning of ‘networking’ can be a big turn-off . We’ve come to understand it as a specific, often self-serving, not-necessarily-authentic, social butterflying kind of activity. To many of us ‘networking’ is a popularity contest – best left to smarmy salesmen, politicians, corporate CEOs & lobbyists. We get a little queasy just contemplating joining those ranks. And no amount of rosy pep-talk convinces us.
For introverts and those who value authenticity ‘Networking’ fires up the wrong imaginings.
But beyond being a potential turn-off, the common usage of the word falls short of the vision and purpose behind network weaving.
‘Networking’ tells the social butterflies they’ve arrived (an assessment the rest of us can’t agree with), while it leaves much of a network’s deeper potential impact and generativity untapped.
We need different words to signal that we’re leaving the default meaning behind and talking about something more. And we have them, we just need to use them.

A Difference Recognized By Social Network Scientists

Social network scientists have some technical terms that can help us explore this distinction. Terms for different ways of focusing on, or ‘scoping’ a network for analysis. They are ‘ego-networks’, ‘socio-networks’, ‘open-networks’, and ‘eco-networks’.*
I’ll say more about ‘ego-networks’ and ‘eco-networks’ in a moment, but for the curious, I’ll just say this about the other two:

  •  A ‘socio-network’ is a ‘network in a box’. It has clearly-defined, solid boundaries – such as
    “everyone who works at Company X”, “or everyone who goes to School A” – it only looks at the
    relationships existing within that boundary – no-one else is relevant.
  • An ‘open-network’ is what it sounds like – there are no boundaries. The internet is an open
    network. Twitter is an open network, Facebook is an open network – anyone can open an account and
    anyone can be connected to anyone. There is no limit to who might be included in a network map of
    an open network. In theory, it includes the entire human race (or even further).

*From Understanding Social Networks: Theories, concepts and findings by Charles Kadushin

Networking is to Network Weaving what Ego-Centric is to Eco-Centric

For our discussion here, the more interesting technical terms are ‘ego-network’ and ‘eco-network’, which fit the distinction I’m trying to make almost perfectly. So let’s dig in:

Ego Centric Eco Centric Network

An Ego-Network revolves around a core person – it is defined by direct relationships to that central person and doesn’t include indirect (2nd degree) relationships or persons unknown to the core person. Sounds a lot like what we get from ‘networking’, right? It’s all about ‘me’.

What’s an Ego-Network?

On a network map it looks like a hub with spokes. The relevant connections are to the single node at the center.
In our society, an ego network is generally connected around support of the core person in some way
– important career contacts; the politicians a lobbyist cultivates; the network of family, friends and caregivers around someone with a severe illness, or something like the child support network I was gifted with as a young single mom, made up of sage advisors, friends who babysat regularly (or with whom I swapped regular babysitting) so I could work, friends who would drop everything to come get the kid if I had an emergency, and the kid’s dad who gave me big chunks of time off. In that case, the connection to me (and the kid) was what was relevant – whether or not any of them knew one another didn’t really matter. There was no larger purpose than helping me out or enjoying my kid.
This is the type of network that ‘networking’ tries to build and leverage. It is often based on direct reciprocity (I scratch your back, you scratch mine), is personally maintained (I work to maintain the relationship – stay in touch, send gifts, etc.), and often requires a direct match between my needs & yours – if there’s no direct match, there’s no relationship. (i.e. if you can’t help me raise my kid, I have far less reason to sustain our relationship, given my limited time and energy). And it’s often homophilic (‘like attracting to like’) or relatively homogenous. My kid-network consisted entirely of older- moms, current-moms, wanna-be moms & one dad.
And because of their relative homogeneity, ego-Networks can easily become echo- chambers.
If the hub of an ego-network goes away the network falls apart. In an ego-network, the person is the purpose, and without that person, the connections are gone. My marriage (wonderful as it is), ended a lovely phase of networked connectedness in my life, because the purpose of our interactions
(my need for help with child-raising) ended and the network drifted apart.

Eco-Networks Fit Between Socio-networks & Open Network

An Eco-Network is a relative newcomer to the network-science labelling game. I don’t even know where I got the term from. It’s not in the book I pulled the others from, which is what I’d expected. I know I’ve come across it in a few places over the course of my network reading but haven’t been able to re-find them – so if anyone reading this can find them, please share with us!
In any case, an eco-network sits somewhere between a socio-network and an open- network. A socio-network (the ‘network in a box’) generally has a centrally defined, narrow purpose (think ‘mission statement’ or ‘avoiding organizational bankruptcy’); a clear & precise definition of inclusion (think ‘everyone on our payroll’ or ‘the roll-call list’); a relatively centralized & hierarchical command system; and officially-sanctioned & controlled information and resource flows
(balanced by secret, un-sanctioned information flows). Whereas an open network is unbounded, random, directionless and incoherent (think Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram).
So we could think of an eco-network as skirting the boundary between rigid pseudo- control and a free-for-all. In my mind, an eco-network is the social equivalent of that strange attractor within a system that generates ordered patterns out of chaos. To me, an eco-network has the potential to generate a collective path from our current world – a world presently oscillating between destructive authoritarian rigidity and chaotic collapse – to a new world, built on an evolved understanding of order/structure, connection, and thriving.

What IS an Eco-Network?

But what does all that MEAN, practically speaking?
Well, it helps to think about ecosystems. For one thing, both eco-networks and ecosystems only thrive with ample diversity.
For another – in both cases, flows of resources (whether money, information, skills, trust and shared inspiration or nutrients, shared environmental context, water and sunshine) are complexly reciprocal, as opposed to transactional. In a forest ecosystem, no-one barters with the squirrel to get it to poop out worm & fungi food. And in exchange for the squirrel poop, worms & fungi don’t break the elements down fine enough so that plant roots can absorb them because the trees or the pooping animals pay them to – they do it because that’s what they do, it’s part of their organic process. The trees & other plants only grow if there are adequate nutrients and water – and when they do, they create food some of the animals need to survive (and poop out), some of which become food for other animals, and it all requires water, water retention, healthy soil – and so on. There is an organically-driven flow of value, based on adequate diversity, that is not directly transactional.
There is no need for direct transactions because each community member’s survival depends on the in-flows (food, etc.) and out-flows (poop, etc.) of all the members. Transactions are too small a dynamic to support the complexity and adaptivity of an ecosystem.
The ecosystem forms an interdependent network of a huge variety of life forms, moving a broad range of nutrients freely through a complex system of flows that sustains the whole thing. Pull out too many parts, or just block up too many of the flows from one component to another and the whole thing collapses. And when I say ‘flows’ here, I mean ‘connection’/’relationship’. You could have all the pieces of the system/network, but if they weren’t able to interact, you wouldn’t have a network, let alone a living system.
In an ecosystem, there is also no ‘boss’, no centralized command & control. The whole thing works because of how the community fits together, not because someone designed it that way. A social eco-network is similar. There may be players with larger impacts and greater input into direction, but that doesn’t mean they master-mind and control the whole thing.
Another thing a social eco-network and a ecosystem have in common is boundaries. They may be fuzzy, but they are real and discernable. For instance, there is diversity, but the diversity isn’t infinite (like it could be in an open network) and it certainly isn’t random.
Whales don’t occupy forests, butterflies don’t do Arctics, polar bears don’t co-exist well within rainforests.
With ecosystems the boundary is environmental, the community members all thrive within a similar environment. With an eco-network, the boundary is purpose. And the boundary is what holds the community together.

The Point of an Eco-Network

So – ultimately – the main distinction between an ego-network and an eco-network is this – the eco-network exists to support a purpose, not a person or an organization. It supports a broad purpose that is greater than any of the individuals involved, but which benefits all the individuals involved. It’s also a purpose which can’t be served nearly as effectively by individuals (or individual organizations) acting on their own, without the diverse & reciprocal flows of support and information that characterizes an ecosystem.
The glue, then, is not ONLY strong personal bonds (as in an ego-network) – thou it won’t ever work without a lot of them – it is ALSO an intention that is larger than the personal bonds. It is an intention to be one part of a larger, purposeful, whole. An intention to help develop that whole and the individuals within it in ways that are generative for oneself as well as for the larger purpose.
An eco-network, then, has: a purpose; diverse membership; complex reciprocity; multiple ‘centers’ with multiple roles; and a robust and free flow of information, resources, capacity and care to where they are needed most. A flow that both includes and transcends the bonds of personal connection, and that emerge from the interactions. Far from being a popularity contest, an eco-network is a puzzle we can do together. It’s a fun but serious game of learning about fits and flows – about how to amplify the impact of what each member has to offer. It’s a dance between the individual and the collective, an ever-shifting experiment with order emerging from chaos.

But So What?
Why do I think any of this matters?

I believe it matters because our imaginations matter. All of our actions and behaviors are driven by and reflect our deepest beliefs and values – and these are all gestated in the womb of our imaginations. What we can’t imagine, we can’t create. And the only way we ever create something new, for which there is no current model, is if we imagine it first. I believe it matters that we pull our imaginations a step past what we already know, do & envision – into a higher level of generative capacity – in a way that affirms and includes everyone, not just the social butterflies. And I believe that if we tease out a clearer understanding of the values and intent of network weaving, if we tempt our imaginations into this fresh, promising new territory, we go further to affirm and generate the kind of world we want to live in together. We affirm that weaving an impactful and resilient change network:
• Is not a contest – it’s more about discerning the right network for ourselves (so we don’t end up like a polar bear in a rainforest), finding our natural place, supporting the flow of nutrients where they need to go, expressing our unique contribution & helping others do all of that as well.
• Means supporting others, whether they’re able to support us or not, serves the overall purpose we’re all trying to promote.
• Requires a lot of different roles, as well as understanding and appreciating the roles that are different from our own.
• Means going beyond developing our own personal relationships, and helping others develop relationships that enhance maximum flow of value throughout the network.
• Requires recognizing and acting on the recognition that there is a limit to how much can be accomplished in a transactional context, and that system change is built on an abundance of
relationships across differences.
Stimulating this kind of understanding & imagination requires many tools & approaches – Mapping is the tool
Tim & I personally contribute to the puzzle. Powerful, adaptive eco-networks are the shift we’re trying to support.
What contributions are you interested in making & to which greater purpose?

Co-Founder of Greater than the Sum and sumApp

Content Sharing

Content Sharing

Content Sharing & Creating Connections for Engaging Conversations ©

I imagine that there a quite a few people who are either new to being online &/or in business who feel overwhelmed by the mega success stories. Then there are the suggestions that one should be on every social media platform at once with all your own content.
What follows is a review of my experience as a start-up business in Sharing Content which is not my own and at the same time comparing this to in person & online business networking. NB: I’ve started a business in a market new to myself & geographically where I started out with no contacts.

Social Media Platforms: Facebook new business page & LinkedIn. Chosen because I’m familiar with both & where my audience hangs out; both in groups & individually. Thinking of groups earlier this year I deleted myself from 35 LinkedIn groups which are no longer relevant, if you’re selling tomatoes why are you in a model airplane group? Also, when I share to LinkedIn I have it set to automatically share on Twitter. I’ve done this as a test to show that on a platform where I’m not engaged it has had no response.

Posts: Chosen from a variety of online sources to provide up to date industry leading news & opinions around a single theme: Social Media Marketing. Shared on both platforms manually & at varying times of day. Sometimes I’ve added my own sub-heading or copied a strategic line from the article. A few went out without a sub-heading; non of which seemed to make much difference to quantity of Reach &/or Views. Data sheet attached (p4).

Results: 1 post (same to both platforms) per day over 22 days in July 2017. Facebook business page: Total Reach 983, Average/day 44.6. NB. 1 post on FB reached 820 which was this infographic without any story. Average reach without that 7.7 and 10 posts had a greater reach than that. LinkedIn: Total Views 675, Average 30.7 Views and 6 posts had a greater number of views than average.
If you take off the infographic blip of 820 the figures show I have a stronger response on LinkedIn. This shows that your content, whether your own or not must relate to your audience. Also vice versa are infographic posts the best thing for your Facebook audience?

So in 1 month from standstill 1658 people are now aware of my existence!

For my project of Creating Connections in person versus online I chose two audiences on LinkedIn and two local business networking organisations.

LinkedIn audience 1 = search for Social Media Marketing people in local area whom I’ve never met or who had never heard of me.

Tip1: if you are using LinkedIn for free & run out of 2nd connections to approach, then I discovered if you search 3rd connections that includes more 2nd to whom you can send requests.

Tip 2: I included a personal message in each request (ex. 2) & followed up with a “thank you for connecting first name” in response. For this audience I also stated connecting would be “pitch free from me”.

LinkedIn audience 2 = I replied to a post which gathered 90+ responses in a very short time frame. So I requested to connect with all SMM professional 2nd connections who’d replied to that post.

Business Networking Organisations Both are very active & efficiently run, one is primarily ‘business’ with ‘digital’ members and the other is primarily ‘digital’ with ‘business’ members. NB: By the time I went to these events I had gained a few local connections to whom I could reference back to. But I have a new business without an “elevator speech” and I’m talking with people who know far more about the technical side of what I offer than I ever will. This is a great opportunity to listen to others who are more experienced.

What do I observe as a result of this project?

1 It is possible to create awareness on social media by sharing other peoples content.

2 It is possible to enter a new market and create connections, conversations & interest both online & in person.

3 I’ve received some great advice and offers of support; along with potential offers of collaboration, future networking opportunities & referrals.

4 I’ve been asked to share this by a Facebook group owner for his audience to learn from. Hence my initial reason for writing.

5 I’ve had my request to share my daily postings in a closed Facebook group accepted.

6 I’m receiving continual LinkedIn connection acceptances.

7 I now have data to build upon which gave me the credibility for 5.

8 I’ve engaged in genuinely interesting conversations online, via Skype, by phone & in person.

9 Be aware of your numbers, whilst it may seem great to have 120 new connections of which the ratio in LIn aud2 to conversations is 1.75:1. Note that the ratio of those conversations to interest is only 4:1. Observe which audience for you will give you the better return for your investment.

10 To conclude this has given me 1 sale* to date on which I can now build. *From BNO digital/multi white-label project.

NB: Both Content Sharing & Creating Connections were undertaken during the same time period

https://www.facebook.com/SpencerbhDataResearcher/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/spencer-b-hodgetts-22b31054

https://spencerbh.com/

© https://spencerbh.com/

Not a Tree Hugger

Not a Tree Hugger

I’m not a Tree Hugger!

Whilst driving our dogs to the vets yesterday for their annual booster shots the conversation, from my side, centred around my observation that it appears that it is the white middle class ex corporate/ university educated people that make money out of helping the underdogs of society. Rather than us underdogs ourselves who generally tend to do the dirty end of volunteering work. This is not totally black and white nor am I bitching that I cannot be entrepreneurial within this environment. It’s an observation which has implications around the subject of Inclusivity & Diversity.
What sparked my thought was earlier in the morning I had been researching contact details which might be beneficial for a café owner who is expanding. With my brain being like a mind map of connections I thought of a local media company who specialise in food. On the media company’s website was a review of an event they had organised to support a victims’ charity. Nothing wrong with that except it got me thinking that it’s strange how money is made by being patronising (as in being a patron). Thus it is only those rich enough to have the society connections and to have the funds who can take the benefactors glory without actually getting their hands dirty. Then through the publicity kudos will attract more clients & potentially more revenue.

If we are entering a new world how will we do business that is truly Inclusive & Diverse?

Will we in Wisdompreneurs be satisfied that we have achieved Inclusivity & Diversity when there is a broader spectrum of Ethnic, Indigenous & LGBT coaches & healers etc. By what metric will we define and are we to establish KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) by which to judge our progress? An example of short sighted metrics in a different field is that several years ago the trade union movement in the UK, at least, believed itself to be endorsing sustainability by supporting new nuclear power stations on the assumption that it was a carbon free energy which created jobs. But those jobs are primarily only in large numbers in the construction phase; so what is the cost to society of unemployment benefits afterwards. Or do we copy a previous UK Government initiative of widening motorways (some of which I had landscaped twenty years previously on the false assumption they were not transient landscapes) just for the sake of short-term job creation without considering the long term impact of transport infrastructure?

Maybe we haven’t yet totally moved away from the patterns of empirical & industrial conditioning. As we progress towards a more empathetic society it could be poignant to observe current research findings in DDI’s (Development Dimensions International) 2016 report “High Resolution Leadership”; where Empathy tops the list as the most critical driver of overall performance. It observes that ‘only 40% of front line leaders are proficient or strong in empathy’ and ‘European leaders are less naturally empathetic and may succumb to silos’ with regard to creating Collaborative & Diversified Networks.

20 Table of Contents #HiRezLeadership
High-Resolution Leadership www.ddiworld.com/hirezleadership © Development Dimensions International, Inc., 2016. All rights reserved

There is much current talk about emulating the symbiotic relationships found within the natural world to produce idyllic human societies. Whilst there are those who run off to hug a tree and falsely believe that they & the world are now saved; we should realise that not all symbiotic relationships benefit all participants.
Referring back to the earlier observations of the patron and the underdog and also a diverse & inclusive Wisdompreneurs we could be wise to observe different examples of symbiotic relationships
• Mutualism: symbionts benefit from each other
• Commensalism: one symbiont benefits without harming the other
• Parasitism: one species thrives on other causing harm
• Amenalism: Competition; one species emerges winner
• Antibiosis; one organism killed by chemical secretion of another
• Synnecrosis: interaction is detrimental to both organisms
Rather than just the collaboration benefits between multiple participants as seen in
http://www.asknature.org/strategy/2639d706b8ac175f18c2e5bf72bc6875

I trust that this article will stimulate the continuing discussion on Inclusivity and Diversity and in doing so give hope to the Underdogs of Confidence© that we do not have to fit a preconceived paradigm in which to inclusively participate.

Your Single Biggest Challenge

Your Single Biggest Challenge

This is the question I politely asked my LinkedIn connections in 2015
Do you have 5 minutes please?

As you may see from my updated LinkedIn Summary I have been reflecting on my values. In light of my values, and from a renewed appreciation of my skills and strengths, I would like to research whom I may help with my abilities.
So I’m writing to ask you personally if you’d be willing to take 5 minutes
and tell me what is the single biggest challenge that you’re struggling with right now. If you’d agree to send me your email address I’d be ever so grateful and I will send you a brief survey (via Google Forms) to answer (only 5mins max).
NB: All information received will be treated in the strictest confidence and not disclosed to third parties.
With kind regards,
Spencer.

This question was messaged to all approx 550 (at the time) LinkedIn Connections with
some going via email.

From reading Ryan Levesque’s Ask Method I had taught myself from scratch to use Google Forms for the survey & in what order to pitch my questions. This enabled the results via Gmail to be posted automatically in Gdocs Spreadsheet. From that I was able to analyse which categories the results fell into, place the %s of them in a new spreadsheet from which I produced the graphs below.
NB: In addition to this I had created alphabetically hand written lists of LinkedIn Connections with columns for items such as if I had, prior to survey, established contact. This grew into mega use of both sides of my A0 (1200x900 mm) whiteboard.
2017 Update:
I carried out further analysis of my then 663 LinkedIn connections using A9 (37x52mm) mini post-its & A3 (297x420mm) coloured card with 50 post-its to 1 A3 card. These I grouped into 4 categories of YSBC Survey Respondents,
Biomimicry/Eco/Sustainability, Coaches & Other with a different colour card for each.
Each person had their own post-it on which I added 8 & 10mm coloured stickers to define met in person, Eco (re YSBC), Online Conversations (email/Skype), Would know me if I phoned without a reminder introduction, Skype connection, Facebook connection.
2018 Update: I’m about to repeat both my 2015 & 2017 analyses & survey as my LinkedIn connections have grown to 892 with the increase primarily being in the social media marketing field. This will be used to define where my market is for my new offering of Visualising Data Naturally, based initially on inviting participation in an innovation project.

 

Presentation2Presentation3

 

Forging Powerful Connections

Forging Powerful Connections

Do you reach a point where you cannot see the wood for the trees, then, unexpectedly the chance comes along to help define the clarity which you are seeking? This has happened to me this year when I’ve been analysing my values. I’d been observing that the labels of eco, environmental, sustainable with which I’ve tagged myself for four decades and more recently biomimicry are NOT core to my values.

A Few Months Ago: I entered a contest to explore my foundations, to discover my ‘why’ (which I’ve either lost or previous ones no longer have relevance) and to listen to my soul. Through the process of sharing there I learnt that my inner vision is solid. The response to my entry image {see top} with the words

“The Soul of My Business is: A hub forging powerful connections to create a circular energy of change.” included: “What a powerful image, one that conveys the energy of the hub, wheel movement and change! Yet for all this to happen, it requires the unseen part, the solid and substantial core that’s supported by and firmly connected to a deeper ground of truth. SM

Diversity of color, depth and organization with interconnection. There’s a magical and powerful portion that is unseen, that goes to the depths, yet there are connections into the seen and outer world. BM

The importance of the hub, it’s power and strength in holding together the spokes that lead outward and create the wheel, is often overlooked. Very powerful energy indeed. PT

So much to consider with this photo and indeed powerful as is the statement. WSS Matching the image with your chosen words of forging, power and change gives me a sense of confident forward movement. SP

So where do I go with this confident forward movement? Initially in continuing to explore the connectivity between peoples and the groups to which they belong, whether that is the ‘corporation’ for which they work or the social media network where they hang out.

Why is this necessary? For too long, at least for the lifespan of the industrial era, people have been pigeonholed into silos, stovepipes & solitudes. This has resulted in both social isolation & creation of ghettoes (not necessarily of the inner city poor, it happens in rural affluent areas too!) causing enormous waste of lives and social wealth. Recently there has been much talk of collaboration, circular economies, connecting with nature and communicating spiritually. It is time to break free of the perceived conceptualization of these paradigms before they too fall into isolation within their own silos.

How? By forging powerful connections that allow true collaboration amongst meshworks of people.