The following is a transcript of a speech I haven’t been asked to give:

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

I am here before you because the world is a mess.

We are facing challenges on almost every front. Human activity is threatening the environment at a global level, toying with a climatic tipping point that no one fully understands. Our economic system, based on infinite growth and cheap oil, is pushing up against the realities of a finite planet housing 7 billion people. Political and economic power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few who appear increasingly disinterested if not antagonistic to the needs of the rest of us. And communication technology, which many had hoped would unite the world in a global community, is increasing fragmentation, disharmony and information anxiety.

Of course, none of this is news to anyone.

In fact, I suspect that you are here because you are passionately concerned about these problems. I would wager that you have dedicated a significant amount of your time and energy to addressing these issues. And you are not alone. There is a large and growing segment of the population who have dedicated their work to making the world a better place.

But here is the dirty little secret: we are horribly ineffective. Mountains of good intentions and hard work are producing anemic results. In some areas, heroic effort is merely nibbling away at the edges, making tiny inroads in attitudes or policies. In other areas, each step forward is matched by two steps back. Gains made in the 60s and 70s are increasingly under threat and fights we thought we had won are coming back with a vengeance. For many, it feels like we are fighting a losing battle.

There’s no shortage of reasons for the limited impact. We blame it on political or economic inequities. We point out the resistance of entrenched structures and special interests. We pathologize people’s fear of change or their “irrational” choices against self-interest. All of these are true, and yet they are as much symptom as root cause. After all, aren’t these the basic components of the social system we are hoping to change? If we want to be social change agents, aren’t these the very challenges that we must address?

I think the problem is more fundamental. We can never win the old fight because the battle itself is an illusion.

The problem is, as Einstein observed, that we cannot solve a problem at the same level of thinking that created it. I would like to suggest that there are three fundamental patterns of thought that are at the root of our current problems AND our inability to effectively make the kinds of changes we all want to see. Unfortunately these patterns of thought are so ingrained that, like water to fish, it is almost impossible for us to see them. Even those of us who think we are radical or alternative or evolved or enlightened are usually just applying our conventional way of thinking but using new labels or finding new targets for old arguments.

The first pattern is Newtonian mechanics. In simple terms, I am talking about our tendency to treat the world as a collection of separate objects set in motion by a series of actions and reactions – like billiard balls on a pool table. While incredibly useful in certain circumstances, the chief problem of Newtonian mechanics for change agents is the tendency to see the objects of study as more or less fixed and separate things. For many, this might seem so obvious that it’s hard to even imagine the alternative. “Things are things,” you might say.

So, I’ll give you an example. Think about a building.

Few things are more tangible, more fixed than a building. It quite clearly exists – solid like the rock it is made from. Now consider this same building over time if, for some reason, there was no maintenance – an old abandoned factory, for example. Soon the paint chips, the wood rots, the roof caves in, plants and trees colonize the structure and reduce it to rubble.

The building is only a “fixed thing” in any permanent sense because it is constantly being reconstructed. Our consistent human activity remakes the building again and again.

And it is never a perfect reproduction. Paint colours change. Small additions are made. Little details are altered. Some are dramatic. Some are practically unnoticed. But all of them demonstrate that even the things we see as “things” are always in a state of constant, imperfect reproduction. The building is, in essence, an on-going process of dynamic recreation. We merely see it as a static thing.

But we go even further and apply a Newtonian perspective to objects that are quite obviously more fluid, with far more permeable boundaries than a building. Take for example our current understanding of personality. We take extremely complex human behaviours that respond in nearly infinite ways to local conditions and categorize them into fixed personality types or stages of development and then treat them as though they will be consistent across time and circumstance. As a social psychologist, I can tell you that the variation between how you behave in different situations is far greater than how your colleague and you will respond to similar situations. Ironically, you are more different from yourself than you are from your neighbour.

We do the same thing when we concretize large, complex systems like “the market,” “the government,” or “power” and treat them as a single entity with fixed boundaries. We talk as though people have power or they don’t, about how the market likes or doesn’t like a particular piece of information, as though they are single, fixed objects with clearly definable boundaries.

While these sorts of summary statements can be useful for getting a handle on complex systems, if we want to be effective change agents, we must move from seeing the world as a fixed set of objects and start to see the dynamic systems of reproduction that constantly and imperfectly recreate the world. Our ability to make change happen depends on finding leverage points in the flow of reproduction.

The second pattern is something I call the Zoroastrian tendency. For those of you who don’t know, Zoroaster was a prophet sometime in the 6th century BC who taught that there were two forces in the world – Mazda the source of all that is pure and good, and Angra Mainyu, the source of all evil. It is often considered the first embodiment of a dualistic way of thinking.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are all still Zoroastrians. Zoroastrian thinking pervades our world in a myriad of large and small ways. Our brains have learned a neat little trick: to understand the complexity of the world we break big things into component parts. This is all quite useful as part of a larger process of analysis and synthesis. But then our Zoroastrian impulse kicks in and, not content to simply say “these are the many parts of this system” we feel compelled to add “and these are the good ones and these are the bad ones.”

As a result, the world is exploded into a mosaic tinted in shades of “good” and “bad.” We break subjective experience into thoughts and feelings and then label one as “good” and the other as “bad” (ironically, which one is good depends on who is doing the labeling). We divide the world into the material and the spiritual and say one is “real” and the other is “imaginary” (again, which one is which is entirely dependent on perspective). We break humanity into us and them, and label one “the (real) people” and the other as something less, something “other.”

And, of course, the minute we label something as bad the only possible solution is to eliminate it. The world will only be better when we get rid of all that badness.

To become effective change agents we must learn to move beyond this dualism to understand how seeming oppositional pairs are in fact dynamic tensions that animate living systems. Rather than waging war on “the bad,” we must seek to understand the tensions, the benefit and shadow side of both partners, and seek a healthy ebb and flow.

The last pervasive pattern is a preference for control and predictability. There’s a saying often used in personal development “would you rather be right or happy?” Unfortunately, there are many people who can’t understand the choice – how could we possibly be happy if we’re wrong? The desire to be right is so strong it creates something called the confirmation bias – a tendency for people to only pay attention to evidence that supports their existing beliefs and to discount information that questions them. In essence, we don’t believe what we see: we see what we believe.

The confirmatory bias explains a variety of phenomena, from the trivial to the profound. It often explains apparent coincidences. For example, once you decide to buy a particular brand of car, you suddenly see them everywhere. In essence, your brain is now primed to see evidence of the correctness of your decision.

Unfortunately, it also explains how people who hold opposing views can see the same information in an article or a news report and pull out only the information that supports their side of the argument. It goes even further. When forced to confront disconfirming evidence, our first response is to denigrate the source and dismiss the information. Unfortunately, as a result many people can go for years, ignoring all the evidence that what they are doing isn’t working or contenting themselves with small victories while constantly in retreat. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

To be effective change agents, we must move beyond our own insecurity that we may be wrong. Of course we’re wrong – about some things. There’s nothing wrong with that. The real problem is not learning from our mistakes because we have buried our heads in the sand, afraid to ask the questions that will make a real difference the next time because our egos and insecurities get in the way.

To be clear, there is nothing inherently “wrong” with any of these ways of thinking. For the vast majority of our species’ existence, we lived in relatively stable and predictable environments where these patterns were an efficient and effective way to navigate the world. Taking the time to question your assumptions about whether or not all tigers are dangerous or contemplating the great web of existence that connects you and the tiger as part of a larger whole was not exactly a survival skill in the face of a hungry tiger.

And these patterns are still very useful in relatively stable and predictable environments. Unfortunately, “stable and predictable” rarely applies to our work. Whether it’s the Mayan calendar or scientists calling for a new Anthropocene epoch, we all sense a significant shift is happening.

Evolution theory talks about the EEA – the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation. Genetic traits develop because they provide a selection advantage in a particular environment. However, when that environment changes the same traits that were advantageous can become a liability. There is a social equivalent, and we now find ourselves at one of those moments when the habits and institutions that we have developed are proving maladaptive to the changing environment.

We are living through a major re-orientation as fundamental and disruptive as the start of the industrial revolution. Energy is getting expensive and information is getting cheap. The institutions of industrial era economics are falling apart and the seeds of a new system are already starting to sprout. Like the Cambrian Explosion, new species of organizations, practices, techniques, and theories are popping up by the hundreds – practically every day – far faster than anyone can keep up with, let alone master. But just as in the Cambrian Explosion, most of these little critters are not destined to survive.

The question is how do we respond? How do we learn to manage in this new environment of our own creation? How do we create new institutions for the 21st century – not just rejiggered dinosaurs from the industrial past? I suspect that whatever the new normal will be is beyond any conscious design – by an individual or even a group. But I also doubt that we will get the kind of world we want if we leave it all to chance. As Andy Warhol said, “they say that time changes everything, but it turns out you have to do it yourself.”
Arthur C. Clark said that “any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I think the time has come for us to develop the technology of social change to the point that it begins to look like magic to the uninitiated.

We have already seen the magic of change when it happens. We saw it in the sudden, infectious quality of the Arab Spring. We saw it when the Berlin Wall fell exposing a shallow façade that looked to the world like a massive fortress only months before. Many of us have experienced it personally in our lives or in our work when sudden, small shifts create huge transformation.

The problem is that too many of us are addicted to the “magic.” We forget that, like the Zen saying about enlightenment, it happens suddenly after years of practice. We dwell on the surface of things, never going deeper. We attempt to recreate the magic moments by chanting worn-out formulas of “best practices” that don’t actually deliver consistent results. We confuse proximate triggers with root causes, so we think the story of the Arab Spring is about Twitter. We mistake necessary for sufficient conditions, and so we think that the power of belief is enough all by itself.

What we need is a technology of change that is adapted to the new environment; that is dynamic, collaborative, and responsive.

We need a technology that helps us see the dynamic process of reproduction that connects the small and large scale and identify the leverage points in the process where change is possible and amplified.

We need a technology that helps us strip away comforting notions of “good” and “bad” to be able to see apparent opposites as dynamic forces in a productive tension, each with benefits and a shadow side.

We need a technology that overcomes our confirmatory biases and the rigidity that comes from them, so that we can be nimble, responsive, and adaptable to a shifting environment.

And to develop that technology, we need a cadre of change agents who are willing to do the hard work involved in stepping out of the comfortable, taken-for-granted patterns of thought that keep us stuck fighting the same old battles. In essence, we must be willing to go rogue, to step out of the comfort zone of knowing and cross the threshold to embrace the adventure of discovery.

To paraphrase Shackleton: I’m looking for people for a hazardous journey. [Expect] small wages, bitter cold, [and] long months of complete darkness[. S]afe return [is] doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.

I know that few people are likely to take up my challenge. Some will believe that a technology of change is impossible; that some things are beyond knowable. To them I say “you may be right.” Others will value the goal, but be too committed to the game on the ground to spare the time and energy to develop the deeper understanding. To them I say “go and godspeed to you.” Many will stay addicted to magical thinking, choosing to put their faith in unseen forces and hope. To them I say “let me know how that works out for you.”

But to those who are frustrated by our current Return on Effort, who instinctively feel that there has to be a better way, I invite you to join forces, pool resources, cross professional boundaries, and kill sacred cows. Develop self-critical learning cells that constantly test, refine and improve our ability to actually make positive change happen by challenging assumptions and testing reality.

And most importantly, stay in touch.

Thank you.

The Eavesdropper by Eugen vonBlaas

A few weeks ago, I happened to overhear a conversation at the Sylvia that intrigued me. After a few moments hesitation, I decided to be bold and barge into the conversation uninvited. As a result, I met Joy VanHove.

Joy is working on a very interesting project called “An Idea Nation.” The idea builds on the notion of Macro-Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and the importance of finding new ways to combine technology and human collaboration to solve global problems.

As Joy says, there is currently a “perfect storm of opportunity” – an expression I love because it seems to combine both the feeling of urgency (verging on crisis) that the current state of the world seems to inspire in me, with a sense of possibility. Her response to this perfect storm is a project that is creating a global conversation that can identify our shared top priorities AND connect people with concrete local actions that they are willing to take to make a difference.

The project is in its early phases and will continue to evolve, but right now it focuses on creating a global think tank of all of us plus a TV show on social entrepreneurialism.

Joy is hoping to create a 3-day summit event to help kick off the project that will combine face-t0-face and distance technology to allow as many people as  possible to get involved. Then it’s about

1) gathering data through governmental partnerships,

2) allowing people to contribute suggestions on priorities,

3) having people vote the ideas up or down to create a prioritized list of 8 top issue areas,

4) making commitments for action

Joy is currently looking for partners to help make this project a reality. If you want to get involved, check out the website or shoot me an email and I can pass your interest along.

The simplest way I can describe the project is “what if complex adaptive thinking and the scientific method had a baby?” It’s an idea that’s been brewing for a while, and it feels like the time has come for it to move from something I think about to something that I do – and that’s why I decided to put the writing and thinking process right out there from as close to the start as possible.

The motivation for this project comes from a long engagement (almost 20 years now) with a persistent question: what does it take for groups to be truly effective? The more I’ve explored this question, the more I have come to believe that the answer ultimately rests on a new form of relationship – between colleagues, between organizations, and between individuals and the work they are doing.

It involves moving from isolation, rigidity, and resistance to connection, flexibility and responsiveness.

I’m a sociologist and so for me, forging new forms of relationships means simultaneously building the new habits and structures that support these new relationships. For the longest time, this seemed to imply a sort of “chicken and egg” paradox – which comes first, the relationships or the structures? Recently (Friday August 10th around 10:30am), the answer hit me: “yes.”

This is the beauty of marrying complex adaptive systems thinking with a self-reflective learning process. It has the ability to start small, yet build the sort of emergent coordinating structures that can adapt and grow as the system matures.

The basic components are fairly straight-forward. There will be a very small set of simple rules for local actors – my starting set is: 1) be transparent, 2) test assumptions, 3) reflect periodically, and 4) seek complementarity. And there will be something I’m currently thinking about as the “coordinating mechanism” or the “container” that provides a place for transparency and punctuated equilibrium to live. More on that later.

Of course, the devil is in the details. Over the next few days and weeks (and months, probably), I will be starting to lay out some ideas about how this new system might work. I will be following the rules I’ve set out and will be using a variety of tools (blogs, videos and presentations, quickie surveys, google docs, social media, etc.) to try to model how such a system of collaborative critical thinking might start to grow.

I’ll also be doing a lot of outreach – coffee meetings, interviews, conferences, etc – to start to connect the threads of all the interesting projects and people I have had the good fortune to meet lately into a system that actually facilitates (rather than overwhelms) true knowledge creation.

I am sure the process will be messy and I’ll make lots of mistakes – nothing new there. But I am committed to give this a decent try. There is something that feels incredibly right about it and the feedback I’ve gotten so far has been encouraging.

So, please consider this your first invitation to get involved. I have moved the original proposal draft from FastPencil to Google Docs to make it more accessible. Here’s the link if you want to take a look at it. And you can expect more regular posts and communications from me through our established channels (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, the Nudge, and the Digest). I will be trying to do more “live writing” and “public thinking” by using tools like Google Docs that allow real-time collaboration (and sending out tweets / updates about when I’ll be online).

So, stop in some time. I look forward to chatting.

– Ben

Emotus "The Book"

Everything that shines creates a shadow and every shadow points to a source of light.

An important first step in finding balance is looking at the shadow side of elements that appear largely positive. The question is what happens when you have too much of a good thing. What are some of the symptoms that we are slipping beyond the healthy balance point – slipping into unhealthy obsession?

The following provocative questions are meant to start a conversation that goes beyond the simplistic “either / or” thinking that is too common in our current culture. The same post is available on FreePencil and we would love for you to become a collaborator there (see below).

What are the first signs that “being of service to others” is turning into being a martyr?

What are the first signs that a focus on “fair compensation” is turning into greed?

What are the first signs that “holding a vision” is turning into living a delusion?

What are the first signs that “being practical” is really just inventing excuses to avoid doing the scary stuff you know you should?

What are the first signs that “planning” is turning into an excuse to avoid actually doing anything?

What are the first signs that “being action-oriented” is really just an excuse to avoid looking at the big picture and whether your actions are really having any impact?

What are the first signs that “compassion” is actually condescension?

What are the first signs that “independence” is actually just an illusion of separation / ego-gratification?

What are the first signs that “helping” is actually co-dependence?

What are the first signs that “tough love” is actually indifference?

What are the first signs that “building collaboration” is actually avoiding responsibility?

What are the first signs that “differentiation” is actually building artificial barriers?

Next section - is currently being written.

_____________________________

We are looking for collaborators on this project. There are several ways you can get involved.

If you would like a chance to talk about the ideas we are developing, join the Facilitator Seminar - a free regular web-meeting to discuss concepts in the book.

We are developing the book on FastPencil - an online writing collaboration tool. If you would like to be added as a collaborator on the book, visit the project site AND please send an email to me (ben@emotusoperdi.com) – the technology can be buggy.

And, of course, you can leave comments here or on our Facebook Page.

Emotus "The Book"

I resisted writing this book for several years because it seemed like the last thing the world needed was yet another self-help / business management / “you should” book. I have personally developed a case of bibliophobia that causes heart palpitation’s and cold sweats when people tell me about yet another book I should read. I didn’t want to contribute to more insecurity and OCD behavior.

Likewise, the idea that I had much to add to the current debate seemed egotistical. The elements people need to create happy, productive, thriving lives are already available “out there” in countless books, blogs, or workshops, not to mention in most of the great philosophical and spiritual traditions. Most of the ideas you will encounter here aren’t new. In fact, it’s likely that you have already read similar things in other books or blogs.

But I was consistently disappointed that:

1. Good ideas are too often presented or interpreted as THE magic “silver bullet”
2. There is a surprising lack of interest in integrating potentially contradictory advice
3. There is a nearly complete lack of critical self-reflection on “best practices”

All of this combines to create an environment that is flooded in information but lacking true knowledge – and almost devoid of real wisdom. Deep economic and sociological shifts are disrupting old, taken-for-granted ways of navigating the world and the “new normal” still eludes us. This environment presents very real dangers. The creative and productive capacity of intelligent, committed, passionate people is largely being wasted in the frenetic chase after passing fads and “secrets to success” that are appealing but ultimately ineffective. In a world facing significant economic, environmental and social challenges, we can’t afford to keep wasting our most important nature resource.

This book attempts to correct that situation by applying critical thinking to a wide variety of “how to” advice currently circulating. The work reported here is the result of an on-going discussion of practitioners from a variety of perspectives coming to together to ask “what do we know to be true and how do we know it?”

We started with a few provocative propositions:

1. All perspectives hold valuable yet partial pieces of the puzzle.
2. Social systems are dynamic, therefore effective solutions must navigate dynamic tensions – oppositional forces requiring balance rather than simplistic solutions that ignore (at least) half of reality.
3. Much of what we think we know is wrong AND much of what we actually know is hidden from view until brought to light though reflection

With that in mind, we began to put together an integrated, dynamic model that could help practitioners develop a deeper understanding of the process of transformational change. Our goal here is to begin the discussion and keep it moving forward, not to provide the final, definitive recipe for success.

Next section

_____________________________

We are looking for collaborators on this project. There are several ways you can get involved.

If you would like a chance to talk about the ideas we are developing, join the Facilitator Seminar – a free regular web-meeting to discuss concepts in the book.

We are developing the book on FastPencil – an online writing collaboration tool. If you would like to be added as a collaborator on the book, visit the project site AND please send an email to me (ben@emotusoperdi.com) – the technology can be buggy.

And, of course, you can leave comments here or on our Facebook Page.

Emotus "The Book"

This book is written for and by people who are striving to create and support high-functioning, thriving teams and inviduals who are working on deep transformational change. It is written for hard-headed dreamers and idealistic pragmatists. This describes a large and growing group of professionals who, unfortunately, lack a common shared identity and tend to practice in isolation. It includes coaches, facilitators and team leaders; internal champions and project managers. It includes people who are coming from an organizational development perspecive and others focused on personal development. It includes people who are trying to make work meaningful and others who are trying to make their meaningful goals work.

In short, it describes an army of people who believe we can do better: that we can lead happier, healthier, more meaningful, and more sustainable lives and that the work we do in the world is an important part of a life well-lived.

This army of intelligent, passionate, hard working people is, for the most part, struggling to have the impact that we know we can have. Many free lancers spend more time on the never-ending challenges of business development, technical support, and administrivia, than doing the actual work. Others are imbedded in organizations, struggling against the huge inertial forces protecting the status quo. And all of us are struggling to make sense of the constant torrent of often contradictory, always changing ideas about “best practices,” “success tips” and “flavors of the month.”

This book represents a different approach to both the topic and to book writing. Emotus Operandi convened an on-going online Facilitators Seminar with one focusing question: what do we really know? The results of that (still continuing) discussion are captured in this book. Our goal was to avoid the fads that come and go and the partial truths that capture the imagination but fail to gain traction in the real world. Instead, we go below the surface to start to identify consistent patterns in the change process, their trigger points, and the most effective interventions to re-focus and re-energize the process.

The results will challenge some people. We are not writing for people who are looking for better ways to build or sell widgets. We don’t offer a simple “how to” or fool-proof formula for success. There are already more than enough books offering suggestions on SEO optimization or using social media to drive more sales. Instead, we are more likely to challenge some assumptions of what constitutes success in the first place.  And we are not writing for people who are looking for magical solutions to complex problems. We agree with Arthur C. Clark that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” and take up the challenge of advancing the technologies of social interaction to unlock it seemingly magical potentail.

As a result, we won’t simply provide a menu of interventions and techniques assuming that all approaches are equally valid or effective. Instead, we attempt to identify the dynamic tensions at work and provide tools that can help move groups and individuals navigate back to that ellusive balance point where passion and action meet to have a real, positive impact in the world. We attempt to provide a deeper theoretical foundation and the implications the theory has for practice.

Finding that balance requires wading into murky water and embracing the “both/and” nature of life as adventure. We might be wrong sometimes, but we are willing to risk being transparent and exposing our errors as a way to advance the state of the art beyond the the fads and “best practices” approach that is currently the norm. As Art Williams says, “I’m not telling you it’s going to be easy. I’m telling you it’s going to be worth it.”

Next section

_____________________________

We are looking for collaborators on this project. There are several ways you can get involved.

If you would like a chance to talk about the ideas we are developing, join the Facilitator Seminar - a free regular web-meeting to discuss concepts in the book.

We are developing the book on FastPencil - an online writing collaboration tool. If you would like to be added as a collaborator on the book, visit the project site AND please send an email to me (ben@emotusoperdi.com) – the technology can be buggy.

And, of course, you can leave comments here or on our Facebook Page.

Emotus "The Book"

There is a natural human desire for certainty and predictability. This is balanced by a similar urge towards curiousity and learning. In a balanced system, the drives guide an organism to navigate a changing environment by preserving habits that seem to “work” and innovating where current efforts aren’t bringing the desired outcomes.

Unfortunately, we currently live in a decidedly unbalanced system. Broad social forces, from the educational system to advertising, to economic insecurity trigger fears that in turn activate a stronger need for certainty. The result: more people willing to buy more snake oil and an endless supply of people willing to sell it.

Here is the simple truth – there is no simple recipe for material success if that success is seen as greater than average wealth. If there were, everyone would do it and it would, through market forces, cease to be effective. There are, however, time-tested ways to increase happiness and effectiveness in a changing environment. Basically, these involve learning to learn, being responsive (not reactive), and embracing the process (not getting stuck on the outcomes).

Throughout the book we will make suggestions about particular tools or interventions, or ways to make sense of a particular situation. These are always intended as ways to stack the deck in your favour. It is your job as a reader to resist the urge to read these suggestions as some sort of magic bullet that can be slavishly followed to guarantee that the goals you set are the goals you achieve.

Likewise, we explicitly recognize the role of practice and mastry in lasting success. Conceptual knowledge of techniques is an important first step, but the effective application of techniques requires a developmental process, focused practice and time. As the Zen saying goes, “enlightenment happens instantly after years of practice.” To many people in contemporary society want the enlightenment moment without the hard work. The ability to specialize has, in fact, been one of the lasting gifts of an advanced industrial economy – a gift that is currently at risk in the transition to a distributed information economy. By extension, the advantages of specialization suggest the need for new ways to collaborate in an increasingly fragmented economy.

We invite you to engage the book in the same spirit in which is was created: value learning over knowing; ask if it resonates with your experience and if not, how can you experience add to the discussion; be self-critical and self-aware – know your own biases and assuptions; and apply the suggestions here in a spirit of experimentation and learning. In other words, join us in the adventure.

Next section

_____________________________

We are looking for collaborators on this project. There are several ways you can get involved.

If you would like a chance to talk about the ideas we are developing, join the Facilitator Seminar - a free regular web-meeting to discuss concepts in the book.

We are developing the book on FastPencil - an online writing collaboration tool. If you would like to be added as a collaborator on the book, visit the project site AND please send an email to me (ben@emotusoperdi.com) – the technology can be buggy.

And, of course, you can leave comments here or on our Facebook Page.

Emotus "The Book"

In The Omnivour’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan visits and describes a grass farm in Virginia. The idea behind a grass farm is deceptively simple: since everything on the farm depends ultimately on the grass, the farmer’s job is to manage the farm in such a way as to promote the healthiest grass possible. From this relatively simple premise, though, develops a radical approach to farming. The farm is treated as a dynamic process of interrelated and interdependent parts.

In practical terms, it means that the cows are frequently rotated between fields. If the cows are left in a field too long, they will overgraze on their favourite grasses first, leaving gaps in fields biodiversity. But if they are left there the right amount of time, they will nibble the choices types of grass which, ironically, spurs the grass on to healthy rebounding growth. In other words, both the cows and the grass win.

A few days after the cows have grazed, chickens are brought in. The chickens, it turns out, love the grubs that hatch in cow manure about 4 days after, well, being deposited. So the chickens feast on the grubs, gaining protein and nutrients, reducing the parasites that could make the cows sick, and simultanesouly scatter the cow pies so that the organic matter is spread evenly over the field. And in the process, the chickens leave a layer of their own nutrient rich manure. Again, if the chickens were allowed to stay too long, the nitrogen in their poop would burn the grass to death. So, the cows, chickens, and grass all win.

After a while, the grass has gone through the blaze – a short, intense regrowth period following the cow’s nibbly-bits and the field is actually healthier than before and ready to be regrazed by the cows again. The cows, chickens, and grass are healthier. There has been no need to burn gas to import corn produced miles away through the use of petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides to feed the cows and chickens. There is no need to dose the cows or chickens to keep them healthy. There is no need to “deal with” the chicken and cow manure, which is often treated as toxic waste in conventional farming operations. The eggs and meat produced on the farm is also healthier and more nutritious.

The actual farm is far more complex when you start to bring in the pigs, the woods, seasons, and an interesting thing you can do with apples, and the worl of a grass farmer is more complex than a conventional farmer. They have to understand the interpendent cycles and make sure that everyone is where they need to be at the right time. They must understand not just cows or chickens or grass, but the subtle interconnections between them all. Our linear minds often balk at these sorts of examples. They seem needless confusing and complicated. But in that complexity lies power – the power to more closely map the reality of the real-life, living system that we humans inhabit.

In particular, the model highlights a few things that we see as key to working with the dynamics in any living system, whether they are an individual, team, or culture. 1) Work with naturally occurring desires / impulses. 2) Recongize the need to balance dynamic tensions. 3) Look for interconnections. 4) Understand the role of time and cycles in development. 5) Focus on structures that channel the flow of energy.

Next section

_____________________________

We are looking for collaborators on this project. There are several ways you can get involved.

If you would like a chance to talk about the ideas we are developing, join the Facilitator Seminar - a free regular web-meeting to discuss concepts in the book.

We are developing the book on FastPencil - an online writing collaboration tool. If you would like to be added as a collaborator on the book, visit the project site AND please send an email to me (ben@emotusoperdi.com) – the technology can be buggy.

And, of course, you can leave comments here or on our Facebook Page.

Emotus "The Book"

Our current worldview is dominated by linear, either/or thinking. This is, in part, a legacy of the anlytic tradition that recongized that the natural world in its full, rich complexity is too complex for the human brain to comprenend as a whole. So scientists and philosophers developed a method for breaking the whole into smaller and smaller parts so that we could focus our attention on the particulars. This technique has lead to incredible breakthroughs in our understanding of everything from the big bang to microchips.

According to Newberg, et al., either/or thinking is also a legacy of some of our cognitive processing systems. Human brains have developed a few unique cognitive functions -the ability to categorize, cause and effect, counting, etc. – and like a kid with a new toy, our brains have a strong drive to always apply these operators even when they aren’t particularly helpful. This tendency leads to superstitious thinking when a random coicidence is misconstrued as cause and effect. It also leads to a prefence for either/or thinking in situations when both/and thinking is more helpful.

The scientists and researchers who are on the forefront of any given field are usually the first to recognize the limits of their analytical approach. Unfortunately, the same perspective which is hammered home in advanced training in the scientific method is remarkable rare in modern society. In fact, most of our culture structures emphasize the binary – politics that present the world in left vs. right terms, cultural identities that emphasis us vs. them, education that focuses on right vs. wrong, etc.

The focus on either/or is particularly dangerous when applied to dynamic living systems. Dynamic systems are animated by the dynamic tensions at their core. The either/or impulse identifies these dynamic tensions and then sets about deciding which force is “right” – after all, if there is a pair one or the other one must be the winner.

Studies done on Isle Royale in Lake Superior demonstrate both the dynamic forces at work and the ridiculousness of the either/or approach. The isolated island has a resident population of wolves and moose cut-off from the mainland that has been studies for decades. Over the years, the relative population of wolves and moose oscilates. As the moose population grows, it creates good hunting conditions for the wolves. Healthy, well-nourished wolves give birth to more cubs who survive. Eventually the wolf population swells and their predation causes the moose population to shrink. Harder hunting and less food causes fewer wolf cubs to be born or survive. This ebb and flow has occurred repeatedly within similarly boundary conditions quite possibly for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. The actual balance of wolves to moose is constantly shifting. At some points, though, it seems like human intervention is required. Usually this happens when the moose population is reduced, mostly because we have decided that in the either/or world of the Isle Royale the moose as “victims” are the good guys and therefore we need to remove the “bad” wolves to protect them.

While most readers probably recognize the ridiculousness of intervention in the example, the same logic still dominates much of our thinking about transformational change. We look at many of the forces involved in change and then begin the process of choosing the “good” and “bad” forces. Our goal then is to intervene – to cull the “bad” forces or introduce the “good” forces – without first understanding both the light and shadow of each side and understanding the generative power of their interaction.

In the following sections, we are going to explore many of the balanced dynamic tensions involved in transformational change. We will attempt to look at the positive role both sides of the tension produce and the dangers that can occur if either force dominates the field. Then we will attempt to look at how to identify the sweet spot for each – the healthy balance range (because it is rarely a single point) when the forces produce optimal performance. We will also look at how that balance shifts at difference points in the developmental cycle.

Next section – too much of a good thing

_____________________________

We are looking for collaborators on this project. There are several ways you can get involved.

If you would like a chance to talk about the ideas we are developing, join the Facilitator Seminar - a free regular web-meeting to discuss concepts in the book.

We are developing the book on FastPencil - an online writing collaboration tool. If you would like to be added as a collaborator on the book, visit the project site AND please send an email to me (ben@emotusoperdi.com) – the technology can be buggy.

And, of course, you can leave comments here or on our Facebook Page.

Back in the day, the world seemed tidier – with everything in neat little boxes. You were either a for-profit trying to maximize profit at any cost or you were a non-profit scrimping along trying to do good on whatever resources people would donate. You were a company man, trading your independence for a retirement plan or a free-lancer risking it all for the chance to do work that felt important and meaningful.

Those days are quickly fading away. A combination of powerful forces are reshaping the way we think and feel about work. Economic forces are destabilizing the old centralized industrial economic system. Environmental forces are forcing a reevaluation of basic assumptions about a consumption economy. Technological forces are making new ways of communicating and collaborating possible and democratizing the means of production. And societal forces are causing aging baby boomers and young millennials alike to reexamine their core values about what is really important in life and work.

The bad news is that there doesn’t appear to be a  ”new normal” yet. The good news is that there are many promising experiments that reimagine what is possible in how we work.

Last weekend, I attended the SEEED 2012 Conference – one of the first national gatherings of people starting, running or supporting social enterprises. If you aren’t familiar with the concept, social enterprise (also referred to as social entrepreneurship) is about doing well by doing good. It includes people coming from the non-profit side who are looking at innovative ways to finance their social change efforts and people from the for-profit side who recognize the responsibility of business to do more than just make a profit.

What all these people have in common is a desire to blend the best of both worlds: using the power and innovative capacity of market forces to do good things through the work we do.

We are still early in the process and there are more questions than answers at this point, but the energy behind this movement makes me believe that it is the shape of things to come.

Ironically, the biggest challenges at this point is simply finding a way to help link together the incredible diversity of people and organizations that are working on similar projects without even knowing it. There is an army already at work, but most of them (I’m betting most of you) don’t even know that they are part of a bigger movement.

So, are you an accidental social entrepreneur or social enterprise? Are you looking for a way to make a positive impact through the work you do – trying to find ways to do well financially while doing good in the world? Last weekend I discovered that I was part of a larger movement that I knew very little about. If that sounds like you, too, check out the following links.

Social Enterprise Alliance

Social Venture Partners

Emotus Operandi will continue to build connections and supports around this important work. We are happy to be part of the larger movement and excited to find ways to support other people who are doing the work. We hope to become part of the new infrastructure that supports a new way of working – building social and structural supports that help you focus your energy on making a difference.