I don't remember feeling so nervous at the onset of a meeting for a long time. The jitters I was feeling today were reminiscent of my early teaching years, when I still felt on shaky grounds. Thirteen colleagues came to the Implementation meeting today. Wow! And another ten said they wanted to come but could not make it. I felt such a fresh breeze of energy! And I should mention that some of these people knew next to nothing about DG, other than the fact that it is happening in one form or another withing the College.
I brought forth a proposal, presented it, and allowed for the process to do its thing. We collected questions, reactions, and objections. We sought consent, and we obtained it. It was amazing! The result is that the group will meet again on Tuesday to begin its self-determination.
I don't know why I did not seek this earlier on... but I am definitely making a clear note with red ink in my personal notebook: when working on a collective endeavour, involve the collective from the get-go!
Interestingly, it appears that there is still resistance within the ranks of management. So the group wanted to stress that its purpose would be one of support of existing circles, and future ones that want to implement. This group is not about trying to bring in more circles. I hope this will relieve some of the fears that may exist higher up.
I would be sad if DG had for an effect to bring us a few years behind, when employees and management were split by an ever widening rift. It seems that over the past year or so, that rift was being filled. It would be a shame to see it being dug out and growing again.
I am always amazed and humbled by the collective wisdom of the groups I am priviledged to work with... it amazes me to see and hear the creativity that abounds all around me. DG seems to be a great conduit to channel it and allow it to blossom.
I can hardly wait until the next Impementation meeting!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Insight on Implementation
Implementation: The process of moving an idea from concept to reality. In engineering and other fields, implementation refers to the building process rather than the design process (wikitionary).
So, in terms of Governance, Implementation should be the phase when an organization is actually ready to build a new system, what engineers call the building phase. But an engineer would only consider entering the building phase after being able to state the following:
"Now that the requirements are complete we can move on to implementation" (wikitionary).
Requirement:
So... how does all this fit in with my insight? Simply put, it appears to me that implementing DG should be tackled like the process of building an actual physical structure. In other words, there are necessities or prerequisites that must be met before going any further:
1. Dream/vision;
2. Plan/research/analyze/prepare/consult/share/train;
3. Implement;
4. Evaluate;
5. Adjust;
6. Re-evaluate;
7. Readjust... and so on...
Looking into the most common complaint/concern I hear from various individuals I highly respect, it is becoming clear to me that it would have been much wiser for me to spend more time preparing the ground before taking the first shovel to the dirt. In other words, I am beginning to see that Edenburg's analogy to mechanical systems is much wiser and much deeper than I ever thought before.
The most common complaint I hear is that DG is taking time, and is not showing clear and concrete results right away... In other words, if DG was actually so good, we should already have short, effective meetings that lead to great results that would not have been attained otherwise.
But there is a fundamental paradox in these statements, and I have just moved from feeling that paradox to being able to identify it: To do things well, it takes time. And if a person/group feels that DG is not leading to anything clear, then it is likely that things were not clearly organized to begin with (and I say this with the utmost respect for all that has been and is being done by all my colleagues).
I remember how John Buck kept repeating that when a group uses DG, the "pink elephants" come out on the table very quickly, be it a personality conflict, a personnel issue, or, in a case I am facing these days, a lack of clearly organized work structures.
DG is many things at once:
1. A decision-making model;
2. A communication structure;
3. A mechanism to organize work within a system;
4. A philosophy of life;
5. A political system;
6. I am sure the list could go on...
So, in setting the path for Implementation, it becomes evident that much work must be done before any construction can begin.
Does this mean Yukon College went about it the wrong way? I don't think so. In fact, I would say that John was right in stating the pink elephants would come out first: in our case, it is becoming apparent that our pink elephant is a lack of clear structures. What I mean by this is that the College is an institution filled with amazing people, individuals who are committed to their work and the students, driven by a passion to do things well. This is set in the context of a bureaucracy, which is essential for the good functioning of any large institution... but, it is becoming apparent that there is a need for work to be done around clarifying the roles, mandates, and responsibilities of various areas of the college, along with the roles, mandates, and responsibilities of various individuals.
Unless we do this, how are we supposed to know what decisions belong within this or that circle? Without a clear description of the "terms of reference" of each area of our institution, how are we supposed to know who should be tackling what issue? Organization and dis-organization are very fluid concepts. An architect never stops looking at a creation without seeing potential improvements. The same should be true of all organizations. Regardless of how good we are (and there is much, so very much to be proud of at Yukon College), there is room for changes that can lead to significant improvements on all fronts: personnel satisfaction, student enrollments, government funding, and so on.
The first Implementation Committee meeting will happen in two days. I can hardly wait I am so excited!
So, in terms of Governance, Implementation should be the phase when an organization is actually ready to build a new system, what engineers call the building phase. But an engineer would only consider entering the building phase after being able to state the following:
"Now that the requirements are complete we can move on to implementation" (wikitionary).
Requirement:
- A necessity or prerequisite; something required or obligatory;
- (engineering) A statement (in domain specific terms) which specifies a verifiable constraint on an implementation that it shall undeniably meet or (a) be deemed unacceptable, or (b) result in implementation failure, or (c) result in system failure. (wikitionary)
So... how does all this fit in with my insight? Simply put, it appears to me that implementing DG should be tackled like the process of building an actual physical structure. In other words, there are necessities or prerequisites that must be met before going any further:
1. Dream/vision;
2. Plan/research/analyze/prepare/consult/share/train;
3. Implement;
4. Evaluate;
5. Adjust;
6. Re-evaluate;
7. Readjust... and so on...
Looking into the most common complaint/concern I hear from various individuals I highly respect, it is becoming clear to me that it would have been much wiser for me to spend more time preparing the ground before taking the first shovel to the dirt. In other words, I am beginning to see that Edenburg's analogy to mechanical systems is much wiser and much deeper than I ever thought before.
The most common complaint I hear is that DG is taking time, and is not showing clear and concrete results right away... In other words, if DG was actually so good, we should already have short, effective meetings that lead to great results that would not have been attained otherwise.
But there is a fundamental paradox in these statements, and I have just moved from feeling that paradox to being able to identify it: To do things well, it takes time. And if a person/group feels that DG is not leading to anything clear, then it is likely that things were not clearly organized to begin with (and I say this with the utmost respect for all that has been and is being done by all my colleagues).
I remember how John Buck kept repeating that when a group uses DG, the "pink elephants" come out on the table very quickly, be it a personality conflict, a personnel issue, or, in a case I am facing these days, a lack of clearly organized work structures.
DG is many things at once:
1. A decision-making model;
2. A communication structure;
3. A mechanism to organize work within a system;
4. A philosophy of life;
5. A political system;
6. I am sure the list could go on...
So, in setting the path for Implementation, it becomes evident that much work must be done before any construction can begin.
Does this mean Yukon College went about it the wrong way? I don't think so. In fact, I would say that John was right in stating the pink elephants would come out first: in our case, it is becoming apparent that our pink elephant is a lack of clear structures. What I mean by this is that the College is an institution filled with amazing people, individuals who are committed to their work and the students, driven by a passion to do things well. This is set in the context of a bureaucracy, which is essential for the good functioning of any large institution... but, it is becoming apparent that there is a need for work to be done around clarifying the roles, mandates, and responsibilities of various areas of the college, along with the roles, mandates, and responsibilities of various individuals.
Unless we do this, how are we supposed to know what decisions belong within this or that circle? Without a clear description of the "terms of reference" of each area of our institution, how are we supposed to know who should be tackling what issue? Organization and dis-organization are very fluid concepts. An architect never stops looking at a creation without seeing potential improvements. The same should be true of all organizations. Regardless of how good we are (and there is much, so very much to be proud of at Yukon College), there is room for changes that can lead to significant improvements on all fronts: personnel satisfaction, student enrollments, government funding, and so on.
The first Implementation Committee meeting will happen in two days. I can hardly wait I am so excited!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
And the Result Is...
Well, I am impressed. No more than two days after having sent a general email to staff seeking participants for a general circle, I already have received well over half a dozen very interested replies. People want to get involved! And this brings me so, so much relief! To think that there are others who actually want to get together and work collectively to make our College an even better place to work fills me with so many great emotions...
This week the College has been fortunate to have a special guest sharing his experience on Student Recruitment Management. He is quite the guy, with more energy than most and such a contagious drive! I have spent nine hours in his workshops so far, and there are three more tomorrow, and I am eager to get some of the great ideas that have come out into action! It feels so nice to feel like the troops are motivated and feeling like they can make a difference! I cannot wait to see what will come out of all this!
Of course, there are, once again, the nay-sayers... those who claim that everything has been tried before, that we used to do this or that, and it just stopped, or that we are too busy to change, or blah blah blah... I have to say, I just wish we had the systems in place so that these people could really voice their issues... so that we could help then with their needs, and move on as a group. But we are not there yet, so we will have to wait and see. But for the most part, team spirits are running high, and that can only mean good things are coming our way!
I wonder how DG will tie in to Student Recruitment Management. To me, they are a natural fit!
Way to go Yukon College!!!
This week the College has been fortunate to have a special guest sharing his experience on Student Recruitment Management. He is quite the guy, with more energy than most and such a contagious drive! I have spent nine hours in his workshops so far, and there are three more tomorrow, and I am eager to get some of the great ideas that have come out into action! It feels so nice to feel like the troops are motivated and feeling like they can make a difference! I cannot wait to see what will come out of all this!
Of course, there are, once again, the nay-sayers... those who claim that everything has been tried before, that we used to do this or that, and it just stopped, or that we are too busy to change, or blah blah blah... I have to say, I just wish we had the systems in place so that these people could really voice their issues... so that we could help then with their needs, and move on as a group. But we are not there yet, so we will have to wait and see. But for the most part, team spirits are running high, and that can only mean good things are coming our way!
I wonder how DG will tie in to Student Recruitment Management. To me, they are a natural fit!
Way to go Yukon College!!!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
How Consent Can Defuse Tension
I just came back from a meeting between various leaders and members from a small community whose task was to come up with a plan to establish a process to ensure that the various organizations from that community would work more closely together. You can imagine some of the issues/concerns brought up: independence of each board; decision-making processes; how binding such decisions would be; how much each representative would weigh given the varying size of each organization; and so on.
At one point, it was mentioned that one board actually controlled two organizations (which is the case). One person in attendance then said, with some angst, that both organizations could not sit at the table being created since the board, executive director, and membership were the same... that in effect, that would make it unfair to other organizations by giving the rep two votes...
This is when I brought forth the notion of consent decision-making, decision with zero objection. When decisions are made this way, suddenly, numbers no longer matter. Everyone at the table is equivalent, regardless of how many organizations are being represented. If a board oversees more than one entity, it simply means there may be more objections, but no more power. As soon as this became understood, the entire issue immediately disappeared! And it also took care of the "independence" issue: the table's decisions could not be made without the consent of all its members, and as such, no decisions could be imposed on any organization.
So much energy is spent on trying to control the flow of power: who gets how many votes, who gets to decide what, who gets to veto and who has to follow. Sociocracy takes that entire layer out of the picture and allows for the more important discussions and topics to be worked on. When power is the underlying issue, people are much less willing to be open and honest as that transparency could potentially be used as power leverage. Take power out of the picture and suddenly people's humanity has room to emerge. Remove control dynamics, and empathy seeps into discussions. Allow people to be true, and they will rise up to the occasion and become an active member of their communnity/organization/group/etc.
Even without implementing Sociocracy as a Governance Model, Consent decision-m
aking can be used as a tool and facilitate better, more effective, and way, way more satisfying meetings. Here you see a copy of John Buck's Consent Decision-making flow chart. I find it extremely useful to follow as a guide when I facilitate meetings, and I also find that is is a great reference tool for circle members to keep track of the process when decisions are being made using consent.
It takes a while to train circles to become proficient at using this process, but once it is understood, my experience is that it becomes a part of the common language and culture, and form there, it becomes very difficult to go back! For one, I don't think that I could!
At one point, it was mentioned that one board actually controlled two organizations (which is the case). One person in attendance then said, with some angst, that both organizations could not sit at the table being created since the board, executive director, and membership were the same... that in effect, that would make it unfair to other organizations by giving the rep two votes...
This is when I brought forth the notion of consent decision-making, decision with zero objection. When decisions are made this way, suddenly, numbers no longer matter. Everyone at the table is equivalent, regardless of how many organizations are being represented. If a board oversees more than one entity, it simply means there may be more objections, but no more power. As soon as this became understood, the entire issue immediately disappeared! And it also took care of the "independence" issue: the table's decisions could not be made without the consent of all its members, and as such, no decisions could be imposed on any organization.
So much energy is spent on trying to control the flow of power: who gets how many votes, who gets to decide what, who gets to veto and who has to follow. Sociocracy takes that entire layer out of the picture and allows for the more important discussions and topics to be worked on. When power is the underlying issue, people are much less willing to be open and honest as that transparency could potentially be used as power leverage. Take power out of the picture and suddenly people's humanity has room to emerge. Remove control dynamics, and empathy seeps into discussions. Allow people to be true, and they will rise up to the occasion and become an active member of their communnity/organization/group/etc.
Even without implementing Sociocracy as a Governance Model, Consent decision-m
aking can be used as a tool and facilitate better, more effective, and way, way more satisfying meetings. Here you see a copy of John Buck's Consent Decision-making flow chart. I find it extremely useful to follow as a guide when I facilitate meetings, and I also find that is is a great reference tool for circle members to keep track of the process when decisions are being made using consent.It takes a while to train circles to become proficient at using this process, but once it is understood, my experience is that it becomes a part of the common language and culture, and form there, it becomes very difficult to go back! For one, I don't think that I could!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
It Is a Long Way from Theory to Practice...
Sociocracy is simple and yet, for some reason that I feel I am close to grasping, it is difficult to implement. The College experiment is still happening... but lately, circle meetings have been canceled, certain people's resistance to the experiment has been weighing more, and the overall energy around the overall project has diminished. So I have been in deep thought about this and the reasons why it is happening. And although I will not claim to have the complete answer, I think I have a piece of the puzzle, and I am in the process of placing it within the overall picture.
This piece is me... or, put differently, the absence of others. Let me explain. Dynamic Governance is a paradigm shift from the reign of the individual to the governance by the collective. And I have fallen into the old trap of thinking I could do it on my own, that I could change the College, fix the problems, make it a better place than it already is, in other words, I have been working on my own, reigning over the "collective" experiment. Granted, there has been tremendous support from the top, and many colleagues have been involved in their circle. Even so, I have mostly been working from an outsider's stance.
Now, I will give myself credit by stating that I have done my best to get others' input and have tried hard to get others involved... but in retrospect, I was doing it from my throne. The time has come to step down, join the collective part of the experiment, and start enjoying the part I crave most: teamwork!
So how will this be done? By creating a team of any interested College employee that will get together to think and create together. A team that will take ownership of the process and become more involved and more responsible and more engaged. A friend of mine recently said that from what he had read, most of us can only hope to experience great teamwork where people feel truly connected with one another once or twice in a lifetime... until we begin using DG.
So I hope this initiative will work for the College and for those getting involved. This is but one step towards the greater goal! For one, I certainly look forward to the potential of a great teamwork experience!
This piece is me... or, put differently, the absence of others. Let me explain. Dynamic Governance is a paradigm shift from the reign of the individual to the governance by the collective. And I have fallen into the old trap of thinking I could do it on my own, that I could change the College, fix the problems, make it a better place than it already is, in other words, I have been working on my own, reigning over the "collective" experiment. Granted, there has been tremendous support from the top, and many colleagues have been involved in their circle. Even so, I have mostly been working from an outsider's stance.
Now, I will give myself credit by stating that I have done my best to get others' input and have tried hard to get others involved... but in retrospect, I was doing it from my throne. The time has come to step down, join the collective part of the experiment, and start enjoying the part I crave most: teamwork!
So how will this be done? By creating a team of any interested College employee that will get together to think and create together. A team that will take ownership of the process and become more involved and more responsible and more engaged. A friend of mine recently said that from what he had read, most of us can only hope to experience great teamwork where people feel truly connected with one another once or twice in a lifetime... until we begin using DG.
So I hope this initiative will work for the College and for those getting involved. This is but one step towards the greater goal! For one, I certainly look forward to the potential of a great teamwork experience!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
There's Something in the Air...
History is made up of pivotal moments that define generations and even eras. Sometimes such moments are localized, others they are widespread. And it is often difficult to see the importance and significance of a moment while it is happening. I think of Obama's election only a few months ago... Only a generation or two from now will the full effect of such an important event be truly understood.
I just came back from Montreal where I participated in the second of six sessions of Training with the International School of Leaders. This course will lead to a certification in Dynamic Governance through the Sociocratic Centre of Holland. The individuals who built that school have a vision of a world where people feel they are active participants and where meaningful relationships happen in all spheres of life, work being not the least. The cohort of 12 students attending the year-long course come from many walks of life, but all have this in common: they also believe in the vision of the school. The purpose of that school is to train Leaders in the Sociocratic method to be better at managing themselves, groups, and enterprises.
Over the past three days, I have learned many things about myself as a leader. I have also learned a lot about Sociocracy as a tool and as a philosophy. The deeper I dive into it, the less I want to come out, and the more I feel it inhabiting my entire being. I see Sociocracy as a way of life, a way of interacting with others, a way of making life a series of win-win situations.
The technical aspects of Sociocracy are simply the start. Learning how to facilitate a sociocratic meeting is like learning how to walk, or how to count. Once the skill has been acquired, there is no telling where one will go or what one will do. All we know is that walking can take us to wonderful places, but only if we keep on walking...
I just came back from Montreal where I participated in the second of six sessions of Training with the International School of Leaders. This course will lead to a certification in Dynamic Governance through the Sociocratic Centre of Holland. The individuals who built that school have a vision of a world where people feel they are active participants and where meaningful relationships happen in all spheres of life, work being not the least. The cohort of 12 students attending the year-long course come from many walks of life, but all have this in common: they also believe in the vision of the school. The purpose of that school is to train Leaders in the Sociocratic method to be better at managing themselves, groups, and enterprises.
Over the past three days, I have learned many things about myself as a leader. I have also learned a lot about Sociocracy as a tool and as a philosophy. The deeper I dive into it, the less I want to come out, and the more I feel it inhabiting my entire being. I see Sociocracy as a way of life, a way of interacting with others, a way of making life a series of win-win situations.
The technical aspects of Sociocracy are simply the start. Learning how to facilitate a sociocratic meeting is like learning how to walk, or how to count. Once the skill has been acquired, there is no telling where one will go or what one will do. All we know is that walking can take us to wonderful places, but only if we keep on walking...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
