Pos ID Conf-Orgs and.. - Center for Positive Organizational ...

Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations Conference – January 24-26, 2008
Positive Identities and Organizations and Communities - Scribe’s Notes
Scribe: Vera Sacharin
Group members: Mary Ann Glynn, Matt Kraatz, Mike Pratt, Denny Gioia, Spencer
Harrison, Kevin Corley, Ian Walsh, Shelley Brickson, Grace Lemmon,
Maria Farkas, Aimee Hamilton, Jane Dutton, and Jerry Davis.
Note: The order of comments was adjusted by topic and is not necessarily a chronological
representation of the discussion.
Suggestion: There are (a few) cross references. You might want to search the document for your
name in addition to reading your own chapter part.
1

MIKE & MATT’S CHAPTER TIME
Summary of chapter and question to group:
Mike: Social truth: Organizations are different things in multiple environments, with
different institutions, and individuals that have different roles.
Second, organizations are something whole.
Relation to James: I and me. Multiple identities but one self (the knower)
Premise: Organizations are pluralistic with multiple identities and multiple
responsibilities good for creativity, but bad for legitimacy, hypocritical, conflict.
How do you tap into plurality and get the positive out of it?
Reference to Social Identity Theory, Institutional Theory,
The self of an organization: Socially constructed and different from a simple aggregate of
multiple identities.
What are good ways to create a self? Self here is metaphoric.
Help from group: Does idea make sense? Other literatures?
Kevin: Why this metaphor of ‘self’ and not some other metaphor, like ‘machine’ What about
‘self’ is so useful?
Mike: Lots of ways to integrate people. What is good about self: Unity and multiplicity.
Other models are more about either unity or multiplicity. ‘Machine’ not organic.
Spencer: ‘brain’
‘Ecological’
Matt: Identity is good because there is many ways to talk about it. ‘self’ is both multiple
identities due to roles, but united somehow ‘housed’ or ‘imposed upon the same entity’.
Shelley: ‘self’ more to do with the soul, fundamental essence of what something is
(instead of just cognitive) and relates to relationship partners.
Ian: Ideographic identities, holographic identities. ‘self’ seems to be both.
Mike: Ideographic and holographic - holographic: mere aggregate. But missing is the
next step. But ‘self’ different than aggregate.
Shelley: We don’t want to work with people/organizations that are hypocrites. We need
to see organizations as actors, anthropomorphize. One of the aspects of ‘self’ that you
need to see organization as human being. Entity as to be capable of purposeful action.
Matt: there has to be a ‘we’ = ‘I’ there
Shelley: It cannot just be the product of the environment; it has to have purposeful action.
2

Matt: It has to have a subject and react to the environment at the same time.
Mary: What is different between individual and organizational self?
Mike: An individual has a private sense of self, but organization, it‘s hard to image that
for an organization. An organization is a public entity.
Aimee: ‘Self’ on the individual level can be dysfunctional, but still survive. How about
organization? Survival is continuous on one identity.
Shelley: Organization has internal stake-holders, not for individual.
Jane: Can you give a concrete example?
Mike: Most of work is done in hospitals with different units, professionals, departments
within one health care system. Even if there is nothing that unites them, we think about
them that way. Managing multiple identities, the biggest thing consultants want to do is
integration. We tend to see things as wholes whether they are wholes or not.
Jane: To be more concrete with an example, something organizational, is better.
Jerry: How abut using a university? Michigan, we’re a sports place, free downloads
place, etc. University presidents have to manage that, talking differently to donors than
students.
Ian: Any one of those things is incomplete, but seeing it as a whole makes the
University.
Matt: Not everybody is there for the same reason. In the case of a university, there is
intense identification from very different people for different reasons. What is that
university? Football team, arm of catholic church, research institution, etc. very different
things. What is there that is coherent there? One way to look at it is ‘nothing’ – it’s an
illusion. Post-modern perspective on the self. Just a bunch of roles. But people still think
that something is there. CEOs, presidents, is called to talk about it as if there is something
coherent. What is it? What about the United States? That’s talk of political leader, to call
that ‘self’ into existence. An idea of robust entity is different in sociological sense. How
does it get created? Partially through symbolism, partly structural, partly giving
individuals part of the institution, separating it. Some neutral structures that bind the
thing together. March: Adhering to process or neutral structures when nobody agrees on
anything holds things together. Notion of self is not something we created. Mead in Mind
and Society talks about capacity to be multiple things.
Jerry: With ‘self’ advantage of multiples identities, without things falls apart.
Compare UofM with University of London that does not have a ‘self’
Matt: London the neutral structures are not even there then.
3

Jerry: UofM with ‘self’, but Phoenix not
Dennis: What is the question you want us to help with?
Matt: Don’t know. Develop idea. Organizational ‘self’ as different from ‘identity’, how is it
created and maintained? What are the characteristics of ‘self’ that are more or less generative?
University good example. Organized anarchy described by March. What is the benefit?
Maria: For whom is the organizational ‘self’ important? You could argue that for many it is
not important. Some people just care about UofM being a football school, and nothing else.
Same for individual identities. For whom is it important to see the all about the person? One
level where it is important is at the top of the organization for the person who represents the
organization. For whom else is it necessary to operate?
Mike: Devil’s advocate answer, it is important for all, even if you don’t care equally, we
still do. We see things as wholes. It helps individuals relate.
Maria: there are situation, where I don’t care about other identities of others and the
relation between multiple roles.
Mike: But you care that there is some entity.
Maria: self more important for person rather than others.
Matt: Other paper on organizational integrity. Lots of evidence that people and organizations
are judged as if there were coherent. Integrity is part of self. Coherence is opposite to
fragmented, but self incorporates both. Loose coupling idea. What is holding the organization
together?
Aimee: How about social movements literature. What creates the self there? Matt, what do you
mean by integrity? Over time? Against ethical standard.
Matt & Mike: Coherence, like structural integrity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4

KEVIN AND SPENCER’S CHAPTER TIME
Summary of chapter and question to group:
Kevin: This chapter is part of larger effort. We are inside an organization and we are
impressed by their positivity. Look at organization identity change. Sometimes
organization must change to remain what they’ve always been. And we don’t want to
change. Change has negative connotations in organizations. How can we change
minimally so that we don’t feel like we are something new? What we find in this
organization is that they know who they are and like that and have strong confidence that
who they are is the right sense of identity, but they are in an environment where things
are changing, and they have to change, too. Change as something that takes energy out of
individuals and organizations. How can change be a process that energizes individuals
and organizations? Pulling a positive future consideration instead of ‘we got through that
tough time [change time].’
Spencer: I like rock climbing. Kevin is a pessimist. But after one day, he thought it was
so cool. In these offices, they have their bike above the desk, a dog under the desk. They
do mountain climbing, marathon. Everybody does something really cool outside of
company and brings it in. They drive up to a canyon and ski down before going to work
together. The climbing ethos infuses what they do there. The CEO misses fingers due to
frost bights. So, they see costs of activity. But it brings soul and humanity to what they
do. A lot of energy. One other story: In the annual strategy session. One executive talks
about marketing strategy. Another walks of, takes his shirt of and starts climbing. Other
executive keeps talking. When they talk about identity change and growth, it’s not with a
sense of threat, but who we are enables us to change into other things as well.
We would lie to get reactions to what we said and wrote.
Grace: In this organization founding fathers and their activity gives them opportunity to
connect with organization.
Kevin: Founding fathers are still there and most adamant to reconnect. We don’t think
they lost their connection, but they have sense that they have lost some connection. They
are their own customers using their products. Down at the crack. And think “What do I
need for this problem?”, then go back to work and figure it out. It is both about business
and sport that they love. A tension is that, as they grow, they have to hire more people
who are not climbers and skiers, but experts in certain things. Concern: We hire more
people who don’t understand the products.
Mike: It sounds like they ask “What does it mean to be who we are?” instead of asking
“Who are we?” as question within organization
Kevin: That is the identity nugget. They have a strong sense of who they are. Very
different from a place where people have identity ambiguity. They know who they are.
But problem now is: How do we take this sense of who we are and apply it to the
problem line. Now they need executives who have seen death on the rock wonder about
5

how to hire an HR person. What does it mean for us to have an HR person? It’s a 300
employee company and growing.
Mike: Same issues as Iggy’s Press.
Jane: A mechanism was bouncing of tensions as described above. What is the theory you can
build from that? I don’t’ think you take that energy stuff serious enough. Look at Rendall
Collins’ work on energy. The energy part is real.
Jane: Energy is created in relations. Collins “Interaction Rituals” book. Collins is
sociologist.
Ian: Is it their identity that enables them to change their identity? Are enablers core identity
elements? Are they changing themselves?
Kevin: Authenticity as a process. Not about image. Are they being authentic internally?
And being reflexive is important. The mechanism driving this is partially a desire to
be reflexive. What does this mean for us, for our business? Route of wanting to be the
best.
Spencer: As much as individuals strongly identify with the place, we want to make the best
karabiner because I will use it. In the conference room there is a glass table and below a steel
frame with broken equipment, mobiles with broken camping devices. A ‘We show how it fails’
quality control is right in the R&D lab. It is symbolic humility and a desire to be the best. Here it
is elitist identity and awareness of broken stuff.
Jane: How does this map unto mindfulness? Routines of inquiry and symbolic representations
of danger/harm.
Aimee: Your overarching concept is identity change. But really it is organizational stability in
the context of change and growth. Why did you see it as identity change?
Kevin: Because they are asking fundamental questions about who they are. I don’t think
their labels will change, but they are coming to a realization that the meanings of the
labels change. And they are open enough to the change of meaning and ask those
questions, but also do not do too much talk and not enough doing.
Denny: There is a connection between the two papers. Go one level higher. Kevin and
Spencer: How to maintain authenticity with change? Through a higher order understanding of
themselves. Mike & Matt’s problem is coherence and the way to keep coherence is to have
higher order way or label or vision of who you are to sustain multiple identities.
Matt: The idea of a higher order in a world that is hierarchically structured. Rather than
higher order better to think of ‘central’
6

Denny: Critical issue is to sustain multiple interpretations.
Jane: Central and higher order is both structural. Is there something more processural
rather than structural?
Denny: It is not structural, but abstraction, more abstract more ambiguous and open to
different interpretations, and different people can be part of this.
Spencer: Often vision pulls you forward. Here, it is ‘Who are we?’ and that propels people
forward rather than vision. Generative aspect of who we are does not create threat to
employees.
Jane: Are there routines? Where is the agency in the story? Map inquiries onto routines
possible?
Love term ‘life force’ ‘holism’ something alive
Maria: Suggest resource. “Culture and organization learning.”
Kevin. Yes.
Jane: You are not using artifacts in written story, but in oral descriptions.
Kevin: Artifacts are easy, processes harder.
Can we explain authenticity as a process instead of outcome or goal?
Denny: Great hook!
Kevin: In the place they don’t talk about authenticity.
Mary: Sense for authenticity and coherence both seem to be processes of trust. You
trust the company throughout changes, and with Mike and Matt it is trust for the
University, trust in the institution.
Kevin: Do you know ‘living the brand?’ How about the notion of ‘living the identity’ – many
organizations have an identity but not strong enough to live it. Here they do. Employees still
live the identity of company. Because of equipment and action.
Kevin: For some it is more than identification. They are the organization.
Maria: Is there exclusion?
Spencer: They also have a lot of people who are not climbers but love being around them.
Spencer: Some. But not affect job hierarchy.
Maria: Disabled people
Kevin: No disabled people.
7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8

AIMEE AND DENNY’S CHAPTER TIME
Summary of chapter and question to group:
Denny: The term “sustainability’ does not appear in organizational studies. And if it does
not become part of POS nothing else matters. Paradox: Observation that most
organizational identities are framed around positive terms. Members think and present
themselves in positive light. And yet in business organizations – think business – a
capitalist society is based on competition. But with a positive identity you have to think
passed competition. Conversation about competition is conversation about identity, but
leading us away from positive organization and society. Fundamental question: How do
we think about organizations positively and sustainable and be competitive?
Aimee: Is it possible within the competitive business model to conceive of a sustainable
identity? How do you foster a concept of sustainability within organization and at the
same time have a competitive business model?
There are different ideas about what sustainability means.
Kevin: Sustainability movement versus sustainable identity? Which one?
Denny: The former.
Maria: Environmental sustainability?
Denny: No. In the broadest sense…
Mike: Core element of sustainability: Renewability. Vitality, resilient, re-invent,
renewable.
Shelley: A question is if all organizations can take on sustainability as core of identity.
But encourage authenticity rather than competitiveness, that spurs diversity, and how do
you feel about the link of diversity and sustainability? Is it more sustainable to be more
diverse?
Denny: Yes. If we only think ecologically, the best would be for us to be all dead.
Jane: “Do no harm” in general
Kevin: What is the connection? Is it sustainable for us to have a sustainable identity?
Denny: How do we make sustainable a core feature of an organizational identity? And
then identity itself can be sustainable.
Ian: Do you have to have sustainability within an identity to have sustainable identity?
9

Denny: No?
Denny: Without sustainability, there is no business in the future.
Aimee: Sustainability and sustainable identity converge in the long term. Ultimately you
cannot have a sustainable identity without a referent of sustainability.
Jerry: Just to be obnoxious: Sustainability could be used in a bunch of ways. You want
ecological sustainable organizations, or ecological societies with organizations. So,
take for example energy. Coming up with plausible ecological energy sources. What one
really wants is unsustainable organizations to fund and try things and the ones that are
promising keep going, and the others don’t have sustainable, but let die and no tears.
Denny: It ignores the larger problems. Most of the organizations won’t die and we
don’t want them to die, and how do we get them to be more sustainable?
Jerry: Some do. (Cites examples.) You want sustainability, not sustainable organizations.
Kill of the vast majority that’s born.
Mike: Can we change the logic of organizations? The core logic is competition. Sustainability as
non-competitive. Where is the locus of change? Organizations themselves? Or more top
down? Or society? What are the triggers that will force a fundamental logic of organizations
(competition)? Organizations might be the agent…
Denny: Organizations are going to lead this movement.
Aimee: Organizations as change agents. Tragedy of the commons. Someone will benefit
of the chaos. If you don’t have a critical mass to change - ideally you have enough so that
the playing field shifts. The institutional pressures are not there yet. I’d like to think
that it could be more gently than by force.
Mike: Take the example of international diplomacy: How to get countries like Israel
and Palestine to cooperate? To get people to change, having an ‘enemy’ is common way,
but will not do it in the long term. (Mike will send a reference about this.)
Mary: Entrepreneurship literature. When new classifications emerge, there is often
cooperation for classificant stage, and then competition once classification is set. How to
move out of narrow definition to stay who you are and do something different?
Kevin: Over-arching theme: Self actualizing organization. We have to understand parts and
wholeness (Mike & Matt chapter); the self is powerful agent of improving itself. Kevin &
Spencer reflexivity: How do we make ourselves better? Sustainability paper, companies like
Google who reflect on environmental responsible behavior – something happens in organizations
10

to think of themselves as an entity and desire to improve themselves as this entity. “Selfactualizing
organization notion” is across papers. Look at example companies to find out how.
And find implication for this company and other companies.
Kevin: Organizations have to start cooperating to survive. How do we get organizations
with strong identities to think about themselves differently the future? Sustainability is
an example case how organizations get to think beyond themselves.
Aimee: Include exemplars in chapter?
Jane: Yes. It sounds like organizations vary in how much they have included
sustainability in to their identity. Arne Carlson has written about “organizational
becoming” – evolution of meaning and practice. That is less anthropomorphizing than
self-actualizing.
If your premise is that sustainability is core component of identity, it would be good to look in
one context and differences across organizations.
Denny: Notepad with POS adjectives. What if I asked you to find adjectives for
sustainability? What are hallmarks?
Maria: The herb institute studies sustainable organizations. Others look down-upon this
as changing the label as a way to perpetuate the problem.
Spencer: Patagonia example. Using business to change costumer behavior and eventual
political institutions. Issue of sustainability is not black and white, “grey matter” on a
company web-site. Encourage check-and-balance.
Denny: We are at the conceptual state. Not research enterprise.
Jane: Do it as a thought experiment.
Denny: Google is a good example, from “don’t be evil, don’t be Microsoft” to “don’t be
evil, don’t hurt the planet.”
Maria: Examples are organizations that were founded with this notion. Only example
“Interface” of change within organizations.
Aimee: Royal Dutch Shell as example of desire to be eco-friendly – it let them to
become more eco concerned organization. It was not a founding imprint, but became a
motto and then they were having to live up to it.
Ian: Thought example: Look at dead organizations. Or at an industry with a lot of
decapitation of companies. What has been sustainable about identities and what not?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11

SHELLEY & GRACE’S CHAPTER TIME
Summary of chapter and question to group:
Shelley: There are three parts of the chapter. First a definition, second the argument, and
third be creative, and this is part we would like feedback.
Questions: Part 1: Are definitions ok? Distinction between organization role and code.
Part 2 already published.
Part 3: Where is the most value? Where are we overtly anthropomorphizing? How to
make more macro links?
Grace: (Reviews chapter in more detail.) Premise is that organizations are powerful in
society and thus can influence multiple stakeholders, and have potential for positive
impact on society. Identities are powerful in guiding action and having impact.
Table 1 shows multiple organizational roles and perspectives: Individualistic, relational,
or collectivistic (Organizational different variable).
Social codes for each perspective: Individualistic: Stand apart from others. Relational:
Partners. Collectivist: Be good group member. Positive identity is something to use as a
resource.
Table 2 is based on Shelley’s recent AMR. Shows relationships for different perspectives
in organizations. There is a different potential based on each perspective.
Shelley: (Reviews chapter.) 1. How to ensure that potential is realized, and 2. How can
potential be multiplied to all stakeholders. 3. How can society benefit from this?
1. How can potential be realized: How to know who you are? Authenticity – internal, and
relational –
Internal: How can organizations identify who they are? There are multiple legitimate
identities. Who do we desire to be for whom? How to be true to who you are? Aligning
relationships with sense of self. Discipline in choices of behavior.
Relational: Social construction of identity with stakeholders. Agency of organization and
validation by stakeholders. Negative outcomes of different perspectives.
2. How to multiply identity? Provide opportunity to be self-reflexive. For each
perspective. Individualistic: Provide agency and empowerment to deal with selfreflection.
Jolt: Mentor, partnerships and alliances. Necessary is psychological safety.
Relational: Community work, partnerships, identification with company
3. Society benefit? Representation of multiple identities.
Necessary to find sufficient stakeholders to legitimate identities. Business school
education to train about legitimacy of identities for organizations.
Questions: Does definition make sense? Role and social code differentiated good
enough?
Mike: ‘Role’ is not internal, sociologically it is external
Kevin: It works if we shift level of analysis.
13

Vera: Position versus role. Position place holder, but role socially negotiated.
Shelley: The role is negotiated with organizational impact. Social code less negotiated.
Maria: Recent article: Role itself being both internally created and externally negotiated.
Mary: Damasio: Role connects micro and macro. Social code more a classification
system, categorization system. Does it fit the category. Role as an implication of social
code.
Shelley: We want to get away from conformity.
Mike: What is it imposing on itself and what comes from external? Is that the difference?
Jane: Swiddler, cultural tool-kit. There are things in the culture that you can appropriate.
Maria: With individuals there are overlapping roles that you can choose from.
Shelley: Proto-type exemplars.
Jane: Organizations have these differences.
Aimee: Organizational ‘orientation’
Shelley: But identity and orientation seems too circular.
Mike: Positiveness is here equated with authenticity. Do you want to do that? Are organizations
that are true to themselves positive?
Shelley: Circular to talk about positive identity and positive contribution.
Ian: What does positive really mean?
Shelley: See the examples in table 2.
Aimee: Thriving idea. Going beyond resilience. Is there another adjective that you
could put in front of contribution instead of “positive”?
Shelley. Good point
Mike: “Positive organizations are authentic” turn around to “authentic
organizations are positive.” Avoid constricting ‘positive’ to authentic (could also be
thriving, etc.). Organizations that are authentic to their perspective are positive.
Jane: Be clear about how you are defining it.
14

Aimee: You also mention negatives. I question whether authenticity is positive.
Mike: You run into the Hitler example. Not positive.
Jane: One way to judge positive is in terms of outcomes, another one is structure.
Mike: Grappling with what it means to be authentic is good.
Jane: Different angle. Parts 3 is more prescriptive, and not theory. I encourage you to be
simpler and more theoretical. What is potentiality and what does it mean to draw on
potentiality? Do part 1 and 2 and work on part 3. What is potentiality? Be more elementary
about the core process. Jerry, what do you think? How to find right balance of sociological and
psycho account on macro level.
Jerry: Part 3 is prescriptive. Part 3 is giving suggestions. Fewer definitions are better than
more.
Maria: People are resourced by multiple identities in several institutions in cultural sociology.
Novel to read that people are resourced by a role. Ties to strong and weak ties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15

JERRY’S CHAPTER TIME
Summary of chapter and question to group:
Jerry: Motivation is Robert Patnams’ work ‘bowling alone’ which is all about
individuals. Businesses are important for society. We thought of a ‘golfing alone’ title.
Social capital literature is picking communities and writes about how great they are.
I like to account for variation. Look at Minneapolis and Detroit. Why do some cities do
really well, and others do not? What in their structures contributes to that?
City as level of analysis. What accounts for variation? Cities seem to choose a major.
Seattle is about high tech, Minneapolis arts. There is the hardware part and the software
part. Hardware is social infrastructure. And businesses are responsible for organizing
volunteerism.
Who are the companies, do they have banks, what is nature of social connections? The
more businesses you have, the more your non-profits do. The social structure linking
them will also have effect. In Minneapolis you cannot show up at art museum without
being involved in non-profit.
Networks stay strong, even if business come and go. Structure sustains. Detroit is losing
companies, and the ones that are left are not connected.
Ian: What is the connection between businesses?
Jerry: Shared member at board of directors. Good indicator of business cohesion.
Mike: Why community rather than city? Why not city identity?
Ian: Community identity is good concept. Reciprocal influences here, you can talk
about organizations deriving community identity, but also about community identifying
with companies that are in it. Grounding of identity goes both ways.
Jerry: Community identity sounds too positive. City is good for me, but does not work,
because it is, for example, city of Chicago and surrounding areas.
Denny: Megalopolis.
Kevin: Problem with “community.” Chicago is community, but Detroit fragmented, there
is no community. If you talk about community you leave some cities out.
Jane: Community is so important, because the mechanism that is missing here is symbolic
endowment that goes along with structuring of non-profits. The meaning of being part of it is
different because of interlocking boards. Culture and emotion as mechanisms that allows for
the sustainability of the health of these regions. Structure and norms are not enough. Silent
about resourcing in the community. The resourcing comes from the affective. We have a term of
‘feeling of belonging.’
16

Mike: There is ownership that organizations take sup the community. Not like if I’m just
a branch. There is a part of ownership of place. It’s our place.
Mike: Some cities are community and others are not. What makes them communities or not?
Maria: Silicon Valley is stingily, but there is identity.
Jerry: But in Silicon Valley, they have the networks, but not a community identity,
not being generous.
Aimee: Are there lots of interlocks (overlapping board members) in Silicon Valley?
Jeff: By venture capitalists who fund this. Look for investments. But not exchange of
CEOs helping each other out.
Aimee: More vertical in Silicon Valley than horizontal.
Jerry: Silicon Valley got more self-conscious maybe, stingy notion out-dated.
Shelley: Do organizations with overlapping boards have more collective identity?
Jerry: Some have specific history. Scandinavian community folks, tight to non-profits.
Started club ‘5% club’ and to be in business in town, you want to join that club. All
focused on art.
Mike: Identify with community is different from local identity. Geographic area or people.
People is about community. Location is important.
Jerry: The specific place makes difference.
Ian: Community identity exists for Minneapolis, but not in Detroit.
Mike: Identity as a community versus community identity.
Jerry: Community= geographic bounded area that is interdependent.
Spencer: We got the networks, but the caring about community and wanting it to be grounded in
community and community to be grounded in organizations is missing. Community provides
info to organizations or how are loops created?
Shelley: Initially organizations might have been impetus to build identity, but now it
sounds self-sustaining, a norm, system requires it.
Jerry: They are like Tofu; they pick up the flavors of others. Some organizations like in
Detroit, but other tight networks like in New York without one organization. In cities you
cannot control it, but in organizations can. GM is stuck with city identity of Detroit as
murder city. Organizations can contribute to city identity but not control it.
17

Spencer: Identify arch type levers for how they contribute.
Jane: How do practices between organizations foster giving (to something)? Certain
practices have more survival value than others and become community practices.
Jerry: You might join the club because of some interest, but then it blends over to other
things. Place to go to meet all CEOS that enables action.
Kevin: Is that mechanism strong enough to turn around a city?
Jerry: Help a lot. Might not be sufficient. Gives example. Detroit city owns art museum,
so no elite board to keep art museum up no elite board no elite community.
Kevin: Notion of vitality. What is it about a community identity that ties into that? What about
community identity sparks opportunity for other actions?
Community can be strong or bad community identity.
Aimee: Is community your DV?
Jerry: More like linking concept.
Ian: Story here about community identity change. Picture it in graphs. What is going on at
change points?
Denny: Internal contradiction: You seem to want to rescue communities but not
corporations. Why not rescue both?
Jerry: You can have communities without corporations. Corporations are just tools.
Denny: Are organizations not constituents of communities?
Jerry: They are. Minneapolis: Many companies come and die. But still it’s a thriving
place. Detroit has car companies that are still there.
18