On the cusp of the Martin Luther King Jr. day of remembrance and celebration, IISC is gearing up to lead a webinar on the day after the Monday holiday focused on a very relevant topic – collective leadership. Much is being made of the Occupy Movement and its potential for showing us a new way to lead (we would call it leader-full, not leader-less). Prior to this important civic groundswell, many have been looking at how to create the conditions for emergent and collaborative leadership to move us in more just and life-affirming directions.  Given the complexity of the issues we face and the diversity of perspectives in our various systems, it has been recognized that we cannot rely on individual, expert, or command-and-control leadership to move us forward. We must unleash more robust and adaptive collective intelligence. If this conversation interests you, come join Gibran Rivera and me as we explore stories of and practices for creating the conditions to unleash leader-full momentum that embodies and leads to the social change we seek. More information about this free opportunity can be found here.

I have written a few times in this space (see “Right from the Start” and “The System is Us”) about our work with the Graustein Memorial Fund and stakeholders from around Connecticut to re-conceptualize and change the early childhood development system in the state so that all families and children are thriving. We are currently in the midst of a visioning process, whereby members of the System Design Team are engaging various constituents in conversations about what it would look like if the system were truly providing equitable and excellent support and opportunities to all children, regardless of race, ability, and income. In addition, we are asking what foundational beliefs, or values, would under-gird such a reality brought to life.  This phase kicked off with a series of interviews with participants in the Memorial Fund’s annual Stone Soup Conference. This included parents, child care providers, elected officials, advocates of all kinds, and the keynote speaker – Ralph Smith. Check out the series above, along with others posted on the Right from the Start site. There is an emerging picture forming here, that speaks to the power of collective visioning.  What do you see?

Photo by ad551

As 2011 comes to a close, we here at IISC can look back on a year full of multi-stakeholder change work. I think I can speak on behalf of the entire team when I say that it has been our pleasure to contribute our process design, facilitation, and collaborative capacity building skills to a range of differently scaled social change efforts, linking arms with convenors and catalysts in a variety of fields.  These have included (to name a few):

• A global network focused on growing social justice philanthropy
• National initiatives focused on improving child dental health and boosting Black Male Achievement
• State-wide collaborative efforts in Connecticut and Rhode Island focused respectively on creating a more equitable system for early childhood development and community food security
• More localized community development efforts in Boston’s Dudley Street Neighborhood (Boston Promise) and in Springfield, Massachusetts
• A variety of social change leadership development networks at national, state, and local levels

I personally am proud and humbled to be a part of this ambitious and important work, and have reaped many lessons, hints of which have found their way into posts on this blog during the past 361 days.  As a team, we at IISC have also managed to parlay some of our learnings into new and robust training courses that focus on collaborative process design and facilitation skills -  Pathway to Change and Fundamentals of Facilitation for Racial Justice Work.   And we have contributed to a joint publication with Grantmakers for Effective Organizations entitled Do Nothing About Me Without Me: An Action Guide for Engaging Stakeholders. 

I have also been delighted to see the conversation around multi-stakeholder collaboration continue to grow to a more nuanced crescendo this year with important contributions from other colleagues in the field: FSG’s “Collective Impact” article; the Monitor Institute’s robust writings on networks, including Connected Citizens: The Power, Potential and Peril of Networks, Transformer: How to Build a Network to Change a System, and Catalyzing Networks for Social Change: A Funder’s Guide (co-published with GEO).  Surely I am forgetting others (please feel free to add them in the comment section).  And then, of course, there is the #Occupy Movement, which has taken the art of collaboration and networks to a whole new fascinating and important level!  So much to be grateful for this past year, and so much yet to be explored and realized.

Below are some quotes from 2011, that surely forecast continued growth and evolution of collaborative multi-stakeholder work in the year to come (again, please feel free to add others from the past 12 months below).  Enjoy!

“We need not only do things better than we have in the past; we need to link them in smarter and more effective ways.”- David Bornstein (“The Power of Partnerships”)

“Harnessing the power of networks and enabling individual to individual connections can result in impact at a scale and speed unthinkable in recent years.” - Diana Scearce, Monitor Institute (Connected Citizens)

“After [the RE-AMP Network launched], it was absolutely crystal clear no one could win unless we all win.” - Rick Reed (transcript of interview follow-up to Transformer)

“The first step is to identify a few credible leaders who can serve as convenors and who genuinely understand that every community needs a common table.” - Nancy Zimpher, State University of New York (“Collective Impact”)

“My simple premise is that the mission of the 21st century is to build up the positive and reduce the negative forces of interdependence.” – Bill Clinton (quoted in Connected Citizens)

“We need ‘targeted universalism;’ getting everyone on board with universal goals, but not universal strategies for getting there.” - john a. powell, Kirwan Institute (“Systems Thinking and Social Justice”)

“A systems approach that doesn’t bring us into deeper relationship with each other and the entire web of life is not an approach I want any part of.” - Eric Stiens, Kirwan Institute (follow up blog on Systems Thinking Webinar)

“Systemic change ultimately depends on a sustained campaign to increase the capacity and coordination of an entire field.” - John Kania and Mark Kramer, FSG (“Collective Impact”)

“We are the 99%.” - #Occupy

Join Ashley Welch of Interaction Associates Wednesday, December 14, at 1 pm Eastern time, for a timely conversation with her colleague from the Interaction Institute for Social Change, Melinda Weekes. They will discuss Strategies for Designing Social Change, exploring ways leaders in any sector can succeed when leading change. 

Melinda is a senior consultant who works with foundations, NGO’s and community leaders. Recently she has been supporting Occupy Wall Street. As a former lawyer, gospel music theorist and ordained clergy person, Melinda brings a unique perspective to social change.

The following is a post from my friend and colleague Danny Martin, that appeared on his web page on Monday, following our joint workshop at Connecting for Change, a Bioneers Conference.  Tomorrow I will extend this reflection with more details about our session and regenerative leadership practice.

So much to say this week but it all turns on the same theme of how to access the wisdom we need to move forward together into a more sustainable and just society. In a recent article about what he calls The New Economy Movement, Gar Alperovitz, a Professor of Political Economy in the University of Maryland, says that, instead of feeling confined to the binary paths of reforming the broken economic system or revolting to overthrow it, citizens are opting to create something new that will replace the current economic regime, making the old system obsolete in the process. He calls this third way ‘evolutionary reconstruction.’ In another article I sent you last week from the NY Times, the writer, Michael Kimmelman, spoke of ‘the architecture of consciousness’ and suggested that this is what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about: that the point right now is not to come up with a set of demands which would represent one of the binary paths but to stay with the process until the new consciousness that we need can surface. The encampment, Kimmelman concluded, is the point.

I agree with both writers and want to add what I think is a critical complementary component about how this new consciousness and the evolutionary reconstruction it will bring can be found, formed, and fostered. Last Monday I worked with a number of interfaith – secular as well as religious – leaders at the UN that a group of us had invited to be part of a consortium for an ecological civilization to bring what we are calling ‘a prophetic voice’ to the global conversation on ecological sustainability and justice. We are focused on next year’s 20^th anniversary of the first UN Earth Summit in Rio, Brazil though we see this as simply a step, albeit an important one, in the process. We engaged the group in a process of ‘deep listening’ that would allow us to listen together FOR this prophetic voice in the form of a collective wisdom that might certainly be rooted in ancient traditions and inspired by recent documents like The Earth Charter, but would also be fresh, immediate and relevant to the situation being addressed. In a sense, we too were saying that the purpose at this stage is not another set of principles but a new consciousness, and that the point at this moment is the actual conversation. It was clear from the passion and focus that was palpable in the room that the participants grasped this idea as perhaps already the beginnings of a prophetic voice.

Yesterday I co-lead a workshop at the Bioneers Conference in New Bedford, MA with Curtis Ogden, a wonderful young colleague from the Interaction Institute for Social Change on what we called Belonging and Becoming which engaged almost 100 participants in a similar process that in 90 minutes brought a group of strangers into a sense of connectedness (belonging) that enabled them to surface amazingly creative ways of how we could live together (become) more sustainably and more justly. The focus was systems theory and living systems principles but the context was the movements for change that we are all experiencing. By deep listening to each other’s story/world, we learn how to belong – surface principles of belonging (ecological principles, if you like); by listening deeply to each other’s experience and understanding of these principles which are becoming self-evident truths (think ‘interdependence, biodiversity’, etc.), we discover and build a shared consciousness and a shared understanding of concrete practices.

People came away from the experience feeling that this was something they could do – that all of us could do: listen deeply to each other and listen deeply with each other for the collective wisdom that is there already to show us certainly a new way but also inspire and empower us to live it.

A statement of Margaret Mead captured the spirit:

‘For the human species to evolve, the conversation must deepen’

We deepen the conversation by deepening our listening. It is the way that our species has always discovered how to address the challenges of life: surfaced the consciousness and accessed the wisdom needed for a new situation. It is natural to us, in other words, but perhaps, in a world where individualism has fostered the illusion of separation and control we have forgotten this simple though profoundly important art and need to learn it again.

For the third year in a row, I am looking forward to presenting at the Connecting for Change conference, also known as Bioneers by the Bay, sponsored by the Marion Institute. The community of New Bedford, Massachusetts becomes the host and scenic back-drop to some amazing speakers, well known and not so well known, as well as presentations by an incredible array of people doing important work in our New England region. For more about last year’s proceedings, check out the Marion Institute’s YouTube Channel. And for this year’s program, including keynotes by Sobonfu Some (Dagara wisdom), Ben Hewitt (food systems), Satish Kumar (Resurgence magazine), and Amy Goodman (Democracy Now), check out this link. When I’m not checking out different activities, you will find me presenting a session entitled “Belonging and Becoming: Practices for Regenerative Leadership” with my Interaction Associates’ colleague Michael Reidy and our brother in arms Danny Martin.  Come find us at the Ocean Explorium between 2:00 and 3:30 PM on Saturday, October 22nd, if you are interested in exploring the following: How do we tap into our collective capacity and intelligence to work WITH as opposed to against one another and our environment? How do we move ourselves to a more synergistic level of engagement with our surroundings? And look for my inspired tweets that day!

-David Stroh

David M. Nee, Executive Director, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund from Graustein Memorial Fund on Vimeo.

Yesterday I gave a general update on the proceedings of the Right from the Start early childhood development system change effort in Connecticut. Today I want to lift up some of the insights and wisdom that have been unearthed by the System Analysis phase. Key to this work has been the engagement of two experts in the realm of systems thinking – David Stroh of Bridgeway Partners and Keith Lawrence of the Aspen Institute’s Roundtable for Community Change.

David brings particular skill and experience in teaching about and mapping systemic dynamics as they play out at different levels.  In June, he gave a wonderful overview of systems thinking to the System Design Team, which included an introduction to the iceberg diagram (see below) that helps people get from more superficial and tactical questions to deeper systemic points of leverage, including awareness of one’s own unwitting contribution to dynamics that yield outcomes that are undesirable or in some sense not optimal.  Part of the shift we experienced over the course of these conversations was the understanding that “the system” is not out there, but as Yaneer Bar-Yam says, is “the way we work together.”  As we engaged participants in various exercises (including Rich Pictures, and working groups organized around focusing questions) to get a better picture of what exists as an early childhood system in Connecticut, the attempt was also to draw attention to the foundational structures (policies, pressures, power dynamics, perceptions, and purposes) that if addressed might help shift the overall system toward more desirable outcomes.

Keith Lawrence joined us in June as well with an important presentation on structural analysis and institutional racism.  His contributions were designed to help us go beyond “the data” and considerations of overt and legally sanctioned, as well as individual forms, of racial discrimination to the “racialized patterns [that] permeate the political, economic, and socio-cultural structures . . .  in ways that generate differences in well-being between people of color and whites.” Referencing the Aspen Institute’s report Structural Racism & Community Building, Keith helped would-be system changers understand the complexity of structural racism as “the system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity in every key opportunity area, from health, to education, to employment, to income and wealth.”

With this foundation, four working groups engaged different curiosities about the early childhood system in Connecticut (how it is and why this is so) by looking at it from the angles of government mis-alignment, disparities in outcomes and quality of services, as well as disparities and mis-alignment of formal and informal infrastructure to support families and children at the local level.  All of this culminated in the production of a system map (see generic example below) by David Stroh, outlining key dynamics in the early childhood system, including links and feedback loops.

The most recent discussions Melinda and I have had with the System Design Team in the System Analysis phase have focused on the case for NOT changing the system/ourselves and the case for changing it/us.  This has proved to be very valuable and powerful, as the point was made by David Stroh that all systems are set up perfectly to yield the results they are producing. Someone or something always benefits, at least in the short-term.  In order to build momentum for systemic change, the sum of the benefits of change and the cost of not changing must be stronger than the sum of the cost of the status quo and the cost of changing.

Having begun to flesh out the case for moving forward, the System Design Team has also surfaced some possible leverage points, or areas in the system’s current dynamics and relationships where intervention might help shift to different and desired outcomes.  These include:  building stronger relationships and a “village culture” in and between communities, better connecting and coordinating local and state as well as formal and informal supports, making a stronger long-term business/economic case for investing in the earliest years of a child’s life, and focusing more on “the preparation gap” not just the “achievement gap.”

From here we take the map and the highlights of our conversations to communities across the state to hear what resonates about the current state of affairs, the case for change and possible leverage points, and to engage citizens in a conversation around the following questions:  “What would a high quality and sustainable early childhood system that is accessible and effective for all children and families look like?  How would you be experiencing this system from where you sit, given your role(s) in the system (child, parent, provider, advocate, legislator, etc.)?  What would be different and better about this, for you and others in this state?  And what foundational beliefs and values would guide this system?

-David Nee, Executive Director, WCGMF

Photo by jfinnirwin

Last November I blogged about the launch of a bold and exciting initiative in Connecticut, spear-headed by the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund based in Hamden.  My colleague Melinda Weekes and I were engaged to assist the Memorial Fund as it answered a community-based call to step into a convening role to bring relevant stakeholders together from around the state to re-imagine and build an early childhood system “that is accessible and effective in all settings and in all communities for Connecticut’s children and families regardless of race, abilities and income.” This initiative has since been dubbed Right from the Start, a name that has turned out to be quite prescient in light of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s recent comments.  Right from the Start builds upon 10 years of work by the Memorial Fund in supporting community-based efforts to promote development and learning for all children.  Melinda and I are proud to have been able to make a contribution over the past four years by providing Facilitative Leadership training and collaborative capacity building to more than 200 individuals from the 57 Discovery Collaboratives around the state.

The launch of Right from the Start in November 2010 included the constitution of a Process Team, made up of 15 individuals representing diverse interests and parts of the state, to construct a “pathway to action” for this system building/change effort.  This work entailed the creation of a Big Picture framing document that focuses on contextual and current status analysis as well as the aspirational value to be created by Right from the Start in light of the numerous early childhood efforts around the state and the perceived gaps and needs.  The robust discussions Melinda and I facilitated around this yielded the following agreements:

• This effort is about honoring and including the voice and successes of communities and families in any system building effort, including the Governor’s plan to create a coordinated system of early care, education, and child development at the state agency level.
• Right from the Start is focused on whole child development, and therefore strives to bring together stakeholders from both the education and health arenas, who are often not at the same table.
• The initiative emphasizes the need to better serve all of Connecticut’s families, and therefore lifts up for deeper analysis the racialized disparities in outcomes for children in the state.

In the first part of this calendar year, we guided the Process Team through a rigorous stakeholder analysis to create a 40 person System Design Team, again representing diverse perspectives, to take the work forward and beyond the Process Design Phase and into the subsequent designed phases:

• System Analysis (April-August 2011) - The System Design Team conducts research and analysis to explore the current state of early childhood in Connecticut and better understand different systemic dynamics and key leverage points for change.
• Vision & Values (September-October 2011) - Additional stakeholders from communities around the state outline a guiding vision and values for a new system aligned with the purpose of serving all children and families.
• System Design (October-December 2011) – The System Design Team drafts a template/blueprint for a new system, focusing on leverage points identified in the System Analysis phase.
• Implementation/Prototyping and Monitoring (January 2012 on –>) Agreed upon strategies and ideas are implemented and prototyped with built-in timetables for evaluation and adjustment.

As indicated above, we are just coming to the end of the System Analysis phase, which has revealed some very interesting insights about the current state of the system as well as the power of systemic inquiry.  I will say more about this in tomorrow’s post.

Image by MiRo740

The storming had begun.  For the first few meetings, the team had engaged in “feel good” conversations, getting to know one another, breaking bread together, laughing, and bonding around their shared desire to build a stronger local food system to ensure community food security.  They had agreed to a set of values and a vision to guide their work.  Now they were diving into more of the specifics.  What would the scope of the work be and what wouldn’t it include?

The convenor, a strongly affiliative and passionate visionary, had been sitting back for some time as people shared their opinions about the definition of “local.”  Could we really only focus on strengthening the in-state system?  Would that be enough to meet the goal of community food security?  Perhaps not, but building more local capacity was critical.  Clearly the state would benefit economically from a more connected and robust food system. And people would benefit from greater direct access to food growing near them. Yes, but focusing only in state might not ultimately address the issue of lack of affordability of (and therefore access to) healthy food, especially for those who most need it due to health issues. Points were made about the need to think beyond state lines, to the region, to imported food as at least part of the key to ensuring that no one would go hungry or suffer from poor nutrition.  Heads began nodding.

Our convenor smiled.  She looked around the room and said, “This is precisely why you were invited to this table.  You are all so committed and smart.  I come to this conversation with my own opinions and biases that I have made known. I believe very strongly that this state and its residents need to have greater production capacity. And having listened to this conversation I really understand the points you are making.  And I am convinced.  We need to think bigger. That IS our work.”