By Curtis Ogden
Last week I came across this passage in Thich Nhat Hanh's The World We Have.
"The Lotus Sutra mentions the name of a special bodhisattva - Dharanimdhara, or Earth Holder - as someone who preserves and protects the Earth. Earth Holder is the energy that is holding us together as an organism. She is a kind of engineer or architect whose task is to create space for us to live in, to build bridges for us to cross from one side to the other, to construct roads so that we can go to the people we love. Her task is to further communication between human beings and the other species and to protect the environment. . . . Although Earth Holder Bodhisattva is mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, she doesn't have a chapter of her own. We should recognize this bodhisattva in order to collaborate with her. We should all help to create a new chapter for her . . . ."
I really like this image of Dharanimdhara as a guide and goal for leadership geared towards the sustainable future we are being called to bring to life. There are interesting connections here to both the leadership approach that IISC has embodied since its inception, as well as the consulting approach that we and kindred spirits promote. Often, in acting as collaborative consultants, we are asked to "hold the center," to provide a reassuring centripetal force to balance out centrifugal tendencies that can arise due to conflict, impatience, skepticism, fatigue, and other forces. We do this not simply through connective facilitation, but the careful design of spaces that encourage people to come together, stay together, create together. We are, in Peter Block's language, "social architects." Or in David Orr's lexicon, we are "designers for life." Our essential task is to construct gatherings that tap the generative, generous, and ingenious energies of those who are involved.
When we link this to the spirit of Dharanimdhara, there is a clear call for a more synergistic approach to leadership, for fitting the way we lead to larger contexts (both cultural and biological), with a mind not simply for being productive or efficient, but ultimately healthy. The root of the word health is "whole." How can we move forward in our daily actions in a spirit of wholeness, of holding the whole, so that we do not wreak irreparable havoc upon the planet and ourselves?
We are seeing the development and application of new tools that will certainly help us in gaining a deeper appreciation of and sensitivity to the big picture - network mapping, systems analysis, Web 2.0 gizmos. These are great intellectual aids. But are these enough to inspire action? Ultimately it seems that the trigger will come from something beyond the intellect - a more visceral, intuitive place. Wisdom. For that we require direct (not virtual) experience, time to listen, space to reconnect. Perhaps this is the hidden blessing of our economic slowdown. As we are given this chance to take a collective breath, how are we responding?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Collaborate?
By Curtis Ogden
Collaboration. We keep hearing the word in these troubled times, even in the echoes of history. I just stumbled across this quote from Charles Darwin - "In the long history of humankind, those who learn to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed." All well and good, but what on Earth does it mean to collaborate?
At a recent training with some of Boston's brightest nonprofit leaders, my colleague and I heard once again the call to collaborate. One person spoke up and said, "We always say this, but if you look at our track record of collaboration, it is dismal. Do we really want to do this? Do we even know what we are talking about?" I came away thinking that while people may have a general (and rightful) sense that they need to work better together, they are uncertain and halting about how they should proceed.
Clearly collaboration has numerous forms and potential outcomes. Perhaps it is best to work backwards. What is it that we are attempting to do by collaborating? Build community/relationships? Be more efficient? Come up with better solutions to the complex problems we face? Become engines of innovation? Achieve greater scale and reach? Mitigate risk? Depending upon our desired outcome(s) there can be very different ways of proceeding. To build community . . . create opportunities, media, and ample time for people to connect, share, get to know one another, find common ground. To be more efficient, focus on more structured processes to build agreements and ways of strategically and creatively sharing resources (whether that is back office functions or swapping services). To address complexity, create open space, foster dissent, or decentralize participants electronically to then post and build upon ideas in a centralized workplace in pursuit of the very best solution. To innovate, make sure to bring cognitively diverse thinkers together. To extend reach, think carefully about how to bring together and knit networks with known hubs/connectors. To mitigate risk, be transparent and intentional about who you bring together, how you bring them together, and what you intend to accomplish.
Of course, there is much overlap between these goals and processes, and yet we also see much confusion about what works best in what situations. Overall, it seems we would all be well served by being more nuanced about what we mean by and expect of collaboration. The conversation continues . . .
Collaboration. We keep hearing the word in these troubled times, even in the echoes of history. I just stumbled across this quote from Charles Darwin - "In the long history of humankind, those who learn to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed." All well and good, but what on Earth does it mean to collaborate?
At a recent training with some of Boston's brightest nonprofit leaders, my colleague and I heard once again the call to collaborate. One person spoke up and said, "We always say this, but if you look at our track record of collaboration, it is dismal. Do we really want to do this? Do we even know what we are talking about?" I came away thinking that while people may have a general (and rightful) sense that they need to work better together, they are uncertain and halting about how they should proceed.
Clearly collaboration has numerous forms and potential outcomes. Perhaps it is best to work backwards. What is it that we are attempting to do by collaborating? Build community/relationships? Be more efficient? Come up with better solutions to the complex problems we face? Become engines of innovation? Achieve greater scale and reach? Mitigate risk? Depending upon our desired outcome(s) there can be very different ways of proceeding. To build community . . . create opportunities, media, and ample time for people to connect, share, get to know one another, find common ground. To be more efficient, focus on more structured processes to build agreements and ways of strategically and creatively sharing resources (whether that is back office functions or swapping services). To address complexity, create open space, foster dissent, or decentralize participants electronically to then post and build upon ideas in a centralized workplace in pursuit of the very best solution. To innovate, make sure to bring cognitively diverse thinkers together. To extend reach, think carefully about how to bring together and knit networks with known hubs/connectors. To mitigate risk, be transparent and intentional about who you bring together, how you bring them together, and what you intend to accomplish.
Of course, there is much overlap between these goals and processes, and yet we also see much confusion about what works best in what situations. Overall, it seems we would all be well served by being more nuanced about what we mean by and expect of collaboration. The conversation continues . . .
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Corporation
By Curtis Ogden
The other night I watched The Corporation, a film that I had both been wanting to watch and avoiding. It certainly delivered as a powerful, provocative, and disturbing piece. I was left with many feelings and ultimately with the renewed awareness of the risk we run of blindly serving the institutions we create to serve us.
In the film, we are shown an extreme in the relentless pursuit of profit and market share that usurps virtually every other drive. Originally charters were granted to corporations by government provided that these companies met certain guidelines. Since then some of these creations, not unlike Frankenstein, have taken on a life of their own, overturned restrictions, and overthrown their masters. At their extreme, these growth-obsessed bodies are nothing short of cancers that seek to overtake every other organism in their midst. And they are clever, ever so clever, at co-opting the minds and skills of talented and otherwise decent people to serve their needs, convincing them that “moving product” is more important than protecting basic life support systems or preventing them from seeing the consequences of their actions.
To be clear, we are all susceptible to such shortsightedness, and collectively we can ill afford to fall asleep at the wheel. Media and marketing are so pervasive that we require extraordinary resolve and intention to listen to our own truths and those of the aching environment. Contrary to the misguided messages that are conveyed to us about patriotism and productivity, this may be our greatest act of courage -- to create a viable new story of what it means to be a good citizen (and a good steward) and to uphold the intrinsic value of life in the face of forces that only want to see it become a commodity.
It is a careful balance to strike between creating organizations to further our goals and potential without allowing these structures to constrain or subvert us. And we are certainly not immune to the risks in the nonprofit sector, where there are countless examples of mistaking organizational development for mission realization. What is it then that calls us back to ourselves, our original intents, and to the larger picture? How do we keep ourselves accountable? Perhaps a good starting place is to attempt to stay connected, keep ourselves open, and remember that we are characters in stories of our own making.
The other night I watched The Corporation, a film that I had both been wanting to watch and avoiding. It certainly delivered as a powerful, provocative, and disturbing piece. I was left with many feelings and ultimately with the renewed awareness of the risk we run of blindly serving the institutions we create to serve us.
In the film, we are shown an extreme in the relentless pursuit of profit and market share that usurps virtually every other drive. Originally charters were granted to corporations by government provided that these companies met certain guidelines. Since then some of these creations, not unlike Frankenstein, have taken on a life of their own, overturned restrictions, and overthrown their masters. At their extreme, these growth-obsessed bodies are nothing short of cancers that seek to overtake every other organism in their midst. And they are clever, ever so clever, at co-opting the minds and skills of talented and otherwise decent people to serve their needs, convincing them that “moving product” is more important than protecting basic life support systems or preventing them from seeing the consequences of their actions.
To be clear, we are all susceptible to such shortsightedness, and collectively we can ill afford to fall asleep at the wheel. Media and marketing are so pervasive that we require extraordinary resolve and intention to listen to our own truths and those of the aching environment. Contrary to the misguided messages that are conveyed to us about patriotism and productivity, this may be our greatest act of courage -- to create a viable new story of what it means to be a good citizen (and a good steward) and to uphold the intrinsic value of life in the face of forces that only want to see it become a commodity.
It is a careful balance to strike between creating organizations to further our goals and potential without allowing these structures to constrain or subvert us. And we are certainly not immune to the risks in the nonprofit sector, where there are countless examples of mistaking organizational development for mission realization. What is it then that calls us back to ourselves, our original intents, and to the larger picture? How do we keep ourselves accountable? Perhaps a good starting place is to attempt to stay connected, keep ourselves open, and remember that we are characters in stories of our own making.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Nonprofits 2.0
By Curtis Ogden
The management guru Gary Hamel has written (The Future of Management) that the big challenge for modern day corporations is to reinvent management systems so that they inspire human beings to bring all of their capabilities to work every day. He makes this statement after citing the results of a survey of over 80,000 employees of large and medium-sized companies in 16 countries that show that the vast majority of workers are less than fully engaged in their work. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed are giving less of themselves than they could. We are not simply talking time here. It is not a question of whether people are logging 40, 60 or 80 hours a week. It comes down to more important questions of passion, creativity, and initiative, and whether these are present in the workplace.
The problem, says Hamel, is that leaders continue to put too much of an emphasis on obedience and diligence, which are largely relics of the industrial economy. In the fast-paced and increasingly decentralized world in which we live we are called to shift our emphasis to creating organizations that are highly adaptable and fully human. Yet in companies there is just too much management and too little freedom, too much hierarchy and too little community, too much command and too little purpose. To shift this picture, Hamel encourages leaders and managers to consider a more life giving metaphor and embrace the following:
Relentless experimentation
Greater diversity of data, viewpoints, and opinions
Focus on strategic efficiency, not simply operational efficiency (not just doing things right, but doing the right things right)
More voices in shaping policy and strategy
Dissenting voices
Distributed leadership
Focus on higher purpose
Room for the expression of personal/individual goals
Space for the collision of new ideas
Rewards for eccentricity
Hello, management 2.0!
So one question is how this applies to our (the nonprofit) sector. Certainly it seems that the focus on higher purpose and the expression of personal goals have had a long standing place in mission-driven organizations and initiatives. But what about the rest? To what extent do we focus on and emphasize creativity, diversity of ideas and input, dissent, and shared leadership? Do we think that these have a place in or further our work? It is hard to imagine that they do not. Back in 1924, Mary Parker Follett was writing (Creative Experience) about the importance of servant leadership, diversity, and self-organization in light of her work with community centers in Roxbury. Have we gotten away from our roots? Are we, like many companies, guilty of becoming too focused on control and organization? Have we mistaken the raft for the shore?
The management guru Gary Hamel has written (The Future of Management) that the big challenge for modern day corporations is to reinvent management systems so that they inspire human beings to bring all of their capabilities to work every day. He makes this statement after citing the results of a survey of over 80,000 employees of large and medium-sized companies in 16 countries that show that the vast majority of workers are less than fully engaged in their work. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed are giving less of themselves than they could. We are not simply talking time here. It is not a question of whether people are logging 40, 60 or 80 hours a week. It comes down to more important questions of passion, creativity, and initiative, and whether these are present in the workplace.
The problem, says Hamel, is that leaders continue to put too much of an emphasis on obedience and diligence, which are largely relics of the industrial economy. In the fast-paced and increasingly decentralized world in which we live we are called to shift our emphasis to creating organizations that are highly adaptable and fully human. Yet in companies there is just too much management and too little freedom, too much hierarchy and too little community, too much command and too little purpose. To shift this picture, Hamel encourages leaders and managers to consider a more life giving metaphor and embrace the following:
Relentless experimentation
Greater diversity of data, viewpoints, and opinions
Focus on strategic efficiency, not simply operational efficiency (not just doing things right, but doing the right things right)
More voices in shaping policy and strategy
Dissenting voices
Distributed leadership
Focus on higher purpose
Room for the expression of personal/individual goals
Space for the collision of new ideas
Rewards for eccentricity
Hello, management 2.0!
So one question is how this applies to our (the nonprofit) sector. Certainly it seems that the focus on higher purpose and the expression of personal goals have had a long standing place in mission-driven organizations and initiatives. But what about the rest? To what extent do we focus on and emphasize creativity, diversity of ideas and input, dissent, and shared leadership? Do we think that these have a place in or further our work? It is hard to imagine that they do not. Back in 1924, Mary Parker Follett was writing (Creative Experience) about the importance of servant leadership, diversity, and self-organization in light of her work with community centers in Roxbury. Have we gotten away from our roots? Are we, like many companies, guilty of becoming too focused on control and organization? Have we mistaken the raft for the shore?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Coming Down to Earth
By Curtis Ogden
I am intrigued by the conversations taking place at the national level about our current economic crisis, and in particular speculation that what we have to do is dismantle some of these mammoth and infected financial institutions and make them more manageable. In other words, there is a sense that our institutions have become too big and complex for their and our good, that they have gotten away from us, and are not immediately relevant to our lives. With the loss of that connection come a loss of accountability, of responsiveness, and of effectiveness.
I find an interesting parallel in some of the conversations about how best to address global problems such as climate change and biodiversity conservation. There are those who see global approaches to such issues as missing the essential point. For example, the effort to focus on those biodiversity hot spots around the globe where one might get the most bang for one’s buck, while making sense, also risk overlooking some of the more local solutions. Something about the notion of global strategies takes the issues out of our hands, leaving some with a sense of disconnection from what we are talking about. And what we are talking about is as common as dirt and fundamental as the air we breathe and water we drink.
Essentially, all politics, economics, and conservation is local. The ecologist Chris Uhl has written that, “As mundane as it may sound, for many of us the land at our doorstep provides the starting point for developing an affection for the earth, which is a necessary foundation for living respectfully within the confines of our planet.” Which is to say that connection is crucial. Lack of connection is what allows one human being to sell a risky mortgage to a vulnerable and unsuspecting other. It is what allows us to salt away our life support systems and sources of well-being. So as the conversations continue at the national and global level, I keep my ears tuned for those that bring us back to our senses about the confines in which we live, what we can realistically manage and the local relevance of our actions.
I am intrigued by the conversations taking place at the national level about our current economic crisis, and in particular speculation that what we have to do is dismantle some of these mammoth and infected financial institutions and make them more manageable. In other words, there is a sense that our institutions have become too big and complex for their and our good, that they have gotten away from us, and are not immediately relevant to our lives. With the loss of that connection come a loss of accountability, of responsiveness, and of effectiveness.
I find an interesting parallel in some of the conversations about how best to address global problems such as climate change and biodiversity conservation. There are those who see global approaches to such issues as missing the essential point. For example, the effort to focus on those biodiversity hot spots around the globe where one might get the most bang for one’s buck, while making sense, also risk overlooking some of the more local solutions. Something about the notion of global strategies takes the issues out of our hands, leaving some with a sense of disconnection from what we are talking about. And what we are talking about is as common as dirt and fundamental as the air we breathe and water we drink.
Essentially, all politics, economics, and conservation is local. The ecologist Chris Uhl has written that, “As mundane as it may sound, for many of us the land at our doorstep provides the starting point for developing an affection for the earth, which is a necessary foundation for living respectfully within the confines of our planet.” Which is to say that connection is crucial. Lack of connection is what allows one human being to sell a risky mortgage to a vulnerable and unsuspecting other. It is what allows us to salt away our life support systems and sources of well-being. So as the conversations continue at the national and global level, I keep my ears tuned for those that bring us back to our senses about the confines in which we live, what we can realistically manage and the local relevance of our actions.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Back to the Knitting
By Curtis Ogden
While offering a training to a group of health care reformers in Maine last month, I was struck by how powerful some of the fundamental tools of Facilitative Leadership were to many of the participants, including the fundamentals of listening as an ally (as opposed to listening as an adversary) and the basic architecture of building agreements. As I listened to an accomplished lawyer speak to the simple elegance of open-narrow-close framework, I felt renewed appreciation for the power of what we teach at IISC and IA.
In recent months there has been a real push within our organization to innovate, to tap more creative ideas and ways of doing things (applying network theory, creating more emergent spaces, using Web 2.0 tools). At times I have thought of this as being about moving away from what we have traditionally practiced and taught at IISC. Admittedly, there have been times when I have wanted something more.
Certainly there is more. There are other techniques, other tools for helping people to work together effectively. And it is also true that no matter the tool, there are certain core practices and principles that serve anyone and everyone well when working towards a shared goal - bringing a clear collaborative intent to one’s work, being transparent, checking for understanding, surfacing and honoring dissent, striving for a diversity of input, seeking to understand before being understood.
As we move forward I am gaining a better understanding of the need to remain grounded in these core (and perhaps timeless) practices, and also to be more precise about the intent of any given collaborative endeavor so as to choose the best tools for the job.
While offering a training to a group of health care reformers in Maine last month, I was struck by how powerful some of the fundamental tools of Facilitative Leadership were to many of the participants, including the fundamentals of listening as an ally (as opposed to listening as an adversary) and the basic architecture of building agreements. As I listened to an accomplished lawyer speak to the simple elegance of open-narrow-close framework, I felt renewed appreciation for the power of what we teach at IISC and IA.
In recent months there has been a real push within our organization to innovate, to tap more creative ideas and ways of doing things (applying network theory, creating more emergent spaces, using Web 2.0 tools). At times I have thought of this as being about moving away from what we have traditionally practiced and taught at IISC. Admittedly, there have been times when I have wanted something more.
Certainly there is more. There are other techniques, other tools for helping people to work together effectively. And it is also true that no matter the tool, there are certain core practices and principles that serve anyone and everyone well when working towards a shared goal - bringing a clear collaborative intent to one’s work, being transparent, checking for understanding, surfacing and honoring dissent, striving for a diversity of input, seeking to understand before being understood.
As we move forward I am gaining a better understanding of the need to remain grounded in these core (and perhaps timeless) practices, and also to be more precise about the intent of any given collaborative endeavor so as to choose the best tools for the job.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
A Taste of King's Truth
“I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
In a world of hyper-marketing and overabundant information we can tend to become immune to the power of words – this is probably a good defense mechanism, something to protect ourselves against the myriad corporate claims on our psyche. But sometimes words speak such truths, and challenge us in such ways, that we can actually evolve by honestly contemplating them.
I relate to Reverend King as a prophet, a truth teller of our age, and this recognition invites me to welcome his words as I do scriptures, or the words of my master. The yogic tradition speaks of something called “caitanya,” the idea that the words of an awakened being actually carry his or her intention, and that the intention of such a soul is so loaded with love and with truth that it can transcend time and space, it is this intention that pierces our own hearts and in turn helps us wake up.
When the Interaction Institute for Social Change selected this quote and underlined it with a bold, multicolored “HOPE,” I felt we were making a similar claim. There is something mightily subversive in King’s refusal to accept the chains of injustice as if they were a matter of course, as if they were a historic and inevitable fact of human nature. Reverend King’s words stir our soul not because they are a sweet dream fantasy, but it is because they resonate with our deepest truths.
Our humanity has witnessed moments of brotherhood and peace, and we shall see them again – but these moments demand our belief if we are to call them into being. The truth that Reverend King can speak of, is a truth that he has seen, it is a truth that holds a light so factual and a resonance so vibrant that it can stand bare and unarmed, self luminous and self sustained.
His call is uncompromising, it is a call for unconditional love and nothing less than unconditional love. In a world where the profit motive has so wildly expanded as to dig a hole in our own souls, as markets try to define who and how we are, as they attempt to shape our likes and dislikes, as they tag our garments, taint our food, and claim our children and our friends, as they show up in every corner of our living space, in the psychic violence of such a world, it is only unconditional love that can take us all the way, because it’s the only type of love can not be bought or sold.
In a world of hyper-marketing and overabundant information we can tend to become immune to the power of words – this is probably a good defense mechanism, something to protect ourselves against the myriad corporate claims on our psyche. But sometimes words speak such truths, and challenge us in such ways, that we can actually evolve by honestly contemplating them.
I relate to Reverend King as a prophet, a truth teller of our age, and this recognition invites me to welcome his words as I do scriptures, or the words of my master. The yogic tradition speaks of something called “caitanya,” the idea that the words of an awakened being actually carry his or her intention, and that the intention of such a soul is so loaded with love and with truth that it can transcend time and space, it is this intention that pierces our own hearts and in turn helps us wake up.
When the Interaction Institute for Social Change selected this quote and underlined it with a bold, multicolored “HOPE,” I felt we were making a similar claim. There is something mightily subversive in King’s refusal to accept the chains of injustice as if they were a matter of course, as if they were a historic and inevitable fact of human nature. Reverend King’s words stir our soul not because they are a sweet dream fantasy, but it is because they resonate with our deepest truths.
Our humanity has witnessed moments of brotherhood and peace, and we shall see them again – but these moments demand our belief if we are to call them into being. The truth that Reverend King can speak of, is a truth that he has seen, it is a truth that holds a light so factual and a resonance so vibrant that it can stand bare and unarmed, self luminous and self sustained.
His call is uncompromising, it is a call for unconditional love and nothing less than unconditional love. In a world where the profit motive has so wildly expanded as to dig a hole in our own souls, as markets try to define who and how we are, as they attempt to shape our likes and dislikes, as they tag our garments, taint our food, and claim our children and our friends, as they show up in every corner of our living space, in the psychic violence of such a world, it is only unconditional love that can take us all the way, because it’s the only type of love can not be bought or sold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
