Tag Archives: social change

Wheatley, forward: We’ve surveyed the horizon. Where to from here?

I truly enjoyed the twists and turns of our 9/15 chat, Wheatley on Social Innovation: Do We Regroup?

Our general takeaway: social and organizational change are incredibly difficult. We agreed there is significant, in-depth discussion still ahead to unpack what this means, and how best to attack it.

As a stepping stone to those conversations, let’s tee up some potential follow-on threads, based on a few of the more provocative insights from our last chat.

We can frame the next conversation like this:

What are the ideal threads to explore and expand on Margaret Wheatley’s latest thinking, as we wrap up our 2014 #cdna series and lay the groundwork for 2015?  Feel free to move beyond the choices offered here. Are there other, better threads?  Expand!  Just note that these were stakes in the ground on 9/15, and in many cases, worth more discussion. The author and original tweet contributing to these insights is noted.

  • Q1. SOCIAL CHANGE vs. INNOVATION
    • a. Gap perception: Grappling with ‘what needs to happen’ vs. ‘what’s been achieved’ (Tony)
    • b. How do we innovate within our sphere of influence? discussing scale (Scott)
    • c. Is our dialog moving towards Asimov’s ‘Psychohistory’? (Scott)
    • d. Change v. innovation: are both like ‘deviance’ .. in the end, subjective? relative? (Kim)
    • e. Focus: Not all social change is innovative (Kim)
    • f. Midgley’s boundary critique: who decides? who gets marginalized? (Alice)
  • Q2. MOTIVATION
    • a. Harmonizing motivation (Christy); perhaps re: Maslow, focused ‘pack’ response? (Jamie)
    • b. Focus: Gaming self and team to stay in flow (Christy)
    • c. Focus: Spreading methods (Christy)
    • d. Focus: Planning for change around adoption curves (Mike)
    • e. Does economic pain trump all other motivators? (Jamie)
  • Q3. CULTURAL FORCES AND TIME DIMENSION
    • a. Cultural resistance: our brains’ firmware seems programmed to hesitate (Scott)
    • b. Prescriptive behavior (Redge); market imperatives taken to be givens (Paul)
    • c. Focus: the function of speed vs. perceived value, and challenge of normalizing (Christy)
    • d. Wheatley: we are not in charge of time arc of change, or its scope, reach or uptake (Kim)
  • Q4. CHANGE DRIVERS
    • a. Visionary leadership (Tony); capacity to see a different world (Paul)
    • b. Case studies for social change: IBM/Gerstner, Apple/Jobs, GE/Welch (Chris, Redge)
    • c. Focus: Modeling change from a place of integrity (David)
    • d. Empowered individuals as means to disrupt cliques (David)

More context? Click on the hyperlinked name to see the tweet. Or check out the cdna 9/15 transcript to see the conversation.

Very much looking forward to our next dialog.  And I truly can’t thank the #cdna crew enough. Your time, insights and positive energy are so valuable. It’s an inspiration to be a part of this group.

Chris (aka @sourcepov)


Wheatley’s Latest on Social Innovation: Do we Regroup or Redouble Our Efforts?

Most of us can name our role models, including, if not especially, our favorite visionary thinkers. Their ideas resonate. They speak, and it all makes sense. So when Margaret Wheatley shared her doubts on our ability to influence social change and social innovation on a large scale, it was more than a wake-up call for me. It was more like a bucket of ice water.

Sure, it makes sense to hedge on our boldest forecasts. But should we conclude, as Wheatley has done, that there’s no evidence for lasting social change?

Let’s challenge that.

Listen to her 2013 interview or skim the transcript .. posted on i-Open courtesy Betsey Merkel, and shared on Twitter by my friend Bruce Watluck. Wheatley’s concern centers on the ubiquitous psychological resistance to change that she repeatedly encounters in her work. It’s a resistance fueled by powerful cultural forces that feed on self-interest and narcissistic thinking. We can see evidence of this everywhere, of course. We can see it in our ads, as she says, as well as in our sports and in our leaders. It’s a sobering message.

She’s left a door open. Some light still shines through, offering some hope. Wheatley acknowledges three fundamentals that remain in her work and her vision:

  • Strong relationships based on trust
  • Deeper thinking in teams, creating “islands of sanity”
  • A personal practice of reflection

So she hasn’t abandoned efforts to inspire, or to guide deeper meaning. She still talks of embracing and advancing the human spirit. But I’m afraid the elephant is still in the room.

Let’s not retreat on the scale of what’s possible. There’s too much at stake. Education. Healthcare. Energy. It’s a long list. So let’s ask this ..

How long should social innovation take? It’s certainly not overnight. And with extended timeframes, the critical element of resilience .. our ability to sustain visionary leadership .. comes into play. It’s interesting she has written on a parallel theme, perseverance.

From what I’ve read about culture and prevailing paradigms, I think it’s likely that social change would be best measured in decades, at a minimum. The larger the ecosystem, the longer change will take. The more entrenched the social conventions, the longer it will take to unwind them and to develop new ones. A few examples of decade-plus emergent innovation I’ll offer as evidence: the transformation of IBM from hardware to software (10-15 years), the American Revolution (50-60 years), and the global Human Rights movement (100 years plus). Each of these studies in social change took a long time to happen. Each was more fragile and difficult to achieve with scale.

Yet all these examples led to lasting ecosystem change. We can trace evolution from important initial conditions, strong and persistent local catalysts, environments that allowed new rule systems to emerge and to ultimately survive. These are features of a complex social system, one that learns and adapts.

I believe emergent innovation is possible. If I’m right, we’ll have to be patient. We’re wise to start small, and build slowly. Ultimately, as our innovation expands, we’ll have to lead with incredible resolve, operating within and among strongly connected, resilient, and well-aligned communities. And we’ll have to have the long term view.

For our #cdna chat at 8pm ET on MON 9/15, let’s take apart Meg Wheatley’s arguments and my own, to see what we might make of them.

  • Q1. Is social innovation dead? oversold? not fully baked? or misunderstood?
  • Q1(b.) [emergent] Are social change and social innovation interchangeable in the context of this frame?
  • Q2. What are your views on our ability to influence change in social settings (e.g., culture)?
  • Q3. [emergent] What is your sense of Wheatley’s concerns re: cultural resistance?
  • Q4. How does the time dimension factor into our chances? Can we accelerate our desired change?
  • Q5. What are the fundamental drivers in the discussion of social change?

I’ll bring an open mind to this, as always. But so far, I’m holding out for possibility. I have a deep conviction in our ability to make things better. Let’s discuss it.

Roughly once a month, a small but growing group of independent thinkers comes together around hashtag #cdna to unpack social learning and the nuances of intentional collaboration. It seems we always take a little something home. Given time, we may just come up with some new rules ..

Join the conversation using http://tweetchat.com/room/cdna .. simply sign-in with your Twitter account, and authorize the app ..

Hope to see you there !!

Chris (aka @sourcepov)

___

Related reading:

  • Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
  • Margaret Wheatley, A Simpler Way (1996).
  • Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science (2006).
  • John Miller and Scott Page, Complex Adaptive Systems (2007).
  • Chris Jones, The DNA of Collaboration (2012).

Building Social Capital: Can Leaders Play?

Over on the @sourcepov blog, I posted tonight about Building Social Capital.  In that post, a question is framed quite simply: “Can Leaders Play?”  There’s a call to action for leadership from the rank and file, not unlike Seth Godin’s argument in Tribes, testing our courage to step forward and engage with others.

So what about corporate leaders, as we look INSIDE the organization?

Is there not potential for Social Capital to emerge there?  And the related question still applies:  “Can Leaders Play?”

Often it seems our corporate leaders are removed from the fray of social interconnections in the organization, though that very dynamic – people connecting with people – remains one of the most powerful ways to foster organic innovation.

Collaboration, at its core, is about the trusted exchange of ideas in pursuit of even better ideas.  It has implications to corporate governance and strategy.

It seems executives would want to be onto this.

Here, and in the upcoming CDNA chat, we’ll look at the internal leadership angle, as we drive conversation on the role of corporate leaders in building Social Capital across the enterprise.  We’ll start with some definitions, then look to understand what needs to happen in the modern learning organization.

  • Q1. Define. If Social Capital is “building engagement skills & trusted networks to drive value” why wouldn’t leaders care?
  • Q2. Context. Would corporte leaders buy-in to building Social Captial like they might for Human or Intellectual Capital?  Why or why not?
  • Q3. Semantics. What will it take for corporate leaders to embrace “social anything” in the enterprise?
  • Q4. Synthesis. Is Social Capital part of that solution?

We’ll hope you’ll join us, MONDAY 8pET at hashtag CDNA.  We’re monthly now.  That means we’ve been saving up for even more in-depth analysis on topics that matter.  We hope you’ll join us.

- Chris Jones, and the DNA of Collaboration Team, tweeting from @CollabDNA


As the Spiral Turns: From Culture to Community

As we follow the turns of our spiral thinking model, no surprise that we have considerable flexibility as to “where we go next” in our exploration.

Since Astrid led us on a very productive disussion of Culture as it pertains to Learning in the last 2 sessions, let’s follow that cultural thread into the context of Community.

This now brings into focus a discussion of relationships, place, and some sense of a common good or goal or set of goals. I like the way Peter Block broadly frames the ideal common ground of a productive, engaged community, paraphrasing him:

“In terms of possibilities, what can we create in this place together?”

As we unpack the Community dimension, let’s start first in the Social Change context (column E, in the above framework), and address questions that would be associated with cell “E2″ ..

  • Q1. What cultural forces are constructive in a community vs. problematic?
  • Q2. How important are relationships in a community vs. focus on specific topics/issues?
  • Q3. When and why do community stakeholders (aka “citizens”) participate & engage?

As we wrap up discussions Monday night, be thinking where you’d like the conversation to take us next .. back into the organizational context of OD and KM (columns C & D), or staying with the Social Change and NFP context (column E), and exploring other dimenions/vectors (rows) .. spiral thinking gives us options .. !

Thanks in advance for your engagement and input. I’ll see you online!

Chris aka @sourcepov


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers