Category: complexity

From the Archives: Getting Real About “Experiments” and Learning from Eugene Kim

More from 2014, more form Eugene Kim, more that is still relevant 8 years later. Go figure. (And I am down to 100 drafts from the blog draft archives. FYI, I am deleting straight out about 30% as I go either due to bad links or unremarkable content. About another 30% are simple repointers, like this one. And the rest I’m either saving or reworking. The experiment, haha, continues!)

Child writing phonetically on a white board about having a good idea...
I have a good idea…

What does this mean for groups that are working on anything complex and are trying to learn?

First, be intentional, but hold it lightly. Know what it is you’re trying to learn or understand, and be open to something else happening entirely. Measure something. Be thoughtful about what you measure and why.

Second, be accountable. Track your learning progress. Review and build on previous results. Be transparent about how you’re doing. Don’t use “experiments” as a proxy for doing whatever you want regardless of outcome.

Third, be humble. Despite your best efforts, you may not be able to conclude anything from your experiments. Or, you might draw “convincing” conclusions you might validate again and again, only to discover that you are totally, entirely wrong.

via Getting Real About “Experiments” and Learning.

From the Archives: Knowledge Translation and Knowledge Implementation

hand drawn notes about the Theory U model of change

This old draft from 2014 on knowledge translation rings a bell after a couple of weeks helping out a colleague working with a large international development consulting group grappling with the funder demands of scaling and “localization.” All which sound good in theory, and very messy and complicated in practice. I love Melanie’s focus on practice too. Right up my lane! 

Melanie Barwick, in a guest post on the CRFR blog, speaks sooth:

In a nutshell, this is what I now know.

Knowledge translation and implementation are complimentary but different constructs. Knowledge translation involves helping others to understand the evidence; implementation involves supporting them to make the changes needed to apply the evidence. Impact means capturing that people knew what to do with the knowledge you shared.

Practice change is not one-off. It’s a complex process that has many moving parts, some of which are likely universal but some that are unique to the particular context, and we are still learning what those are. There is alchemy in the practice change recipe. Every context calls for different amounts of the more universal ingredients, and a dash or two or other key elements that are necessary for that particular context. The practice change recipe for child and youth mental health, for health, or education will (I hypothesize) look different from one another.

Practice change calls for structure and an approach that is both adaptive and incremental. There is a method to the madness, and the application of good project management combined with the application of implementation teams, stages, drivers, and cycles will lead to more effective implementation, whatever the context.

The road to practice change – the implementation journey – has far better signage and lighting than it did 14 years ago. As implementation frameworks and theories become more refined, we are digging below the surface of categorical frameworks to identify the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of changing practice. It is no longer sufficient to direct implementers to identify barriers and facilitators, tailor interventions to populations, facilitate the change endeavor, and measure outcomes without specifying how they are to accomplish these things. We are beginning to identify key factors that are implicated in effective implementation of evidence in practice across different sectors, and we are focusing on how to measure these key elements in a standardized way so that a common story can be told across case studies and contexts. Lastly, there is a growing library of openly accessible resources to help practitioners map their own implementation journey. Researchers are endeavoring to produce both scientific outputs whilst also developing resources and tools that can be of real and practical use in the field. It has never been a more fascinating and illuminating time, and the journey continues.

via CRFR Blog: Getting the Word Out: A Journey in the Science and Practice of Bringing Evidence to Application and Impact.

From the Archives: Knowing what to do. And what to stop.

Picture of a flip chart reading "Invite Creatve Destruction to enable innovation"
Invite Creative Destruction

Dang, it was fun to run into this draft from 2016 with links to three terrific posts that amplify something that has shown up in my work over and over again about the need to creatively destroy our patterns that conserve old ways of working that are no longer relevant in today’s (or tomorrow’s) world(s). And happily, all the posts are still online.

Time and again when working with clients where we’ve used Ecocycle Planning, the richest insights are what shows up in the “rigidity” and the “scarcity” traps (old image below- it used to be called “poverty trap” but there are racist roots there…) The rigidity trap helps us see what is no longer adding value and if we can move past that trap into creative destruction, we can clear away and make space for what is now possible. Too often organizations just add on new things (processes, projects, approaches, rules), layer after layer until we spend all our time ticking boxes with little to show for our time, energy (and peace of mind!)

Image of Ecocycle

The first from Simon Terry‘s blog archives, Killing the Golden Goose: From Waste to Potential focuses on the waste created in management that tries to conserve what is working, to the point of ignoring it is no longer working. It is a great read. With an interesting metaphor!

When managers focus on growing human potential to improve effectiveness, this growth mindset redefines the game and pushes changes in the other systems that define our modern organisations. Purpose and goals come first. Engagement is no longer an after thought. Experimentation is a core practice. Collaboration and cooperation are seen as human opportunities to work and not sources of waste & distraction. Volatility is embraced as a source of potential learning. Most importantly of all the new narrative respects and embraces the potential of all in organisations to lead and to contribute.

Killing the Golden Goose: From Waste to Potential, Simon Terry

The second from the fabulous Eugene Eric Kim on Principles for Effecting Change in Complex Social Systems. Eugene harkens back to a post from the wonderful Ruth Rominger “Effecting Change in Complex Social Systems” with Hilary Bradbury, Sissel Waage, and David Sibbet. Of the five principles Eugene refers to, one again tickles that creative destruction idea:

“Surface discontents, build capacity, and elevate expectations. Successful change emerges from dissatisfaction with current conditions, but also celebrates many small victories as well as personal learning, thereby continually building momentum for innovation toward a preferred future.“

Principles for Effecting Change in Complex Social Systems, Eugene Eric Kim

Finally, the inimitable Johnnie Moore ties this overwork (and useless work) to stress and what that destroys, all while chasing efficiencies in “Waste, potential and sticking your neck out.” Plus it links to Simon’s post. It’s all connected! And another fun metaphor.

I see many organisations struggling to get a quart of productivity into a pint pot of systems, under great stress to make savings and be more efficient. I’d suggest that as that stress rises, so does the number of management abstractions bandied about: people only feel safe to talk in general terms about things like “leadership” because if they got specific the whole stressed out deck of cards might come falling down. In these circumstances, meetings become a workaholic microcosm of the organisation – we fill the walls with masses of post-it notes as if this is the measure of the value of our conversations. We can talk in general terms about the need to “manage upwards”  or “creating a no-blame culture” but this actually becomes a way of avoiding actually doing it.

via Waste, potential and sticking your neck out | Johnnie Moore.

From the Archives: Two more friends better than two more enemies

Social Media in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

It is encouraging to see this article from 2013 is still online, and is still relevant examining how young people from conflict areas can be connected with each other. And the risks involved. . With the current conflicts continuing in Armenia and Azerbaijan and with the emergent issues in Russia and the Ukraine. It also reminds me of the amazing work I was invited into in the Caucasus with Project Harmony, with the highs, lows and learnings. I was hopeful and naïve – I’ll own that!  (More here.) 

From Control to Free Floating Reverie

Fresh Post! No Archive redraft!

Johnnie Moore pointed to a great LinkedIn post by Laurence Barrett that resonates with my current “fallow” project. It is no accident that Johnnie is an advocate of “unhurried!”

Laying fallow, I can reflect, observe and cross-pollinate ideas and experiences that surround me because I have the free time and head/heart space to do that. I am not fully confined by a large set of obligations. Yes, the grandkids are still #1 priority and that is a place for much of my energy, but the freedom from deliverables is quite intoxicating. I am available for reverie!

I’m pulling out two quotes, but it will make much more sense if you go and read the whole post! And don’t miss the P.S. at the bottom, which is fodder for even more reflection and blogging!

Mr. Barrett is talking in the context of coaching and the dynamic of “containment.” When I read it, I immediately thought about how a facilitator may try and contain human interaction in the well-intentioned service of the goal or purpose of a gathering. As group process folks, we have the opportunity (motive! means!) to create containers where people might do something different and more effective if engaged in something more free floating than overly structured.

The older I get, the more I sense that a lot of group process practices are about how we actually make a space less welcoming, “safe,” etc. Instead, Barrett reflects on another way that is less contained, and more “free floating.”

Here we may think of it as a dynamic, mutual and rather messy process of meaning making. Images and associations arise from the unconscious to be exchanged and evolved in what Wilfred Bion termed a ‘reverie’; a free-floating dialogue without defined goals and objectives.

In reverie both coach and client are ‘in’ and committed to the dialogue. Both can potentially be transformed.

And…

If our need to be ‘masterful’ or ‘powerful’ (words I see in some coach training) prevents us from entering a reverie we do not contain our clients, we just limit them.

A client is contained not by the coaches calm, rational, objectivity, but by our engagement and involvement, and both parties may be transformed by the encounter.

Pretending we are wisdom figures may fuel our narcissism or hide our anxiety, but it is definitely not containment.

I have worked hard through my professional life to show up not as some sort of wisdom figure and to engage in reciprocal work and learning. But there are old patterns in there that creep up in my head saying “I know what to do here.” Fully recognizing those moments, and choosing to let go, is something quite wonderful. And a door to reverie. (Using a “door” metaphor also reminds us there are many ways to think about space and containers. See this wonderful piece about other ways to think of space.

P.S. I love the four fundamental principles Mr. Barrett’s company espouses. I love them so much I took a screen shot. Mr. Barrett, if that is not OK, let me know and I’ll take the image down!

Image of four principles of Heresy Consulting. Each has an image, then the words underneath including: All change is a step into the unknown, Only through difference can we learn, Leadership is an expression of the soul, and We are made through our relationships.
The four principles of Heresy Consulting https://www.heresyconsulting.com/