If We Can See Science as a Service - Why Not Politics?

Here's a thought - what happens if you looked at politics as a service?  Say, a public one?

Science as a service

What happens when you apply software-as-a-service principles to science?

by Renee DiResta | @noUpside | +Renee DiResta | Comments: 4 | January 30, 2013

 

Software as a service (SaaS) is one of the great innovations of Web 2.0. SaaS enables flexibility and customized solutions. It reduces costs — the cost of entry, the cost of overhead, and as a result, the cost of experimentation. In doing so, it’s been instrumental in spurring innovation.

 

So, what if you were to apply the principles of SaaS to science? Perhaps we can facilitate scientific progress by streamlining the process. Science as a service (SciAAS?) will enable researchers to save time and money without compromising quality. Making specialized resources and institutional expertise available for hire gives researchers more flexibility. Core facilities that own equipment can rent it out during down time, helping to reduce their own costs. The promise of science as a service is a future in which research is more efficient, creative, and collaborative.

 

Outsourcing isn’t a new idea. Contract research organizations (CROs) appeared on the scene in the early 1980s, conducting experiments on a contract basis. Industrial science, especially pharmaceutical research, has been increasingly reliant on CROs; spending on CRO-run research increased from $1.6 billion in 1994 to $7.6 billion in 2004, and is projected to hit $20 billion in 2017. Alongside that trend is a corresponding decrease in the percentage of clinical trials run at academic centers — 63% to 23%. In big pharma, there has been a “strategic push away from the traditional strategies of Mergers & Acquisitions and licensing, toward partnering and outsourcing to acquire new drug candidates.”
 

Despite the steadily increasing involvement of CROs in industrial research, many academics and smaller researchers have found using outside labs to be cost prohibitive and opaque. For those researchers, the process of outsourcing a study involves googling to find service providers with specific expertise, contacting the provider to determine suitability and cost, and then going through a time-consuming reference check and quality verification process. Some simply don’t know what’s out there; they aren’t sure where to start the googling. For many university scientists, there’s an added layer of complexity in the form of purchase approvals for each facility. This process frustrates the scientist. It also results in many core facilities remaining underused.

 

Frustration has led a recent crop of enterprising startup founders — many of them scientists themselves — to apply IT “best practices” to science. Their goal is to disrupt the slow-moving pace and high cost of research. To do this, they’re applying innovative business models traditionally used by B2B and B2C startups — everything from the principles of collaborative consumption to decoupling service workers from their traditional places of employment.

 

One of these startups is Science Exchange, a marketplace that aims to increase transparency around experimental service provider cost and availability. Founded by a biologist, Science Exchange helps researchers source facilities or expertise that is unavailable in their own labs. The providers on the site offer everything from microarray analysis to microgravity experiments aboard the International Space Station. Customers search for a service, request an estimate, and pick a provider from the quotes that come in. Science Exchange handles purchase orders and payment transfers, and provides a project-management dashboard. Through the structure of the site, researchers become aware of new facilities, and providers may suggest new technologies. The relationship has the potential to be more collaborative than a typical provider-client relationship.

 

Science Exchange is the glue in a unique and developing ecosystem. Some of the providers on the site are themselves startups offering scientific experiments as a service. 3Scan, for example, offers a cutting-edge form of 3D microscopic scanning that produces high-resolution images in a fraction of the time of other methods. Researchers in need of this technique needn’t buy their own knife-edge scanning microscope; they can simply reserve the service.

 

Some SciAAS startups aim to disrupt CROs. Transcriptic, which describes itself as a “meticulously optimized, technology-enabled remote lab,” is working to change traditional wet lab biology by getting rid of infrastructure overhead. They’ve started with molecular cloning and are focused on reducing the time cost and error rate associated with running protocols by hand. Assay Depot has been called the “Home Depot for biology and medicine.” A researcher specifies the experiment he or she would like to see done, and labs submit bids to perform it.

 

The promise of applying big data technologies to biological research has led to SaaS data analysis tools built specifically with scientists in mind. SolveBio, a computational biology platform, enables researchers to have access to the latest in data-processing technology without having to maintain computing infrastructure or learn cumbersome tools. Collaborative Drug Discovery (CDD), which spun out of Eli Lilly, is a data platform that was built because the founder believed that the future of drug discovery would involve collaboration across specialized channels. Researchers can store and analyze their data with sophisticated tools, and can also open parts of their repository to others. The Gates Foundation and Novartis have been users. Benchling, a platform for life science data management, is also incorporating IT best practices via version control, aiming to create a “GitHub for biology.”

 

E-commerce principles underlie new marketplaces for scientific equipment. P212121 is helping SMB suppliers of chemical and laboratory reagents to bring their wares online. Their platform uses software to search and curate tens of thousands of products, and focuses on transparent pricing. Enabling labs to bypass behemoths such as Sigma and Fisher allows them to save money.

 

Startups are also tackling the problem of expertise by facilitating collaboration. Zombal is a job marketplace for contractors who need experts to meet freelance scientists. By outsourcing areas that are not core competencies, more resources are freed up to focus on what’s needed.

 

These facets of science as a service are just some of the ways that IT principles are being applied to the realm of research. There’s also exciting activity happening around crowdsourced science, open science, and crowdfunding for scientific research. If you’re a scientist, lab head, or SciAAS startup founder who’s reading this, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the changing face of scientific research in the comments below.

 

Related:

• Making the web work for science

tags: labs, open science, outsourcing, research, science as a service, science disruption, science innovation

Is the Future of Talent in Clusters?

The Future of Talent Is in Clusters

by Dave Aron | 8:00 AM February 1, 2013

 

An effective team is a powerful thing. Many of us have participated on teams where the members complement each other, trust each other and find ways of working that are not only effective, but also enjoyable. For teams like this, performance is typically much higher than might be expected of the sum of individuals.

 

And yet while teams often are where the real work gets done, most businesses don't value or manage them well. Many businesses aren't skilled in talent management or team nurturing. Team management, in particular, is often a scarcely recognized activity.

 

What's more, most employees don't work in high-performing teams for long periods — team members move on, projects finish, and other pressing needs come to the fore. While it's part of the normal course for organizations, disbanding well-functioning teams is actually a value-destroying activity, eradicating the "team capital" built and stored in the team. Because businesses don't fundamentally recognize such teams as entities beyond the activity they are performing, this value destruction seems inevitable.

 

But what if there was another way? One in which organizations capitalize on the inherent value of a well-functioning team? One where the organization evolves its management style to let teams self-manage to preserve their culture and value?

 

A New Kind of Team: Clusters

 

Clusters are a radical alternative to our traditional notion of teams. They are formed outside a company context, but are hired and paid by companies as a unit, as a permanent part of the company. They manage, govern and develop themselves; define their own working practices and tools; and share out remuneration. Technology trends and tools like the cloud, and collaboration suites, are evolving to make this more and more workable.

 

The business or agency treats the cluster as an atomic unit of resource and it hires, fires and positions the cluster as a unit. Likewise, each cluster appears as such a unit in the business's organization chart. Clusters plug together like Lego bricks to achieve the business's goals.

 

A cluster is not the same as a consulting model. The main difference is that clusters will typically be hired permanently by a business with a mutual intention to commit for the long term. As such, a cluster can be considered a real asset of the business, just as high-performing staff members are today. Also, the cluster model puts extreme emphasis on teams that learn how to work well together and determine their own tools and work practices. This is not always true of consultancies. An individual can be in different clusters over time, and possibly in multiple clusters at once, similar to a conventional part-time work model. Similar approaches can and should be applied to consultancy models.

 

Clusters Manage Themselves

 

A cluster typically consists of five to eight people, is hired by a business with a clear scope of work, and remunerated based on outcomes. Clusters have already established shared values, work practices, tools, and roles, such as who is good at what. Balancing team roles can be particularly important to avoid the Apollo effect, where every team member needs his or her idea to dominate and the team is unable to come to a consensus. Clusters actively seek the variety of skills, talents, and personalities necessary to create a high performing team (see the Belbin model for a good example of nine discrete team roles.)

 

While there are close equivalents of clusters in a few corners of the working world (elite military teams, medical units, and TV and film crews), this model could and should pervade much further into the working world, possibly and ultimately for all operational and project work, and sometimes even for leadership teams. I would project that by 2020, 30% of work will be performed by permanently employed, self-managed clusters.

 

The cluster manages itself by finding, hiring and firing members; governing itself and resolving conflicts; creating and sustaining work practices and tools; and managing its engagement with other clusters, teams, people and organizations in order to fulfill its direct business goals and to nurture itself.

 

In short, a cluster is an extreme version of a self-managed team. It is extreme because the enterprise only has a formal legal and financial relationship with the cluster, not its members. Note that while a cluster is self-managed, it is not typically a self-directed team. Self-directed teams define their own goals, whereas clusters agree on outcomes with the businesses for which they work.

 

Clusters Create More Value

 

Clusters offer four main benefits:

 

Higher levels of business performance through higher motivation. The cluster model, when executed well, addresses known performance drivers such as purpose, autonomy, and mastery (see Daniel Pink's book Drive for more on these).

 

Higher levels of business performance through a custom work environment. Clusters can create and sustain leading-edge electronic work environments since they are less burdened by bureaucratic decision-making and the need to serve the diverse needs of many types of teams and individuals.

Talent management in the right place. The cluster model removes the burden of team and individual performance management from the business — where it typically sits uncomfortably and ineffectually today — to the cluster. The cluster knows its own members, contributions and development needs much better.

 

Higher levels of personal happiness. Clusters are sufficiently small for members to genuinely know and care about each other, and they are stable and autonomous enough for members to support each other's long-term personal development.

 

Clusters Have Risks, But They Are Manageable

 

For the cluster model to work well, with businesses hiring, firing, positioning and remunerating clusters as atomic units, considerable changes are needed in the macro work environment, to HR and payroll, recruitment agencies, legal, financial, and real estate. Even if these macro changes are made, there are two main real and perceived risks with the cluster model: the formation of mini silos, and the inability to retain clusters or their loyalty. The key to success is to ensure that the cluster's agreed-on scope of work includes appropriate levels of commitment to, and multiple interfaces with, broader corporate goals and initiatives.

 

Eventually, wherever the cluster model is adopted, businesses will need to work hard at managing and leading them well, just as they have always done for their emerging talent assets — ensuring that the best are motivated to stay, the worst are inclined to go, and those in the middle are motivated to improve.

 

More blog posts by Dave Aron

More on: Hiring, Human resources, Talent management

Dave Aron

Dave Aron is a vice president and Gartner Fellow in the Gartner CIO Research group, focusing on IT leadership issues. His work on clusters is part of a Gartner Maverick research project, which examines high-impact future scenarios as they emerge.

Accomplishment as Motivation - Why Dan Pink loves IKEA

 

In a series of experiments, they have demonstrated that people attach greater value to things they built than if the very same product was built by someone else. And in new experiments published recently, they've discovered why it happens: Building your own stuff boosts your feelings of pride and competence, and also signals to others that you are competent.

 

If you're a manager, an employer or even a teacher, this is huge. 

 

Gold star rewards place the recognition above accomplishment, meaning the product - a test, a project, etc - will be done in a manner that secures the reward.  Cash incentives work the same way - you're going to produce the work you think will encourage your employer/boss/manager to give you an external reward.  That means trying to produce a copy of the mental model communicated, however effectively, by the boss.  Here's where the problem begins - few bosses are Steve Jobs.

 

Seriously, though, Mochon's experiments actually have serious big-picture implications. The world over, companies and managers fall in love with their own ideas — and reject better ideas from the outside because they were not designed in-house.

 

When managers start to assume a "we're smart, they're dumb" attitude, they are effectively closing themselves off from external, potentially innovative ideas.  This process worsens under pressures like those facing our economy today.  Ironically, it's when the old approaches are demonstrably not working (creating social stresses like we're facing on multiple fronts now) that we defer to confidence and simplicity, rejecting the bold solutions that can shift us into a new direction.  When the people at the top assume they're the only ones not the problem, they reject ideas they don't get and reward those they do, they are essentially discouraging innovative solutions - because their people recognize there's no reward to be had for thinking outside the box.  Sound familiar?

 

It's all well and good for the 1% to say they admire those with the tenacity to push their ideas forward no matter the obstacles, but that's assuming great ideas and pig-headed resolve are linked at the hip, which they aren't.  In fact, some of the brightest thinkers tend to be those riddled with self-doubt.  Some of the most promising ideas of today are being developed right now by people who have put accomplishment ahead of wealth, but as such aren't always connecting with the capital holders at the top.

 

As Dan Pink has pointed out, we're motivating our cognitive labour in the wrong way to achieve the results we seek.  It's counter-intuitive, perhaps, but we'd be delusional not to see this.  If we want to grow our social potential in the Knowledge Economy, we need to change the way we think about incentives.  If you want your employees to build widgets, by all means, offer more money.  If you're hoping your employees will add value, however, you need to free them from basic concerns so that they can focus on the work, create a community of belonging so they feel inspired to participate and then reward them with accomplishment and ownership.  Provide basic accommodations and then teach them how to fish and they'll not only love you for it, but they'll take pride in their products and constantly push to make them better.

 

None of this is possible, however, if you as a leader aren't willing to let go of a consumer-based understanding of your HR and empower your employees to own the fruits of their labour.  You want to tell your employees that you didn't build that - if they own it, they'll make it even better.

 

Which brings the question full circle - as a leader, what matters most to you - what you can consume, or what you leave behind?

 

 

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!”

Occupational Mental Health, Cognitive Labour, Mindfulness and Productivity

Ooh, I like this!





 Mindfulness: an antidote for workplace ADD

Daniel Goleman

Co-Director of Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations

 

February 06, 2013

 

Some consultants tell me that the number one problem in the workplace today is attention. People are distracted. They're in a state of what's called "continuous partial attention" where even at meetings, your body is there but your mind is somewhere else. You have countless gadgets constantly sending you information: texts, phone calls, emails, and reminders. All buzzing and dinging for your attention.

People not being fully present is a big problem because the most effective interactions occur when two people are mutually present to each other. That's when rapport happens. That's when chemistry happens. That's when you're going to have the most powerful communication and mutual understanding. If your attention is over there, it means you're not over here with the person you're with.

Lack of attention also impacts your performance. Your ability to do your job on your own is directly related to how well you can concentrate and focus. If you're continually distracted, you just can't get it done, or get it done well.

That’s why one of the most important things to learn in the workplace today is how to focus. Mindfulness meditation techniques can help you strengthen your attention.

I’ve found that if you do these exercises, for example, 10 minutes before you go to work, you are changing your brain. You're heightening your ability to concentrate hours later. If you can find a way to practice strengthening your attention every day, it's like going to the gym and building your muscles, but it's a mental muscle.

Here’s an exercise from the concentration family of meditation. It's a good introduction to mindfulness.

- Sit upright, close your eyes and bring your attention to your breath.

- Don't try to control your breath, just let it be natural and easy but be aware of your breath.

- Notice the full inhalation, the full exhalation.

- See if you can feel it coming and going through your nostrils, or feel the rise and fall of your belly.

- When you notice that you've been distracted, simply start with the next breath.

- Tune in to any sensation any way you can. Be fully aware of the breath. Just keep your attention anchored there.

- Keep breathing in, and breathing out.

- Whenever your mind wanders, just bring it back to your breath.

- Watch the full inhalation, the full exhalation. Stay with the breath. Use it as your anchor for attention.

- Try it on your own for a few minutes.

It's really so simple and in some ways so hard, because the mind wants to wander. In a way the basic movement of mindfulness is anchoring your attention, keeping it there, noticing when your mind wanders because it's going to, bringing it back and starting over. What we find is that if you can keep doing this, and the longer you stay with your breath, the more relaxed your body becomes. It's a side effect of that full attention and letting go all those worries that keep us on edge and distracted.

For more about mindfulness in the workplace, watch my recorded webinar with Google’s Search Inside Yourself adviser, Mirbai Bush. You can also learn more mindfulness-based techniques for work with Mirabai’s latest CD Working with Mindfulness.

The Metaphor of the World Tree (by Haunty)

If you read my blog, you'll know I love metaphor.  Like immorality, for instance. 

Tree of Knowledge: Mankind's Everlasting Quest for Immortality

 

In diverse traditions remote in both time and space, the tree is the symbol of the universal life force, that spreads out in manifestation the same way the plant energy spreads from its invisible roots to the trunk, branches, leaves and fruits.

Associated with the tree are superhuman consciousness and immortality, but also destructive forces, mortality and frightening natures such as demons, dragons and serpents. The tree also plays a central role in a whole cycle of theatrical mythological events, in the biblical myth of the fall of Adam and many of its variants.

  

The World Tree across Cultures

The tree as the source of immortality and universal knowledge is not unique to the Bible. We meet the concept of "The World Tree" in many ancient traditions.

• In the Vedas and Upanishads, it is inverted to suggest the source of its power (its roots) is in "the above," in the heavens. From it drips the nectar of immortality (amrita) and in its foliage hides Yama, the goddess of beyond the grave.
• In Iran, we find a double tree. One comprises all seeds, the other produces the drink of immortality (haoma) and is the source of spiritual knowledge. We can think of the trees of Paradise, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge as the biblical counterparts of the Iranian double tree.
• In the Qabalah, we encounter the great and powerful Tree of Life that elevates life on high. With it is connected a sprinkling by virtue of which the dead are resurrected. This sprinkling is, of course, the equivalent of the Vedic amrita and the Iranian haoma.
• Similar to the above trees, in Assyro-Babylonian mythology, there is a cosmic tree rooted in Eridu, the House of Wisdom.

The Nature of the Tree and the Universal Force

What's common in every ancient tradition is the association of the tree with the Divine Mother.

• The tree becomes the personification of those great Asiatic goddesses of Nature: Anat, Cybele, Ishtar, Tammuz.
• This idea of the feminine nature of the universal force is also corroborated by the goddess consecrated to the Dodona oak, a place of oracles and a fountain of spiritual knowledge in Irish tradition.
• It is also confirmed by the Hesperides, charged with guarding the tree whose fruit has the symbolic value of the Golden Fleece,
• and an immortalizing power that the tree of the Irish Mag Mell legend possesses.
• In the Edda, the goddess Idhunn is charged with the task of guarding the apples of immortality, while in the case of the cosmic tree, Yggdrasil, she becomes a dragon that contains the principle of all wisdom.
• Similarly, in Slavic mythology, we find a saga in which there is an oak on the island of Bajun guarded also by a dragon. This tree is said to be the residence of a feminine principle known as "The Virgin of the Dawn."
• The symbolism is also prevalent in hermetico-alchemical texts. The fountain of Bernard of Treviso is sheltered by a tree in whose center is the dragon Ouroborus that represents the All. It represents the Lady of Philosophers or else the Water of Life that resurrects the dead. Ouroborus stands for a dissolving force, a power that kills and is guarding the Tree of the Sun and the Tree of the Moon that produce crowns in place of fruits.

This tree symbolism is the repository of a supernatural science, a force capable of giving immortality and ultimate knowledge, but also warns of a multiple danger. It is easy to understand that when one seeks the conquest of immortality and enlightenment by getting in touch with this universal force, he must be capable of withstanding overwhelming grandeur. And so making contact either brings ruin and damnation for the darer or it transforms him into a god.

See all 3 photos

The Roman God, Mithras

Heroes that conquered the Tree

• Just as Adam uses the power of the tree to acquire its knowledge, Buddha also sits under the tree to attain enlightenment. Although, Adam gets exiled from Paradise for what he has done, he is as successful in his achievement as Buddha is.
• The chief of the Devas, Indra, also appropriates amrita from a linage of anterior beings, the Ashuras.
• Odin, head of the pantheon of Norse gods, by means of hanging himself in sacrifice from the tree Yggdrasil, is also successful in passing its knowledge on to the human race.
• The Roman god Mithras, after fashioning a cloak from the leaves of the tree and eating its fruits, was able to dominate the Sun.
• Nemi, the King of the Woods and husband of a goddess (a tree woman) is the hero of an ancient Italic myth. His power and dignity would pass to whomever could seize and kill him. However, anyone who would attempt this, must first seize a branch of the sacred tree to prove his worthiness of challenging Nemi.
• Similarly, the Hindu tradition talks about the cutting and felling of the Tree of Brahma with the powerful axe of Wisdom.

Heroes that failed

• Agni, the hero of the Vedas, in the form of a hawk manages to snatch a branch of the tree. Unlike Indra, however, he is struck down and his feathers scatter over the earth producing a plant whose sap is the terrestrial soma. This may be an obscure allusion to the passing of the legacy of his deed to another race, now terrestrial.
• For the same deed, that is, passing the knowledge of the gods on to the human race, Prometheus is chained and he has to suffer the torment of the eagle lacerating his innards.
• Jason of the Uranian race, after returning with the Golden Fleece that he found hanging from a tree, dies under the ruins of the Argo, the ship which, having been build of Dodona's oak, conveys the very power that had made the theft possible in the first place.
• In the Eddas, Loki steals the apple of immortality from the goddess Idhunn and is then exiled.
• The Chaldean Gilgamesh, after cultivating the crystalline fruit, finds the entrance blocked by guardians. (Unfortunately, this saga is incomplete, so we don't exactly know what happens to him after.)
• However, the Assyrian god Zu who steals the tables of destiny and so the power of prophetic knowledge, is seized by Baal, made into a bird of prey and exiled.

It is apparent that while some, such as Indra, Odin or Mithras, were successful in gaining the knowledge of the tree, others were not so. The conquest of the tree appears to be an event insolving fundamental risk and uncertainty.

See all 3 photos

Giordano's Fallen Angels

Knowledge of Arts and Crafts and the Fallen Angels

Tertullian reports that in Arab-Syrian alchemical hermetism, the secrets of metals, the virtues of plants, the forces of magical conjurations and the science of the stars were all revealed to men by the fallen angels. The notion of the B'nai Elohim (fallen angels), who descended (fell) to Mount Hermon, in the Book of Enoch, is in direct correspondence with the lineage of Witnesses and Watchers, who came down to instruct humanity, in the Book of Jubilees.

In the Book of Enoch, Azazel, who seduced Eve, taught man the use of weapons that kill and so infused in him the warrior spirit. When we interpret the myth of the fall, that is, "the angels were seized with desire for women" we should not forget what 'woman' means in connection with the tree. This notion is further confirmed when we look at the Sanskrit word shakti which is used to refer to the wife of a god and at the same time to his power. And it is further confirmed in Tibetan symbolism wherein wisdom appears as a woman, while method or art plays the part of the man in coitus with her.

So is it easy to undestand that the angels were prey to the desire for power and in mating fell to earth. The powerful race of the Titans, the Nephilims, were born from this union. They are, in the Book of Baruch, called glorious and warlike. They awoke in men the spirit of heroes and warriors and invented the arts. The word root chema, from which alchemy and chemistry derive, turns up for the first time in order to refer to a tradition of this kind.

The Will of God

In the biblical myth of the tree, God say,

"The man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."

In this quote God recognizes the divine dignity of Adam that he has won, and after that implicitly refers to the possibility of transferring his achievement to the rank of universal power and immortality. God, however, did not want this. He wanted to assure the purpose of the human when he put in him the diverging elements of body and soul. He did not want the human to live forever, so He imprinted in him the fear that makes the human submit to His superiority.

About the domination of the two natures, body and soul, we find in the Corpus Hermeticum the following words,

"Man loses no worthiness for possessing a mortal part, but very much on the contrary, mortality augments his possibility and his power. His double functions are possible for him precisely because of his double nature: because he is so constituted that it is possible for him to embrace both the divine and the terrestrial at the same time."

No god leaves his sphere to descend to earth whereas man ascends to heaven and measures it. Also,

"The soul of man sees much more deeply than the angels, because it sees as much of heaven as of hell."

And because of that man lives in grave danger in this world.

This is the repost of my hub, Adam, Eve and the Tree of Knowledge, that I wrote using my Pacal Votan avatar.

Cenotes, Yggdrasil and A Testament to Politial Irony

 

Indeed, the economy took on a life of its own, as something over and above those puny beings who happened to live and work in it.

 

One of the great political ironies, from my point of view, is this:

 

The political right says they're all about unburdening the individual of regulations and rules, then throwing them in the deep end so that they learn how to swim the stern-father way.  But then they talk about the free market as the thing that's meant to shape society, as though a structureless system is somehow itself the leader.  This shifting of power to a nebulous something beyond people leads to uncertainty, fear and anger.  An eye for an eye, etc.  God wills it.

 

The political left, however, talks about society, not a market, as the system of choice - they want everyone to live in gardens watered by running streams.  How we get there is never clear, but the thing that is seen as hindrance is often the structures that define society - business, government, public institutions.  While the talk is of social strength, the practical focus is on individuality and expressing oneself freely yet respectfully; if you are offended by difference, you can turn the other cheek.

 

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance within both these views, which actually makes a lot of sense - the reality is that you can't have a strong society without strong institutions, but those institutions cannot be strong unless the people are themselves empowered.  People are naturally imbued with both ends of the spectrum in varying degrees - the either/or dichotomy is a false, fabricated one.  The lines we draw between binary extremes exist in our minds, only; our emperor-like firewalls are made of glass.  To consciously see this, though, requires a change of perspective.

 

As it's not humanly possible to escape our own frame and look down upon ourselves from on high, another option is required.  Instead of building out, we must explore inwards, deconstructing our own points of view down to the most basic common denominator.  Funny enough, this has been the goal of science and religion, two supposedly opposing fields of study.  Both can be viewed as similar takes on interdisciplinary systems theory, considering the whole and its parts simultaneously rather than through an imposed binary lens. 

 

What does this have to do with politics?  We like to think of politics as a tribal affair, with left and right in unending competition.  The reality, however, is that the tribes at each end of the spectrum tend to trade roles and perspectives over time, chasing each other like day does night.  You can't fight the right without becoming the right; you can't squeeze out the left without becoming that which you attempt to replace.  Rather than being poles on a spectrum, the political left and political right orbit each other around a hard-to-define political centre.

 

When you drill down into that common centre, you'll find no dichotomy, no opposition, just a shared starting point from which all perspective emerges.  From that place, you can perceive the roots of the cycle and better understand its trajectory.  Conscious of this, it's possible to break free of the cycle and find balance; when the options before you aren't limited to left or right, it becomes possible to move forward.

Greta Hoaken: Volunteerism, Talent and Maximizing Personal Contribution

Because I know I can contribute, I therefore believe I can volunteer my contribution.

                     -Preston Tulay, former Peace Corps and UN Volunteer

One of the great joys of working on political campaigns is the people you meet along the way.  Depending on your role, you might interact with media or stakeholders looking to flag an idea or a concern; perhaps you'll have the chance to debate with representatives of other camps over competing visions.  Ideally, everyone gets the chance to interact with the candidate they support and some of the voters they're there to court.  The most inspirational folk you'll encounter, however, are invariably the volunteers.

 

This certainly was the case for me over the recently-concluded leadership campaign.  Team GK attracted a wealth of talent and dedication; volunteers committed their free time (or all their time) to the vision and cause we supported.  Gerard and his senior team wove together individual skills and lineages into a tapestry that was more than the sum of its parts - it was something I was humbled to be part of. 

 

What was even more humbling, inspiring and daunting was the chance to work alongside the wickedly sharp minds that were attracted to Gerard's liberal vision, best exemplified by Greta Hoaken.  Greta is a 17 year-old high school student; she first came in to the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It would have been easy to dismiss her as "student," but that's not how we operated - everyone got a chance to explore their potential and maximize their contribution to the campaign.  Even if a child knows her science project won’t win the science fair, she still gets that moment to perform.

 

Not that it would have mattered.  Greta's not a light that can be hidden under a basket; behind those wide eyes and bright smile burns an organizational and communications genius. 

 

One memory of many that sticks out clearly - Greta offering to help build delegate kits for the convention and within minutes, restructuring our system into one twice as efficient and better presented while confidently directing some seasoned pros to get the job done - and still working at it herself.  When people who make their living giving orders comfortably follow the lead of a 17 year-old, you know something special is happening. 

Beyond this, Greta offered solid communication ideas, helped manage traffic on the convention floor and did a televised debate on the Team's behalf, holding her own with some experienced communicators like Zach Paikin.  All very impressive from a fairly young woman - then you learn that she's also a journalist and CJPAC blogger who was already a news-making entrepreneur by the time she was 13.  I don't think I even had a paper route by that age. 

Best part - Greta, like so many of the volunteers on the GK Team, is unwaveringly dedicated to the vision we all took on: that government must be accountable, open and accessible to the people and that we must proactively provide people with the tools they need to succeed.  Despite her maximum potential being light years beyond what relative dotards like me can ever hope to reach, Greta remains humble - which is why she's only going to keep getting better as she grows into her place in society.  Just imagine what she will accomplish down the road.

 

So, yeah, I'm a big fan of Greta's and hope that she'll still remember me when she's running global campaigns in a couple of years.  The thing is, Team GK would have lost the value Greta brought if we had dismissed her based on first appearances - which would have been easier to do than we might comfortably like to think.  It was Gerard's commitment to inclusion and respect that helped hold us to a standard that ultimately benefited the Team's work.  With a little more time, who knows what we could have accomplished.  Of course, we all have the future ahead of us and the maximum potential of that liberal vision has yet to be realized.

 

There were other volunteers that offered value in unconventional packages; one fellow had a propensity to talk long and in circles, but when he hit his points, they were incredibly insightful.  Again, it would have been easy to dismiss him entirely, but we would have missed some important opportunities had we done so.  Two of the people on the team (one of them being me) deals with ADHD, which provided both a communications challenge to the rest of the team, but also an opportunity to kick the tires on any given plan before implementing it.

Guided by Gerard's vision we took the challenges, the frustrations the easy dismissals and looked at them all through the lens of opportunity.  Our constant question was "how do we bridge the gap efficiently and respectfully, gaining and sharing in equal measure through the process?"  How do we (to use the well-worn phrase) move forward together?

 

Kathleen Wynne is another leader like Gerard who doesn't waver from what she believes in, including respect, communication and collaboration.  The reason liberals who supported all leadership candidates are so comfortable with Wynne as our leader is that she represents the best of what we all believe in.

 

This, then, is the challenge that faces Premier Wynne and her team; to take the time to respect and foster the contributions of everyone who wants to be part of the vision, wherever they come from or whatever they bring to the table.  I'm confident that this will happen, because I believe in Kathleen Wynne as a leader.  When people see that their contributions will be welcomed, respected, solicited and honestly considered, you'll see more Gretas popping up in all kinds of unexpected places.

 

Everyone has value to offer - they just need the chance.  When they get it, everyone wins.