Why I decided not to speak at Innovation Philadelphia’s Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit

Kelly Lee, president and CEO of Innovation Philadelphia, invited me to sit on a panel at the summit about new alternatives to the “workplace”. While the topic is something I’m qualified in both knowledge and passion to represent, I’ve decided to decline participation with the conference.

The purpose and value of this event doesn’t align with the types of events I like to organize or the way I’ve structure the organizations I’m a part of. We approach things from a ground-up perspective and work as active participants in the community.

Our community takes a DIY approach and tends to bootstrap the passionate projects they work on.

I don’t think that this conference aligns with our community, or our approach to innovation. There is a lot of overhead and structure, which we feel inhibit innovation. The community that we are part of prefers to create, run, and attend events like Barcamp Philly, IgnitePhilly, and the Junto that are idea-based with lots of active community participation.

Geoff, myself, and every other leader in our community that’s stepped up over the last few years leads this community by example. Geoff and I feel that participating in and supporting this event that doesn’t match our goals or behaviors is not the kind of example we want to set.

The topic that I was asked to speak about, the evolution of the workplace, is one that I’m very interested in talking about and have published on and spoken about extensively. I wish the Global Creative Economy Convergence Summit were the right forum for the discussion, but I don’t feel it is.

September 2, 2009 | Filed Under 2009, business, community, philadelphia | Tags: ,

Comments 

Comments

  • oliverpicher
    Alex, you are both dangerous and awesome.

    For me, I like a little variety in my life. Ground-up events like BarCamp and Ignite Philly are great, but there's nothing wrong with a little structure now and then. The two approaches appeal to different people, so you meet different people and hear about different slices of life. No one thing satisfies all the people. You gotta communicate with your audience the way your audience wants to hear it.

    If you truly want to evangelize this new approach to working, to organizing conferences, and to innovation, then shouldn't you be taking your message to the people who need to hear it the most -- the ones stuck in a top-down conference on innovation? Sure, the message is likely to fall on deaf ears, but there are some who will hear and take it to heart.

    Of course, you are entirely within your rights to say, "I feel uncomfortable in top-down situations and I do not want to be part of one."
  • chucksacco
    What better way to change perspectives than embedding yourself inside the enemy? Please rethink this Alex.
  • Whoa, snap!
  • Interesting and thoughtful critique, Alex. I tend not to attend conferences in general because I don't find them valuable.
  • What sorts of events in NYC do you attend, Greg?
  • You gotta fight.

    For your right.

    To PARTY.

    True.
  • mnips22
    Alex,

    Are you SURE that what you've stated above is the real reason you're not participating? Or, is it true that you were initially enthralled with the prospect of participating, told them how excited you were, only to then demand to be paid for appearing and learn you weren't going to be?

    Self-serving posts like yours above reflect part of the problem within Philly. Such provinciality helps nobody - including you. Innovation Philly is trying to be part of the solution. This conference will give people ideas to solve problems and make progress in our community. If you're really committed to helping the community, why did you demand payment and then write this nonsense? After all, who does this serve?

    Seriously - Why be a hater?
  • I did ask if speakers were being paid, though I did not demand it.

    I will admit to is the fact that when I asked it was because I knew the answer was going to be no. I was considering an easy out, and simply walking away from this event that I was uncomfortable with being involved with.

    When I talked through it with a number of people, it became clear to me that I needed to take a stand for what I really was unhappy with: not lack of payment. I am speaking on October 6th at an event in Phoenix unpaid, because the topic presented was clearly defined ahead of time. The difference is, while the event is largely corporate, but they're not pretending to be something they are not.
  • Furthermore, anyone who knows me knows that I'm wholeheartedly invested in this community finding ways to solve its own problems.

    You don't need to give the community ideas to solve problems. They've already got them. Attend a Refresh Philly, Barcamp, Junto, or Ignite.

    Progress comes from the ground up, not by handing out resources.

    That's the difference that I am trying to articulate: people are already doing this stuff.
  • peterkageyama
    Alex, I am working with Kelly on this event and I think you are missing an opportunity to make your case in a context where people would be open to your perspective on the evolution of the workplace. Your criticism that events like this are not "bottom up" enough is interesting because if you would have participated you could have helped to make this event more bottom up by presenting that perspective. Set an example that shows alternative approaches such as yours right there along with the more traditional methods. I think you are missing an opportunity and the conference and the community are poorer for it.
  • geoffd
    You can't make a conference more bottom up.

    It either grows out of an organic community or it is organized by a top-down entity.

    You can't have it both ways.
  • mnips22
    Alex, if you're doing things to help, and a large organization that is also dedicated to doing things to help has asked you to share what you're doing with a new audience - one potentially numerbing in the hundreds - what you're saying here is nonsense. They offered you a platform to share your ideas - at no cost to you. And you chose to decline, which is clearly your right. The posts against them and this event reek of something else though.

    If you were offered an editorial board with the Wall Street Journal, would you decline it because that organization is "too top down" for you? Doesn't that sound silly?

    I, like Peter, am helping Kelly with this event. I'm doing so because it's a good event that is dedicated to a cause I favor - and because I can. No high horse here - just a focus on results.

    The same results we all favor. Right, Alex?
blog comments powered by Disqus