The 30 day learning journey harvest
Art of Hosting, Emergence, Facilitation, Flow, Leadership, Learning, Practice, World Cafe
So it’s been more than thirty days that I have been on my 30 day learning journey, but here is a harvest from some significant conversations. Consider this the tender early sproing greens. There is more to follow.
I began this learning journey leaning into thinking about what role I can play in taking change to scale. My reasons for this inquiry have to do with the fact that I am increasingly working with systems, beyond organizations and beyond groups. Also, some of us in the Art of Hosting community and the Berkana Institute are deep in this inquiry as well, wondering how we extend to influencing systems.
Two major insights have come to me this past month. First, working with my deep friends Toke Moeller, Monica Nissen, Tuesday Ryan-Hart, Phil Cass and Tim Merry on the Food and Society conference in Phoenix back in April we found ourselves very much playing at various levels of scale. This was a gathering of the Good Food Movement, and our intention as designers and process artists was to create a container in which the movement could experience itself as a movement, as a learning community working towards shifting a large food system. We were brought in not just to work with the conference as facilitators, but to help build a field among the hosting team and the organizations involved to do this work of having the movement expereince itself. For a number of years, Kellogg has had an intention to shift the percentage of healthy, fair, affordable and green food from 2% to 10% of the total amount of food in the American system. It is the Good Food Movement, such as it is, that is doing this work.
Moving from pioneers to systems of influence.
On the final day of the conference we had Debbie Frieze and Tom Hurley share the Berkana perspective on taking change to scale. Debbie and Meg Wheatley cracked a very simple model, called the “Lifecycle of Emergence” of doing this that names four phases in evolving a system of influence. First, pioneers in an emerging system give themselves a NAME which makes it much easier to find one another. Before the local food movement started to take hold there was no name for the people that were running farmers markets, creating community shared agriculture, and promoting local menus. Through the 1990s, a movement sprang up, which we now know as the local food movement (and some people are becoming increasingly “locavores,” promoting 100 mile diets and such). Once a network of practitioners is named it can find itself and begin to CONNECT.
Humberto Maturana is quoted as saying that the way to make a system more healthy is to connect it to more of itself. In this model of emergent scale, connecting is how the network emerges. Think of all the networks that have propagated through web technology since blogging began a new practice of naming, which Google helps along by making it easy to find one another. Networks themselves are useful, but it is only when they deepen to communities of practice, do they begin to exert influence. Community of practice form when people NOURISH networks, by offering to a shared centre for example. A network is relationship neutral, a community has a quality of relationship that takes it to another level. At this level we are able to do work together, support each other and create opportunities for new things to happen, born in the social space of collaboration.
As communities of practice do more and more, and they tell their stories and ILLUMINATE their work, they become systems of influence. A system of influence is able to do more than a community of practice, and it strikes me that it is less intentional. There are however, a set of practices that are useful for journeying through this ever scaling world. Tom Hurley spoke to those at the Food and Society conference, and Toke, Monica and I have been thinking about them from the perspective of what Hosting practice has to offer.
The journey of the practitioner at increasing levels of scale
As people move from facilitation to organizational development and beyond, I think there are five kind of archetypal levels on which facilitators or hosting practitioners work. There is a strong correlation between our own learning journey and through the ways in which works moves to scale. Of course there are many ways that people come to the work of large sclae change, through management, activism, advocacy, spiritual tradition and systemic analytics. he journey I am describing here is the one I am on and seems widely shared by people who learn about organizations and systems by first working with groups.
So this journey can be summarized by five basic archetypal fields. in short these are individual, one on one, group, organization, system.
In many Art of Hosting retreats we talk about hosting oneself. This basically means being in active inquiry with oneself. A thirty day learning journey is one way of hosting oneself, as is Byron Katie’s work, Otto Scharmer’s Presencing and Angeles Arrien’s Four Fold Way. These are all ways of conversing with oneself, staying open and in inquiry and noticing what is alive.
When we bring ourselves from this space into conversational space, we show up present and open and able to see new things emerging, even in small one on one conversations. We enter these conversations as open listeners, which is what Adam Kahane’s work has been about. To enter a social space as a listener is to attend to what could be born in the possibility of open social space. This is the beginning of a journey that takes us to a different place than if we show up talking.
The next level, the level of hosting the group, is the first experience we have of letting go. If we host as listeners, we begin to cultivate the practice of holding space, which is fundamentally different from showing up in a group as a directive, authoritarian presence. The host – the one who can hold space – practices a form of leadership that is able to attend to the emergent, exactly the capacity that is needed to see how work can scale. As we move through these levels we begin to let go more and more into these social spaces, while staying very rooted and present to our own self.
Once we have worked with groups, a consciousness emerges that asks the question about whether what we know about groups can apply to organizations. Harrison Owen made this leap with his Inspired Organization, seeing the scaling up from one Open Space meeting to a way of working together. Michael Herman did the same with the Inviting Organization. The Appreciative Inquiry world seeks to apply this worldview to asset-based community development and positive organizational scholarship. We start seeing that the things we know about self-organization, emergence and collaborative creativity can actually be encoded into organizational structures. Chaordic design becomes possible.
Finally there comes a time when we begin to ask if large systems can operate this way, and of course many do. Harrison points to the work of Stuart Kaufman who has studied self-organization for decades as evidence that Open Space is the operating system of the universe. Juanita Brown and David Isaacs and the World Cafe community are exploring the implications for conversational leadership and “the world as cafe.” Systems CAN and DO operate according to these principles, but at the level of the practitioner, we fall further and further away from controlling outcomes.
Instead, what we need to learn to do is to give up entirely to “the field.” My friend Monica has been saying “only a field can hold a field” and this is our experience from the Food and Society conference. We are still holding space for the emergent results of the Food and Society gathering, and we are finding it impossible to do this except in a field of practitioners. No one person is capable of this work alone.
And so our journey comes to this: host oneself into inquiry, listen with others, host conversations that matter, co-create organizations together, and participate in the field that can host the field, doing work that is greater than any one person can do. This is how we can show up in initiatives that begin to scale quickly to the level of systems of influence. Control will act as a brake on the acceleration of scale, letting go propels it forward.
There is a saying in the Tao te Ching: know the male, but keep to the female. In other words, know power and creativity, and keep to the receptive and open. Know creation, be open to emergence. This small phrase sums up everything I have been learning about how to practice to create shift. If you want to change the world you have to be able to disappear into the field that is doing the work without losing your capabilities, your contributions and your gifts and without being tied to your personal vision for what the shift will be.
Chris–
Enlivening writing and thinking!
In Peter Block’s latest book, Community: The Structure of Belonging, he speaks to taking things to scale:
The small group is the unit of transformation. It is in the
structure of how small groups gather that an alternative future
will be created. This also means that we must set aside our
concerns for scale and our concern for speed. Scale, speed, and
practicality are always the coded arguments for keeping the
existing system in place. Belonging can occur through our
membership in large groups, but this form of belonging reduces
the power of citizens. Instead of surrendering our identity for
the sake of belonging, we find in the small group a place that
can value our uniqueness. (p 31)
His small group may in fact correspond to your “field holding space for the field” in some way, so perhaps there is not much difference in your respective learnings.
Certainly the small group can do more than the individual. I too have been noticing for years that the real work seems to get started in the small group….
:- Doug.
I always find it interesting to see into the process. Whether that process is the thinking process and organizational process that one such as yourself does or watching the step by step process associated with a graphical artist. Seeing this presentation of your flow of thought is very enlightening to me in a new pattern of thinking. Even though I am not very knowledgeable of the processes associated with AoH and other processes that integrate within that larger system, just reading your thoughts has shown me another style of thinking that I need to ponder upon. Hope all is well with you and yours.
–SRH
Doug…that’s very interesting. I have not yet met Peter Block, nor have I read much of his stuff, but we overlap in so many circles, that I know one day we will.
In the work I do with the Berkana Institute, we operate by a number of very simple principles, one of which is the answer to any problem is community.
Scott…thanks for your reflections here on my learning journey. I have increasingly seen weblogs as “open source learning” and I gather so much from people who share. It’s just me paying it forward…thanks for hanging around in the playpen.
(And a suggestion for you…what if instead of asking yourself 20 questions every week, you asked yourself the same question for twenty days, and posted your thoughts as they evolved?)
Chris–
Just finished reading Adam Kahane’s piece to which you linked. The 4 kinds of conversation about which he speaks is familiar to me and to you, since you put me on to Bill Isaac’s book a few months ago.
What I think I have seen is that open space seems to get people to reflective and generative dialogue very quickly. Is this your experience too?
If so, what is going on? Why did he have to work so hard at it, and then when he opened space for it, it showed up?
:- Doug.
Chris, thanks for the great reminder from Maturana: “the way to make a system more healthy is to connect it to more of itself.” It dovetails in an interesting way with my post related to the Art of Hosting Conscious Evolution. (I’m not of the school that thinks that the consciousness of the movement is superfluous and spontaneous emergence alone will do it.) At the bottom of that post, you’ll find a picture of some spirals that I doodled during a late night conversation about that subject with Toke. My attention went to how the spiraling up movements of various social technologies of liberation may connects and discover that they have always been part of the same, larger field.
Considering Maturana’s quote, I’d draw that picture today, I’d place a spiral inside every spiral, representing the expanding collective intelligence of the emergent system as it links up ever wider and deeper webs of conversation that include all parts of the whole.
Chris, you wrote about “people who learn about organizations and systems by first working with groups.” As you know, many of them are my dear friends. I love their work and the impact they are having on personal development and culture change. Yet, sometimes I’m wondering whether there might be some blindspots present in the optimism about the possibility that group and community-level work will add up to fundamental system change. Chemistry cannot be understood by studying the laws of physics. Biology cannot be understood by studying chemistry. Can organization of matter, energy and information at a higher-level of complexity be understood, let alone influenced, from a lower level of complexity? I don’t think so.
I do appreciate the power of the “networks –> communities of –> practice –> systems of influence” model but to me the concept of “systems of influence” means more than communities of practice telling their stories and ILLUMINATing their work. I can’t see how that would change the life-negating practices of Wall Street or the power structure of big bureaucracies, inside which millions live a worklife deprived of meaning and dignity.
No, I am not a pessimist saying that fundamental, large-scale change cannot happen. But i think it probably will not before the maturity of the evolutionary movement reaches the level where the cognitive, social, and generative complexity of large systems is matched by the capacity of the systems of influence to absorb it. Do I make any sense at all?
George. As you know I am optimistic, but not pollyannish.
In fact last week I was sitting in an office on Wall Street in New York having this conversation and I was noting that Wall Street itself is actually a significant system of influence that probably emerged along the lines of Debbie’s model. We were discussing the history of the street below us, the place that it was in the old days that somehow invited the gathering of people interested in setting up an Exchange. From those early days, Wall Street, the network and the community of practice has extended to include millions of people around the world who are involved in capatilist economy. The influence of that street extends to every part of our lives.
I am interested in these dynamics not as a solution to transforming systems per se, but more at the level of patterns. At the broadest level it seems that systems like the Wall Street system emerge from smaller levels of complexity. At some point there are intentional conversations that move these levels into higher and higher levels of complexity and scale. What interests me is that it seems at these higher levels, individuals become less and less important and collective fields are required to hold the field. This contributes to the resiliancy of these systems and the extent to which they are influential. In fact I think a key practice, whether at the level of capitalist econimcs or the emergence of its alternatives, in the gradually disappearance of the individual as prime focus of change and the emergence of the field that holds fields as the way the holarchy evolves.
My learning journey was about what can one individual do in this scheme. I think this is an important question. We talk of the power of collective fields, but say little of the practices of individuals that both lead to the emergence of these fields and then the practices of individuals in the evolution of these fields. That is what I am figuring out. At what point did Wall Street become reliant on a field of practice rather than individuals?
George…I love that you are at play here on these questions. Thanks.
One more thing about my optimism. I don’t think the world truly understands how these dynamics work. I continue to see and experience shift in the kinds of practices that we engage in. I don’t know if I’m right or not…not sure I can know if I’m right. And so with that I continue to work with trust and optimism that the ways we work are leading to something better, in whatever system we are working.