Harvard Social Enterprise Conference 2009 | Part 2
As you can see, there certainly was a hiatus between Part 1 and publishing Part 2 of the Harvard Social Enterprise Conference Recap. The conference itself was great, but for those of you that know me personally, you would know I had quite the journey leaving the conference in Boston on Sunday, March 1, to be back in Waterloo, Ontario, for work on Monday morning, March 2nd.
My girlfriend Monika and I got caught up in the snowstorm debacle that hit the morning of Monday, March 2, since most flights out of Boston on Sunday evening, March 1, including ours, were canceled due to the impending storm. We would have been stranded in Boston, if not for the fact that there was one last Greyhound bus leaving Boston for Buffalo that evening at 830pm. Thank goodness! Long story short, we spent close to 13 hours overnight on a bus from Boston to Buffalo that did not have adequate heating, suffice to say, we were freezing cold the entire journey; and another couple of hours on the drive from Buffalo International Airport, where my car was parked, over the border and into Canada.
The journey home was definitely quite the experience.
After I wrote up 'Part 1' of the Harvard SEC Recap and began to sketch the outline of 'Part 2', somewhere in this process, it seemed that it was more important for me to focus this post on some of my observations regarding how many of these 'change-the-world' type events are designed and executed, including the Harvard SEC 2009, and how there seemed to be a missed opportunity in really capitalizing on the creative talents, networks and energies of the people attending these events. i.e social capital.
Thus, 'Part 2' turned out to be less on the proceedings of the Harvard SEC, and more on how to make all of these 'change-the-world' type events more meaningful for everyone involved, including the participants as well as the speakers. The more I reflected and discussed my ideas, thoughts and observations with friends and colleagues, the more I realized that perhaps there needs to be a shift in mindset in how to really make use of the social capital in attendance at these events.
On a final note, I don't pretend to have all the answers to some of the questions I posited below, but what I do hope is that I can spark some thinking and dialogue for those interested in social innovation and how change happens within society, as well as join the growing dialogues and conversations of the many people in the online community (yes, Im looking at you Ruby :) ) who are starting to realize that perhaps as a generation of young people, we are the change the we have been waiting for, and we can start in our own local communities.
The Harvard Social Enterprise Conference that took place at the beginning of March was certainly worthwhile and I am glad that I attended.
Looking over the speaker line-up as well as the outline of the agenda of the conference, you cannot help but be impressed by the work and the experience of the speakers and organizations taking part in the conference, as well as how far the social enterprise movement has come along in recent decades, as I alluded to in part 1.
Yet, at the end of the day, there was only so much that I was able to take in on a personal level following the conference.
Perhaps it had to do with the jam-packed schedule of an opening keynote in the morning, followed by two consecutive break-out sessions of eight different workshops to choose from for each session (i.e 16 different workshops, all within a time frame of two and a half hours). An open lunch was scheduled soon after, and by open, I am assuming that the conference organizers were drawing inspiration from open space technology and were hoping that delegates would self-organize into groups and begin to discuss individual projects with one another, and find ways to collaborate.
However, the Pitch for Change competition took place at the same time as lunch, and it seemed that all the delegates went to watch the competition proceedings anyway, with their packed lunch in tow. The afternoon keynote panel, featuring one of my personal heroes Bill Drayton, came immediately following the 'lunch'; meeting him in person was certainly 0ne of the highlights of the Harvard SEC 2009. Another break-out session of eight different workshops came soon afterward, finally ending with the evening keynote to round off this one-day conference.
Whew, Im getting tired just writing a recap of the schedule. So this leads me to the question I have been thinking about and discussing with some of my friends for a while now:
Is there a better way to leverage the vast amount of social capital present at lectures, workshops and conferences around the topic of social change?
And by social capital, I mean the very people in attendance who are motivated by the notion that you can create a better world out there, people who are filled with ideas, passion and determination to make this a reality.
Don't get me wrong, the conference organizers behind the Harvard Social Enterprise Conference did a great job and I would like to congratulate them for running a successful conference. The conference, after all, sold out and security was present throughout to ensure that only registered delegates were in attendance. Those that were not registered and tried to sneak into the conference, were asked to go home.
At the end of the day, there were over 900 people in attendance at the conference, and its safe to assume that the average age of everyone present was 25. Yet, given the tight schedule, if you were to ask me how many meaningful contacts and discussions I had with other like-minded individuals at the conference, I would say 2, maybe 3 people at most.
What I am trying to get at is that after having attended numerous lectures, workshops and conferences around the topic of social change this past year, in general, I find that the model of running these types of events are always the same: you have a speaker that talks for 30-45 minutes, followed by a question and answer period of maybe 15-30 minutes, and then everyone either moves on to the next session or goes home.
There certainly is interaction between the audience and the speakers during the Q&A period, and there is a lot of value to this standard model, but what about the interactions between audience members themselves?
In the latter case, the role of the speaker would be less of a 'speaker' in the traditional sense, but instead, that of a 'facilitator', continuing to provide insight and learnings, but more importantly, helping the audience to build bridges with one another and perhaps, helping them to unpack the layers of complexity underlying the social issues they are trying to address.
After all, people are certainly inspired by role models, but are motivated by their peers.
Inspiration in this case, is akin to being moved by a call to action made by someone you respect and deeply admire, the definition of a role model; or perhaps even someone you randomly heard speak at a lecture, workshop or conference for instance. Motivation, on the other hand, is simply the sustained driving force that keeps you going, a support network of friends, peers and mentors who share similar values and passions as you.
If the goal is to build bridges and foster a real sense of community among people who are looking to have a social impact and create change in the world, perhaps a more practical question should be:
Is there a way to map out who will be attending an event prior to it taking place, as well as a platform to continue these conversations long after the event in question has passed?
In other words, can these 'change the world' type events be designed in such a way that before an event takes place,
- You already know who will be in attendance - the best example of putting this into practice that I have come across is PodCamp Toronto and how they set up their registration page, allowing the participants themselves to put up as much (or as little) information as they want (in case you're interested, I am registrant 212)
- With this advanced knowledge and if you take a proactive approach, you now have the opportunity to make the connection beforehand, to begin conversations and share ideas via blogs/email/Twitter
- Once you do meet in person at the event, the connection made is more meaningful given the online connections that were established beforehand, and there is a lot more motivation to stay connected online in the future.
- The event itself should provide the space and opportunity for people to engage in open dialogues, building on the open space technology framework that I mentioned earlier, as well as the opportunity to hear from the speakers who are there in the dual speaker/facilitator role of sharing knowledge with and building knowledge among audience members.
These observations are based on the assumptions that ultimately, people do want to connect with like-minded individuals who share the same passion and values, and are working with organizations and on projects where the possibilities for collaboration are limitless.
Online Community vs. Local Community, not necessarily mutually exclusive
There is certainly no shortage of 'online communities' to join, including Twitter (which I am currently in a love/hate relationship at the moment - will explain in a future post), the vast number of facebook groups and pages, blogging communities (I would recommend 20 Something Blogger) as well as social networks designed specifically for social entrepreneurs and social changemakers such as FutureShifters and Zoombala; but at the end of the day, where I feel I get the most energy and motivation from, are the people that I surround myself with everyday, my colleagues and friends that I see on a daily basis, as well as the organizations that I work with or volunteer for every now and then. In other words, the local community of people and social networks that live here in Waterloo Region.
Don't get me wrong, it is certainly great to be able to connect with people from all over the world online through social media technology, in order to get ongoing feedback and support, as well as be directed to useful information which you otherwise would not have found or come across online by yourself. And over the years, I have met many great people this way, and suffice to say, I now call many of them my friends, even though we may have never met in person but do share a lot in common.
When all is said and done however, it certainly is a bonus if people that you are connecting with online, live and work in the same geographical area as you do.
Perhaps where all of these thoughts and observations are really coming from, is from something I read on Twitter around two weeks ago that really got me thinking:
On Twitter, there is a lot of chatter but not enough conversations.
(Im sorry, I forgot who said this so if the following looks familiar to you, please let me know and I will attribute it accordingly)
What I get out of the quote above, is that perhaps there are a lot of people who are online talking, blogging, tweeting, etc. about wanting to change the world on a grand scale - the chatter - but may not necessarily realize that they can have an impact right in their own local communities, by connecting with people and organizations that exist right in their own backyard - the conversations.
I could be totally way off mark with some of these observations, but I figured that it would be best to put it out there and see what other people have to say about this topic.
Thank you for reading.
