Create a story, join a story, tell a story?

As I have been thinking about and working on "what's next" for me professionally, a theme has emerged around storytelling. Despite the fairly technical nature of my work to date, storytelling is a concept and a practice that has consistently been woven into the challenges and projects I take on. And as I ponder the future, it's been useful to see how each possibility fits (or doesn't fit) with that theme too.

Here are some of the general possibilities I'm considering through that lens:

Create a new story. Found a company. Make something new. Write actual stories or books.

Tell other people's stories. Journalism. Publishing. Podcasting. Interviews. Investigations.

Be a part of someone else's story. For a while, anyway. Get another job at an organization I believe in. Help lead an organization or team through a time of transformation. Give my time and talents to a cause I am excited about.

Work on story-telling tools used by others. Launch a product or service. Build or contribute to software. Do consulting or freelance work.

Learn from the stories already out there. Read books and articles, listen to podcasts. Catch up with friends and colleagues. Browse the aisles of the library. Wander in the woods. Explore new places.

I'm early in my own process of discernment, but I'm settling on one point of clarity: I may be retiring from doing "just one thing." Recalling the different modes of living out my multipotentialite self, I think it's time to shift away from the Group Hug approach ("having one full-time job or business that fully supports you, while leaving you with enough time and energy to pursue your other passions on the side") and instead shift to the Group Hug ("having one multifaceted job or business that allows you to wear many hats and shift between several domains at work"). Embracing my multiple passions and a skillset that spans many different kinds of roles and industries will, I think, mean honoring the time and focus each one deserves, instead of largely relegating everything except a narrowly focused job or project to what I can get done in my spare time. Easier said than done.

I've also had a hard time describing this time of transition to others in any kind of concise or confident way. As one person said, I'm not conforming to normative standards for professional/life changes. It's great to acknowledge that, but still makes for awkward light conversation.

Helpfully, I recently encountered Scott Berkun's article, Changing your life is not a (mid-life) crisis, and it's full of good stuff, including:

I imagine for myself a lifetime of changes initiated by me. I know I’m too curious, and life is too short, to follow the conventional footsteps that everyone is quick to defend despite how miserable they seem in the following. We use the phrase “life long learner” but it’s corny and shallow, suggesting people who quietly take courses or read books after college as if the essence of life were merely a hobby. We need a term for life long growers, people who continue to examine and explore their own potentials and passions, making new and bigger bets as they change throughout life.

A hard thing about this time is resisting the temptation to make safe bets that I know I can win. I've been there and done that, and even when I've taken risks or tried new things that others were uncertain about, I've had an almost embarrassingly good run of professional success as a result. So now I'd like to take some risks make some bold moves and step further outside my comfort zone along the way. I want to create, or tell, or be a part of a story that has some good twists and turns.

Let's see where this dimly lit path (that may not be a path at all) goes, shall we?

Restorative justice and resolving online conflict

The most important part of last week's episode of On The Media was probably the segment on how the Restorative Justice process can serve as an alternative to the broken prison system in the U.S.  I highly recommend it. But the segment that followed, about what role Restorative Justice could play in resolving conflicts that happen online, was also intriguing, especially as someone who has been trained as a conflict mediator and participated in conflict resolution advocacy programs in the past. It got me thinking about what the one-off experiment on Reddit that Micah Loewinger and Lindsay Blackwell conducted might look like in wider practice.

Right now when two or more people are in conflict on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit or elsewhere, the most likely eventual outcome is that someone will be blocked, banned, muted or otherwise removed from the conversation, either by a participant or by a moderator of the service itself. As the On The Media episode notes, the best that social media companies seem to be able to come up with in this problem space is making it even easier to report or block someone. (And to be clear, I'm generally a supporter of users being able to block/mute someone else at will without having to explain themselves.)

But if anyone involved in or affected by the conflict was interested in a different outcome, how could they get there?

An idea I'm exploring here would be a bot that someone, either one of the parties or an observer, could mention to initiate a conflict resolution process with elements of the Restorative Justice approach included.

Continue reading "Restorative justice and resolving online conflict"