In her essay in More Space: Nine Antidotes to Complacency in Business my co-author Evelyn Rodriguez writes about a shift in value memes, or set of beliefs that comprise a decision-making framework. We are moving, she says, from a green, or consensus-based dynamic, “that often views hierarchies as oppressive” and “establishes linked communities” to a yellow value-meme:
“The yellow value meme integrates systems and explores open systems and networked meshes. It reintroduces vertical hierarchies and ranking, grasps big picture, and tends to be expressive … Rather than create a duality of any sort, it tends to accept people and values—while not necessarily agreeing with their varying world views. It is the basis for ‘Integral commons.’”
When I read about the yellow value meme I thought of the underlying ethic behind BlogHer--a laboratory of sorts where I personally have been allowed to experiment with a feminine brand of leadership.
When pulling this conference together, Lisa Stone and Elisa Camahort had one objective in mind: walking their talk. A number of events had occurred that brought the issue of women’s representation in the Blogosphere to the fore. I wasn’t convinced that it was men’s fault for not promoting women bloggers and neither were they. Their position was there’s no one to blame but ourselves if WE don’t build the community. The underlying concept of a "Do-ocracy" fueled every aspect of the conference, from choosing the sessions to promoting it.
The Do-ocracy approach employs an underlying dynamic that Evelyn hints at: an acceptance of all inputs; more accurately, a reliance on them to get things done. I consider it a manifestation of feminine leadership as it relates to the example I presented in the last installment of this series, in which I discuss women’s inherent ways of relating to each other. The Do-ocracy requires a commitment to communication; the implementers of the approach cannot come from a standpoint of authority, but rather of commonality.
I wasn’t getting it initially. I thought the Do-ocracy approach was just peachy keen in theory, but we were planning to build, fund, promote and run a global-scale conference in just four months. All we had were some smart ladies, a lot of “Let me know when it’s happening” emails and Lisa’s and Elisa’s credit cards. I’d been involved with selling and running large-scale conferences before; the planning usually required a year and some good backing. I thought it was a huge (even naïve) leap of faith. We didn’t have the money to hire professional help, to pay speakers’ expenses, to offer the marquee presentation that attracted major sponsors.
All of these were important concerns—they were the posts of the structure that we were building. But I wasn’t using a feminine paradigm of leadership, one that relied on community and consensus. I was drafting plans, trying to determine where we’d get the wood, and not seeing the people waiting in the wings with supplies.
The first step in the Do-ocracy experiment was creating a plan and then running it by our advisory board. The plan was required to put the vision in motion, but feedback and, equally important, follow-through were key to obtaining buy-in and perpetuating more contribution. In the spirit of the Do-ocracy we created a Wiki where our board could continually comment on the event mission and objectives. Next we created a blog, where we generated discussions on sessions and policies.
The first rush of comments were pats on the back—many “You Go Girls!”—and this is where I find myself at my most comfortable, basking in praise and working with the tide. But then, on occasion, we received comments that frustrated, even infuriated, me. I realized that our initial vision wasn’t simply taken as-is. Parts of it were rejected, or pieces were tweaked. Suggestions were made that shook the convenient foundation we had constructed—or, more accurately, that I had constructed in my mind. I had viewed every decision as set in stone. In Lisa’s and Elisa’s minds, however, everything was fine, the Do-ocracy was working! Our current construction was like a blog—continually updatable and changing in real time.
All of the well-meaning feedback overwhelmed me. But what I wasn’t understanding was that it was a sign that we were really starting to resonate. BlogHer had received major attention in the community. Our board was becoming more and more invested in BlogHer’s success and taking it to heart. The more invested they felt the more they contributed.
It was at this time that I learned to think twice before hitting the reply button. Instead of taking on a task and overwhelming myself I asked: Who would know the answer to this better than I? Who would want to take this on? While it’s true that many women managers have a tough time delegating, applying the Do-ocracy principle to my requests made them easy to make. I wasn’t ordering anyone to do anything; I was tapping into the community’s resources and finding help.
Still, in order to make this integration of inputs work, there ultimately has to be some decision-making so that well-intentioned suggestions don’t end up floating away unused, and ideas that are not well-aligned with the project are systematically let go. A system without ANY controls is a faulty one. Even Evelyn wrote in her description of the yellow value meme that it “reintroduces vertical hierarchies and ranking…” To pretend that controls are not required would be tantamount to building a great conference, but not grounding it on anything stable.
The Do-ocracy made that possible by creating a decision-making body that, itself, required consensus, but that ultimately brought issues to conclusion. Everything regarding this conference merited a discussion and a weigh in between myself, Lisa, and Elisa. I admit an initial impatience with the process; collaboration isn’t always efficient, at least in the short-term. I’ve often taken a lone-wolf attitude and have blown off feedback for the sake of getting through my to-do list, rationalizing that one well-wrought sponsor letter does not a conference make.
I learned quickly that, though we all had areas of core competency, we represented unique perspectives that needed to be taken into account before making a major decision, and I learned to trust others’ competencies—even their competencies in areas in which they didn’t have experience, just common sense and good intentions. Once I was dead-set clear on the pure INTENTIONS of Lisa and Elisa to produce a damned useful conference, I gave up that need to control, to take the reins. The decisions became OURS, and in the process I spared myself the outcomes of making half-baked decisions.
It occurred to me: Such a strongly collaborative model as the Do-ocracy was the only way we would be able to pull this thing off.
In my final installment I’ll report more on the experiment and dare to ask the question, is this really a feminine based model, or just a good model of leadership that I like to call feminine?
As a former meeting/convention planner, I was wondering how you guys managed to put this thing together so quickly! Thanks for the explanation - I am more excited than ever about attending.
Posted by: Donna | July 28, 2005 at 12:48 PM