Friday, July 2, 2010

Radical Real Time : Evolutionizing Transparency

In early June I participated as a virtual facilitator of a breakout session at Radical Real Time - a virtual unconference on redefining collaboration. I chose to host a conversation about transparency in collaboration for social change using skype text group chat.

Below is a transcript of the very rich discussion, reposted here from (which also includes transparency-related reading materials I posted before the session).

[15:24:35] Christina Jordan: Sitting outside in my garden, on possibly the warmest, sunniest day in Brussels so far this year. Getting ready for our chat on transparency in collaboration for social change in an hour. Welcome!

[15:25:02] Sari Stenfors: beautiful!

[15:25:30] Christina Jordan: Where are others chiming in from?

[15:27:30] Raj: Good morning to Sari and good afternoon Christina

[15:28:42] Raj: I am Raj from Kathmandu, Nepal

[15:31:00] Ron Davidson: Hello everyone - it is good be here. I'm Ron in the UK.

[15:31:07] Christina Jordan: Hi Raj! How's your internet connection in Nepal?

[15:31:28] Christina Jordan: Welcome Ron - how's UK weather today?

[15:31:46] Raj: It is fairely good today, Christina

[15:32:08] Ron Davidson: Hah - warm with some clouds..very pleasant..

[15:33:19] Ron Davidson: @Christina - just got your email - Skype is faster...

[15:33:24] Christina Jordan: Just to let you all know, I decided to make this session text chat only - not voice - so that you can dip in and out of other sessions at the same time, if you'd like to. There's a lot of great sessions going on during our time slot!

(idle chit chat deleted)

[15:48:59] Christina Jordan: While waiting for the opening plenary...

To get some thoughts flowing around some of the issues that "transparency" evokes, there are a couple of links/articles up in the documentation session here

[15:49:23] Christina Jordan: oops - section, not session

[15:49:34] Christina Jordan: (chuckle)

[15:57:54] Christina Jordan: The opening plenary will start in about 3 minutes

[16:19:07] Wendy E Brawer joined the chat

[16:19:13] Mats Lönngren joined the chat

[16:20:16] David Marsilia joined the chat

[16:24:05] Wendy E Brawer: Wendy E Brawer set topic to " please click the chat button! "

[16:25:42] Tony Mann: lot of typing?

[16:27:03] Wendy E Brawer: click the chat button

[16:27:03] Tony Mann: please click thr chat button to get in the chat

[16:27:35] Christina Jordan: hmmm are you talking to me?

[16:28:02] Tony Mann: no somehow I'm in a chat conference as well???

[16:29:01] Joitske Hulsebosch joined the chat

[16:29:29] Christina Jordan: Christina Jordan set topic to " Transparency in collaboration for Social Change "

[16:29:39] Joitske Hulsebosch: Hi Christina

[16:29:54] Christina Jordan: Hi Folks - this is the Transparency in Collabroation for social change TEXT chat

[16:29:58] Wendy E Brawer: 97 old state, 01011 usa

[16:30:12] Wendy E Brawer: tell us how to find it

[16:30:16] Christina Jordan: had decided to do this one text only to allow you to join other sessions as well

[16:30:29] Christina Jordan: Wendy, are you in the right place?

[16:30:43] Wendy E Brawer: is this the right place

[16:30:53] Wendy E Brawer: ?

[16:30:59] Joitske Hulsebosch: I thought someone was trying to call me :)

[16:31:02] Christina Jordan: Wendy where do you intend to be?

[16:31:26] Wendy E Brawer: this is fine

[16:31:41] Christina Jordan: ok everyone sorry for the tech difficulties

[16:32:06] Christina Jordan: Can we get some introductions going maybe?

[16:32:22] Joitske Hulsebosch: Sure

[16:32:23] Christina Jordan: My name is Christina Jordan - I am a “serial social entrepreneur” and a global gypsy. I currently live in Brussels, having recently moved back here after 10 years in Uganda, East Africa.

[16:32:53] Joitske Hulsebosch: I'm Joitske Hulsebosch also lived 10 years in Africa :)

[16:33:04] Joitske Hulsebosch: Kenya, Mali, Ethiopia and Ghana

[16:33:28] Joitske Hulsebosch: Now in the Netherlands working on facilitating learning and km

[16:33:50] kathie wallace: Kathie Wallace Vancouver Canada Hello! I am a community engagement facilitator passionate about bringing everyone to the table as equals ona level playing field.

[16:33:52] Joitske Hulsebosch: Moved back in 2003 already

[16:33:54] Raj: I am Raj, lecturer at Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. TEaching management courses

[16:34:03] Wendy E Brawer: Wendy Brawer, founding director of Green Map System, which has a network of locally led Green Map projects in 55 countries - i live in NYC amd have a coop organic farm where i am now. Have lived in Asia and US

[16:34:05] Tony Mann: Tony, Living in England, working across Europe and the Middle east

[16:34:27] John Stephen Veitch joined the chat

[16:34:31] Ron Davidson: Hi I'm Ron Davidson. I live in England. Full time work is engineering governance, also developing a consultancy supporting SMEs. I'm interested in OD, transformation and change.

[16:34:41] John Stephen Veitch: John Stephen Veitch is using an older version of Skype that does not support multi-person chats and therefore can't join

[16:34:41] David Marsilia: David, USA Texas in transition currently looking for opportunities

[16:34:50] Christina Jordan: Welcome John - we're introducing ourselves!

[16:35:29] Christina Jordan: ok so I wanted to chat about Transparency... here's a bit of background on why that topic:

While in Uganda I engaged in an experiment in organizational transparency - connecting local communities of beneficiaries I was working with directly to groups of global supporters online. Sometimes that worked really well - sometimes it was really challenging to manage the organization’s operations and image.

[16:35:44] Wendy E Brawer: I hope some of you can visit later and see if our approach to connecting community and sustainability will work for your home place....

[16:35:57] Mats Lönngren: I am Mats and i live in Switzerland and Finland. Lived in in Germany and France. Recently graduated industrial designer

[16:36:06] John Stephen Veitch: John Veitch, New Zealand. 2.30am here.

[16:36:49] Mats Lönngren: nice to meet people behind greenmaps..been there before

[16:37:29] kathie wallace: what does "really challenging to manage the orgs operations and images" mean? with reference to transparency?

[16:37:46] Christina Jordan: Looking forward to learning more about greenmaps!

So personally, I believe in the value of transparency, but have learned that we shouldn’t treat it dogmatically. There are parts of transparency that are good, useful, necessary. But sometimes we need to know where the lines need to be drawn

[16:37:48] Wendy E Brawer: thanks Mats! we are growing fast - now over 600 projects, and it's harder to collaborate so I want to learn more from this session and group

[16:38:23] Christina Jordan: @kathie with beneficiaries talking to supporters directly there was a whole lot of messaging that became uncontrolled

[16:38:47] Christina Jordan: which can sometimes be really great, and sometimes be tricky when people start talking about each other

[16:39:06] Heidi Massey joined the chat

[16:39:19] Christina Jordan: Hi Heidi!

[16:39:27] Heidi Massey: Hi Christina!

[16:39:48] Heidi Massey: How do I see what everyone is chatting about or the history...have you started?

[16:40:11] Christina Jordan: So that's just some background to say that transparency is really interesting, but can be challenging. I'll give you a few scenarios later

[16:40:32] Christina Jordan: but first, I wanted to toss the question out there: When you hear the term transparency, what does it really mean to you?

[16:40:50] Christina Jordan: TRANSPARENCY = what?

[16:41:02] kathie wallace: does transparency have to do with who has the control of the scenario? is it being mediated?

[16:41:18] Joitske Hulsebosch: No hidden agendas

[16:41:19] Hempal Shrestha joined the chat

[16:41:42] kathie wallace: transparency for me means no hidden agendas, no middle man mediating and controlling the experience

[16:41:48] Heidi Massey: Transparency is making things clear for people to see what is happening...input into the process

[16:42:09] Joitske Hulsebosch: Being clear about your assumptions and ways of working

[16:42:20] David Ewaku joined the chat

[16:42:34] John Stephen Veitch: Transparency is openness, a willingness to let other people see what you are dibng, no hidden agenda, sicerity of offers, willingness to trust.

[16:42:39] David Marsilia: Availability to information

[16:42:49] Heidi Massey: Clear about goals too...why doing certain things

[16:43:12] kathie wallace: if the people who hold the power are the only ones in the discussion what does that mean?

[16:43:53] Ron Davidson: The norms, control, rules working processes are visible and accible by all involved, but also to other interested parties

[16:44:23] Christina Jordan: Hi David! we're asking what does Transparency mean to you?

[16:44:30] David Marsilia: Unobstructed with equal capabilities shared amongst all parties including stakeholders in the public domain

[16:45:29] Wendy E Brawer: also sharing the perspective and views of others without judgment

[16:45:35] Heidi Massey: I love what David said about unobstructed with equal...SO important in low income communities. We block transparency sometimes by making things inaccessible!

[16:45:41] Mats Lönngren: Transparency is honestly..honestly in what you do and how you treat people

[16:45:55] Ron Davidson: For those holding the power - it is been able to see or understand where their power comes from

[16:45:55] Mats Lönngren: sorry honesty

[16:46:08] Joitske Hulsebosch: Not in every situation there is equal capabilities? I wonder about that

[16:46:30] Christina Jordan: Here's a different take on the question... Is transparency good for the world? WHY?

[16:47:17] Heidi Massey: Joitske, sometimes even lack of internet access blocks access to the process and thus transparency

[16:47:30] Raj: Transparency is good. But, to what level/extent

[16:47:53] David Marsilia: Context for contribution comes from richness and depth of information shared. You can only add value if you already know whats been done and what the goals are.

[16:48:00] Heidi Massey: I think that it depends on the situation...but we tend to err on the side of too little transparency in our organizations and too much in our personal lives!

[16:48:21] Christina Jordan: That's a great point Heidi!

[16:48:35] John Stephen Veitch: Transparency allows other people to more correctly understand what their real options are. So they can participate as equals. Transparency allows them to ne peers. Surely that's good.

[16:48:37] Heidi Massey: David, another awesome comment! So true...easy to keep people out by withholding info

[16:49:10] Raj: Everything can be transparent everywhere? In certain cases people do not want to disclose the reality

[16:49:35] Christina Jordan: Is there a mandate for organizations in the social change space to be more transparent than traditional corporations?

[16:49:36] Ron Davidson: @Heidi good point considering all the information that is available on each of us, but the intimate details of some companies operations is very hidden

[16:49:52] David Marsilia: The organization weakens itself if it cannot or willnot share

[16:50:12] Heidi Massey: I know there is a LOT of fear of transparency...what might happen if people know the truth...but I think the truth sometimes, the vulnerability draws people in, instead of repelling them

[16:50:36] Joitske Hulsebosch: @Christina I think it should be yes for nonprofits

[16:50:56] Ron Davidson: @Christina

[16:51:01] Joitske Hulsebosch: but I think it is almost less

[16:51:03] kathie wallace: if you have nothing to hide, no problem being having no defenses...only people/orgs holding power and controlling others struggle with transparency and have to have defenses

[16:51:16] Raj: Another point to consider is 'to what extent to be transparent to whom?'

[16:51:29] Joitske Hulsebosch: Good point!

[16:51:42] Heidi Massey: I just read about how we are drawn to vulnerability and repelled by those people/organizations that seem powerful...Oops, gotta pick up daughter...bbl. Sorry!

[16:51:44] Christina Jordan: Yes, Raj - that's my next question - how far does transparency have to go?

[16:51:47] Joitske Hulsebosch: Can't explain everything all the time

[16:52:03] Joitske Hulsebosch: Bye Heidi!

[16:52:10] David Marsilia: Nobody, no organization is perfect. To claim otherwise sets up barriers to potential contributors.

[16:52:22] Ron Davidson: @Christina - sorry do you know of any study/research findings on how much social organisation have as opposed to private ones?

[16:52:25] Christina Jordan: By Hiedi!

[16:53:03] Christina Jordan: How much transparency? no I don't know of any research on that, only know thet it's a huge buzzword that seems very ill defined

[16:53:20] Christina Jordan: Does it mean open decision-making?

[16:53:29] Christina Jordan: does it mean sharing financal information?

[16:53:41] Raj: In my opinion, to that extent that does not kill the secrecy of doing it, and again does not affect in sustaining the business/operations

[16:54:13] Christina Jordan: does it mean acknowledgement of stakeholder opinions?

[16:54:19] Christina Jordan: Does it mean pleasing everyone?

[16:54:21] Joitske Hulsebosch: There has been a study in the Netherlands from foreign affairs about transparency in development cooperation

[16:54:46] Joitske Hulsebosch: Was very much about sharing the results of your work and the process

[16:54:52] Raj: no, no. In most of the cases stakeholders do not know all about, specially in social change process

[16:55:06] kathie wallace: is transparency not required for true collaboration?

[16:55:19] Ron Davidson: @Christina yes and there is transparency as far a accounting goes, but as for intentions of the organisation's.. transparency can bre a very different matter

[16:55:31] Raj: Pleasing stakeholders, sometimes against the mission of the organization

[16:56:19] Joitske Hulsebosch: There is a role for intermediaries too, to interpret information

[16:56:21] Christina Jordan: Right, so that's where issues of "controlling" the messaging come up

[16:56:25] Joitske Hulsebosch: like journalists

[16:56:36] Christina Jordan: Contolling is a word I don't like much

[16:56:56] Christina Jordan: Kathie, in collaboration I think transparency is really key

[16:57:06] Christina Jordan: But not all partners will

[16:57:09] Raj: I mean, we all know that change is different than usual. Very few people understand and acknowledge the benefits/change need in advance

[16:57:33] Mats Lönngren: Me too Kathie. In order to collaborate you need to evalutate the extent of trust that is built between people / organisations.

[16:57:44] Joitske Hulsebosch: Are you talking about transparency as organisations or individuals? I'm a little lost

[16:57:54] Christina Jordan: Here's a scenario:

[16:57:56] Christina Jordan: You are leading an initiative that involves several players from around the world, working together in a collaborative space online. One of the key players refuses to discuss things openly, but insists on only private conversation with you. How do you handle that?

[16:57:57] kathie wallace: I find current buzz words like collaboration and self-organizing are used by orgs/groups while they hold the power and run the show themselves which adds to the confusion as we shift to a more level playing field at this time

[16:58:59] Joitske Hulsebosch: I think there is nothing wrong with one on one (private) conversations

[16:59:21] Joitske Hulsebosch: Thanks not necessarily counter-transparent - what do others think?

[16:59:49] John Stephen Veitch: I'd ask the the individual who acts in that way to put his point in the public space.

[17:00:13] kathie wallace: that key player is pulling the energy from the group experience to her/himself=control so solution it to name it

[17:00:15] Mats Lönngren: But there is a problem in case the "rules" of the collaboration involves discussion and knowledge sharing..

[17:00:35] Raj: It is very normal and usual. It happens even in face to face conversation and in physical settings. We cannot ignore the role of informal relationship. One way could be bringing the outcome of the private conversation in front after a while

[17:00:44] David Marsilia: In Christina's scenario: it can be important to allow for moments of side conversations as long as the purpose is to draw the outsider in towards transparency. This allows for expression of doubt that any one party may feel about the process or organization. The goal is full disclosure not necessarily the starting place

[17:02:08] Christina Jordan: So "safe space" could be really important in moving toward transparency?

[17:02:18] Joitske Hulsebosch: there may be good reasons for one of one conversations

[17:02:39] Christina Jordan: What should stay private, what should be shared among collaborators? What should be public? Where are the lines?

[17:03:15] Joitske Hulsebosch: I guess you have to see when it becomes detrimental to the trust

[17:03:32] Joitske Hulsebosch: undermining the process

[17:03:40] Raj: There is varieties. Common interest could be the bottom line

[17:03:43] Christina Jordan: good point - does trus build transparency or does transparency build trust?

[17:04:37] John Stephen Veitch: There may be excellent reasons for one on one conversations. To clarify a point, to make it clear why full details cannot be made public. Toprotect the privacy of someone else. None of thses cases requires public disclosure.

[17:05:02] Joitske Hulsebosch: (or a simple helpdesk :)

[17:05:10] Joitske Hulsebosch: not to bother the whole group

[17:05:21] Christina Jordan: Great perspectives folks. I appreciate your involvement in this discussion.

[17:05:22] Hempal Shrestha: trust makes the environment for transparency

[17:06:13] David Marsilia: This is why it is so important for the organization to have the highest level of tranparency from the outset. No limitations beyond propritetary (sp) or copyright information.

[17:06:53] kathie wallace: what prompted the question? the most difficult and critical thing for us to do on the planet at this time is open and be vulnerable to each other and lower our defenses=transparency

[17:06:57] Ron Davidson: @Hempal is tha ttrusting someone to be open about their thoughts, ides, poiont of view...?

[17:06:58] Mats Lönngren: Christina: good a relationship for example, trust is something that builds upon experience and time and some kind of access to your real self: transparency?

[17:07:24] David Marsilia: @ John Yes you've got that about right

[17:08:01] Christina Jordan: ok, so talking about trust... here is another scenario to consider:

[17:08:03] Christina Jordan: Your NGO/project is in partnership with another well-known organization for a project you are implementing together. You find out over time that the partner organization is dramatically mismanaged - there is corruption. What is your obligation to transparency in this case? To whom? What do you do?

[17:08:31] Hempal Shrestha: @ Ron, may be not exactly the case, but it developes an situation which creates a comfortability for transparency,

[17:09:19] Ron Davidson: @OK where the other person feels they can be open..

[17:10:22] Joitske Hulsebosch: Well transparency means not saying everything all the time

[17:10:22] David Marsilia: In any case were a partnership organization is breaking the law and you become aware of it any and all information should immediately be passed on to the appropriate authorities.

[17:11:08] Joitske Hulsebosch: So be open about what you observe and feed it back

[17:11:19] kathie wallace: i answer only to myself and my personal the past i have named the corruption...and been fired ;- )...I spoke to the person in control who had the responsibility to admit and change and didn't...other times I have spoken to other entities in charge o/s of the org...what i have found is people who want to hold power don't want to hear about the corruption because they themeslves are complicit

[17:11:50] Christina Jordan: Unfortunately that's been my experience too, Kathie

[17:11:51] John Stephen Veitch: Been there @Christina. First of all you have to try to verify your information. Good record keeping is critical. Your FACTS will be challenged. What appears to be will keep changing. When you approach the organisation direcly and put your cards on the table, they will try to make you look like a traitor.

[17:12:17] Christina Jordan: and they will fight back

[17:12:24] Raj: Kathie, I had got life threat in the similar case

[17:12:45] Wendy E Brawer: we had a situation... we sent a letter to them and the funder with suggestions to the partner on how to remediate, and that if they would make the changes please contact us again. But until then our relation was over. yes we kept all the records.

[17:12:51] Ron Davidson: @Christina in the scenario, some care may be needed in disclosing something you discover about the other organisation made in confidence. Maybe in the extreme you have to walk away from the project to maintain your integrity.

[17:12:52] Christina Jordan: Which goes back to what @Kathie said, yes I think it is so important to lower the defenses and be more vulnerable to each other. But the flipside is we may get hurt

[17:12:58] kathie wallace: there is a limit to what we can do within the power structures i work outside those structures to address these problems

[17:13:21] Christina Jordan: Can you elaborate on what you mean by that @Kathie?

[17:14:05] Christina Jordan: Sounds like many have had similar experiences. what is the obligation to other stakeholders in this case?

[17:14:29] Joitske Hulsebosch: a project lowered corruption by increasing transparency about forms and costs

[17:14:29] Christina Jordan: Do you let other partners/beneficiaries/donors know?

[17:14:34] Christina Jordan: or only authorities?

[17:15:13] kathie wallace: it is a huge session is the start of an elaboration...first we have to understand power dynamics...letting others know=many still choose to buy in bec' they don't think they have a choice e.g. will lose their jobs

[17:15:22] Joitske Hulsebosch: I think you should talk to the people involved first ...

[17:16:43] John Stephen Veitch: @Kathie. Power structures. For instance a board meeting, which can exclude staff. Or a board meeting that's open for staff to attend, them chooses to go into committee. Or the Chairman comes to a meeting with the decision already made and the votes in his pocket. Before you've put your case.

[17:16:47] Raj: In most of the case, it relates to the presence of government/good governance. We have to explain the case differently in different situation

[17:16:55] David Marsilia: The power of integrity with transparency creates greater collaboration with higher value parties. What may seem good in the shortterm because of time and resources already commited can all go to ruin when corruption is discovered down the road. Even if the corruption never becomes public the mission is cheapened.

[17:17:39] Joitske Hulsebosch: I know a case where an NGO used money 'creatively' on different budgets and the peace corps volunteer reported them as corrupt to the donors, this damaged their image, whereas it was a case of more flexible use and accounting than we are used to

[17:17:52] kathie wallace: is not corruption perhaps always about people holding power, taking from others, and abusing others in that?

[17:17:57] Joitske Hulsebosch: ( in my opinion :)

[17:18:23] Joitske Hulsebosch: What is abusing to some, may be normal practice to others ..

[17:18:30] Heidi Massey: So Joitske, if they had been more transparent about their budgeting, maybe they wouldn't have suffered after...

[17:18:55] Joitske Hulsebosch: Sure, that's the importance of transparence, fully agree

[17:19:10] Christina Jordan: Indeed @David. For me it's about mission. @Kathie, yes, I think corruption is usally about power.

In the time we have left, I want to move on to some slightly different angles:

1. What keeps more organizations from operating transparently?


2. What are the tools that organizations in the social changer space can use to increase transparency in concrete - visible - ways?

[17:19:30] David Marsilia: Transparency prevents shocks of misunderstanding to crop up later in relationships.

[17:20:03] Joitske Hulsebosch: I think organisations want to look good and start with small lies and it grows

[17:20:11] David Marsilia: That's the way its always been done mentalities

[17:21:19] Joitske Hulsebosch: depends also on the culture in the sector?

[17:21:30] Joitske Hulsebosch: like banking sector

[17:21:38] David Marsilia: tools: social media participation, wikis attached to web space

[17:21:56] Christina Jordan: 1) I think organizations in the social change space deal with issues where there are really tough challenges, and few easy answers. They make mistakes, and may fear that disclosing mistakes will result in loss of the support they rely on... but I also think there's ways to flip that and make it positive

[17:22:08] Joitske Hulsebosch: tools: sharing more work through social media

[17:22:10] kathie wallace: Those of us who want a new world have to model it, without attachment to preaching a "better way" yet showing that the new way is so cool and fun and powerful anyone would want to be part of it!

[17:22:14] Raj: To the first question, in my opinion- we have to develop 'culturre' by meeting basic requirements; and in case of second question- I have a concept of 'What is with it"

[17:22:44] Christina Jordan: what is with it? what do you mean Raj?

[17:23:06] Christina Jordan: Kathie, do you know Hildy Gottlieb?

[17:23:25] Joitske Hulsebosch: I know Hildy from cpsquare!

[17:23:44] kathie wallace: no, I don't know hildy yes, social media has the power to change everything if

[17:23:51] Raj: We have to start from what is known/available/familier......

[17:24:19] Joitske Hulsebosch: Raj, can you give an example?

[17:24:28] Christina Jordan: I love her take on transparency! She talks about "gardening in the front yard"

[17:24:58] kathie wallace: social media done with awareness of what the power dynamics are and how they have to be changed=delete the middle man between people communicating with people to change eveything

[17:25:27] Joitske Hulsebosch: tools: countervailing power

[17:25:36] Christina Jordan: So kathie, does that mean deleting organizations from the equation?

[17:25:57] kathie wallace: to life!

[17:26:10] Joitske Hulsebosch: Kathie who is your middlemen?

[17:26:18] Raj: We have to answer a question- how do we make a person understood about curruption, if he/she has ever heard it in his/her life?

[17:26:36] David Marsilia: The organization morphs into a conduit instead of existing as a barrier

[17:26:40] Raj: I mean not heard

[17:27:01] kathie wallace: i don't have one...I am a sovereign being bec' i live on welfare :- ) suffering for FREEDOM

[17:27:36] Joitske Hulsebosch: :)

[17:27:39] Christina Jordan: yes, David - that's exactly what I tried to do in Uganda - let the organization serve as a conduit instead of a barrier

[17:27:53] Joitske Hulsebosch: I meant I didn't understand your phrase Kathie

[17:28:15] kathie wallace: invisible structure and background facilitator=equality and tranwsparency

[17:28:27] John Stephen Veitch: LOL @Kathie - Ben there too. Connect to more people -You are doing that. Find me on LinkedIn, or Ryze

[17:28:38] Christina Jordan: so the challenge came when WE as a group would get support for a project WE as a group had defined together, but then ONE person would disagree and be very publicly loud about it

[17:28:42] John Stephen Veitch: Been there too.

[17:28:53] kathie wallace: [8:28:15 AM] kathie wallace: invisible structure

<<< sstructure="">

[17:29:11] David Marsilia: excellent question Raj, this is how transparency works as an energizing and educating phenomena. What isn't known becomes known. What was misunderstood becomes apparent.

[17:29:55] Christina Jordan: being transparent is great when it works, but without 100% consensus the risk is that there will be individual disruptors who channel their anger into the public arena

[17:30:23] Raj: Therefore, Christina, 'what is with it'

[17:30:24] Christina Jordan: @David your comments are so insightful

[17:30:33] kathie wallace: people need to be taught a new way of communicating in groups/orgs that ends the dominator energy

[17:31:02] kathie wallace: deep thanks everyone

[17:31:11] Joitske Hulsebosch: is that social media?

[17:31:20] Christina Jordan: I can't believe it's been an hour already!

[17:32:12] Christina Jordan: A huge thank you to everyone for joining in here! Feel free to keep sending thoughts into this space

[17:32:14] John Stephen Veitch: This process has worked very well Christina, well done, and congratulations.

[17:32:27] Joitske Hulsebosch: Yes, good luck

[17:32:37] David Marsilia: Very energizing

[17:32:44] Christina Jordan: Thanks John - I've done twitter chats before but this was the first one on skype - a very different experience!

[17:32:44] Joitske Hulsebosch: Intriguing

[17:32:51] Raj: Congratulations to all of us!

[17:33:05] Ron Davidson: @Christina thank you Very interesting and rewarding

[17:33:17] Christina Jordan: Indeed @Raj - congrats to all... hope to see you in some of the sessions later

[17:33:20] Wendy E Brawer: thanks to all!

[17:33:20] Joitske Hulsebosch: Are you going to summarize ?

[17:33:38] David Marsilia: Yes, thanks to everyone

[17:33:44] Christina Jordan: There will ba a transcript of the chat in the documentation section later

[17:33:47] Raj: See you again

[17:34:25] Christina Jordan: @joitske I will attempt to summarize a bit in an intro, but in the interest of transparency will include all the comments :-)

[17:34:45] Hempal Shrestha: i was the bumble bee, will follow in the chat archive, thanks

[17:35:00] John Stephen Veitch: Hope you will also correct the spelling.

[17:35:10] Christina Jordan: not a chance @john!

[17:35:14] David Marsilia: Indeed as Thomas L Freidman says, The World is Flat

[17:36:29] Joitske Hulsebosch: We have a break now?

[17:36:45] Christina Jordan: Yep - reconvening for session 2 in 24 min.

[17:37:33] Christina Jordan: Thanks for being here everyone! Off for a coffee break now

[17:37:48] Raj: Thank you David