#WorkingOutLoud on a Social Learning Design Workshop

In two weeks time i am facilitating a two day Virtual Workshop around Social Learning Design: i will be sharing my thoughts as i pull the session together as part of #WorkingOutLoud. The session is for a small group (8 explorers) and we will be mainly working on their real life projects, on three levels. First, full group to share the ideas, secondly in pairs to develop designs and perspectives, and finally through structured individual activity to curate external content and work on ‘sense making’.

As with the facilitation of any Social Learning experience, my role is less to bring knowledge, but more to choreograph between those three levels, and to support the sense making.

The four sessions will cover the theory and practice of Social Learning.

In part one we will look at the reality of learning in the Organisation: i’ve previously shared some of this through the learning map i created for the Learning Science book. Collectively we will discuss the burning issues, and individually will craft a version of the map.

In part two we will look at the ‘Three Foundations’: the new nature of knowledge, the mechanisms of ‘sense making’, and the ways that we support performance. Essentially that’s a proxy of how we design and support learning that delivers the greatest impact (where it is enacted).

Part three is about Social Learning experience design, and part four covers the Learning Communities within which learning and sense making takes place.

Clearly in two short days we can only cover some outlines, but i hope that two thirds of the time will be spent in conversation about application, challenge, and opportunity in the real projects that we explore.

There is always a gap between the theory, and practice, of learning design, but essentially we can design the most effective learning if we are collaborative (as designers), pragmatic (as theorists), and experimental (as learners).

I will share the design as it evolves.

Posted in Learning, Social Learning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Belief: Exploring the Landmarks of the Social Age

This is an extract from a chapter i am working on for the ‘Social Age Guidebook’: it concerns the evolution of belief, both in terms of expression, and investment. It’s imperfect work, shared as part of #WorkingOutLoud.

Our second Social Age Landmark is ‘Belief’: we have seen a broad shift both in where ‘belief’ is held, and in the power that it can give us.

Organisations exist in many different ways. One way that they exist is as legal entities, which gives them security and defined power under the system of law. They are also physical entities, which gives them a geographical footprint and connections through proximity to local communities. They exist as networks of influence, through the people they employ directly, and through the supply chain which, through the currency of money, gives them influence and longevity.

But above all of this, and more consequentially in the context of the Social Age, our Organisations exist almost entirely as structures of belief. They exist because we choose to believe that they do.

Almost every decision we make, in relation to a company, or it’s products and services, can be gauged in terms of utility, and belief.

What practical utility do they deliver, and what sense of connection with them do we hold?

Utility can be bought for money, but belief is a thing that must be earned.

A phone may provide utility, but my decision to buy a specific brand will be influenced by belief. A bank may provide utility of banking, but my decision as to which one i use will be partly driven by invested belief.

Our choices of where to work, what to buy, and what to engage with are based on both scales: sometimes we need utility, sometimes we choose to believe. Sometimes we can have both.

We may choose a power company that is socially fair, a technology company that actively works for social justice, a fast food chain that invests in employee welfare.

Sometimes our belief goes even further, beyond actions, to the point where we anthropomorphise an Organisation into something with personality and charisma that we choose to be connected with, and indeed feel good about knowing.

And increasingly, my belief is tied not simply into product and service, but also to the association of an Organisation with it’s hero leader.

Especially true of the emergent trans-national Organisations, the new generation of world powers, it’s often impossible to separate individual from Organisational identity.

Elon Musk is Tesla, Tim Cook is Apple, although also note that these individuals transcend these Organisations and may carry influence (invested belief) beyond one Organisation, and into a broader social movement or cause. For example, i firmly believe that mankind will make it to Mars, but i also believe that it is Musk who will land us there.

Belief is not simply an abstract concept: capitalist markets directly transpose belief into financial value.

When Apple became the first Organisation capitalised at $1 trillion, that valuation was substantially an expression of belief, as indeed was the subsequent loss of almost 25% of that value. Money itself acts as a conduit of belief: i ‘believe’ that the dollar in my pocket has value, and hence it does.

Belief itself is not new, but the mechanisms by which we invest it, and the range of entities in which we invest it in, are.

Historically, we have seen religion as the dominant mode for the investment of belief, but almost certainly the emergent culture and cult of celebrity represents (at least neurologically) a parallel path. Our desire, our need, to believe in something may be one force that drives the 100 million Twitter followers to emerge and somehow anchor themselves to a celebrity. The sheer scale, focus, and power, of social networks of celebrity figures is not something to be too readily dismissed. Belief is power in a very real, possibly the most real, way, and i suspect we are seeing a fundamental transformation.

And the new entities of belief act differently from the old ones: historically, belief was held through the sanctity of power, and separation of space. Almost every single structure of historic belief, and power, separated seniority, from the wider population: parliament chambers, alters, pulpits, churches, shrines, castles, offices, law courts, university libraries, all represent the sanctity of space, and separation of space, correlated to power.

But almost every aspect of the Social Age runs counter to that.

Historically our belief was held in asynchronously narrated stories, whilst many of the current expressions of belief are highly synchronous, and whilst space used to be separated, almost a definition of social media is that it de-sanctifies space. It opens up the private to the public.

So the synchronicity of storytelling has reversed, and the use of space has fractured, but ‘belief’ thrives.

All of this conversation about belief can give us a new lens on power: if Social Leadership is a reputation based form of Authority, then it’s a belief based form. I follow you because i believe in you, something which showed up clearly in the research we carried out in the NHS in Scotland in 2018, where people seem to describe a mechanism of ‘follow-ship’ that is belief based, separately from one that is structurally based within a hierarchy. Or to put it another way, they may follow you as a leader due to your formal role, but they will invest in you as a leader due to your social reputation. Your aggregation of belief. Your authenticity of action.

Leadership in a modern organisation requires both utility and belief.

Investment sits at the heart of this (and not simply the financial investment i referenced earlier). Utility, my functional skills, can be rented for money, but anything extra, arguably including my creativity, innovative potential, and willingness to assign or adopt risk, is a matter of my willing and discretionary investment of belief.

It’s far from certain that any individual will make that investment purely as a factor of where they work.

I may work for an Organisation, but invest my energy elsewhere. Indeed, the ecosystem factors of the Social Age make that second option increasingly likely. The aggregating, and amplifying, features of the Social Age make it ever easier for me to find areas to invest, and to derive pleasure and reward (social reward) from doing so.

So i have a friend who is a Financial Analyst for a bank, but invests herself in a parallel music career. And a friend who is a senior civil servant, who invests herself as an artist. Both entities that they are employed by could benefit from their creativity, but have not created the conditions whereby they have earned the right to have it.

And this is the crux of belief: it’s discretionary investment. Belief, in the Social Age, is hard currency, one that backs the reputation economy, at scale.

But to have it, we must earn it. And when we have it, we must honour it.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

One Voice

One voice can shout loudly, or can embolden others. One voice can craft a story, or enable others to craft theirs. One voice can dominate, or use it’s power to create space for others.

Social Leadership is not about owning the space, but rather opening a space. Not about controlling a story, but empowering the evolution of stories. Not about power, but about enablement.

Posted in Culture, Leadership | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Space and Power

Around the world, spaces lie empty: University and Organisational campuses, Head Offices, Industrial Parks and Innovation Spaces. Their populations have not disappeared, but rather dispersed: home working, connected by technology, remote, but not apart.

But not together in the same way either.

The move to remote is about more than just distance, and what we have left behind is more than just architecture.

There has always been a close association between space and power: individuals and organisations have used the separation of space, the sanctity of space, and the control of space, to act as a foundation of, and perpetuation of, power. Control the space and you can claim power.

This is captured in the very language that we use: when you join an Organisation you are ‘shown your space’, literally your desk, but also hence your position within the hierarchy. Intrinsic to this is your power: defined in your legal contract, but held in your ‘space’. Similarly, if someone is put down, they are ‘put in their place’, literally moved back to their defined space, and hence defined power.

If we claim a voice, if we claim power, then we claim space, and when we protest, we invade, or vandalise, space (and hence interfere with or erode power.

So we find ourselves in an evolved context: we have fled the office, and are connected in new spaces, but ones that are shorn of the contexts of legacy power. Literally anyone can find and hold an equal or greater position to anyone else, if their story is powerful, authentic, and carried forward by others around them.

Plenty of CEOs and other leaders use this to their advantage: they carry their reputation into a social platform and seek to use it to promulgate and perpetuate their story. But it’s not without risk: their formal power does not control this space, and indeed may pollute the very space they try to control.

There are two defining features of the Social Age: firstly, we are radically connected, and secondly the technology is democratised. Both of those things contribute to the erosion of formal power, and the ability of anyone, who earns it, to find power even though they hold no physical space.

To understand this is to hold the keys to the Social Age: to recognise that formal power and formal space (physically) can be given to us, but that social power, and authenticity, must be earned.

The spaces we have left behind, those empty corridors, those abandoned campuses, may end up as monuments to a bygone power, or a warning to those whose pride builds monuments, but fails to listen, fails to focus on community, and fails to change.

Posted in Community, Culture, Leadership | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

One Drop of Good

Social Leaders impact their system in the smallest of ways, but with consistency over time. This is a model of leadership founded in authentic action, in fairness, and accountability.

Take 60 seconds today to do one of these things:

  • Reach out in gratitude and explain the reasons for your thanks.
  • Reach out with generosity, of resource, of time, of expertise, or access.
  • Reach out with challenge, to ask a friend to change.
  • Reach out with humility to ask how you should change.
  • Reach out with your uncertainty to create space for other people’s fears.
  • Reach out with your kindness, to hold someone safe.
  • Reach out with your belief, to give someone the foundation they need to step up.
  • Reach out to give someone reputation, to recognise someone for their authentic action.
  • Reach out to stop something that needs to be stopped.
  • Reach out to draw a line.
Posted in Learning | Leave a comment

#WorkingOutLoud on Communities and Social Movements

I’m talking to a group this week about the ways we can build stronger and more just societies through social movements and the support of peace building communities. This post is based around the three questions that they have posed, shared as part of #WorkingOutLoud as i gather my thoughts. Whilst the context may not be relevant for others, i believe that many of the underlying questions of power, change, and fairness, are, so i hope you can draw your own insights from it.

1. What are the opportunities for international networks of civil society organisations to make a positive impact for social change in the current moment of societal upheaval and transformation?

A question about ‘opportunity’ must be met by the answer ‘boundless’, when considered in the context of the Social Age: anyone, be they an individual, a community, a political leader, child, entrepreneur, or rockstar, has the potential to make a positive impact, to drive social change, because we live in a world where technology has democratised storytelling, and social communities can emerge, rapidly, at scale, globally.

Historically we were limited by the ownership and control of communication channels (printing presses, mainstream media, postal services, etc) and the great distances that separate us, but today, every device we use to consume media can also aggregate and broadcast, and distance is collapsed by our radical connectivity.

So technology has overcome many of the barriers that separated us, but it has, of course, simply shifted the perspective of challenge.

With technology eroding separation, social forces come to the fore: certainly anyone ‘can’ have that impact, but it turns out that not everyone ‘does’ have it. As the social space is opened up, we rely increasingly on the reputation economy, and the aggregation and amplification of messages.

And we see emergent, and often toxic, effects of tribalism and conflict, held through ever more inwardly facing communities.

With that in mind, the opportunity for civil society organisations may lie less in sharing one perspective, but more in terms of interconnecting between groups, building tolerant spaces, supporting the creation of shared vocabulary, even mapping out areas of conflict or difference.

In the language i would use around Social Leadership, our role is not to own the story, but to enable others to share their grounded realities, their truthfully held stories, and to weave a narrative between them.

Any model of change is unlikely to be built upon consensus alone: that type of colonial view of ‘right’ only promotes opposition, or the perpetuation of existing power. Instead, the peace we find will likely be negotiated, and held within a network of separate, but connected, communities, and our role will be to facilitate that connection.

One final point on this: the ‘current moment’ of societal upheaval is likely to be the dominant ongoing position: even before the pandemic we were seeing the fracturing of older models of social organisation and the social contracts that govern them. At the broadest level, it’s likely that we will see the emergence of new models of citizenship, new modes of social organisation (existing beyond nations), and new blocs of power held within highly authentic and fluid community structures.

Again, this speaks to our need to build individual leadership skills (connecting, enabling, listening, held with humility) as well as organisational structures (fluid, equitable, interconnected).

The opportunity is before us to drive greater connectivity and achieve more equitable, just, and peaceful outcomes, but we will only achieve this through indirect power, humility, and community.

2. What are the characteristics of an innovative and impactful international network best positioned to respond to the challenges, and can long standing networks evolve into this space?

In my broader work around the Socially Dynamic Organisation, i typically describe how our legacy strength casts a shadow into our own future. Essentially our Organisations act as temples to our historic success and power. But our journey forward is heading into the light, and we can end up carrying that legacy as a heavy load.

The characteristics of an innovative and impactful network lie in it’s ability to change, to be inclusive, to be reflective, and to recognise the limitations of potential. Essentially to act as an enabler and connector rather than through mechanisms of ownership or control.

Or to put it another way: the thing we seek to achieve will most likely not come through our action, but rather out of the spaces that we create, nurture, and support, and the Communities that grow within them.

It’s easy to say that our best networks will be diverse and inclusive, but the reality is that communities tend to be monocultural and exclusive: indeed, it’s almost a definition of ‘community’ that it exists because it excludes certain people. The reasons for this exclusion are native social forces, the social currencies that are spent with discretion and tend to be spent ‘in group’: forces such as trust, gratitude, pride, and reputation. Whilst we can aspire to change this, much of it sits in our innate social behaviour: perhaps better to focus on how we can build upon it.

Through conscious action we can connect beyond our boundaries of consensus and similarity: we can forge new relationships based not upon similarity and comfort, but actively founded in our respectful dissent. But understanding the underlying reasons for our monocultural groupings, we can be better positioned to move beyond them.

Perhaps another way to look at it is to understand the difference between ‘community’ and ‘connection’. We may find that ‘communities’ come and go, but that underlying ‘connection’ remains. I have explored this in more detail with the language of ‘community firmament’, the idea that we can be socially connected as a precursor to ‘community’ itself.

Can long standing networks evolve to be innovative and impactful? Well, that may be a matter of semantics: can ‘a’ network evolve? Perhaps not. But can the same people engage in new ways, forming new networks? Absolutely.

It’s worth remembering that most of the constraint that we feel is held in culture, and existing relationships and structures that hold us internally. Changing our personal narrative risks social consequence and judgement, even exclusion, so we tend to conform.

For a network to adapt requires us to evolve the dominant narrative, to write the story of our new space and then find common belief to get there.

3. What are the barriers that prevent international networks functioning to their full potential, and how do they overcome these?

The barriers that prevent any network functioning to it’s full potential can be divided into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ constraints. Internal ones includes forces such as consensus, belief, dominant narratives (‘how things are around here’), historic pride and purpose, trust, culture, and generational effects of power. External ones include legal frameworks and social norms, budget, opposition, reputation, and politics.

Most of the internal ones are under our control, but strangely are harder to change than the external forces. And in most organisations, we come to believe that the primary mechanism of constraint it external, whilst in reality it may be internal.

To change requires the conception of change (to think of a different future), aggregation around a new narrative (common belief), and the actions of change (doing something differently, at scale). Conceiving change is hard, especially if that change will take something away from old power, and most change does. Even if we are able to conceive of it, we need opinion to aggregate around the new story (to build a social movement of change), which is a challenge in itself. In the space of narratives, stories are closely aligned to power, so existing power will likely dominant the future narrative, unless your new story is easy to invest ourselves within.

Another mechanism of failure can be a failure of imagination: the world is very different than it was, specifically in the mechanisms by which new social beliefs emerge, the ways that communities rise, and the ways that people engage in change.

You have only to look at how individuals such as Greta Thunberg have raised social awareness at scale, or #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter have acted as social aggregators, whilst older organisations become embroiled in controversy and apparent lack of effect.

A simple summary would be to say that the biggest barrier that prevents an international network functioning to it’s full potential is that network itself: our legacy of belief, of power, and of effect can constrain us.

In a very real way, the future is a matter of envisioning what we wish to become, and then finding the specific mechanisms of belief to invest, spaces to engage, and the individual agency to build.

Posted in Community | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment


Today i am sharing one of the first sections of the ‘Social Age Guidebook’ text: this extract forms one of the ten ‘landmarks’ that we explore through the book and concerns our own ‘certainty’ as to how things just are.

Landmark 1: Certainty

Our first Landmark to visit is the notion of ‘Certainty’, and specifically how certain we are about how the world works. This is about examining the bedrock beneath our feet, the rock upon which we build our foundations.

In my own work i have started to use the term ‘Dominant Narrative’, to describe the social narratives we use to make sense of the world. Consensual delusions of ‘how things just are’. These are the frameworks of understanding that give us common language and intent, but which can also delude or undermine us if they become outdated, or shift.

Our attitudes to equality, to capitalism, to employment, all of these are Dominant Narratives. To us, in the moment, they feel concrete, but over time, all have evolved. All simply represent a common, consensus, view.

Importantly, Dominant Narratives are not underlying ‘truths’: rather they are socially moderated schemas. Or to put it another way, they are made up. Made up of ideas, not steel.

The Social Age sees many established Dominant Narratives fracturing: the nature of work, the nature of ‘education’ and ‘learning’, the notion of ‘nations’, the dynamics of gendered power, many things that were ‘certain’ about, but now shifting.

The significance is that ‘certainty’ is not an abstract concept: although our certainty is simply vapour in the air, it accretes systems, processes, and other artefacts, around itself. Rules, laws, organisational structures, financial structures, systems of control and consequence, all grow around our ideas of ‘certainty’. As certainty proves ephemeral, fractured, or misled, so too does much of the structure that we aggregated around it.

Take the location of work: it used to be within an office, so ideas of commuting, of lunch spots, of infrastructure, of offices, of timekeeping, of management, of supply chain, a whole host of logistical, and social, structures were created to ‘manage’ and ‘enable’ it. But now that the nature of work has changed, much of that old structure becomes a hindrance. The emergence of coffee shops with great WiFi was the precursor to fully shared working spaces, and now the emergence of the new ‘Guild’ halls, powerful spaces of creative energy, hubs of innovation and hosts of networks. All sat in the shadow, or ruins, of the old.

So old notions that were ‘certain’ are failing, but what is replacing them? And what is the true risk of this failure? The issue here is that our idea of certainty forms the foundation of the ways we frame understanding and action. If we are ‘certain’ of how the world works, we have solid foundations for contextualising, and planning, action. But if our certainty is delusional, outdated, or plain wrong, then our foundations are fractured.

The Social Age is a time of broad uncertainty and, most importantly, we have not yet arrived at the new answers. Most of the disruption that we see is primary: it disputes or negates old frames, but does not necessarily imply or create the new.

Take education: clearly the geolocation, centralisation, and ownership, of learning by any central authority is an outdated notion, and hence the entire infrastructure of education (schools, centres of excellence, universities etc) may be outdated. But what the new model is is less clear: collaborative, distributed, co-created, certainly. Taught, occasionally. Owned? Rarely. Impacted by technology? Undoubtedly. But state funded technology? Unlikely. The disruption is clear, the answer, less so.

A core feature of the Social Age is a deep seated uncertainty, and no clearly new organising principles.

What you need to know

  • In the context of the Social Age, things that were certain may prove to be illusory.
  • We are not yet at an end state.
  • Much of our infrastructure of social organisation and work is a shadow of that old world, which may hold us to the past state.
Posted in Culture, Leadership | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

#WorkingOutLoud on the Scale of Leadership

This week i have been playing around with some work around the scale of Organisations, and how they can grow, whilst remaining ‘small’. This illustration is one of a series that consider how different aspects of the Organisation scale: comparing the bricks of the office with the leaders who inhabit it.

I use the term ‘magic’, to say that the bricks scale into the building with ‘no magic required’, whilst we must ask ourselves how the other aspects scale: leadership, innovation, efficiency, or engagement. Do they need a certain type of magic? I have previously explored this in the Learning Science work, considering how some things are ‘emergent’.

I am not intending to produce the work this week as a coherent body, but at this stage am playing with ideas and language as part of #WorkingOutLoud.

Posted in Culture, Leadership, Learning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Complexity of Scale and the Ways that we Change

Some things are large, and others are small, but their effect does not always correlate to size. I’m taking some time this week to consider ‘scale’, with a view to understanding what it is exactly that we need to grow, and how exactly we need to grow it.

Organisations rely on scale for their effect: their footprint upon the ground is measured in number of offices, warehouses, trucks, laboratories, and retail outlets. Their capacity is often measured in productive elements: people, robots, assembly lines, ovens, mixers and stills.

Organisations are directed through a scaling of both leadership, and belief: to take a vision and make it a reality. Hence they are also scaled entities of power.

But Organisations are social structures too, so as they scale they become meta-tribal, with Communities that expand, fracture, divide, and scale, in complex ways.

And we measure our success in terms of the returns that are made upon capital investment: to scale our profit, to scale our market share, to scale our impact.

Tied up into all of these things is the notion of change: we tweak, amend, refurbish, or reinvent, ourselves and our structures to deliver these ends.

Indeed, notions of ‘scale’ and ‘change’ are inextricably mixed in the context of Organisations, when we consider the directed patterns of change most often sought: we seek to shift physical footprint to be best suited to the needs of today, and our plans for scale tomorrow, mechanisms of effect, or adoption of culture, to deliver a vision, to scale uptake of new ideas or implementation of new systems to achieve desired ends.

We look to go from ‘one’ to ‘many’, or from ‘isolated’ to ‘systemic’. The notion of ‘growth’ (be it in productivity, profit, or reach) is really a conversation about scale, and the type of scale that we can achieve.

But to understand scale is to look at the world through two eyes, not just one: there is the scale of the thing itself, and then there are the complex interactions between different things as they scale.

So ideas can spread, but they evolve or fray as they do so, as they interact with other ideas and wisdom. We can grow teams, but productivity does not scale because leaders, and vision, are both variable.

Let’s take a simple look at this. Consider two things: we can build a new team, and house it in a new building.

The building is made from bricks: one brick is small, but if we add progressive numbers of bricks, the effects of shelter and support are scaled. With ten thousand bricks we have built our office.

The team is made from people, and stuff. The laptops, tables, chairs, and ceiling lights all scale the same as the bricks. But do people?

Is a team of ten people exactly ten times better than a team of one? And if so, is that a deterministic effect, or an accidental or emergent one?

If one brick is 10cm high, then ten bricks will be one metre high. That’s a deterministic effect, it will happen every time.

But ten people are not always ten times better than a team of one: or at least not in every way.

The ‘right’ team of ten people [call them ‘Team A’] may be wildly more productive than one person could be, bringing diverse skills, knowledge, and capability.

The ‘wrong’ team of ten people [call them ‘Team B’] may be dysfunctional, and much less productive than Team A (although still more productive than a solitary individual.

But of course it’s not as simple as ensuring we always hire ‘Team A’ types, because the situation is complex.

Team A may be wildly effective at a task, but if we switch out their leader, they may become less effective. And if we put their leader into Team B, then Team B may improve. Switching Team B’s leader to Team A may, by contrast, reduce effectiveness.

So is it a matter simply of leadership? Clearly not: because if the task changes, then Team B may suddenly excel, and Team A fall behind. There are both direct effects (20 hands can lift 20 bricks) and meta-effects (how many people does it need to invest a brick lifting machine?).

When Organisations consider scale, and change, they often do so by considerings firstly the desired outcome, and secondly the ways that they can move things around to achieve it.

So if we want to transform culture, we train leaders. If we want to innovate we build spaces, and if we want engagement, we create opportunity. All of which is good, but is also disconnected in certain ways. Leaders are part of culture but do not own it. Innovation needs space, but if governed by interaction, resource, and consequence. Engagement requires opportunity, but is subject to recognition, reward, and agency. Which is another way of saying that things are complex and interconnected.

One view that we could take is this: Organisations grow, they become ‘large’, but wish to retain something of the ‘small’, because as we become larger we do not automatically become better.

They want certain aspects of scale, whilst remaining connected, agile, and somehow small.

Fortunately, in parallel to this, in the broader context of the Social Age, we are seeing the notion of ‘globally local’ achieved at scale. Connection, community, belief, all aggregating in third spaces, all achieving effect.

To understand the scale we may need to understand the individual elements, the specific mechanisms and characteristics, the varied ‘types’ of scale, any underlying laws or rules, and the detailed mechanisms by which we can connect between the components.

In effect, we need to understand how scale works, and use that knowledge to shape change, rather than changing in the hope that we simply scale.

Posted in Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Illustrating the ’Social Age Guidebook’

My next two Guidebooks will be published as a matched pair: ‘The Social Age Guidebook’ explores ten aspects of the Social Age, and ‘The Socially Dynamic Organisation’ considers the new type of Organisation we must build to thrive within it. This latter one is now into production (i completed the final cover design on Friday), and so i’m working this week on the text around the Social Age.

For the last six years i’ve redrawn and shared a map every year, each time indicating the ten or so areas of most interest to me at the time. For the Guidebook i am sprucing up the map, but focussed mainly on the emergent and more challenging aspects (to keep me on my toes).

Today i am just #WorkingOutLoud and sharing the redrawn coastline, and the titles of the ten areas.

Posted in Social Age | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment