Tag Archive: Collaboration
April 25, 2017
With inspiration from Nancy White – thank you! (and make sure to check out Nancy’s blog) – I have been returning to and reviewing the list of Liberating Structures created and collected by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless for application to some strategy development work with a couple of social change networks. As described on the website:
Liberating Structures are “easy-to-learn microstructures that enhance relational coordination and trust.
Liberating Structures are meant to foster enlivening participation in groups of all sizes, making it possible to truly include and unleash everyone.”
In reviewing the various structures, I’ve pulled out and added to a list of strategic questions that could be offered in concert with different group processes (World Cafe, Open Space, pair shares, fishbowls, individual reflection, etc.) to open up possibilities … Read More
February 27, 2017
“We add value to society-at-large when we dare to connect.”
– Gibran Rivera
For the past five years, Food Solutions New England has been building a regional collaborative network organized to support the emergence and sustainability of a New England food system that is a driver of healthy food for all, racial equity, sustainable farming and fishing, and thriving communities. This network was formally launched with support of IISC in response to a shared sense that greater connection, trust, deep collaboration and innovation were needed across food system efforts throughout the region. To create this connectivity, we have engaged in a number of structural and procedural innovations, including creating an Ambassador Team to do network weaving and the 21 Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge, which will happen again this year from April 9-29.
Along the way, we have been witnessing some important boundary-crossing and new partnerships emerging. One example in particular stands out, stemming from a field visit a number of us did to a fishing community in the region to learn more about the challenges to and innovations among small scale fishermen. Our tour was organized by a network team member and community organizer of color who focuses on fisheries who has many deep connections in that community. One of the attendees of the tour was an older white man who does policy work in another state. Personality-wise, these two individuals are quite different, along with their chosen points of intervention in the food system. And yet on the heels of that tour, the organizer and the policy wonk became good friends and colleagues who continue to learn from one another and coordinate more around fisheries and policy analysis/development, creating new opportunities in and across their respective worlds. Read More
July 7, 2016
For the past 4 years, IISC has supported Food Solutions New England (FSNE) in developing a network and collaborative practices to forward its work for “an equitable, ecological regional food system that supports thriving communities.” In the past year, this work has included conducting a system mapping and analysis process to identify leverage areas for regional strategy development. One of these leverage areas is “making the business case for an equitable ecological regional food system,” which includes thinking at the levels of individual food-related businesses, economic development, and political economy. Strategy development will begin in earnest this fall, and as a precursor, IISC and FSNE facilitated a convening of businesses and community members in the Boston area to discuss how business are already aligning with the New England Food Vision and the real challenges that stand in the way. What follows is a summary of that evening’s conversation.
“You have to be patient, develop trust, and have people go with you.” These were words from Karen Masterson, co-owner of Johnny’s Luncheonette in Newton, MA as she talked about what it takes to align her business with the aspirations of the New England Food Vision. Read More
June 7, 2016
re·gen·er·a·tion
rəˌjenəˈrāSH(ə)n/
Renewal, revival, restoration; spiritual transformation; an aspect of living systems without which there would be no life; a process through which whole new organisms may be created from fractions of organisms; an adaptive and evolutionary trait that plays out at different systemic levels.
Readers of this blog know that at IISC we do not see building networks simply as a tactic, rather networks are more fundamental as structures underlying healthy living systems (ecosystems, human communities, economies, etc.). This is especially true when there is focus on the regenerative potential of social-ecological networks. That is, in paying attention to qualities of diversity, intricacy and flow in network structures, people can support systems’ ability to self-organize, adapt and evolve in ways that deliver vitality to participants and to the whole.
In my conversations with the Research Alliance for Regenerative Economics, we have been developing a list of design principles for and indicators of the human factors in healthy (regenerative) networks. Here is a working list of 12 and readers are invited to offer adjustments, additions, and comments: Read More
May 5, 2016
“Everything we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.”
– Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In the start-up and at transitional phases of network growth it is important for participants to get real about their constraints. Otherwise, what can happen is that people can start seeing one another as “blockers,” uncooperative, not good team players, etc.
A starting place is to ask people as they come to the collaborative table to start thinking about the constraints they have (real or imagined). These could be related to time, money, mental bandwidth, awareness, political pressure, organizational policy, comfort level with going certain places in the collective work, etc. If we define “value” holistically at the outset, we quickly come to understand that everyone has limitations and everyone has something to offer.
Trust-building is critical in helping people feel comfortable expressing certain constraints, so it is helpful to state preventatively that everyone has them, that some are perhaps not so easily spoken or may be beyond current awareness, and that it is important to get and remain curious about these, in addition to the gifts people have to offer!
Read More
March 17, 2016
There is a difference between being a network by default and being one by intention. Sometimes that can be a big difference. I encounter a fair number of networks that are networks in name and in standing, at least in that they are connected entities. But that is pretty much it. Experience shows there are any number of different ways to structure a network, and name it for that matter.
And what I find is most important is the underlying intention to maximize network effects, including: speeding the spread of resources, ensuring resources reach everyone in the network, ensuring everyone has the opportunity to share resources, growing the overall pie of resources, strengthening adaptive capacity and collective intelligence, growing abundance and equity in many different ways.
What this boils down to is a set of network ethics, which I would summarize (certainly incompletely, and to which I invite additions and alterations) in the following way: Read More
February 24, 2016
“Network entrepreneurs are keenly aware that they are few among many working across the larger system, and in this way they embody a special type of … leader[ship].”
– Jane Wei-Skillern, David Ehrlichman, & David Sawyer
Image from Taro Taylor – https://www.flickr.com/photos/tjt195/30916171
The concept of leadership has been undergoing an evolution. In this “network age” there appears to be both an expanding appreciation that leadership has always been about more than the singular heroic individual, and that going forward, leadership really must be much more of a shared endeavor.
In our collaborative consulting work at IISC, leadership (or what we often call Facilitative Leadership) is about “holding the whole,” thinking expansively about the state of a given complex system (community, economy, ecosystem, etc.) and paying attention to what will be required to ensure resiliency and/or change for more equitable and sustainable benefit. In these situations, the traditional top-down images of leadership fall far short.
Network leadership is at best a dynamic, diverse, more decentralized and multi-dimensional phenomenon. Many of those with whom we partner at IISC understand this implicitly, and we have found it important to help them be more explicit about this by clearly delineating the roles that leadership can embody in a collaborative/networked change endeavor. Read More
January 12, 2016
“Love is essential, gregariousness is optional.”
-Susan Cain
The following is a slightly edited re-post of something I wrote in early 2014. Since writing this, I continue to see the need to be vigilant around not privileging extroversion in groups, to provide more opportunities to tap a range of cognitive styles to leverage fuller potential in networks.
Having read Susan Cain’s book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Won’t Stop Talking, I feel both validated (as someone of more introverted tendencies as the years pass) and able to see with new eyes. IMHO, the book is well worth the read, and if the thought of tackling the 300 pages is daunting, you might enjoy a taste via Cain’s TED Talk.
Here I want to reflect on some of the insights Cain’s work has to offer collaboration and “net work” for change. Essentially, Cain reminds us of an important element of diversity that we should not overlook in our change efforts – different cognitive processing styles and ways of responding to social stimulation.
First of all, what is introversion? Introversion is not shyness or asocial behavior. People who are introverted can certainly be shy or socially awkward, but introversion is first and foremost a response to social stimulation. Relative to those who are more extroverted, those who are introverted prefer less stimulation and tend to work more slowly and deliberately. Introversion tends to favor intimacy, listening, and some time alone.
According to Susan Cain’s assessment of the research, one third to one half of people in this country are introverted, while many can display extroverted tendencies. Well-known introverts include the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, Rosa Parks, Pablo Picasso, and Steve Wozniak.
“There’s zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas.”
In a fascinating historical review, Cain traces a mainstream cultural trend in the United States that shifted preference from what she calls “the culture of character” to “a culture of personality,” where public performance and gregariousness became equated with success and strong leadership (think Dale Carnegie and his books How to Win Friends and Influence People and Public Speaking and Influencing Men in Business). To this day, in many workplaces, schools, and families, Cain suggests that there is a preference for extroverted ways of thinking and being. This flies in the face of data suggesting that introverted styles can equate with stronger academic performance and deeper knowledge in given fields.
And yet there continue to be significant shifts toward open concept workplaces and group-oriented classrooms that privilege extroversion and create painful experiences for those who are more introverted, not allowing them to shine or bring their gifts to the relatively raucous table. The result is that we risk losing the gifts and talents of “quiet leadership” and creativity.
So what to do, especially in collective change efforts? A few thoughts:
- Pay attention to who speaks and does not speak up in meetings/groups and don’t immediately assume that the quiet people are aloof or uncaring.
- Think carefully before opening physical spaces and group processes too much or too often. Introversion thrives in settings where there is more personal space and opportunity to reflect alone and in small groups.
- Understand that brainstorming as it is often done (in person and through whole group discussion from the get-go) privileges extroversion, and that research shows it leads less to innovation and more to group bonding (not a bad thing). Make space for people to work and think alone before bringing a group and their ideas together.
- Leverage social media and virtual collaborative platforms as a way of helping to maintain autonomy and avenues for creativity that can fuel innovation and allow introversion to shine.
- Create space for “parallel play” and cooperation, as opposed whole group collaboration (see Harold Jarche – “In networks, cooperation trumps collaboration“).
- Embrace the power of quiet for everyone through space for writing, mindfulness, and other kinds of restorative practice.
Curious to hear any reactions and additions to these.
I will end with this important reminder from the introverted Mahatma Gandhi:
“In a gentle way you can shake the world.”
December 8, 2015
Last week, we held an internal learning session for staff and affiliates entitled “Advancing Equitable Networks.” IISC Affiliate Kiara Nagel and I presented some thoughts about our ever evolving practice of supporting network development for social change, including situating our current approach in IISC’s mission and vision, and our collaborative change lens (see above), which lifts up the importance of understanding and shifting power dynamics for equitable outcomes, embracing love as a force for social transformation and seeing networks as the underlying infrastructure of change.
We then elicited and shared some questions that are at the growing edge of our network consulting practice, including these three:
Read More
November 3, 2015
“The goal is not so much to see that which no one has seen, but to see that which everyone else sees in a totally different way.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I just finished reading The New Science of Sustainability:Building a Foundation for Great Change, which added depth and nuance to my understanding of the importance of thinking and working in networked ways to create social change. Lead author Sally J. Goerner isScience Advisor to the Capital Institute and lectures worldwide on how the science of “energy networks” can provide measures and an overall narrative for supporting social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Read More
October 6, 2015
A recent report out of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University highlights a number of food systems change efforts that have adopted a collective impact approach. Two of these are initiatives that IISC supports – Food Solutions New England and Vermont Farm to Plate Network. The report distills common and helpful lessons across eight state-wide and regional efforts. Here I want to summarize and elaborate on some of the article’s core points, which I believe have applicability to virtually all collaborative networks for social change.
First off, the authors note the importance of context. They quote Margaret Adamek from the Minnesota Food Charter, who points out that “borrowing from other states and initiatives only goes so far as ‘the unique features of each place are what dictate the strategy.'” At IISC, we could not agree more. Complex systems suggest that we cannot bring a cookie cutter approach to change. As such, there is not one single appropriate model for food systems change. That said, the authors discuss common practices that can undergird a diversity of approaches.
- Investing time – It always takes longer than you think or want. While this may not be the best marketing pitch for collective impact and network building, it is good to manage people’s expectations. This work is a marathon, not a sprint. Undoing and shifting years of practices, layers of institutional structures and fixed mindsets does not happen over-night. Furthermore, it takes time to build alignment among key players.
- Building trust – A recent blog post in the Stanford Social Innovations Review says it all – “In our research and experience, the single most important factor behind all successful collaborations is trust-based relationships among participants. Many collaborative efforts ultimately fail to reach their full potential because they lack a strong relational foundation.” Trust is what binds the efforts together and creates longer-term and more emergent potential.
Change begins and ends with relationships, and a big part of systems change is rewiring and bringing greater depth (trust) to existing patterns of relationships.
- Being strategic about communication – Communication really is the lifeblood of networks. It’s what contributes to transparency, trust, social learning and adaptive capacity. Communication is not simply about one-way or one-to-many channels. Having myriad ways for people to connect and find one another helps to deliver value to more people in more ways.
- Using stories as strategy and evaluation – In complex systems, stories become an avenue for sense-making as well as a means of capturing diverse human experiences in a system. Stories can also provide qualitative data about how systems are changing, and they tend to have stickiness and staying power that can keep people motivated and coming back.
Powerful stories are like enriched compost that can be fed back into the network to nurture new growth.
- Tracking economic impact and other metrics – Arguably, economics underlies every kind of social change needed in this country. What I mean by this is that access to/ownership of resources of various kinds is key to power and self-determination, and affecting every system is the concentration and consolidation of power in ever fewer elite hands. Without tracking whether resources are growing in local communities and flowing and owned in more equitable ways, it is hard to say that we are making truly systemic change.
- Engaging diverse stakeholders – Another underlying factor in every systemic issue in this country is the growing crisis of democracy. From small towns to big cities, the composition of the public is becoming increasingly complex. At IISC, we see all of our work as striving in some way, shape or form to answer the question: “How can we build the will and develop the skill of the diverse public to collectively create just and sustainable societies?” We see a future in which we are “all in;” all in providing the information and knowledge needed to understand the issues that affect us; all in making decisions that impact us; all in, and especially those who are most often left out and are most negatively impacted. This push for more inclusive processes and structures is what we call Big Democracy. In this sense, engaging diverse stakeholders is not simply a means but an end in and of itself.
September 16, 2015
“We are … interested in generating stories, visions and futures that are hard and realistic and hopeful.”
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to sit in on a session in Detroit with Adrienne Maree Brown, writer, editor, facilitator and consultant to social movement organizations. Adrienne’s offering was on the potential of “radical science fiction” to realize empowering visions of a just and sustainable future. After sharing some of her own writing, she encouraged participants to play with a sense of imagination grounded in realistic projections of current social and environmental conditions and trends.
For example, while acknowledging the reality of ecosystem-depleting capitalism, mass incarceration and climate change, we were invited to think about reality-based characters with “special powers” who might help yield more desirable means and ends. The intent was, as Adrienne explains, “to create innovative ways of understanding the world around us, paint visions of new worlds that could be, and teach us new ways of interacting with one another.” It is this impulse that led her and co-editor Walidah Imarisha to organize Octavia’s Brood (in honor of science fiction writer Octavia E. Butler), “the first book to explore deeply the connections between … ‘visionary fiction,” and movements for social change through the vehicle of short stories.” The collection features a number of short stories by artists and activists.
Since that session, I’ve continued thinking about the practice of creatively reimagining futures that hover between dystopian (depressing, undesirable) and utopian (impossible, also undesirable) views. Then last week an article appeared in Nautilus entitled “An Astro-Biologist Asks a Sci-Fi Novelist How to Survive the Anthropocene,” in which astrobiologist David Grinspoon interviews Kim Stanley Robinson, science fiction and political novelist. Robinson’s recent book, 2312, “permits humans to survive near-extinction and populate the solar system over the course of 300 years.” In their discussion, Grinspoon asks Robinson what he sees as being keys to humanity getting through mounting social and environmental challenges. His answer struck me as sensible and breaks down more or less into the following:
- Understand and align with the carrying capacity of the planet and allow ecosystems to thrive
- Build new mechanisms for collaborative self-governance on local and global scales
- Organize more cooperative economic structures that are life-affirming
- Work continuously for universal justice and education
Grinspoon and Robinson also talk briefly about the Fermi Paradox, which points to the contradiction between the high probability of intelligent life existing beyond our planet and the fact that we have yet to see any confirmed evidence. One explanation offered for the paradox is that intelligent civilizations tend to destroy themselves, done in by the technologies and practices that contribute (at least for some time) to their so-called “advancement.” This suggestion should have us taking a hard look in the mirror and the facts, then, perhaps dusting off our visionary imaginations to push beyond the strictures of current thinking that seem to have us on a precarious path.
Embrace diversity
Unite–
or be divided,
robbed,
ruled,
killed
By those who see you as prey.
Embrace diversity
Or be destroyed.
From Octavia Butler’s “Earthseed: The Books of the Living,”Parable of the Sower.
