Browsing archives for August, 2009

Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose

2009, business, creative 24 August 2009 | View Comments

Check out Alex’s “Zero-to-Launch” how to ship your first ANYTHING course, a collaboration with Amy Hoy, beginning March 22nd.

Autonomy – The urge to direct our own lives

Mastery – The desire to get better and better at something that matters

Purpose – The yearning to do something that we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.

Dan Pink outlines the three key components of the new “operating system” that supports creative work forces.

Traditional management is great if your goal is compliance.

This is some really great mind-candy. Enjoy.

Tagged in , , , , , ,

Triple Bottom Line Coworking

2009, Community, business, coworking, indyhall, philadelphia 23 August 2009 | View Comments

Finally, a distinction I can live with.

More soon. This weekend was very healthy for my brain. Thanks Tony, Jacob, Peter, and others.

"Policing culture" doesn't work

2009, Community, coworking, general, indyhall, philadelphia 22 August 2009 | View Comments

STOP! In the name of love!

I write a lot about IndyHall on this blog, but I don’t think I’ve spoken at any great length about another local organization, Philly Startup Leaders. I’ve recently joined the organization as part of a newly formed advisory board, along with a number of other people from various local organizations that support and contribute to the local scene, as well as others who have been long-time fixtures and observe Philadelphias growth from another vantage point.

Philly Startup Leaders, like IndyHall, has modest beginnings: started by a couple of people who had or were involved with startups to discuss the challenges of being a startup in Philadelphia. Those early meetings, all held over beers as far as I’m aware, have transformed into a strong mission for the Philadelphia startup community:

“…above all else, startup entrepreneurs need each other.”

So what’s been fascinating to me has been watching IndyHall and PSL, two different communities grow alongside each other with similar purpose and vision. Lots of crossover has taken place. We share a number of members. Some of us have worked together. All good, healthy things for the ecosystem.

The PSL board has done a great job of growing membership, creating and evolving new events for the membership to participate in, crafting a manifesto, and providing the primary venue for community: the PSL-Talk e-mail list.

That e-mail list, a phenomenal resource for the community, seems to also be one of it’s greatest weaknesses.

There’s currently a flare-up (well, it’s currently as public as the e-mail list is…another issue…and it’s persistent in back-channels) about “self promotion and sales” in the list. When a new thread author, or an existing thread responder, posts something that is less about contributing information to the community and instead, advertises themselves as the solution to a specific problem, they receive a slap on the wrist (public or private, at the board’s discretion). The response is usually something like this one, from PSL co-founder and president Blake Jennelle:

Steve, you could have sent this solicitation to Yasmine directly. Promoting your consulting services is not appropriate over PSL talk. This is your public warning as per the policy you see in the footer. If this happens again you will be removed from the list.

The policy in the footer that Blake refers to reads:

The PSL Talk List is /not a sales channel/.  If you use the PSL Talk List to make a sales pitch to the community, you will be warned, publicly. If you do it again, you will be removed from the list.

I want to be clear and say that I understand why this rule is in place. Lists that are primarily solicitation, job postings, and the like do a lot of harm to the balance of “has” and “needs” of a community.

I liken it to the situation that IndyHall has with recruiters and job-postings. We wanted to make IndyHall a place and a community where people can be more effective at getting their work done. If the ecosystem becomes a place where people can come to get work, vs a place where people come to do work, the has/needs balance gets out of whack.

This is a tricky situation to deal with, for a couple of reasons. First and formost, the LAST thing I want is to be the person, or organization, that gets between a person and the opportunity of their lifetime.

When there’s contact from recruiters, startups, companies, etc about the talent at IndyHall and their availability, we explain that we’re an organization that provides physical space and community resources to our membership, as well as a highly collaborative environment that they can use to get their work done. Work exchanges hands all the time, but we don’t get in the middle of it. If you [recruiter/startup/company/etc] is interested in coming to IndyHall as a member, to use the space and community resources in the same way as anyone else who walks in our door, we welcome you!

So rather than police their intentions, which are to find a candidate for the job they have open, we frame it appropriately. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from walking in the door and joining IndyHall. So long as you can work from anywhere, pay your membership, come on by.

What’s nice is…because the culture is established by the existing membership, most anti-culture behavior sorts itself out. Rather than police culture, which is a very top-down way of looking at things, we carefully frame the situation.

If that person, whoever they are, feels they aren’t getting what they came there for, odds are, they came for the wrong thing. And most importantly, they won’t come back.

So, I came down on Blake’s response in the e-mail list where he slapped the so-called service provider on the wrist for an infraction that I’ll keep referring to as “anti-culture behavior”.

Someone who specializes in the topic of a question responds, and it’s sales. Someone who’s novice (or less experienced) responds, and it’s a-OK. Does anybody else see the problem here? I think there’s a difference between letting the group know what you do (within the list, which is the only unified point of membership of PSL) and overtly selling it to the group. What happens when someone asks about office space, and someone other than me recommends IndyHall? What if that person is a member of IndyHall? Is it better if they aren’t a member of IndyHall? It’s not me selling, but they’re selling for us (without my direct influence). What happens when somebody asks for help, like in this case? Experts aren’t allowed to be responded to in public discourse? What does that accomplish? I know that a LOT of energy goes into keeping this list anti-sales, and don’t think that I don’t understand why. Maybe if that energy went into focusing on what this list is, instead of what it’s not, the message would be clearer to people joining PSL. I don’t think the barrier to entry is to high or too low, I just think that you’ve put up the wrong barrier.

I admittedly painted some broad strokes, for the sake of illustration. But I made my point, and framed in the context of this post, I think it makes even more sense.

So Blake responds:

All Steve had to do was answer Yasmine’s question over the list and let his expertise speak for itself. This would have been a much more effective sales pitch. Alex, when you share your expertise on workspaces, when Wil shares his expertise on SEO, when Aaron shares his expertise on marketing, that unquestionable adds value to the list. It’s when you send a solicitation, beyond giving freely of your expertise, that people get annoyed. PSL talk is about helping each other for the sake of helping each other. That’s the culture that draws so many people to this community, as to Indy Hall. That’s the culture that we care so much about protecting and nurturing. That’s what PSL IS about.

Which, again, I completely agree with. Except this part:

That’s the culture that we care so much about protecting and nurturing.

I think it jumped out at me because I said something very similar in an unrelated conversation with Sean Blanda, co-founder of TechnicallyPhilly just yesterday.

Blake and the PSL board have always taken the approach of policing, posting signage (the footer warning), and warning/banning offenders.

What concerns me about this approach is that I don’t know if you can protect and nurture culture at the same time. By protecting it, you’re not letting it build up its own cultural defenses, which would truly be nurturing it into maturity.

My most recent post to the list encouraged Blake in two directions: first, to take some of the board-only-back-channel-discussion into a public forum, and make the most of the smart problem solvers he has as peers in his community. Second, to focus on what PSL is and stands for, instead of trying to keep out everything that it isn’t. Since, Blake has started a new thread doing just that, in which I’ll be sharing this post, as well as participating in the group discussion as much as is appropriate.

I don’t have the exact solution for PSL. I’m not a genie. And believe me, I’m far from perfect.

But I do know that policing culture is historically ineffective (culture’s going to go where it wants) and if the PSL board and the community it represents put more energy into nurturing than protecting, the solution would likely begin to materialize as a much clearer, and more sustainable approach to the problem.

Tagged in , , , , ,

RIP Workspace. The Hard Discussion.

2009, business, coworking 20 August 2009 | View Comments

Reposted from the Coworking Google Group:

The closing of Workspace in Vancouver is really, really sad news. I only visited workspace for the first time in this past year, but it’s always been an inspiration from a space design/utilization standpoint for me. I met with Dane while I was there in February, and have the utmost respect for him, his approach, and his involvement over the years.

I can echo that we’ve continued to grow despite (or thanks to) the recession. Great things are happening for many of our members, and we seem to be coming out of a slight summer “lull” of activity and our office has been teaming with people for the last 2 weeks.

We, and transitively, the entire scene, has seen a rejuvenation underway for the fall. Barcamp planning is underway. New event ideas are springing up every day. Peoples’ businesses are taking off. Things are good right now.

Now, the hard discussion. I hope nobody thinks that I’m crass in bringing this up so quickly, but I kept quiet after the last significant space closing hoping that someone else would bring up these issues, and they were not approached. This is where things get hard for coworking. Bad things will happen. My heart hopes that no bad things happen to anyone that any of us know, but it’s inevitable, and healthy.

My thesis is that in order for coworking to be truly mainstream, it needs to fulfill both successes and failures. Like, massive successes. And colossal fuck ups. Coworking will never find its way into business textbooks until both sides of the scale have been tipped. We need case studies from both ends of the spectrum to study the longevity of this business concept, this movement, and this way of life.

What strikes me as a valuable lesson with the Workspace closing comes from the e-mail they sent to their members:

3838201890_4d18ea4b83_o

The new owner mentions that they took on workspace’s pre-existing debt as a public service, and I have to imagine that even making it just past break even while sustaining any amount of debt is bad for the spirits of the management team, which trickles down to the membership.

This reinforces why we believe so strongly in bootstrapping. Spend money like you don’t have any. One of my favorite lessons/stories from Geoff is how he runs his businesses as if there was a recession all the time, so when there actually is a recession, it’s business as usual.

Taking on debt as a public service is a bad move. You’re not helping anyone in the long run. There’s an immense value in remaining introspective and purposeful with your coworking space. There is no value in a space that’s packed full of amenities, but accrues more debt than members.

Furthermore, I think it’s interesting that Workspace kept the problem from its’ members. I won’t speculate why because that’s unproductive, but it certainly makes me think how I would approach things if we were in hot water for any amount of time.

In recent months we’ve seen the fall of two longstanding coworking spaces: Cubespace, and now Workspace. Both were large spaces, with significant communities that called them home over a long period of time. Cubespace let their community know that there was a problem, but only after it seemed too late. The community’s response was positive and supportive, but wouldn’t support as more than a band-aide. Workspace shocked its members with an abrupt notice. Ripping of the band-aide, to continue the metaphor.

I’m frankly not sure which I prefer, and while I hope that I’m never in the position to make the hard decision that those space owners made, I hope we can all learn from the things they’ve done during their time open.

I hope that we can have this discussion out in the open, candidly and intelligently, and all turn this disappointing news into something we all can reflect on.

Tagged in

It's not Coworking if: you're renting desks

Community, coworking 6 August 2009 | View Comments

If you’re renting desks via leases instead of cultivating community via memberships, it’s not coworking.

Tagged in

this space unintentionally left blank

general 5 August 2009 | View Comments

i havent written in over 2 months. at least not here.

Since the last post, I’ve been in:

I’ve got lots of catching up to do, but I haven’t abandoned this blog.

This post is more of a reminder to myself, than anything else, that I can write stuff down here.

As usual, it’s easy to keep up with me on Twitter