As I think back to the block level gathering of the 23rd and 24th, I increasingly feel that, for all the imperfections that might have bothered me, the event was rather good. My withdrawal from the centre of the scene gave me a wonderful chance to reflect on the entire process - the dynamics that were at work, who was speaking and who wasn't - a microcosm of the organisation in its 'natural state'!
It made clearer than ever who thinks what, which people share similar perspecitives, what are the latent tensions, and what roles different people have taken on within the organisation - challengers, representatives, mediators, etc. Rather fascinating.
All this brings home the following point: self-organisation was at work during the meeting as people impromptu - i.e. without planning - adopted various roles which both surfaced, heightened, reduced and and resolved tensions as part of a process of creating meaning and order.
This allowed me to focus on the task of harvesting - which will be invaluable as I continue along with the process of supporting the organisation in creating an integral future for itself...
I also have to keep reminding myself that this process - the run up to the annual camp, the annual camp itself and the preparation of the 6th Comprehensive Plan document - is merely a fraction of the journey that Seva Mandir has embarked on. The energy and effort that is required now must not be mistaken for the whole journey... It's just the beginning!
It can be thought of as Journey 2 -(as per this white paper from the folk at Anecdote): the phase where the organisation collectively chalks out the plan of how it is going to get to wherever it wants to go. The first journey is that of planning the process of getting ready. The third journey is the 'actual' journey.
Key lessons that emerge from this paper on Journey 2 that I really want to focus on are the following:
"It is dangerous to take an old paradigm into a new land"
"In our work with clients on the second journey, we help clients work with the narrative material in terms of making sense and meaning of it as the basis for interpretation, envisioning and planning. These stories will help them clarify: (1) What is the whole story? What are we missing? (2) What will we need to be successful in our search? (3) What is likely to challenge us? What will be our response? (4) What is the story that we are telling ourselves about this venture?"
In order to do this, it is necessary to: "(1) gather stories of past successes [that can be drawn on] to aid them in this new journey; (2) create an iterative design for reaching the vision; (3) establish the necessary roles; (4) develop the key skills and resources that will be useful for this journey."
I would add one other point to this list (though I am by no means an expert): (5) enacting the new relationships that will be required to sustain the team over the course of the next (actual) journey. Which leads me to wonder about the extent to which the process going on here has focused enough on creating a coalition of change-makers within the organisation - that is to say, people from across levels who are committed to change... Is this process too decentralised? Is it not decentralised enough? How do we balance a vision where everyone is a champion of change with a reality where only a few people are? As I think about it now, it strikes me as a good topic for a stealth outcome mapping operation... so my next side task will be putting together an OM application for an orgainsational change model!
This blog, as you may have gathered, is for my internal journey.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Taking it all in...
Well, as my efforts at being humble go into overdrive, I've had the chance to think over a whole lot of things. All the same, I've had a whole bunch of 'not-so-humble' issues come to mind since the morning...
What is the change that I expect to see? Will I recognise it when it comes about? What if it doesn't look like what I expected? Is it already happening?
This is probably where I need the most grounding. I am a dreamer. I tend to get carried away with fantastic images of these flexible, light, dynamic and evolving organisations that are continuously shifting shape with highly porous boundaries but gradually organising themselves around a set of core values - such as equality, truth, mutual respect and tolerance, environmental sustainability, inclusiveness... and so on... I can further concretise this in specific contexts - and talk about groups of people who work creatively together, calling forth new realities through their interactions, nurturing linkages and relationships and bringing about an integral development process. But this is all too abstract.
I envision knowledge-holders from various fields, levels and backgrounds, sitting together and co-creating projects based on synergy and integration that help to refine, realise and replicate the values that they hold. Still too abstract? I hope to see units sitting together and talking about how they can work together to achieve common outcomes, involving the community in this process, helping them articulate their own values and visions, and then actually working together to help make these values and visions a reality.
I would not like to see separate units planning independently and expecting people on the next rung down to figure out how to coordinate things themselves.
Perhaps I will get a chance to see the extent to which this happens sooner than I imagine. Will these ideas form part of the discussions that follow the presentations of the 2nd and 3rd of June?
If there are underlying dynamics at work that need to be broken, how do I do it? What are my stealth tactics? Should I be measuring changes in relationships? At what speed do these relationships change? How do I measure this?
There is little doubt in my mind that there are underlying dynamics at work that need to be broken. The whole atmosphere gives off this feeling. There is a constant battle against negativity that has to be fought! This is not how it should be! But what are these dynamics?
To what extent do they emanate from people's own limitations and to what extent do they emerge from oppressive power structures within the organisation? And, perhaps more meaningfully, what is the equation between these two things? I am not completely sure that I can ever understand the totality of these dynamics - there are too many perspectives on this to end up with a really objective picture. And this is what leads me to think in categories like 'quality of relationships' or 'target versus social change'... 'Who talks?' is another big one...
And what are stealth tactics anyway? My understanding of stealth tactics is this: if i apply a model that exists within my mind without explaining to people what the model is (because I know that doing so would freak them out), then I am using stealth tactics. An example would be applying outcome mapping without actually ever using the words 'outcome mapping'. This can also back fire: trying to apply an open-space or spontaneous approach seems to terrify people who are more used to feeling in control of things. Knowing when to do what seems critical - all part of the learning process no doubt!
As for changing relationships... I feel pretty confident that this is the heart of what I am doing over here. A system can only truly be said to have changed when the nature of the relationships that define that system change. Is this too 'out there'? Is it too simplistic? Either way, I am quite convinced of it. What if one person changes their behaviour without being able to influence the behaviour of others in a way that could be said to amount to 'changing the behaviour of the system'? Well, it may seem nice but if it's not effective then it's really rather insignificant, which reminds of something I said somewhere: if a conversation doesn't translate into new action then it might as well not have happened! Rather extreme, but to the point! So obviously, I should be on the look out for these changes. Perhaps I need some categories for measuring them? Things like, did the zone worker argue their point in front of a senior? Did the zone worker question a strategy or activity? Did the zone worker challenge the way a decision was made? Did the zone worker get recognition (or were they considered to be just prattling nonsense?)... Something for me to work on, no doubt!
And so...
And so, all this leads me on to the topic of visions. Where are the visions? As I wrote a little earlier, I am a dreamer. I think - pretty much - in terms of visions. Without a vision, I wouldn't know why I am doing what I am doing. I wouldn't know how to even go about the task of thinking about how to go about the task of realising my vision if I didn't have a vision! I would be immobilised. But people don't seem to dream or imagine things on a very large scale. They don't seem to be hunting for that integral vision where all things are interlinked and working in synergy and people are open-minded and cooperative. There appears to be an inbuilt change negator at work! Why is this and how can it be broken?
Well, there is plenty for me to keep busy with. It's good to have gotten this off my chest for the day :)
What is the change that I expect to see? Will I recognise it when it comes about? What if it doesn't look like what I expected? Is it already happening?
This is probably where I need the most grounding. I am a dreamer. I tend to get carried away with fantastic images of these flexible, light, dynamic and evolving organisations that are continuously shifting shape with highly porous boundaries but gradually organising themselves around a set of core values - such as equality, truth, mutual respect and tolerance, environmental sustainability, inclusiveness... and so on... I can further concretise this in specific contexts - and talk about groups of people who work creatively together, calling forth new realities through their interactions, nurturing linkages and relationships and bringing about an integral development process. But this is all too abstract.
I envision knowledge-holders from various fields, levels and backgrounds, sitting together and co-creating projects based on synergy and integration that help to refine, realise and replicate the values that they hold. Still too abstract? I hope to see units sitting together and talking about how they can work together to achieve common outcomes, involving the community in this process, helping them articulate their own values and visions, and then actually working together to help make these values and visions a reality.
I would not like to see separate units planning independently and expecting people on the next rung down to figure out how to coordinate things themselves.
Perhaps I will get a chance to see the extent to which this happens sooner than I imagine. Will these ideas form part of the discussions that follow the presentations of the 2nd and 3rd of June?
If there are underlying dynamics at work that need to be broken, how do I do it? What are my stealth tactics? Should I be measuring changes in relationships? At what speed do these relationships change? How do I measure this?
There is little doubt in my mind that there are underlying dynamics at work that need to be broken. The whole atmosphere gives off this feeling. There is a constant battle against negativity that has to be fought! This is not how it should be! But what are these dynamics?
To what extent do they emanate from people's own limitations and to what extent do they emerge from oppressive power structures within the organisation? And, perhaps more meaningfully, what is the equation between these two things? I am not completely sure that I can ever understand the totality of these dynamics - there are too many perspectives on this to end up with a really objective picture. And this is what leads me to think in categories like 'quality of relationships' or 'target versus social change'... 'Who talks?' is another big one...
And what are stealth tactics anyway? My understanding of stealth tactics is this: if i apply a model that exists within my mind without explaining to people what the model is (because I know that doing so would freak them out), then I am using stealth tactics. An example would be applying outcome mapping without actually ever using the words 'outcome mapping'. This can also back fire: trying to apply an open-space or spontaneous approach seems to terrify people who are more used to feeling in control of things. Knowing when to do what seems critical - all part of the learning process no doubt!
As for changing relationships... I feel pretty confident that this is the heart of what I am doing over here. A system can only truly be said to have changed when the nature of the relationships that define that system change. Is this too 'out there'? Is it too simplistic? Either way, I am quite convinced of it. What if one person changes their behaviour without being able to influence the behaviour of others in a way that could be said to amount to 'changing the behaviour of the system'? Well, it may seem nice but if it's not effective then it's really rather insignificant, which reminds of something I said somewhere: if a conversation doesn't translate into new action then it might as well not have happened! Rather extreme, but to the point! So obviously, I should be on the look out for these changes. Perhaps I need some categories for measuring them? Things like, did the zone worker argue their point in front of a senior? Did the zone worker question a strategy or activity? Did the zone worker challenge the way a decision was made? Did the zone worker get recognition (or were they considered to be just prattling nonsense?)... Something for me to work on, no doubt!
And so...
And so, all this leads me on to the topic of visions. Where are the visions? As I wrote a little earlier, I am a dreamer. I think - pretty much - in terms of visions. Without a vision, I wouldn't know why I am doing what I am doing. I wouldn't know how to even go about the task of thinking about how to go about the task of realising my vision if I didn't have a vision! I would be immobilised. But people don't seem to dream or imagine things on a very large scale. They don't seem to be hunting for that integral vision where all things are interlinked and working in synergy and people are open-minded and cooperative. There appears to be an inbuilt change negator at work! Why is this and how can it be broken?
Well, there is plenty for me to keep busy with. It's good to have gotten this off my chest for the day :)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
My Pet Obsession (the saga continues)
Calling myself a 'change agent', a 'facilitator of change' or a 'catalyst' makes me feel that I'm getting a little bit big for my boots. To be honest, I don't know what I should call myself really.
The last couple of days were spent with about 100 people from Seva Mandir's blocks (geographical units) and programme-units at Kaya (the organisation's rural training centre). Each block was to present its assessment and thinking on what the next three years was asking of them. The idea of having such a session was not actually mine. The organisation had come up with this idea itself, stating that it did not feel confident about the idea of presenting its strategies at the annual camp (now planned for the following month) without discussing them at least once before then.
When this decision was made, I had qualms because it clashed with what I had been proposing. In particular, it seemed like a way of 'fixing' things before the annual camp... such that the camp itself would merely be a kind of 'presentation' of what we had already decided with limited space for the manthan, or churning, that I felt was called for. In particular, I felt that it undermined the idea of using the annual camp as a kind of no-holds-barred, open forum for people to question and dialogue with the 'whole system in the room'...
It was tough letting go of that vision but I soon realised that there was not much hope of it working out - especially as the annual camp had already been postponed to the third quarter of the time-bound process of consultations (which itself had bothered me since I felt this reduced the scope for building whatever emerged from the camp back into the planning process). So, I set about visiting all the blocks, organising mini-workshops, or simply listening to their own dialogues, discoveries and internal churnings. My main and simple tool for engaging with the groups was to ask those difficult questions that force people to confront things that are easier avoided and to weave in anecdotes from all of the conversations that I had been a part of over the last few months. This often sparked discussions that got to, if not close to, the heart of things on a number of occasions.
It is almost entirely impossible for me to really know what my contribution to the outcome has been so far. What kind indicators can be used to gauge this. Perhaps it is naieve or self-aggrandising to even try?
Back at the block gathering, I had mentioned, the blocks were busy presenting their contexts, achievements, challenges, strategies and questions. I kept myself as tiny and out of the way as possible throughout the whole gathering. Indeed, I said but a few words, busying myself instead with the task of documenting all the discussions. Part of my withdrawal was triggered by a little conflict that took place at the end of the first day. The presentations for the day had finished earlier than usual and it had been proposed that we use some of the remaining time to digest some of what was emerging.
I had, without giving it great consideration, assumed that a fairly open and flexible approach could be used to get this done. I hadn't really been troubled by the structure, the format or the question of how we would identify our issues. It just seemed to me that things would flow and we would soon be able to organise ourselves in the best possible way. I was also not sure of how long the participants were eager to stay and thought that I would simply be able to find this out by putting the question out there. This seemed to worry the Chief Executive who thought I was being 'too process-oriented'... I didn't really get the space to articulate myself much more and felt pushed to the side by the CE's concern that things had not been fully planned out. I got the feeling the CE wanted to take the reins and decide on the structure herself. I have had experiences in the past where my facilitating gets disturbed by someone external who is feeling edgy - and I find it hard to keep my cool. This usually doesn't bode well for the facilitation process. My instinctive reaction is to withdraw. I retract into my shell and say to myself... "pass on this." I think, at times, this can be the best thing to do.
Perhaps this is something taoist in me? Perhaps not? At one level I made a good choice. There was energy present, eager to give 'constructive' direction and it was 'the organisation' itself (or at least someone from it) who was taking up the yoke. I left the room to let the CE and my co-facilitator figure things out themselves... which they did...
For some reason, this experience left me bubbling with resentment. I felt disrespected and violated at that moment; unfairly treated even. From this moment on, I remained concerned only with my documentation. I let the process be taken over by the CE and my co-facilitator. All in all, it worked quite well. Given the awkward timing schedule, we got a good amount of fairly constructive matter out of the discussions that ensued. I was still at war with my ego though.
Where is this going? Well, this morning I read an article from Consulting Today: Seniors of Organization Development, I came across several quotes which were rather timely, one of which, (by Kathie Dannemiller) I include below:
If this isn't medicine, then what else is? In the context of my earlier blog postings on the dilemma between 'me and the organisation', this puts things (I feel) in their rightful place.
At the same time, of course, it is unavoidable (for me, now), that these moments of tension will occur. Especially, when I feel that some kind of rich opportunity for meaningful dialogue has the risk of getting bypassed! All the more so when this is my first time doing this kind of work! I would still far prefer to spend a few moments dealing with a messy situation so that we could get some genuine dialogue going rather than simply allowing existing power dynamics and inequalities to get re-enacted. I suppose, at times, one has to make these kind of compromises. Not having something up my sleeve that I could just present at that moment - a kind of "hey! don't worry, it's all under control, this is how we'll do it!" lost me the space that I needed. This is no doubt a lesson for me...
On this note, I end with a little quote from Lao Tse whose words have helped me feel that everything is fine when any 'normal' person would clearly think the opposite:
Amen to that! This is, i think, my pet obsession. How to do this? How can I genuinely nurture the organisation itself, address what I perceive to be entrenched power inequities and still try to stop myself from trying to lead the process? Does this even make sense? Ooooooh!
The last couple of days were spent with about 100 people from Seva Mandir's blocks (geographical units) and programme-units at Kaya (the organisation's rural training centre). Each block was to present its assessment and thinking on what the next three years was asking of them. The idea of having such a session was not actually mine. The organisation had come up with this idea itself, stating that it did not feel confident about the idea of presenting its strategies at the annual camp (now planned for the following month) without discussing them at least once before then.
When this decision was made, I had qualms because it clashed with what I had been proposing. In particular, it seemed like a way of 'fixing' things before the annual camp... such that the camp itself would merely be a kind of 'presentation' of what we had already decided with limited space for the manthan, or churning, that I felt was called for. In particular, I felt that it undermined the idea of using the annual camp as a kind of no-holds-barred, open forum for people to question and dialogue with the 'whole system in the room'...
It was tough letting go of that vision but I soon realised that there was not much hope of it working out - especially as the annual camp had already been postponed to the third quarter of the time-bound process of consultations (which itself had bothered me since I felt this reduced the scope for building whatever emerged from the camp back into the planning process). So, I set about visiting all the blocks, organising mini-workshops, or simply listening to their own dialogues, discoveries and internal churnings. My main and simple tool for engaging with the groups was to ask those difficult questions that force people to confront things that are easier avoided and to weave in anecdotes from all of the conversations that I had been a part of over the last few months. This often sparked discussions that got to, if not close to, the heart of things on a number of occasions.
It is almost entirely impossible for me to really know what my contribution to the outcome has been so far. What kind indicators can be used to gauge this. Perhaps it is naieve or self-aggrandising to even try?
Back at the block gathering, I had mentioned, the blocks were busy presenting their contexts, achievements, challenges, strategies and questions. I kept myself as tiny and out of the way as possible throughout the whole gathering. Indeed, I said but a few words, busying myself instead with the task of documenting all the discussions. Part of my withdrawal was triggered by a little conflict that took place at the end of the first day. The presentations for the day had finished earlier than usual and it had been proposed that we use some of the remaining time to digest some of what was emerging.
I had, without giving it great consideration, assumed that a fairly open and flexible approach could be used to get this done. I hadn't really been troubled by the structure, the format or the question of how we would identify our issues. It just seemed to me that things would flow and we would soon be able to organise ourselves in the best possible way. I was also not sure of how long the participants were eager to stay and thought that I would simply be able to find this out by putting the question out there. This seemed to worry the Chief Executive who thought I was being 'too process-oriented'... I didn't really get the space to articulate myself much more and felt pushed to the side by the CE's concern that things had not been fully planned out. I got the feeling the CE wanted to take the reins and decide on the structure herself. I have had experiences in the past where my facilitating gets disturbed by someone external who is feeling edgy - and I find it hard to keep my cool. This usually doesn't bode well for the facilitation process. My instinctive reaction is to withdraw. I retract into my shell and say to myself... "pass on this." I think, at times, this can be the best thing to do.
Perhaps this is something taoist in me? Perhaps not? At one level I made a good choice. There was energy present, eager to give 'constructive' direction and it was 'the organisation' itself (or at least someone from it) who was taking up the yoke. I left the room to let the CE and my co-facilitator figure things out themselves... which they did...
For some reason, this experience left me bubbling with resentment. I felt disrespected and violated at that moment; unfairly treated even. From this moment on, I remained concerned only with my documentation. I let the process be taken over by the CE and my co-facilitator. All in all, it worked quite well. Given the awkward timing schedule, we got a good amount of fairly constructive matter out of the discussions that ensued. I was still at war with my ego though.
Where is this going? Well, this morning I read an article from Consulting Today: Seniors of Organization Development, I came across several quotes which were rather timely, one of which, (by Kathie Dannemiller) I include below:
The biggest clue that I am inappropriately "taking over" is when I get irritated at my client for not doing the 'right' thing.
If this isn't medicine, then what else is? In the context of my earlier blog postings on the dilemma between 'me and the organisation', this puts things (I feel) in their rightful place.
At the same time, of course, it is unavoidable (for me, now), that these moments of tension will occur. Especially, when I feel that some kind of rich opportunity for meaningful dialogue has the risk of getting bypassed! All the more so when this is my first time doing this kind of work! I would still far prefer to spend a few moments dealing with a messy situation so that we could get some genuine dialogue going rather than simply allowing existing power dynamics and inequalities to get re-enacted. I suppose, at times, one has to make these kind of compromises. Not having something up my sleeve that I could just present at that moment - a kind of "hey! don't worry, it's all under control, this is how we'll do it!" lost me the space that I needed. This is no doubt a lesson for me...
On this note, I end with a little quote from Lao Tse whose words have helped me feel that everything is fine when any 'normal' person would clearly think the opposite:
To give birth and to nourish,
to give birth without taking possession,
to act without obligation,
to lead without dominating---
this is mystical power.
to give birth without taking possession,
to act without obligation,
to lead without dominating---
this is mystical power.
Amen to that! This is, i think, my pet obsession. How to do this? How can I genuinely nurture the organisation itself, address what I perceive to be entrenched power inequities and still try to stop myself from trying to lead the process? Does this even make sense? Ooooooh!
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Hearing the Call
Even as I wrote the title of this blog, I found myself confused. Which goes to show just how things are at the moment. Working on a process of organisational change is a rather tricky thing indeed. For whom, exactly, are we changing? What is this change and why are we doing it? These may seem like obvious questions with equally clear answers. However, I assure you that they aren't. And the more I get caught up in the process, the harder it becomes for me to really know what is up and what is down.
Working in an organisation with a particular culture and achieving particular results gives out a particular feel. A feel about what is right, what is working and what isn't. There is another set of feelings, which is personal, deeply internal: what do I feel it should be. In between these two domains there is a kind of space. Focusing on that space makes me feel cross-eyed. Maybe that's because I feel tired. Is this the same space that I had referred to in an earlier blog? The one between the two extremes of the pendulum swing from organisational worldview to andre worldview? Because that was a kind of pleasant space, a state to be achieved, one much desired, where all is open and flowing and just how it should be.
This space, however, is the other extreme. It is incredibly dense, like a kind of thick, multi-demensional knot that clearly demarcates this from that. It is not possible to really comtemplate it. It seems, in a way, like what a paradigm shift would look like if you could see one; a kind of thick wall where almost all the rules, logic and outcomes on one side are distinct from all the rules, logic and outcomes on the other. This wall radiates energy so powerfully that it almost repels any sort of an attempt to cross from one side to the other... mainly by making whoever attempts go cross-eyed or that their brain is going to, quite simply, snap.
I think this is probably a sign that I need to rest :) If I want to hear that call, I had better turn off my system for a little while and let things cool down, let the knots unravel, eat some good food, go for a stroll and then sleep like a dog!
Thanks,
Andre
Working in an organisation with a particular culture and achieving particular results gives out a particular feel. A feel about what is right, what is working and what isn't. There is another set of feelings, which is personal, deeply internal: what do I feel it should be. In between these two domains there is a kind of space. Focusing on that space makes me feel cross-eyed. Maybe that's because I feel tired. Is this the same space that I had referred to in an earlier blog? The one between the two extremes of the pendulum swing from organisational worldview to andre worldview? Because that was a kind of pleasant space, a state to be achieved, one much desired, where all is open and flowing and just how it should be.
This space, however, is the other extreme. It is incredibly dense, like a kind of thick, multi-demensional knot that clearly demarcates this from that. It is not possible to really comtemplate it. It seems, in a way, like what a paradigm shift would look like if you could see one; a kind of thick wall where almost all the rules, logic and outcomes on one side are distinct from all the rules, logic and outcomes on the other. This wall radiates energy so powerfully that it almost repels any sort of an attempt to cross from one side to the other... mainly by making whoever attempts go cross-eyed or that their brain is going to, quite simply, snap.
I think this is probably a sign that I need to rest :) If I want to hear that call, I had better turn off my system for a little while and let things cool down, let the knots unravel, eat some good food, go for a stroll and then sleep like a dog!
Thanks,
Andre
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Redefining Education in Seva Mandir?
Today I was sitting with the education people, facilitating a discussion about Seva Mandir's vision in the context of 'education'. I must say that I am impressed by the quality of the discussion that took place and the readiness of the team to push the boundaries of their own program and to question everything that they are doing. Most commendable!
The education program -like many of the others, I suppose - faces a lot of challenges from all sides. Explaining things to the outside world is one of the big challenges that Seva Mandir faces - I guess that's price of having one's own ideas!?
A major part of our discussion today went into trying to understand exactly what we mean when we talk about 'quality education'. These are the kinds of questions that we sat with:
NFEs get a redefinition. Firstly, rather than preparing children to get better grades or better jobs, the focus shifts to the idea of creating responsible citizens. We would be looking to nurture citizens who are free from gender and caste bias and who see themselves as stewards of their community, of their environment and the collective well-being of their future. Secondly, the NFEs will be places that disseminate values within the community - like a kind of hub for the values that Seva Mandir stands for - truth, respect, community, dignity, trusteeship... and so on. This will entail linking with all the other children's spaces, concerned stakeholders (youth, parents, committees, etc.) and platforms at the village level and seeking, pro-actively, to spread the knowledge and values to the rest of the village through these platforms and other processes...
It's admittedly still a little fuzzy but it's out there buzzing on the fringes of the team's collective field of consciousness... There's a lot more mind-grinding required to figure out just what this thing on the horizon might actually be but there's also a readiness to engage in a long-term (3 year!) action research process (to be carried out in a small selection of centres) to really figure it out. Part of this process is thinking up a new name; something that will also radiate a new message!
There's plenty more to the education program that I'm not blogging here - both discussed and yet to be discussed. If this level of creativity and openness sustains itself across the rest of the discussions we have the recipe for something rather fabulous! For now though, I will pretend that nothing special is happening - only to save myself from the risk of getting disappointed! My biggest concern is that although the education team believes in what they are talking about, they might not yet have the confidence to stand behind it and defend it. Let us see what emerges
The education program -like many of the others, I suppose - faces a lot of challenges from all sides. Explaining things to the outside world is one of the big challenges that Seva Mandir faces - I guess that's price of having one's own ideas!?
A major part of our discussion today went into trying to understand exactly what we mean when we talk about 'quality education'. These are the kinds of questions that we sat with:
- What are the qualities we would like to see developed in the children as a result of receiving education?
- What kind of an education is rural society in need of?
- Different forms of literacy (beyond just maths and Hindi - e.g. personal health, livelihoods)
- Sensitivity to gender, caste and other forms of discrimination
- Moral values and trusteeship/responsibility (for environment, family, community)
- Curiosity and capacity to ask questions
- Logic-based education based on the children's interest
- Political awareness (and what does this mean in the context of children?)
- Development of leadership skills
NFEs get a redefinition. Firstly, rather than preparing children to get better grades or better jobs, the focus shifts to the idea of creating responsible citizens. We would be looking to nurture citizens who are free from gender and caste bias and who see themselves as stewards of their community, of their environment and the collective well-being of their future. Secondly, the NFEs will be places that disseminate values within the community - like a kind of hub for the values that Seva Mandir stands for - truth, respect, community, dignity, trusteeship... and so on. This will entail linking with all the other children's spaces, concerned stakeholders (youth, parents, committees, etc.) and platforms at the village level and seeking, pro-actively, to spread the knowledge and values to the rest of the village through these platforms and other processes...
It's admittedly still a little fuzzy but it's out there buzzing on the fringes of the team's collective field of consciousness... There's a lot more mind-grinding required to figure out just what this thing on the horizon might actually be but there's also a readiness to engage in a long-term (3 year!) action research process (to be carried out in a small selection of centres) to really figure it out. Part of this process is thinking up a new name; something that will also radiate a new message!
There's plenty more to the education program that I'm not blogging here - both discussed and yet to be discussed. If this level of creativity and openness sustains itself across the rest of the discussions we have the recipe for something rather fabulous! For now though, I will pretend that nothing special is happening - only to save myself from the risk of getting disappointed! My biggest concern is that although the education team believes in what they are talking about, they might not yet have the confidence to stand behind it and defend it. Let us see what emerges
Monday, May 12, 2008
Morning Post
This morning, I got the urge to share an article I recently read called Knowledge Ecology - Part of Getting Smarter Together by Helen Titchen Beeth and George Por. It was posted on the evolutionary nexus site. Here are some snippets that stand out:
In the context of my previous posts, this seems rather a propos! Enough for now though... It's time to nip into the shower and complete the process of readying myself for the day!
Attributes of a healthy knowledge ecology
The qualities that make a great knowledge ecology are the ones that make it easy for users to transform the information in the garden into knowledge that they can apply in action.What makes good [knowledge] gardeners?
- Relevance: Information is focused on factors important to the task at hand.
- Reliability: Users must be able to rely on accessing the information they need, when they need it.
- Timeliness: Retrieval must be sufficiently real-time to enable effective decisions.
- Accuracy: The garden must validly reflect the contributions of whatever source(s) contributed the information.
- Completeness: There must be balanced emphasis on all the important factors.
- Access: For authorised users, from anywhere, at any time.
- Elegance: The goal is actionable insight, not data.
- Expression: Everyone must easily understand it.
- Relationship: Related information must be easily found.
- Explicitness: Examples and uses must be adequately described.
- Boundary: All exceptions must be clearly stated.
- Glossary: All unusual terms must be defined.
The answer to this question is unexpected. Knowledge gardening is a sacred task, undertaken for the sake of the whole. It therefore requires individual emptiness - a readiness to engage the emergent field without self-concern or a personal agenda. This gives a spacious consciousness which can detect complex patterns and capture magic from the middle. In our role as knowledge gardeners, we are not just called to the service of evolution, we are called to the service of our own wholeness. So it is not enough to concentrate on doing what we're good at and love doing. We need to be whole to engage in this work. Hence the relevance and power of an integral life practice.
In the context of my previous posts, this seems rather a propos! Enough for now though... It's time to nip into the shower and complete the process of readying myself for the day!
The Main Shift (part 2)
Something about my last post leaves me feeling like I pretended that I had resolved a dilemma. Back at work today, and this feeling is buzzing about inside me quite intensely!
Upon further reflection, I get the nagging feeling that it is a gross simplification to say that facilitating this organisational change process simply boils down to giving the organisation what it thinks it needs in the way that it wants it. Clearly it is also not simply a matter of me giving the organisation what I think it needs in the way that I want! This is the dilemma. It is neither of these things. Indeed, the place where I need to position myself is the interstice between these two horrible abstractions. I need to float about in a kind of limbo between worlds: my world and the organisation's world. I need to be able to tap into the organisation's great sub-conscious - and also my own. I need to be able to tap into the infinite sea of possible futures. I need to feel the call of our times and understand what this 'call of our times' is calling me to do and what it is calling the organisation to do. I need to influence things without really having any control. Indeed, I may be the only thing that I really have any direct influence over!
This makes me wonder. Am I here to make a three year plan or am I facilitating organisational change? How can I tell? Who do I ask? What might be the signs? Am I just doing a kind of dance routine to fool myself into thinking that I am actually having any influence whatsoever while things just continue on their merry way, flowing past me indifferently? Is this just about me wanting to be powerful? Influential? Notice me! Notice me! Listen to my ideas! I have all the answers! That sounds ludicrous and shameful - and shouldn't be coming from me if I am to be true to my values.
But I'm still puzzling over that dilemma. That little gap that sits between my world and the organisation's world; or better still, between my worldview and the organisation's worldview. Indeed, I would contend that it is that very gap that is my playing field. I must play in the interstice; I must live in limbo. I must learn to feel comfortable there. I must put myself above all kinds of attachments but at the same time be calm and persistent.
I recently read a nice article (thanks to a friend of mine for passing it along) by Adam Kahane. Some snippets that I really have to quote are given below:
Nowhere does Kahane make it clear just what this involves, but I think it is a pretty apt representation of what I am trying to do. So I consider myself as having a little authority to comment on what it involves: it's not easy. It's so not easy that it's not funny! Half the time, I feel insignificant. Half the time I enter a power-trip where I feel that I ought to be controlling everything. Neither of these are healthy.
As I swing from one extreme to the next, I cross a small patch of clarity. It might happen during a casual conversation, or while groups are presenting whatever came out of their discussion back to the group. It might even come in the morning after I do some stretches or in the late afternoon as I walk back home as the sun sets behind the temple on the hill beside my house. These are the moments when I feel neither insignificant nor on a power-trip. At these times, I know that there is a bigger process going on and that I have helped to give it shape, energy and perhaps even a little direction. At these moments I feel humble but joyful, at ease... I feel as though what I am doing is helping whatever is supposed to emerge to actually emerge. That is to say, that the dilemmas and paradoxes that lie at the heart of all the work actually find a voice and get set on the table for collective inquiry and dialogue... And out of this, new realities can be born.
I am still struggling to understand where, when and how to push and where, when and how to create the space for things to emerge of their own accord. What are the strategic moments, the tipping points where it makes sense for me to add a little of my own energy to the process and where should I stand back and let things take their course? This question is all the more challenging in a context where I know that I do not know everything! So it is not a simple question of pushing wherever things are not how I would like them to be... because that could very well backfire (as it has in small ways in the past) - for example by creating extra resistance (because every action has an equal and opposite reaction) or missing spontaneous opportunities that may present themselves (for example, by not being patient enough to recognise the new/different avenues that open up when a slightly different direction is chosen). At the same time, how do I make sure (if indeed I should) that we end up on the right course, or that the knowledge I bring finds a proper space in the outcomes of the process?
It seems a little as though I have different hats that I have to wear for different occasions. There is my 'facilitator' hat - which I wear when working with groups. My 'friend' hat, which I wear when I chat casually about 'what's going on'. My 'PME/outcome mapping/learning' hat, which I wear when I feel that people are not going about their process of visioning, strategy-making or whatever in a systematic manner. My 'comunity knowledge gardner' hat, which I wear as I zip about from place to place relating stories from one person, group or programme to others in order to give them a better picture of the totality... And so the list continues. Figuring out when to wear which hat is a bit of a challenge. I tend to do it spontaneously... But what effect is it having? And am I taking on too many roles?
I suppose this is exactly what I am learning through this experience.
Upon further reflection, I get the nagging feeling that it is a gross simplification to say that facilitating this organisational change process simply boils down to giving the organisation what it thinks it needs in the way that it wants it. Clearly it is also not simply a matter of me giving the organisation what I think it needs in the way that I want! This is the dilemma. It is neither of these things. Indeed, the place where I need to position myself is the interstice between these two horrible abstractions. I need to float about in a kind of limbo between worlds: my world and the organisation's world. I need to be able to tap into the organisation's great sub-conscious - and also my own. I need to be able to tap into the infinite sea of possible futures. I need to feel the call of our times and understand what this 'call of our times' is calling me to do and what it is calling the organisation to do. I need to influence things without really having any control. Indeed, I may be the only thing that I really have any direct influence over!
This makes me wonder. Am I here to make a three year plan or am I facilitating organisational change? How can I tell? Who do I ask? What might be the signs? Am I just doing a kind of dance routine to fool myself into thinking that I am actually having any influence whatsoever while things just continue on their merry way, flowing past me indifferently? Is this just about me wanting to be powerful? Influential? Notice me! Notice me! Listen to my ideas! I have all the answers! That sounds ludicrous and shameful - and shouldn't be coming from me if I am to be true to my values.
But I'm still puzzling over that dilemma. That little gap that sits between my world and the organisation's world; or better still, between my worldview and the organisation's worldview. Indeed, I would contend that it is that very gap that is my playing field. I must play in the interstice; I must live in limbo. I must learn to feel comfortable there. I must put myself above all kinds of attachments but at the same time be calm and persistent.
I recently read a nice article (thanks to a friend of mine for passing it along) by Adam Kahane. Some snippets that I really have to quote are given below:
"The first thing you have to do is commit yourself to changing the world ...
"The second thing to do ... is to listen to what wants to change in the world...
"The sensing and listening that you have to do have three dimensions:
- You have to be able to see the world, to observe precisely [...] through your own and other people's eyes; to see new possibilities and new scenarios through the eyes of customers, of other players, of competitors, of heritics.
- Second and more difficult, you have to be able to see yourself in the mirror [...]; to see your own role and influence, your own part in the dance; to be reflective; to see your seeing
- And third and most difficult, you have to be able to glimpse the place where looking at the world and looking at yourself are the same [...] to see the underlying oneness."
Nowhere does Kahane make it clear just what this involves, but I think it is a pretty apt representation of what I am trying to do. So I consider myself as having a little authority to comment on what it involves: it's not easy. It's so not easy that it's not funny! Half the time, I feel insignificant. Half the time I enter a power-trip where I feel that I ought to be controlling everything. Neither of these are healthy.
As I swing from one extreme to the next, I cross a small patch of clarity. It might happen during a casual conversation, or while groups are presenting whatever came out of their discussion back to the group. It might even come in the morning after I do some stretches or in the late afternoon as I walk back home as the sun sets behind the temple on the hill beside my house. These are the moments when I feel neither insignificant nor on a power-trip. At these times, I know that there is a bigger process going on and that I have helped to give it shape, energy and perhaps even a little direction. At these moments I feel humble but joyful, at ease... I feel as though what I am doing is helping whatever is supposed to emerge to actually emerge. That is to say, that the dilemmas and paradoxes that lie at the heart of all the work actually find a voice and get set on the table for collective inquiry and dialogue... And out of this, new realities can be born.
I am still struggling to understand where, when and how to push and where, when and how to create the space for things to emerge of their own accord. What are the strategic moments, the tipping points where it makes sense for me to add a little of my own energy to the process and where should I stand back and let things take their course? This question is all the more challenging in a context where I know that I do not know everything! So it is not a simple question of pushing wherever things are not how I would like them to be... because that could very well backfire (as it has in small ways in the past) - for example by creating extra resistance (because every action has an equal and opposite reaction) or missing spontaneous opportunities that may present themselves (for example, by not being patient enough to recognise the new/different avenues that open up when a slightly different direction is chosen). At the same time, how do I make sure (if indeed I should) that we end up on the right course, or that the knowledge I bring finds a proper space in the outcomes of the process?
It seems a little as though I have different hats that I have to wear for different occasions. There is my 'facilitator' hat - which I wear when working with groups. My 'friend' hat, which I wear when I chat casually about 'what's going on'. My 'PME/outcome mapping/learning' hat, which I wear when I feel that people are not going about their process of visioning, strategy-making or whatever in a systematic manner. My 'comunity knowledge gardner' hat, which I wear as I zip about from place to place relating stories from one person, group or programme to others in order to give them a better picture of the totality... And so the list continues. Figuring out when to wear which hat is a bit of a challenge. I tend to do it spontaneously... But what effect is it having? And am I taking on too many roles?
I suppose this is exactly what I am learning through this experience.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Main Shift
The gradual discovery over the last few years that it's not really about me and my ideas versus rigid unhelpful people in the organisation has been rather seminal for me.
It's not that I don't have all these ideas that I want to put into practice: I obviously do and that's a part of why I'm here. But the way that I understand this entire process, I think, has become a whole lot more evolutionary or organic. I have come to see the organisation as a living community - with its own knowledge, energy, direction, concerns, processes, and so on. In some ways, it is like a dense ecosystem - with different bits fulfilling different roles and functions - each component having reached its own kind of equilibrium in relation to others, for better or worse. This equilibrium is a delicate balance of function, knowledge, power and quality of relationship and the way these properties are distributed across the system.
When I come along with my nice ideas, there is a need to explore the fit between my ideas and the organisation. The introduction of any new idea - or meme - then becomes a subject of inquiry. Taking as a starting point the fact that the people I am interacting with do not see things in the same way as me, it is important first for me to understand how people see things.
My first thought would then be that, by knowing this better, I can ever more carefully position myself and adapt, craft the ideas or whatever it is I want to bring, so that it appears more worthwhile. I think this makes sense up to a point.
My second thought is that, as I begin to know the system better, I would also start to look at things differently and shift my own sense of what really is a priority and why.
This triggers a third thought which tries to reconcile the first two: have I simply fallen into the 'hole' that the people I am trying to work with are in or am I developing a deeper alignment with that system that positions me better to really influence it. The former is the view that many outsiders tend to hold when I talk to them about myself, my work and my relationship with the organisation where I am engaged. To them, I appear to have become lost, failing to really get to grips with the real issues, taking long-winded approaches to solving problems that are actually simple and can be classified neatly with high-power consultants vocabularies or through catch all statements like: "you just need to change the management, you know..". I have never been convinced by such perspectives, though I have had definite quarrels with various leaders and often wondered why I they posed such immense obstacles to ideas that I found so attractive.
Today, however, I find myself standing somewhere else. I have come to understand more clearly the fact that the organisation is like a living system - like a giant forest full of different species all interconnected with each other, interdepending on each other, each with their own particular characteristics, habits, niche and so on. As with a forest, I cannot simply come trudging in and expect to reshape it in any way that I want and have much certainty - if any - that what will emerge or result will be any better than what is already there - particularly if I don't understand the properties of that living system. Even if I do 'understand it', the gap between what I know and what I can do and what the other people know and what they can do still needs to be bridged if any truly systemic change is to be achieved without conducting what is effectively a surgical operation - i.e. cutting chunks out and converting curved lines into straight edges. For some reason, I have a deep seated concern with the idea of overly rectilinear approaches to things. It seems like the antithesis of sustainable, systemic transformation - something which to me must be a kind of organic, slightly chaotic self-organising process - and our entire vision of empowering people/communities to take charge of their own development process by gathering the knowledge, changing the behaviour and developing the relationships required to achieve this.
I suppose the conclusion is that I have come to see myself as a kind of conduit for a whole host of ideas and the organisation as a kind of living system that I must come to understand so deeply that I become able to translate whatever knowledge and ideas are out there into the language and rhythms that are meaningful to the organisation: to give the organisation what it thinks it needs in the way that it wants it! rather than to give the organisation what I think it needs in the way that I want to give it! So simple, yet so amazingly hard to appreciate!
It's not that I don't have all these ideas that I want to put into practice: I obviously do and that's a part of why I'm here. But the way that I understand this entire process, I think, has become a whole lot more evolutionary or organic. I have come to see the organisation as a living community - with its own knowledge, energy, direction, concerns, processes, and so on. In some ways, it is like a dense ecosystem - with different bits fulfilling different roles and functions - each component having reached its own kind of equilibrium in relation to others, for better or worse. This equilibrium is a delicate balance of function, knowledge, power and quality of relationship and the way these properties are distributed across the system.
When I come along with my nice ideas, there is a need to explore the fit between my ideas and the organisation. The introduction of any new idea - or meme - then becomes a subject of inquiry. Taking as a starting point the fact that the people I am interacting with do not see things in the same way as me, it is important first for me to understand how people see things.
My first thought would then be that, by knowing this better, I can ever more carefully position myself and adapt, craft the ideas or whatever it is I want to bring, so that it appears more worthwhile. I think this makes sense up to a point.
My second thought is that, as I begin to know the system better, I would also start to look at things differently and shift my own sense of what really is a priority and why.
This triggers a third thought which tries to reconcile the first two: have I simply fallen into the 'hole' that the people I am trying to work with are in or am I developing a deeper alignment with that system that positions me better to really influence it. The former is the view that many outsiders tend to hold when I talk to them about myself, my work and my relationship with the organisation where I am engaged. To them, I appear to have become lost, failing to really get to grips with the real issues, taking long-winded approaches to solving problems that are actually simple and can be classified neatly with high-power consultants vocabularies or through catch all statements like: "you just need to change the management, you know..". I have never been convinced by such perspectives, though I have had definite quarrels with various leaders and often wondered why I they posed such immense obstacles to ideas that I found so attractive.
Today, however, I find myself standing somewhere else. I have come to understand more clearly the fact that the organisation is like a living system - like a giant forest full of different species all interconnected with each other, interdepending on each other, each with their own particular characteristics, habits, niche and so on. As with a forest, I cannot simply come trudging in and expect to reshape it in any way that I want and have much certainty - if any - that what will emerge or result will be any better than what is already there - particularly if I don't understand the properties of that living system. Even if I do 'understand it', the gap between what I know and what I can do and what the other people know and what they can do still needs to be bridged if any truly systemic change is to be achieved without conducting what is effectively a surgical operation - i.e. cutting chunks out and converting curved lines into straight edges. For some reason, I have a deep seated concern with the idea of overly rectilinear approaches to things. It seems like the antithesis of sustainable, systemic transformation - something which to me must be a kind of organic, slightly chaotic self-organising process - and our entire vision of empowering people/communities to take charge of their own development process by gathering the knowledge, changing the behaviour and developing the relationships required to achieve this.
I suppose the conclusion is that I have come to see myself as a kind of conduit for a whole host of ideas and the organisation as a kind of living system that I must come to understand so deeply that I become able to translate whatever knowledge and ideas are out there into the language and rhythms that are meaningful to the organisation: to give the organisation what it thinks it needs in the way that it wants it! rather than to give the organisation what I think it needs in the way that I want to give it! So simple, yet so amazingly hard to appreciate!
Wisdom in the Rickshaw
While I was on my way to visit a friend in Delhi after a conference on Citizenship and Governance (organised by PRIA), I found myself on a rather long rickshaw ride. I decided to start up some casual banter with the driver, an old man from a village in Uttar Pradesh. After some small talk about whether there had been any change in Delhi recently, and whether the lot of the poor was getting any better, the conversation turned to the much loved subject of politics.
The old rickshaw driver took this subject seriously and displayed what I believe is a deep and rich understanding of what democracy is really about… his verdict: we are not living in a democracy! What we have now is politician-power, not people-power! Real democracy, he said, is about people sitting together, discussing things, making compromises and trying to ensure that everyone gains from an outcome. It is, essentially, a communicative process - or perhaps more than this - a community building process. What we have today is so far away from this that there is little surprise we are careering down a rather destructive path with things falling a part and everyone becoming obsessively self-interested, self-serving and just plain selfish!
The simple process of not being connected in any meaningful way to the plethora of decisions that really affect our lives seems like a perfect recipe for alienation. This alienation is supported - or made bearable - through an obsessive focus on things like wealth, status and mostly meaningless entertainment. The philosophical foundations of our culture - and economic, social and political systems that these foundations support - are all tuned perfectly to encourage this great lack of connectivity between people and the decisions the decision that they take every day. And the bizarre thing - in my mind - is that a very significant proportion of people living in this kind of a world actually claim to like living in such a system. They like not having to worry about who their neighbours are; they like not being called to meetings to discuss local development issues; they like talking about the new things they have bought, the new job that they have got, the payrise they secured, etc. And so we go along filling our lives with all sorts of things yet never really being in control of much because we have transferred our own autonomy to a system that we feel it is quite reasonable to be a part of… and gradually things fall apart.
My conclusion, I suppose is that the vast majority of the world has been or is being hypnotised by the lure of acquisition and status in such a way that it forgets the value of the simplicity and connectivity that it once had. This connectivity, this local democracy, I imagine, may have been the gateway to a sustainable way of life and a sense of belonging in the cosmos. I like to hope that we are just drifting through a transitory phase in the history of humanity… or does our future involve an endless experience of alienation?
Funny where you'll find wisdom really.
The old rickshaw driver took this subject seriously and displayed what I believe is a deep and rich understanding of what democracy is really about… his verdict: we are not living in a democracy! What we have now is politician-power, not people-power! Real democracy, he said, is about people sitting together, discussing things, making compromises and trying to ensure that everyone gains from an outcome. It is, essentially, a communicative process - or perhaps more than this - a community building process. What we have today is so far away from this that there is little surprise we are careering down a rather destructive path with things falling a part and everyone becoming obsessively self-interested, self-serving and just plain selfish!
The simple process of not being connected in any meaningful way to the plethora of decisions that really affect our lives seems like a perfect recipe for alienation. This alienation is supported - or made bearable - through an obsessive focus on things like wealth, status and mostly meaningless entertainment. The philosophical foundations of our culture - and economic, social and political systems that these foundations support - are all tuned perfectly to encourage this great lack of connectivity between people and the decisions the decision that they take every day. And the bizarre thing - in my mind - is that a very significant proportion of people living in this kind of a world actually claim to like living in such a system. They like not having to worry about who their neighbours are; they like not being called to meetings to discuss local development issues; they like talking about the new things they have bought, the new job that they have got, the payrise they secured, etc. And so we go along filling our lives with all sorts of things yet never really being in control of much because we have transferred our own autonomy to a system that we feel it is quite reasonable to be a part of… and gradually things fall apart.
My conclusion, I suppose is that the vast majority of the world has been or is being hypnotised by the lure of acquisition and status in such a way that it forgets the value of the simplicity and connectivity that it once had. This connectivity, this local democracy, I imagine, may have been the gateway to a sustainable way of life and a sense of belonging in the cosmos. I like to hope that we are just drifting through a transitory phase in the history of humanity… or does our future involve an endless experience of alienation?
Funny where you'll find wisdom really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
