This is a long story and a tame story in many respects, read on . . .
I am a psychologist. Any one who has majored in psychology knows that we are trained at university and college to be distant from our clients. We are even trained to call people “subjects” – or we were in my day.
We are also trained to see ourselves as people who have facts – to see ourselves as right, because we know the truth.
This is how we demonstrate to ourselves and our peers (other people trained like us) that we are right. We predict what will happen, and after what was supposed to have happened happens, we check whether we were right, preferably by counting something. Not all bad, but wait.
Positive psychology often continues this tradition. Positive or appreciative management goes further. The critical idea is one of generativity – that we engage with other people without defining our objective. So we cannot say what will happen, and because we cannot say what will happen, we cannot check whether we are right. That has psychologists of my generation heading for the hills! And that is a pity, because positive psychology has something to say.
Anyway, that is the back story – psychologists had to learn a way of thinking at college. We learnt it, and learnt it well. Now we encounter a new way of thinking, we find it hard – disorienting actually. Giddy making. It is difficult to follow what is good about appreciative management when it clashes so fundamentally with the way we learned to think early in our careers.
How 2.0 helped me
My task. I undertook to make a presentation on the new psychology to psychologists. Using the principle of going from the familiar to the unfamiliar, I wanted to keep in the step of checking results and I needed a reference or idea to fill the hole.
How did I do it? Fairly predictably, going to Google and Google Scholar didn’t help. What I did was check through my del.icio.us bookmarks and see what who had similar interests to me. And I found my paper on the evaluation of generative methodologies! Bookmarked by one other person! Amazing. In half-and-hour to an hour, using what I saved on del.icio.us for earlier projects, I found exactly the rare article I needed!
How was this different from the way I did things before? Wasn’t that what we have always done? Searched around libraries until we found something? Ah, I didn’t search around the Library. I searched around people I didn’t know and who don’t go to the same conferences and meetings as me. Not only did someone I not know help me, they helped me in good faith, that I would help the next person and the next person, etc. This is the O’Reilly principle that web 2.0 systems get better the more we use them.
So what did I need to do that I didn’t need to do before?
- I must join in with a view to finding like-minded people rather than experts.
- I must put a trail of my activity out there. The end of the rainbow is where my trail intersects with the trail of someone else – not lots of people – one person. At the intersection is the person who interests me – and it is very likely that I interest them.
Could I have been more 2.0?
Yes. I could have engaged and reciprocated! I could have written to the author, thanked him and allowed him to benefit from my project.
Sorry! I was still in 1.0!
- 5 slides on positive organization design
- What psychologists can learn from social media
- David Whyte
- 5 important features of happiness
- Is engendering curiosity a pertinent goal in positive psychology?
- Wanna be a positive manager of the 21st century? Lose the idea of a gap.
- Agenda for the 21st century: management & leadership
- Before you rush off again, slow down and touch the luck
- Another appreciative inquiry mini-case study
- Does positive psychology show results?