Just returning from the Champions for Change gathering in Washington, DC hosted by the Tamarack Institute and the Collective Impact Forum. I was in attendance with a couple of others from the Food Solutions New England Network Team to learn more about people’s experiences with creating and developing a “backbone” function in their “collective impact” efforts, and also had the opportunity to do a couple of skills sessions around IISC’s “Dimensions of Collaborative Success” framework from Facilitative Leadership for Social Change. Read MoreLeave a comment
I have had many conversations recently about network form and transition, all of which have me thinking of what we often talk about in our practice at IISC: balancing acts. The core approach that informs our work in the world is Facilitative Leadership, which strives to create and inspire the conditions for collaborative and net work that yields greater, more sustainable and equitable change. In co-creating these conditions, as process designers, facilitators, trainers and coaches, we invoke a variety of practices and frameworks, each of which has its own dynamic range of considerations. Read MoreLeave a comment
Here is the fact: one segment of the population suffers daily humiliation from the sanctioned authorities. These humiliations too often lead to the most tragic of outcomes – murder by police. Another segment of the population, a much larger and dominant segment, does not have any direct experience of this sort of injustice. So they deny that it exists or that really matters that much. And here is where we find ourselves. Read MoreLeave a comment
I’ve long said that the ways in which work and organizational life are changing should be advantageous to those of us committed to social movements. Our organizational imperatives should never supersede our movement’s imperative. We should be willingly able to discard any organizational structure that does not serve our ultimate purpose. Read MoreLeave a comment
“We add value to society-at-large when we dare to connect.”
This week I was in a conversation with someone who asked me what the difference is between “networking” and “network building.” I’ve been asked this before, and certainly do not purport to have the right answer, but it became an opportunity to deepen the conversation that has been evolving in my work and head about what it means to develop potential through and in networks. Here is what popped to mind as a response, actually in the form of a series of questions
Are you thinking about others?
If you aren’t thinking about others, and are really leading exclusively with self-interest, then you are most likely networking. That is, you are reaching out to others and making connections to advance your own cause. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It’s a natural part of opening up opportunities for ourselves. And this may or may not equate with network building, which in the IISC lexicon entails thinking more actively about others, who they are, what they have to offer, and then not simply networking for ourselves, but doing network weaving, “closing triangles” (introducing people who should know each other), and thinking about how different patterns of connection might support others’ and bigger (collective) work.
Are you paying attention to others’ potential?
There is a difference between seeing people as they are and seeing them as they might/want to be. The second, in my own experience, requires more attention and awareness, more focused listening and inquiry, and certainly more imagination. And as Wendell Berry once said,
“Imagination thrives on contact, on tangible connection.”
Seeing someone’s potential relies on caring, which entails learning more about someone’s story so as to appreciate how they have evolved over time, as well as asking explicitly about their hopes and dreams. To me, this is outside the realm of what we typically think of as networking, and also takes the work of network building, when viewed simply as making connections, to another level.
By way of an example, I often think of something that happened to me when I was about 13 years old. My father had a friend and colleague of his over to the house, who was someone I really admired. He had been a community organizer and educator and international peace advocate and university administrator who had been places I wanted to go and worked with people that I too wanted to link arms with. We had had a wonderful dinner, during which this man told fascinating stories, and afterward I found myself face to face and alone with him in our living room. I remember thinking, “What do I have to say to him?” Before I had a chance to pursue that line of inquiry much further, he asked me with a huge smile, “And what about you, Curtis? What do you make of this world we live in and what is it calling you to do?” I was completely caught off guard, and smiled a bit bashfully. He prodded warmly with other questions, clearly demonstrating his interest and curiosity. And I responded in turn by sharing thoughts that I hadn’t remembered sharing with others and in some cases was not even entirely aware that I had. Marvelous!
Are you making offerings to others in the spirit of furthering their potential?
“Love liberates, it doesn’t bind.”
Paying attention to someone’s potential, to their deeper (or higher) aspirations, can be taken another step by actually making offers in that direction, providing connections, resources, ideas, opportunities. This does not have to be a big or dramatic offer, but when made in connection to someone’s expressed yearnings, can be tremendously meaningful and impactful.
Again, an example. In the adolescent years following that conversation with my hero, he would send me occasional readings and later would introduce me to interesting people who aligned with my interests. To be held in mind and in a way that was drawing me forward was an incredible gift.
And so I think about the difference between someone doing what we might consider to be traditional “networking” within a given marketplace and then many people within an existing or evolving collaborative network making connections and offers in the spirit of advancing individual and collective potential. To me that’s quite a difference and something worth committing to practice.
It is why at IISC we view the work of network building as not purely tactical or transactional, but at its heart transformational. This is more likely to be so when we create spaces for people to see and appreciate others, consider what they have to offer one another, and to follow-through, to make their humble offerings, which can become expressions of love, and together a force for social transformation.1 Comment
The news channels have been flooded for the last few days with photos of the Obama family crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the very bridge that Alabama state troopers and local police would not allow peaceful voting rights activists to cross as they attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery on March 7, 1965. That day is remembered as Bloody Sunday because police attacked the marchers with tear gas and billy clubs, resulting in the hospitalization of many protestors, including John Lewis.
Hour after hour ticked by as I stood on the main street in Selma on March 7, 2015. The sun was hot and I was getting sunburned. I stood in the middle of a sea of overwhelmingly Black Southerners waiting for our Black president to arrive. Words can’t describe the calm yet electric feeling in the air. It was powerful to wait, and to see the Edmund Pettus Bridge just a few blocks ahead, knowing that at any moment President Obama would stand there and speak to this crowd, this mostly Black, Southern crowd.
Every single one of us doing social and racial justice work in 2015 owes a great deal of gratitude to the freedom fighters, the ones whose names we know and the ones whose names we don’t, whose blood stained the pavement in Selma and whose feet marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They were brave, they were creative and strategic, and they held a deep faith that justice would prevail. And yet we do these freedom fighters a disrespect if we simply say (as I have too often done) “nothing has changed in 50 years” and if we don’t acknowledge that they laid the ground work from which we now build. And we do these freedom fighters a disrespect if we don’t realize that “Selma is now” as Reverend William Barber says. Alabama is facing a triple threat of racist violence now that much of the rest of the nation is sorely uninformed about:
- Immigration: HB56 is the harshest anti-immigrant legislation passed in any US state, making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to get library cards, housing, medicine and more; passed at a time when the majority of the fastest growing Latino and Asian immigrant populations are in Southern states
- Healthcare: 300,000 Alabamians are currently being denied their right to health care because they don’t qualify for Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act (AL chose not to expand Medicaid even though it would have been completely paid for by the federal government for three years); it is estimated that 700 people will die each year as a result
- Voting Rights: Protections of voting rights won in 1965 as a direct result of activism in Selma and elsewhere are under threat, and disproportionately in the South
Selma is now because racist violence continues to manifest in insidious ways across the U.S.; and the South is where some of the harsher policies are being tested by legislators. Selma is now because some of the fiercest organizing is happening in the South in 2015 just as it was in 1965 while the rest of the country too often sees the South as backwards or ignores the South altogether. One of the most powerful movement building and Black&Brown power building stories I’ve heard in a long time is the story I heard this weekend of the mobilizing immigrants are leading across the state of Alabama with the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice. I was moved by the work the Federation of Child Care Centers of Alabama is doing, fighting for the right of Alabamians to health care. And I was moved by Reverend William Barber, founder of the Moral Mondays movement who is leading a North Carolina based Southern movement for voting rights, Medicaid expansion and more.
As a white woman driving to Alabama for the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, I couldn’t stop thinking about Viola Liuzzo, an Italian American woman who drove from Detroit to Selma a few weeks after Bloody Sunday for the much larger march that successfully crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge and ended in Montgomery, AL. Viola was shot by the KKK as she drove African American marchers home after the march. I drove past her memorial on the side of the highway as I drove home to Atlanta after the march in 2015. As a white Northerner making my home in the South in 2015, I am humbled by the depth of faith and fierceness of the fight and the warmth of heart that defines the long tradition of Southern organizing. Selma was a strategy by civil rights leaders in 1965 to make the nation uncomfortable about racial injustice, just like Ferguson is today. What risks am I willing to take? What sacrifices are we willing to make? Our time is now! May we honor those who came before, and may we fight with fierceness, joy and faith in the 21st century to end racial violence once and for all!
“With less than we had, they beat Jim Crow.
With less than they had, they were able to overcome.
If they did more with less, we can do more with more.
We must know who we are!
This is our Selma. Right now. Right here. Right now! Right here!
If you know who you are,
and you act like you know who you are,
then God will show up.
I believe that if we know who we are,
If we fight for voting rights,
If we refuse to take down,
If we stand up in this moment,
If we honor the memory of those who believe,
God will show up.
The Lord will make a way,
The Lord will,
Make a way,
Selma is right now.
If we know who we are,
If we stand up,
the Lord Will,
The Lord will,
The Lord will,
Make a way,
SOME HOW. SAY YEAH!”
— Reverend Barber, Dallas County Courthouse, Selma, AL 3.7.153 Comments
Two years ago, the Food Solutions New England (FSNE) Network Team, with support from IISC, committed to putting racial equity at the center of its work in trying to bring the six state region together around a vision of a more sustainable food system. Since formalizing that commitment with more than 150 delegates at last year’s annual Food Summit, and taking it to other food system-focused networks by invitation, the FSNE Network Team has faced the big question – Now what? How to deliver on this commitment and in a regional context? At the very least we continue to deepen our learning around and commitment to equity, modeling for and learning from and with others, growing and strengthening our understanding and action. A sub-committee of the Network Team, of which IISC is a part, has put together a racial equity plan consisting of various areas of activity, including education, communication, convening, network weaving/organizing and curating tools and resources for food system advocates at all levels (organizational, community, municipal, state).
One step that has just been launched is a bit of an experiment, and takes the 21 Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge from Debbie Irving (author of Waking Up White) and Dr. Eddie Moore, Jr. (founder of the White Privilege Conference), and turns it into a virtual community of practice. The ongoing challenge of the Network Team is to figure out a variety of means to keep knitting the network, and to keep communication and learning flowing. This is where the proliferation of social media tools and collaboration platforms has been extremely helpful. Read MoreLeave a comment
“You’ve got to keep asserting the complexity and the originality of life, and the multiplicity of it, and the facets of it.”
- Toni Morrison
I’ve been re-reading Niels Pfleaging’s short book Organize for Complexity and appreciating how it succinctly captures the current challenges for many groups and organizations trying to navigate complexity while clinging to old tools and beliefs. This can also be the nature of social change work amidst the significant shifts we are seeing. Here’s the trick – as things shift more, and more rapidly, people’s natural inclination may be to try to exert greater control or dig in to what is familiar but does not work. The more one does so, the worse things can get. As Pfleaging writes, we see a “high price for the illusion of control.” Within organizations this takes the form of various gaps – social, functional, and temporal – that make them increasingly irrelevant and ineffective. Responding to complexity requires (to borrow a phrase from Eugene Kim) new muscles and mindsets.
If I could summarize my own reading of Pflaegings’s book, I would put it this way – the world we are living into requires more integrated ways of seeing and doing, and this is hard to do (if not impossible) if people maintain highly differentiated ways of organizing themselves. There is really a baseline call for self-awareness and mindfulness so that one is able to respond not by default or fear, but with perspective and intention, which connects to the idea of “strengthening the network within” at the individual level. And it is important to reach out and connect this self-awareness to others . . .
“Problem-solving in a life-less system is about instruction. Problem-solving in a living system is about communication.”
Throughout his book, Pflaeging notes that in all formal organizations, there are informal structures, and that these are really the life blood of those organisms. They are what contributes maximally to value creation, that is to being more intelligently responsive to needs and opportunities “out there.” Yet formalized structures often stand, by intention or by accident, as impediments to these informal structures. When things are complex, it can be helpful to connect the social system to more of itself so that people are better able to make sense of what is happening. This can sometimes mean getting out of the way of informal structures and inherent self-organizing tendencies, or creating spaces for informal sharing and connecting.
“Self-organization in complex systems is natural. Having “a leader” is not.”
Whether we are in nascent or long-standing organized efforts, there are threats of being pulled to the overly formalized, bureaucratic and centralized side of things. Pflaeging echoes others (including Mila Baker, Carol Sanford, and Frederic Laloux) in some of his recommendations for keeping eyes on and supporting the less formalized and life-affirming prize. These can be of great support generally-speaking in encouraging network ways of working.
- Let purpose [not incentives] drive behavior.
- Cultivate [guiding] principles, not rules.
- Emphasize roles, not [fixed] positions.
- Support and practice maximum transparency.
- Encourage informal knowledge forums, guilds, communities of practice.
- Decentralize, rather than delegate, decision-making (delegation still smacks of hierarchy).
This kind of work may be more difficult than what some typically lean towards. And there are those who might question its effectiveness and efficiency. But this is very much intelligent systemic work, organized as social and emergent processes.2 Comments
When the injustice done to Mike Brown and Eric Garner unfolded before our very eyes we witnessed the racial fault lines in this country as they made themselves painfully obvious. I witnessed anger, misunderstanding and resentment. I saw an oppressed community blamed, questioned and invalidated when we chose to protest and scream at injustice.
This is what happens when people don’t understand history. It is what happens when people don’t co-exist in community, in the context of authentic relationship.
It is what happens when we don’t understand that structural oppression is manifested across generations.
Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror, the horrific report released by the Equal Justice Initiative, and reported by the New York Times, is a painful but helpful way to give historical context to people’s rage.
The report names 4,000 lynchings between 1877 and 1950. 1950 was not too long ago; do you know anyone over 65?
It is good to claim our nation’s contribution to the idea of freedom and democracy. And it is also impossible to skip over the darker parts of our history. All of history is with us today.
“That was a long time ago” simply isn’t good enough.
Let us have the courage to face where we come from and let us have the dignity to right our wrongs.
#BlackLivesMatter Read More2 Comments
One of my mantras around network building and social change is that creating greater (and new forms of) connectivity is not simply a “so that” or a “nice to have” but is really an “as” and critical to the work of systems and structural change. This is echoed is some way, shape or form in many of the posts that appear in this space, and I think it bears repeating. Consider the following:
“Whether we learn how to love ourselves and others will depend on the presence of a loving environment. Self-love cannot flourish in isolation.”
- Isolation can kill. Science shows how loneliness and social isolation can ravage the body and brain. As noted in an article in The New Rebublic – “A partial list of the physical diseases thought to be caused or exacerbated by loneliness would include Alzheimer’s, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases, and even cancer.” And who are the lonely? In many cases the poor, the bullied and oppressed, the “different.” When we consider how isolation can impact genes, we see how the cycles of poverty and oppression can play out at a fundamental psychobiological level. What this calls for, in part, is work that reconnects those who are currently in isolation and on the margins from/of myriad social goods including emotional support, tangible services and other critical resources.
- Disconnection breeds irresponsible behavior and prejudice. Science is helping us to understand the role of implicit bias in all of our lives and in society. Furthermore, the work of people like Paul Piff shows how those with considerable privilege who isolate from the rest of society (and keep to their own) tend to lose touch with empathy and any sense of egalitarianism. As my colleague Cynthia Parker notes, “Engaging with people unlike ourselves in situations that involve meaningful activity [and] counter-stereotypic experiences” helps to eliminate biases. In other words keeping and strengthening direct connection is a key part of the work for equity and democracy.
Today the role of the organization is in question. We make things happen through networks. Governance still matters, for both networks and organizations. Most of our models are obsolete; they don’t work so well. It is up to us to re-imagine governance because accountability is important.
I’ve seen Web of Change evolve over the years, and like to think I am part of its evolution. I am consistently impressed by the way this community is willing to transform and to govern itself.
Following is a link to the best board report I’ve ever seen. Can more of us get this good please?Leave a comment
Important considerations for collaborative social change work: What are considered “legitimate” ways of knowing and doing? Why? What does this allow? What doesn’t it allow?
I’m always interested to see diverse cognitive styles and preferences show up in the collaborative processes we help to design and facilitate at IISC. A classic difference is between those who bend more towards the analytical side of things and those who prefer to lead with intuition. This, of course, paints too stark of a dichotomy of what most people present overall, and context can often be a determinant in what people lead with. Nonetheless there are undeniable tensions that arise within groups about what constitutes “rigor” and “right method” for deriving what might be considered strategic insights. I would say that in many more “mainstream” (one might say “professional”) settings, it is often analysis and deference to some kind of “expert “that has a better chance of winning the day. And so I’ve been interested to come across a few resources that talk about and validate the place of intuition and iterative group visualization in coming up with good answers.
In a piece that appeared in the Harvard Business Review, Justin Fox writes about how instinct can beat analytical thinking. In particular, he lifts up the work of Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, Germany. Gigerenzer’s research suggests that rational, statistical, analytical approaches work well in situations where one is able to calculate risk. The trouble, however, is that in many situations, decisions are made in considerable uncertainty, where risk and consequence are unknown because everything is quite dynamic. Read MoreLeave a comment