I don’t have a TV, and so I’ve been catching up on “The Wire” through Netflix. The stuff is in my head, it’s an overload of brilliant television, too much violence and a whole lot of reality. This is the place from which I open the papers today and learn what I already now – our kids are killing each other , Boston made the top 10, we are number 6 on the list. The shit is painful, and what’s even more frustrating is that there is nothing new to recommend. Papers are talking about the same old thing – “restoring police officers in the streets and creating social programs for poor youths.” Is that really what’s going to do it for us?
Look, maybe at some level these are things that will help, but the very best youth programs that I know can only serve a precious few, and by all means, let’s help these programs where we can. And cops, well, that’s a whole other story, I do watch the Wire after all, and before that, I knew about Foucault, power, and the dead end of “discipline and punish.” The “pragmatic” in me likes things like the “Shot Spotter” system, an acoustic technology that lets police rapidly intersect a shooter as soon as the weapon is fired. It works after the fact, but it gets to a perpetrator, but seriously now, is this the best we have? Feels like the opposite of a root cause.
We can talk about breakdowns in the family, racism, structural oppression, and a nation state that bails out bankers but lets its poor people die. We can talk about all of these things and we would be absolutely right, but our kids are still killing each other. There is something that is terribly counter-evolutionary about a society where kids kill one another, something feels terribly backward when locking up our kids becomes the state’s option – ask the folk at “The Gathering for Justice,” they can tell you what we are doing to our kids – I am blessed to work with them.
Truth is that I’m stumped by this one, grappling with it, feeling the pain of the whole thing, trying to open up and see what’s here, be bold in this search for something new. I’m seduced by Meg Wheatley’s proposition that “whatever the problem, community is the answer.” I’m moved by the idea that it has to be organic, and that there is little an outsider can do, be it state policy or charity. But in that little that we can do, we have to be incredibly precise, clear in our intention and unbelievably open to the fact that we don’t know.
I do know we have to stand with whoever is inside the thing, and trying to do something about it, trying to shift their own self first, not playing the name game first, the police game, the 501(c)3 game or the who is the best dressed pastor game. This has to happen somehow else. I’m going to keep messing with this one, stay with it as long as it takes, there is an answer somewhere and it has to do with heart, with authenticity and opportunity, appreciation, innovation, connection, it has to do with a willingness to truly take the time, it has to do with the fact that this thing we are looking at is not outside of our selves, this shit is real, and that’s how it hurts.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Pecha Kucha Night
Last night I went to “Pecha Kucha” night, sponsored by AIGA, the professional association for design and I am left full of insights and ideas about the possibilities of this format. Here is a bit on “Pecha Kucha” from Wikipedia –
“The idea behind Pecha Kucha is to keep presentations concise, the interest level up and to have many presenters sharing their ideas within the course of one night. Therefore the 20x20 Pecha Kucha format was created: each presenter is allowed a slideshow of 20 images, each shown for 20 seconds. This results in a total presentation time of 6 minutes 40 seconds on a stage before the next presenter is up. Each event usually has 14 presenters. Presenters (and much of the audience) are usually from the design, architecture, photography, art and creative fields, but recently it has also stretched over to academia and the business world.”
So I’m left wondering, what if we could have a “Pecha Kucha” Night for social innovators, or one on “social technologies” ranging from online practices to group processes? What if IISC used “Pecha Kucha” formats for the learning labs that we design?
But what if we thought beyond a “Pecha Kucha” event and created tight, exciting “Pecha Kucha” presentation as a sort of framing question to set off a circle, dialogue or world café process? We could even bring this technique into the political realm, what if the Arroyo campaign collaboratively developed a presentation that became part of his stump speech?
More ideas come from here, this is a cool presentation format, how could they be combined with “youtube” or “podcasting?” Part of the obstacle to this is how long it takes to find the right images, or to rightsize the videos or podcasts for the limited attention span of our day. So I am wondering about what types of partnerships we could build. I suspect that there are enough creative people out there who could voluntarily help with the editing of such presentations.
How do we crowdsource part of this work? Are there partnerships we could be making with design and architecture schools and associations? Do we not have plenty opportunities for people to jump into and do a little bit of social change work? Would not the aggregate of many small contributions make for a number of very good things? Does this sound promising? Could we not problem solve together about ways to catalyze this sort of creative intervention? What ideas do you have?
“The idea behind Pecha Kucha is to keep presentations concise, the interest level up and to have many presenters sharing their ideas within the course of one night. Therefore the 20x20 Pecha Kucha format was created: each presenter is allowed a slideshow of 20 images, each shown for 20 seconds. This results in a total presentation time of 6 minutes 40 seconds on a stage before the next presenter is up. Each event usually has 14 presenters. Presenters (and much of the audience) are usually from the design, architecture, photography, art and creative fields, but recently it has also stretched over to academia and the business world.”
So I’m left wondering, what if we could have a “Pecha Kucha” Night for social innovators, or one on “social technologies” ranging from online practices to group processes? What if IISC used “Pecha Kucha” formats for the learning labs that we design?
But what if we thought beyond a “Pecha Kucha” event and created tight, exciting “Pecha Kucha” presentation as a sort of framing question to set off a circle, dialogue or world café process? We could even bring this technique into the political realm, what if the Arroyo campaign collaboratively developed a presentation that became part of his stump speech?
More ideas come from here, this is a cool presentation format, how could they be combined with “youtube” or “podcasting?” Part of the obstacle to this is how long it takes to find the right images, or to rightsize the videos or podcasts for the limited attention span of our day. So I am wondering about what types of partnerships we could build. I suspect that there are enough creative people out there who could voluntarily help with the editing of such presentations.
How do we crowdsource part of this work? Are there partnerships we could be making with design and architecture schools and associations? Do we not have plenty opportunities for people to jump into and do a little bit of social change work? Would not the aggregate of many small contributions make for a number of very good things? Does this sound promising? Could we not problem solve together about ways to catalyze this sort of creative intervention? What ideas do you have?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Listening to the Growing Edges
By Curtis Ogden
Scientists and spiritual leaders are both saying it, “Go to the edges.” That’s where new life, hope, and innovation resides. As our institutions and old worldviews crumble, we are called to look to the edges where ingenious adaptations are always happening. We know this is true of ecosystems. When the core is dying, something else is happening at the boundaries where there is greater resilience. When winter hits and all is withered on the surface, something else is beginning to stir underground, sending out new shoots and establishing new roots.
At a meeting with a school system today, participants acknowledged that they are still operating out of an industrial model whose time has long since passed. But this does not mean that there aren’t pockets of vibrancy and innovation. These are found at the edges of the bold experiments and adaptive efforts of teachers and students that often go undocumented. I heard a middle school teacher say, “Ask the teachers about what innovations are already happening in and beyond their classrooms. Just because they have not spread throughout the system does not invalidate them. Teachers have so many creative ideas, so much more that they would like to be able to do that they feel they cannot given institutional constraints.” The call is clearly to follow the energy, give it attention, nurture it, let it be the guide. Then let the structures adjust to accommodate (not assimilate) this energy. Let form follow function . . .
This is what a colleague recently said about the cutting edge of innovation for visual artists - “It’s all about crossing the boundaries of media. You don’t say that you are going to be a sculptor. Instead you start with an idea and let that lead you. Everything is on the table.”
I put this question to our organization, community, country, and world. What is/are our edge/s? What is becoming manifest there? What are those manifestations telling us? Where might they take us? What might they make of us?
Scientists and spiritual leaders are both saying it, “Go to the edges.” That’s where new life, hope, and innovation resides. As our institutions and old worldviews crumble, we are called to look to the edges where ingenious adaptations are always happening. We know this is true of ecosystems. When the core is dying, something else is happening at the boundaries where there is greater resilience. When winter hits and all is withered on the surface, something else is beginning to stir underground, sending out new shoots and establishing new roots.
At a meeting with a school system today, participants acknowledged that they are still operating out of an industrial model whose time has long since passed. But this does not mean that there aren’t pockets of vibrancy and innovation. These are found at the edges of the bold experiments and adaptive efforts of teachers and students that often go undocumented. I heard a middle school teacher say, “Ask the teachers about what innovations are already happening in and beyond their classrooms. Just because they have not spread throughout the system does not invalidate them. Teachers have so many creative ideas, so much more that they would like to be able to do that they feel they cannot given institutional constraints.” The call is clearly to follow the energy, give it attention, nurture it, let it be the guide. Then let the structures adjust to accommodate (not assimilate) this energy. Let form follow function . . .
This is what a colleague recently said about the cutting edge of innovation for visual artists - “It’s all about crossing the boundaries of media. You don’t say that you are going to be a sculptor. Instead you start with an idea and let that lead you. Everything is on the table.”
I put this question to our organization, community, country, and world. What is/are our edge/s? What is becoming manifest there? What are those manifestations telling us? Where might they take us? What might they make of us?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tao of Leadership
By Curtis Ogden
Today's sermon at church was about leadership. Not so surprising given the election is 10 days away. And yet the message was one that continues this theme that I am hearing in many different circles. The leadership we need in these times is rooted in humility, curiosity, and in a genuine desire to join with others. This is really so counter-cultural in mainstream America. It isn't that we haven't been hearing for years the importance of being a good team player. It's just that the practice has not really been rewarded. And so now we sit alone in a corner with the rest of the world glaring at us, or increasingly ignoring us, and yet still we hear from certain politicians and presidential wanna-bes that we can restore our standing in the world as THE leader. We, or some of us, just do not get it!
At a meeting of Ford Foundation grantees last week, one German-born gentleman said that it is time for the US to understand and embrace its role as a PARTNER on the global stage, and that if we come of of this election cycle swinging like the leaders we so often strive to be, the rest of the world is going to "collectively puke." We have seemingly so long been stuck in adolescence, you can understand the collective groan from Old Europe, and even older cultures around the globe.
The preacher said that the great challenge of our time is to "see the whole of it." To this end we must do whatever it takes. Stop pretending that we are special, inquire, be ready to work in any setting, cross boundaries, let go, challenge others respectfully, and commit to something that nurtures our inner strength and sense of balance. And for God's sake, get over ourselves and our long standing leadership fetish.
Today's sermon at church was about leadership. Not so surprising given the election is 10 days away. And yet the message was one that continues this theme that I am hearing in many different circles. The leadership we need in these times is rooted in humility, curiosity, and in a genuine desire to join with others. This is really so counter-cultural in mainstream America. It isn't that we haven't been hearing for years the importance of being a good team player. It's just that the practice has not really been rewarded. And so now we sit alone in a corner with the rest of the world glaring at us, or increasingly ignoring us, and yet still we hear from certain politicians and presidential wanna-bes that we can restore our standing in the world as THE leader. We, or some of us, just do not get it!
At a meeting of Ford Foundation grantees last week, one German-born gentleman said that it is time for the US to understand and embrace its role as a PARTNER on the global stage, and that if we come of of this election cycle swinging like the leaders we so often strive to be, the rest of the world is going to "collectively puke." We have seemingly so long been stuck in adolescence, you can understand the collective groan from Old Europe, and even older cultures around the globe.
The preacher said that the great challenge of our time is to "see the whole of it." To this end we must do whatever it takes. Stop pretending that we are special, inquire, be ready to work in any setting, cross boundaries, let go, challenge others respectfully, and commit to something that nurtures our inner strength and sense of balance. And for God's sake, get over ourselves and our long standing leadership fetish.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Living Organizations in Turbulent Times
By Curtis Ogden
While reading the book The Living Company on the train to Philadelphia, a number of things came up for me as I think about IISC’s (and other nonprofit organizations') internal and external world and work and future . . . . Arie de Geus has long written from the premise that organizations are living beings residing in, interacting with, and being shaped by ecosystems, and not isolated machines that can simply be engineered to do what we want them to do. mIf we share his view, this has implications for the way that organizations might think about themselves and act.
de Geus writes that the most successful/resilient organizations (living systems) are open to and aware of their environments; tolerant of “experimentation, outliers and eccentricity”; and cohesive (there is an awareness that all members are a part of something that is shared and there is a shared commitment to that something). Furthermore, resilience (surviving and thriving - which is the basic imperative of all life) is built upon the commitment and ability of organizations to embody a diversity and spectrum of perspectives and skills that can create more options in terms of potential responses to external circumstance. Think "border habitats" where life is often at its most resilient, as species adapt to function in more than one ecosystem.
de Geus goes on to suggest that “planning” is really not an effective approach for determining future direction for organizations as living systems, because it is overly mechanistic, does not map onto the complex realities in which we live, looks too much to the past with a problem-solving lens, and often puts all eggs in one basket in terms of a strategic course of action. A much better approach is to engage in a “playful” organic creation of different scenarios for the future and a loose plan of action for each so that the organization can be appropriately proactive and responsive.
Innovations (and therefore adaptability) come from living systems that have the space for said innovations to occur (time to think, reflect, restore), communication channels for sharing these innovations , and a tendency to "flock" (breaking out of isolation and using the channels).
As we enter into ever more turbulent times, this raises some questions for me about life at IISC and the organizations we serve:
While reading the book The Living Company on the train to Philadelphia, a number of things came up for me as I think about IISC’s (and other nonprofit organizations') internal and external world and work and future . . . . Arie de Geus has long written from the premise that organizations are living beings residing in, interacting with, and being shaped by ecosystems, and not isolated machines that can simply be engineered to do what we want them to do. mIf we share his view, this has implications for the way that organizations might think about themselves and act.
de Geus writes that the most successful/resilient organizations (living systems) are open to and aware of their environments; tolerant of “experimentation, outliers and eccentricity”; and cohesive (there is an awareness that all members are a part of something that is shared and there is a shared commitment to that something). Furthermore, resilience (surviving and thriving - which is the basic imperative of all life) is built upon the commitment and ability of organizations to embody a diversity and spectrum of perspectives and skills that can create more options in terms of potential responses to external circumstance. Think "border habitats" where life is often at its most resilient, as species adapt to function in more than one ecosystem.
de Geus goes on to suggest that “planning” is really not an effective approach for determining future direction for organizations as living systems, because it is overly mechanistic, does not map onto the complex realities in which we live, looks too much to the past with a problem-solving lens, and often puts all eggs in one basket in terms of a strategic course of action. A much better approach is to engage in a “playful” organic creation of different scenarios for the future and a loose plan of action for each so that the organization can be appropriately proactive and responsive.
Innovations (and therefore adaptability) come from living systems that have the space for said innovations to occur (time to think, reflect, restore), communication channels for sharing these innovations , and a tendency to "flock" (breaking out of isolation and using the channels).
As we enter into ever more turbulent times, this raises some questions for me about life at IISC and the organizations we serve:
- Should strategic planning shift to more scenario planning exercises?
- How much cohesion do we and our clients really have internally, and how might this be built through networks?
- To what degree are we all ensuring that we embody adaptive diversity (internally and through our networks) in terms of perspectives and skills?
- How can we make sure that we respond to turbulence with a commitment to continued experimentation as opposed to going back to something known (and potentially stale/irrelevant)?
- Do we have the right structures for “flocking” to ensure that innovations spread and are truly shared?
Beyond the Organization
We have a funny relationship with our organizations. We tend to forget that we built them. We tend to forget that without us they are abstractions, little more than a piece of paper in a government office. We tend to forget that we are alive and that they are not, they are tools, ways to structure how we work together so that we can do what we want to do, but better. I often talk of this situation of being a lot like “The Matrix,” the humans built the computers to serve them but instead they ended up mostly dead, in a fake world, giving up their energy to keep the computers alive.
Ok – so organizations themselves are not bad, in fact, they can be very useful, but we have to make them serve us. We not only have to change how our organizations work, we have to change how we relate to them. We must change them as WE grow, the point is not for the organization to grow, grow, grow – the point is for us to grow. Today we are stuck with terribly outdated organizational paradigms, it’s the information age, and yet we still organize ourselves in antiquated industrial structures that constrain our passion and limit our potential.
It is time that we transcend our organizational constraints – especially in the social sector, where our purpose is not profit but creating a new world. We can no longer afford to come around meeting tables and play organizational poker with one another. We can no longer afford to allow our organizational affiliations to get in the way of our doing work together. The social sector is full of good people, passionately committed people, brilliant-strategic-idealists, but we too often fail to catalyze the magic in our hearts – our core resource – because we can only relate to another through some sort of organizational identity.
There is a lot more to be said about this, a lot more to explore and discover together, and I hope that this space can become a part of our collective effort. But for now, here is the invitation – find out who is sitting across the table, not who they work for. Find out how they got into the work, what is their story – not just their ideology, find out what they are looking for, what they love and what they have always wanted to do but have not yet been able to do, because maybe, just maybe, they might want the same thing as you.
Ok – so organizations themselves are not bad, in fact, they can be very useful, but we have to make them serve us. We not only have to change how our organizations work, we have to change how we relate to them. We must change them as WE grow, the point is not for the organization to grow, grow, grow – the point is for us to grow. Today we are stuck with terribly outdated organizational paradigms, it’s the information age, and yet we still organize ourselves in antiquated industrial structures that constrain our passion and limit our potential.
It is time that we transcend our organizational constraints – especially in the social sector, where our purpose is not profit but creating a new world. We can no longer afford to come around meeting tables and play organizational poker with one another. We can no longer afford to allow our organizational affiliations to get in the way of our doing work together. The social sector is full of good people, passionately committed people, brilliant-strategic-idealists, but we too often fail to catalyze the magic in our hearts – our core resource – because we can only relate to another through some sort of organizational identity.
There is a lot more to be said about this, a lot more to explore and discover together, and I hope that this space can become a part of our collective effort. But for now, here is the invitation – find out who is sitting across the table, not who they work for. Find out how they got into the work, what is their story – not just their ideology, find out what they are looking for, what they love and what they have always wanted to do but have not yet been able to do, because maybe, just maybe, they might want the same thing as you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
