The five paradoxes of the new “Service Clubs.”
Can we honestly declare that the “end of Service Clubs” is the end of the Service Club?
Outside tautology: is it possible that some kind of “Service Clubs,” created by groups of individuals, are reborn with shapes, features, and different rules comparing to those that have been culled by the digital revolution?
Maybe the question is not useless after the long hangover of the disintermediation era that has dealt a blow, have become meaningless — many groups protagonists of the last two centuries: trade associations, trade unions, political organizations, lobbies, district associations, religious congregations, etc.
Hubs of relations, interests, and links that have played an essential role in the functioning of democracy as much as they boosted the economy for a long time, become obsolete because of globalization and the Internet.
Some sociologists, politicians, and economists declared that the new era had come, that moment when pure individualism prevail had arrived, every one of us with its particular objectives in an eternal war with those of anyone else.
(luckily) Reality is different. Humans are social animals.
So as people started to canvas weave of relationships and interests with new tools, adapting them to the new context. The scenario is entirely different from the previous one, in the industrial age. So we, humans, changed rules and tools to stay together and communicate, interact, each other.
The new service clubs tend informal, vertical in scope (that is, pointing to specific objectives) but horizontal in structure (no hierarchies).
Often, they are also “biodegradable” (performing function then dies out or change purposes) and have among their founding values: the reputation and mutual trust.
The new service Club is pure networking.
The new service club reverses the first rule of the old associations: those who participate is not a taxable person who is positioned to receive protection from the group, but is an active entity that as a first step offering aid to others.
Darcy Rezac explains it well in his book, “The Frog and the Prince,” giving his definition of the networking world:
In this principle lies the 80 percent of the work: the great networkers want to know what they can do for you, not what you can do for them.
(Social)Networking principles are funded on karmic rules. If you understand this, the rest is automatic.
The new service clubs are founded on some paradox:
First: It’s Not About Who You Know, It’s all about Who Knows You
The six-degrees of separation theory teach us that we’re all connected somehow. And that a good reputation runs fast throw word of mouth (not as fast as a bad one but very fast anyhow). So being generous, educated, sincerely interested in others stimulates a long tail of positive reactions in the medium/long term.
Here’s the gift-economy. It’s rather a willingness to give as an attitude, like a vision: because disinterested and sincere attention on others benefits, however, in the end always pays off.
And there’s a second paradox.
The new service clubs come mostly from the Internet, which is the fastest media ever, but to clot and succeed — to have a sense, in short — they need much more time than the old “analog” associations.
It is the time of reputation, mutual trust, authoritativeness that states only because of virality, the tam-tam online, and offline. This is rarely a fast-paced.
The third paradox is the strong connection between the new service clubs with the analogic world.
Because despite being born virtual, social networking has a strong need for physicality to grow. Networking is a contact sport: you can not do yourself, even via a computer. It needs you to go out, cultivate the relationship, shaking hands, exchanging humanity. The new service clubs, indeed, consider old and outdated the opposing duality between real and virtual: they bounce from human contact to a skype meeting to a WhatsApp, from a happy hour to a social network, because physical and digital are only two sides of the same reality.
The Fourth paradox
“those who speak little and listen a lot, buys more easily a reputation for interesting person.”
No exhibition and show-off, but listening and learning. The good social networkers are better at listening than talking. The mark of a good conversationalist in networking is not to talk so much, but to be talked about: It’s Not About Who You Know; It’s About Who Knows You remember?
The ultimate paradox
New service clubs often get better in older contexts, those born long before the Internet. Service Clubs, Associations, Professional Networks, or local committees in which people know each other for decades. Because there is already trust, esteem, reputation, etc. The essential ingredients mixed with the reputation & gift economy elements generate the next-generation service clubs: THE SOCIAL NETWORKS
