On his post titled “Making The Modern Medici”, Colin Wright talks about the Medici family, people who because of their power and influence were able to help and support artists like Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo and many others. These brilliant artists were able to focus on their creations because of the aid and support of the Medici.
Note: I have talked before about the timeless power of marketing, and how the world is not the best version of itself and never will be as long as connections and people skills are the ones who decide who reaches the top, instead of capability, talent and dedication. You can read my post on the topic here.
I encourage you to read Colin’s full post, but for now I want to quote this paragraph:
I would hazard to say that the great dearth of capable people in positions of power is one of the most unnecessary and harmful realities of the modern world. A fortunate few are able to leverage their abilities into notoriety and really reach their full potential, but most will never be able to do so, instead scrounging for food to stay alive while working on a cure for cancer or writing the next great philosophical treatise.
So my challenge to you is simple: this year, do everything you can to help other people succeed. Push those you know with talent and provide what assistance you can. Continue to work on your own endeavors, of course, but really make an extra effort to give others a leg up as well.
What interests me about Colin’s proposition, is that this seems to be happening more and more lately. We are collaborating in a different way.
The Change
Until now, collaboration has been focused on transactions. A win-win situation. Both give to get something in return.
The problem with that mentality is that it’s limited. There’s so much I can give to many, and there’s so much many can give to me. So, when one of the two can’t win, collaboration doesn’t happen. We have been prioritizing the gain, instead of the bond.
This is finally changing.
The future of collaboration is ego-less. In a world where people are becoming more economic and conscious of their resources (time, energy, money), there’s so much we can ask of them, regardless of what we give in return. A fair trade is not necessarily a needed trade. The only real way to create meaningful bonds and projects is to do it without expecting anything in return.
The real test comes when you have the opportunity to help someone with the previous knowledge that that person won’t be able to reciprocate. Paradoxically, the only way to do this consistently is to forget about the economic way of thinking. If you only act evaluating the reward and resources spent, you won’t contribute to this change.
The Meaning
There are many signs of society’s desire to make a change of mindset. For example, the reason we call it networking now instead of “doing business” is because there’s something shady about doing business. With business comes money, interests, conflict. With networking, we are highlighting the people instead of their profit potential. When you do business, you focus on what you can gain. When you network, you focus on how you can help (there’s still a huge expectancy of reward, but thankfully I’m seeing more and more events where “having fun” and “making friends” are the main values, with “doing business” taking a second place).
The future of collaboration is not longer about equality of status, rather than equality of consideration. You help anyone just because you can, not because they are a big deal or because you want to be on their radar. It’s not longer a matter of team, it’s a matter of them.
Just to clarify, this isn’t charity either. Charity happens either because of compassion, guilt, or a belief in a bigger goal. The future of collaboration is not nearly as rational as charity. You don’t do “because.” You just do. The emotional reward (and pain) of charity is immense. The reward of collaboration 3.0 may come eventually, but you have no logical reason to expect it.
And let’s not forget about technology and globalization. Where will we stop once this mentality and attitude spreads, once people leave their win part of the equation behind, once the whole world wants AND is able to help others?
Forget about the win-win and profit seek in a globalized and technological world of collaboration 2.0.
Collaboration 3.0 is a give-win situation, a beautiful “step back.”
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post, Carlos. Is there any way I can help you out?
By asking that question to more people. Thanks Matt.
“the reason we call it networking now instead of “doing business” is because there’s something shady about doing business.”
How strange that that’s true. Why should ‘doing business’ be anything other than collaboration? (Granted this is the point you’re already making, I’m just pondering the semantics out loud.)
I’m glad that you covered the difference between what you’re suggesting and charity at the end of your article. You were treading some shaky ground there
I think the difference is in what you’re suggesting as Collaboration 3.0 is a matter of helping someone with the opportunity to succeed, not offering them prepackaged ’success.’
This form of support, I’ve found, manifests itself more in challenging other people than it does in offering advice or financial means (though those aren’t unnecessary). Much greater support can be had through establishing yourself as a peer or a teammate, though you may never actually work together, rather than as a benefactor, which can imply charity or a hierarchy.
What’s been fabulous about the way you write/talk/argue, Carlos, is that you are constantly challenging, but in our debates you never take a ‘higher’ stance, you always just ask ‘why?’ forcing me to work through my own arguments. Even though I’m usually right.
Prepackaged success, love it.
It’s interesting that you say that, because sometimes I wonder if in fact I DO take the higher stance. I’m glad to hear that.
Like always, great post, great points, and I hope you are right about the future of collaboration being ego-less and focused on helping others. If I can help people bridge the gap and help them see a path they didn’t know existed then that is all I want to do. Most of the time I learn more by listening to those who I teach.
Thanks,
Shane Mac
@shanemacsays
That’s what we need to strive for.
This paragraph is important:
“The problem with that mentality is that it’s limited. There’s so much I can give to many, and there’s so much many can give to me. So, when one of the two can’t win, collaboration doesn’t happen. We have been prioritizing the gain, instead of the bond.”
Wow! Well put. Here’s to prioritizing the bond in 2010!
Edited
This is an ideal that I fear will never come to light. People are too self-driven to be able to openly contribute to the greater purpose. Everyone considers how their actions will affect themselves before they think about how it will affect others.
I don’t know too much about it and I’ll have to read that whole post, but I’d assume the Medisi family had some sort of agenda in supporting these artists…
History has proven time and time again that humans are selfish. Why would the future hold anything different?
David
Scribnia.com
David, you know I’m a realistic guy. I don’t like pink visions of the world, but I am REALLY seeing this happen in my everyday life.
Let’s put it this way: you expect something at some point, but it’s so in the distant future or so impossibly predictable, that it becomes irrelevant, so you just help to be nice.
Yes, deep beneath, it’s always a selfish thing, but what we are doing can’t be considered selfish since you are not gaining anything tangible. Not even close.
I’m one of those assholes that believes people only give to charity for one of two reasons: The recognition or to make themselves feel good.
Tangible? No… but still selfish, yes?
“Let’s put it this way: you expect something at some point, but it’s so in the distant future or so impossibly predictable, that it becomes irrelevant, so you just help to be nice.”
That’s like saying if I throw a rock at someone’s face and I miss, then the fact that I’m an asshole for throwing the rock at his face becomes irrelevant since it never hit him. The result doesn’t determine the motive.
Point being people do things for personal gain…no matter how small, or off in the distant future that gain might be…but that’s just my opinion.
David
Scribnia.com
And I’m saying that you are right. But, as opposed to 2.0, the motives here are irrelevant, because it would be irrational to expect something in return. You can wait, sure, but you would be disappointed most of the times.
Wanted to come back and leave a useful link that I think hits on this discussion. Malcolm Gladwell discusses why some genius is discovered early in life and some is discovered late. The bottom line: the fact that genius is discovered at all is because a network of support exists for the artist.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell
Whoa whoa whoa whoa there bud. I think it’s perfectly alright to look at it from a “win-win” perspective – and before you start preparing a rebuttal, at least listen to my argument, since I think I’ll actually be expanding on your point.
I think we can still consider things “win-win” but not do it in an economic sense. Consider this: we will ultimately win in what you’ve called Collaboration 3.0 if everyone enjoys collaborating in their own way. That is, they all enjoy collaborating for the sake of collaborating.
Everyone “wins” in that situation, and they win instantly, because they’re collaborating because they find it enjoyable unto itself and aren’t looking for “economic” gains from the project.
This also prevents having to look to the future for the rewards of Collaboration 3.0. Just operating in Collaboration 3.0 is enough of a reward on its own if you truly enjoy making your contribution, whatever it may be.
Here’s my rebuttal: would you make a business deal where you don’t win something tangible? Let’s say, you pay a company one million dollars, just so they can do whatever they want with it. You get nothing more than the happy faces of the owners. Would you do it?
Personal satisfaction is not a component of the win-win situation in business.
Yes, if we consider it a possible component, then 3.0 is a win-win thing. But then we should change 2.0 from win-win to $-$.
It depends. Do I think that the company is incredibly talented and deserves my funding? Do I think my investment in them will pay off in the future – with gains to be had by me or any of my fellow human beings? Do I like how they do business? All those questions are appropriate to establish context. In the vast majority of cases, I’d say I wouldn’t make that deal.
You bringing up business is interesting, because businesses have to make money to survive. That involves transaction – a cost. That cost is money. I don’t think collaboration can come down to money – it comes down to production and creation.
Collaboration, ideally, should happen for free and between individuals. That way, personal satisfaction DOES play a role in determining what and how people collaborate and who they collaborate with. I don’t know if this “free” collaboration-business-deal situation you have is scalable.
Consider this trap: what about the idea that you’re being selfish by helping out people? You derive enjoyment and good feelings from helping other people, so it must be a selfish thing, right?
Already covered that with David above
Production and creation for what? Money.
I think it’s perfectly scalable and I’m seeing with my own eyes more and more each day. The thing is that it requires a very specific personality for now, but I’m hoping that will change.
Gotcha. I think we were saying the same thing, just in different ways.
Just to make sure we’re on the same page: you’re saying we should collaborate as an end, not a means to an end, and not expect returns? We produce because we like to produce and collaborate because we like to collaborate, and so on?
If so, then I find myself in perfect agreement.
do you know what immediately came to mind as i read this post? twitter. i remember when i started “twittering” everyone thought it was stupid, but i kept telling them how much free help and support i was able to get. i told them how my world expanded – i was able to get information from people who would never be known in the MSM as “experts” and able to find great blogs – like this one. twitter is a perfect example of an engine that is mostly driven to help “just because.” there is no monetization – sure, some people want you to buy items or improve their blog stats by visiting their links, but i find that most just want to impart information and to help whenever they can. BUT – i think this works primarily because the folks that use Twitter haven’t found a way to necessarily monetize it. monetization is indirect and in order for Collaboration 3.0 to work, i suspect that there will need to be some form of indirect monetization.
Twitter is a good example.
But let’s refrain ourselves from talking about monetization. Collaboration does not need to involve money, just helping others accomplish their goals.
no! you’re quite right! but, i think that the issue of monetization is always there – lurking between the sheets of collaboration. dirrrty! =)