Meg Wheatley on great questions to ask as we think about measurement, especially in complex living systems (like human communities):
Who gets to create the measures? Measures are meaningful and important only when generated by those doing the work. Any group can benefit from others’ experience and from experts, but the final measures need to be their creation. People only support what they create, and those closest to the work know a great deal about what is significant to measure.
How will we measure our measures? How can we keep measures useful and current? What will indicate that they are now obsolete? How will we keep abreast of changes in context that warrant new measures? Who will look for the unintended consequences that accompany any process and feed that information back to us?
Are we designing measures that are permeable rather than rigid? Are they open enough? Do they invite in newness and surprise? Do they encourage people to look in new places, or to see with new eyes?
Will these measures create information that increases our capacity to develop, to grow into the purpose of this organization? Will this particular information help individuals, teams, and the entire organization grow in the right direction? Will this information help us to deepen and expand the meaning of our work?
What measures will inform us about critical capacities: commitment, learning, teamwork, quality and innovation? How will we measure these essential behaviors without destroying them through the assessment process? Do these measures honor and support the relationships and meaning-rich environments that give rise to these behaviors?
These are great questions to consider at the Show Me The Change conference in Melbourne as we dive into questions on the implications for complexity on the measurements used to evaluate change in living and complex systems.
Over the years I have really moved away from doing the standard kinds of strategic planning meetings that most every organization seems to do. I recognize the need for management, but I see many organizations either get locked into a control mindset that limits their options, or create huge lists of things to do that can’t possibily be accomplished. I am rather inclined to work with organizations that are trying to find ways of becoming strategically adaptable, but most organizations I work with are already there.
Today though I received a call from an organization that I like, that does good work, but are locked into a really traditional set of dynamics about control, managements, roles and responsibilities and planning. We are planning a two day strategic planning retreat to, as I put it, “make a list and check it twice.” That is to say that the result of this gathering should be a prioritized work plan.
I don’t want to cast aspirations on the organization, but I sense that bringing a new participatory and strategic adapatation persepctive to planning will be a difficult thing to do all at once. And so I’m up for some ideas.
This is a small organization that is part community organization and part infrastructure development. They are governed by an excellent and experience Board of Directors who operate out of fairly traditional governance worldviews. Their senior staff are longstanding, but they are growing and needing to make some transition plans.
Everyone likes each other well enough and they do good work, so I think the opportunity to spend two days in creative work would be welcome. I don’t want to sit around a Board table and make a list, but I do want to them to get what they need from the retreat. I thought I’d ask here, sort of as a public service, because many of us in the world of consulting and facilitation get these kinds of requests, and the same old same old doesn’t always work.
So, hivemind, what are some ideas you all have for helping a small and important organization do some strategic work planning in a new and interesting way?
Natalie Angier, inspired by Kandinsky, celebrates the circle,
I also learned of Kandinsky’s growing love affair with the circle. The circle, he wrote, is “the most modest form, but asserts itself unconditionally.” It is “simultaneously stable and unstable,” “loud and soft,” “a single tension that carries countless tensions within it.” Kandinsky loved the circle so much that it finally supplanted in his visual imagination the primacy long claimed by an emblem of his Russian boyhood, the horse.
Quirkily enough, the artist’s life followed a circular form: He was born in December 1866, and he died the same month in 1944. This being December, I’d like to honor Kandinsky through his favorite geometry, by celebrating the circle and giving a cheer for the sphere. Life as we know it must be lived in the round, and the natural world abounds in circular objects at every scale we can scan.
Nancy White has posted a very nice “white paper” (pun intended!) on what she is calling “triangulating learning.” Essentially she gives a clear picture of how to reach outside of your organizational boundaries to put social connections to work to increase creativity, collect inspiration and ground-truth ideas:
Triangulating learning through external support from individuals, communities and networks can provide significant, low or no cost support to innovators and learners within institutions. This triangulation requires networking skills and a willingness to learn in public – even possibly loose part of all credit for one’s work. The rewards, however, are increased learning, practical experience and ultimately the ability to change not just one’s self, but one’s organization.
via Full Circle Associates » Need Your Feedback on my Triangulating Thinking.
Those of us freelancers that have blogged for a long time are certainly familiar with this idea, but Nancy provides some very practical notes about getting started especially for people who work within organizational constraints.
When I was 10 years old, my family moved to Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, just on the north edge of London and eight miles away from White Hart Lane, the home of Tottenham Hotspur. I lived in the area for three years which were glorious years to be a Spurs fan, as we won two FA Cups and had a great team with the likes of Glen Hoddle, Ozzie Ardilles and Ricardo Villa. I grew to like football alot, and although I lost touch for a number of years, the rise of internet video has made it easy to follow my team once again, and so I have been, especially this year, when we are having a great season.
English football runs on a very different system than North American sports. As a lifelong Toronto Maple Leafs fan, I have recently abandoned a 40 year addiction to NHL hockey because the league is screwed. In North America, the league owns the teams. there are no real home teams, and with the exception of a few that will never leave, the NHL can whimsically move franchises hither and yon, even to the desert of Arizona if they wish, which on the face of it doesn’t seem like a very good place to move a team from Winnipeg. And it wasn’t.
In short, the League controls the teams and top down control mechanisms are a little disingenuous when it comes to fan support. Fans give the impression that the team is theirs but it really isn’t.
In contrast, British sports are very much a bottom up model. Although the Football Association is well established, it is a chaordic structure that is based on an agreement. The FA looks after the national teams and runs a tournament called the FA Cup. Teams choose to play in the Football League, or not, which structures home and away fixtures through several divisions. Teams play in one division and can move up and down depending on how well they do year to year. At the highest level, teams play in the Barclay Premier League, the elite league, and yet another chaordic structure. The Leagues do not determine which franchises will play where, nor whether or not a club can exist. Each one simply sets rules of engagement for it’s own tournaments, and everyone signs on. The result is that in the FA, you have teams who are owned by multi billionaires and you have teams that are owned by supporters. Certainly to compete at the highest levels you need the talent that money can buy and so the teams at the top usually have a big backer or two. But the nature of promotion and relegation within the League system means that little fish can enter the big leagues, and so you get these family owned clubs like Wigan (who were the butt of jokes as a fourth division team when I was a boy) entering and staying on at the top flight with the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea and my beloved Spurs.
And that structure and sense of family, and reliance on the supporters for their ongoing existence means that gestures such as this one are possible: Last week Spurs racked a record win against Wigan, beating them 9-1 at White Hart Lane. The Wigan players were so ashamed of their performance that they got together and offered to refund Wigan fans who attended the match OUT OF THEIR OWN SALARIES: (See Wigan refund fans who witnessed Spurs massacre.) That kind of bottom-up accountability comes with a longstanding relationship between players, owners and fans. That would never happen in North America, where players and owners are immune from performance, where all that maters is money and if you lose, you move. Wigan can’t move. They either survive or fold. And their survival depends entirely on their supporters.
So I’m doubly impressed this week, with the Wigan players for displaying great integrity and for Spurs for kicking their asses!