From the Archives: Boundaries, Edges and Other Yummy Things

It was super fun to come back and revisit a fine post from Curtis Ogden, Boundaries as Useful Fictions? : Interaction Institute for Social Change. In fact I referenced two quotes from his piece as a panel member for Incite Forum‘s event on taking a step out from work. So I get to use an OLD reference for a NEW post. Sweet. I figured at some point this messing about in my archives would stimulate something like this!

Piers Bocock invited me to join Waahida Tolbert-Mbatha, founder of Kgololo Academy and Chris Proulx of Humentum to talk about our individual experiments on taking time off work (a.k.a. sabbatical, stepping back, sort of retiring, etc.) For background from each of us Piers asked us to write short blog posts (Nancy’s Blog, Chris’s Blog, Waahida’s Blog)

Waahida started us off nailing all of the essential elements for me: how our identities are so wrapped up in our work, how work we love can blind us to the toll it is taking on us/our families, and all the values and expectations we and others put on us – real or imagined. Later in the conversation, her observation about the importance of always developing our successors, and the role of trust IN those folks, resonated to my organizational past experiences and those I see in my clients.

Chris came from the space of mindfulness as a response to this need to take a break and step back. I was struck by him telling the story of going for a three week silent retreat and returning still exhausted, anxious that he was not ready to return from his six week sabbatical (which is supported with company policy at his workplace, Humentum). He reflected that it was probably that retreat that allowed his body to process the burn out and that processing itself takes energy.

Since Waahida hit all the core issues for me, I twisted a bit and used Curtis’ musings on boundaries to frame my story of stepping back. There were two quotes that really illuminated the larger issues of our relationship to work. First was from Buckminster Fuller “You have to remember, every boundary is a useful bit of fiction.” Oh yeah. My workaholism was often a useful bit of fiction. The so called separation of work and the rest of our lives — fiction. Our preached values about work ethics in organizations and within ourselves as boundaries — fiction.

The second quote Curtis included in his post was from the Swiss Social Scientist, Werner Ulrich. “…boundaries and divisions are an expression of what people see and value from their particular perspective.” This immediately had me think of the boundaries created by organizational silos and roles. (See this great reflection from Harold Jarche on Super Connectors — those who work across boundaries). These boundaries both create useful limits and suffocating or even rotting constraints. It also harkened back to Waahida’s comments on trust.

I realize I had put together my little list of tips but never shared it explicitly:

  • Plan financially as best you can to have a cushion to afford a break – right from the start. This is particularly salient in our consumer culture where we save to buy things. We can also save to be and do.
  • Listen for the signals of burnout before the flame out.
  • For independents, if we fear disappearing while taking a break, work with a partner(s) to support each other through rest periods. Reflect and write a bit to keep visible. We aren’t dead. We are taking a break so we can stay ALIVE!
  • Talk about sabbaticals to young professionals. This is not just something for us geezers. How younger generations view work is different. What are the implications?
  • If you are in an organization, make infrastructure changes. Policies and values drive a lot of the fear that in turn drives this myth that if I work longer, it is better. If I can claim more ticks on my to do list, that I am better. By the way, this is killing people who are also carers for their family members, across all generations. There are gender and racial implications that cannot be ignored, especially when policy and role modeling often comes from the privileged top of the org.

Finally, in the q&a phase Tony Brown asked about actualizing some of the insights about valuing taking breaks (and taking care.) I mean, we all loved talking about this. Sure, we are the converted. No one else has time to talk about taking time off!! We might consider tools and simple actions as the way in.

The Liberating Structure Ecocycle came to mind. I’ve been really enjoying using and seeing it used as a personal reflection tool. If we looked at our individual work portfolios, we might notice if and where we are getting out of balance, if there are things we are doing that no longer add value, or things that would add value but we can’t seem to slip into doing them. With this insight, we can more consciously make adjustments, ask for support or change. We could then add the layers in the department, division and organizational level to see how healthy our work practices are, where things add or do not add value and first steps to make needed changes. (A Panarchy view).

Update Tuesday morning – I was reading Patti Digh’s newsletter (look for the subscription link near the top of this page – always good stuff) and followed the link to this post on Mic Crenshaw. Great food for thought about how we choose/are forced to spend our time and how we can be present while we spend that time. It fit with the post above for me. For you?

From the Archives: From idealized to self-aware facilitation

Take into account that “last week” was in February 2014… And if I were writing this today, I would look deeply into creative destruction…

Picture of a paper bag luminaria glowing in the dark

Last week I posted some comments on the dark side of facilitation (on the KM4Dev community list) which have now started to make the rounds of my friend’s blogs. That is an indicator of a couple of things. I have great friends (YES) and maybe I should write something about this on my blog!

First, the list I shared on KM4Dev, as part of a larger conversation on defining facilitation in the international development context. 

The real life and dark sides of a facilitator below. I’m sure there are a few people here who can add to this list. ;-)

Nancy

  • called in after everything is really messed up (tip: build relationships before client lists)
  • is not briefed on the deeper, real and often problemmatic issues (“Oh, this is a fantastic group.” Right! Tip: develop a good set of questions to help discern the issues)
  • is asked to facilitate, but not included in design of a (really bad) agenda (tip: refuse to do this unless the designer was brilliant!)
  • runs into very interesting gender issues that are often unspoken, unrecognized (tip: pay attention to and make gender issues discussable)
  • has to facilitate in really BAD rooms in large international organizations (chairs nailed to floor. tip: go outside.)
  • sometimes is given great trust w/ sponsors and groups and all have a transformative experience. LIVES for these moments (tip: debrief: why was this so good? How can we do this again?)
  • mistakes conflict as something that must be shut down (tip: conflict is often the flag that you hit a core issue. Use it generatively)
  • sometimes crazy arrogant and drives to their own agenda (tip: self awareness is a facilitators best friend)
  • does not build capacity in others (tip: co facilitate, mentor, give up control)
  • actually facipulates  (tip: be honest when your approach has any manipulative elements. Use that in your favor, transparently)
  • leaves after the meeting so does not live the consequences (good, bad or otherwise) (tip: what about simple follow up… how are things going? What did we learn?)
  • is not an integral part of the organization (tip: when hiring, hire at least SOME people with facilitation skills and talents. This should not always be an outside job! Let’s co-source, not outsource)
  • is serving the sponsor, not the group (tip: power is always in play. Discuss and use it generatively. It is OK to challenge your client, and essential as a consultant.)
  • works hard to facilitate listening but sometimes fails (tip: learn how you listen and always work hard. There are lots of ways to improve)
  • doesn’t speak the local language and mistakes happen through interpretation (tip: first choice, hire facilitator who speaks the language. Second choice, have a more spacious agenda to really deal with meaning making across multiple languages.
  • takes him/herself too seriously (tip: use fun. seriously!)
  • has no repertoire or gets stuck in one approach/or is flip flopping all over the place (find the balance) (tip: always be learning. Invite your facilitees into that learning process. Build capacity all around)”

Ewen added some great stuff about the positives and dark sides of co-facilitation — and he knows of what he speaks because I’ve co-facilitated with him! I encourage you to read the post.

What both our lists surface is that facilitation, like anything else, holds tensions, dualities and can be idealized or mythologized to the point of uselessness. Dave Snowden often maligns facilitation/facilitators (a.k.a. “fluffy bunnies” ) and my sense is he is talking about that rather self-involved and idealized side of facilitation. I’m not!

Ewen quoted these as ways to navigate co-facilitation. I think they often apply to solo facilitation:

What does it take to overcome that dark side?

Shared experience: Knowing each other definitely helps – the more of a common history you have built with one another, the better it is as you know each other’s strengths and weaknesses and can co-design around this. Talk about it together and explore what you both enjoy doing (or not).

Co-creation and exploratory design: Grapple with the big picture together, toy around with objectives and translating them in work forms in an exploratory conversation, and when it comes to the details of who does what, fear not asking very practical, very silly-looking questions (“do I speak before or after you for the participant’s introduction?”, “After your summary comments do you want me to transition to the next session and announce coffee break?”).

Curiosity and openness: Embracing change and the unknown with an open mind is the key to joint facilitation, particularly if the latter involves dual improvisation (as it works on the principle of ‘yes AND’, not ‘yes BUT’…)

Generosity: Rather than play the card of keeping to one’s sessions and ideas, bring the other person along in your reflection, and show them you are interested in their ideas, in finding good ideas together. Who gets the credit doesn’t really matter, developing strong relationships by working hard on a joint initiative is a lot more important.

Joint reflection and an open heart, to discuss frankly what went well or not, much beyond blaming each other or uncritically praising each other or both (even though some sense of achievement can be really helpful in boosting the duo’s morale). In cases when you disagree on how the other ran a session, discuss it as soon as possible and reflect together. And if, at the end of the gig, there’s a consensus that the two facilitators can’t work each other, being conscious of that is also helpful for the future ;) though in most cases facilitators should be able to negotiate an amicable solution together, as that’s also our job isn’t it?

Focus on the task at hand. At the end of the day, keeping in mind that you have to do a fine job at getting the best out of the participants and achieving objectives set (or whatever better pursuit was identified along the way).

Humour and talking in self-derision… this really talks to the examples that Nancy mentioned above and it will help focus on what really matters, i.e. not you as facilitators.

Once again, fun, focus and feedback seems like a winning formula!

So what keeps us out of that morass? Well, I have some insights as I fall into the morass now and again, and it is always a great moment of learning. As my own practice evolves, here are some of the questions I’m using to be a more self-aware facilitator.

  • Where can we channel power and energy. I used to say “give it away” but that implies it has a steady or singular owner. It doesn’t.
  • Where can we strategically use “private conversations in public” (Hat tip Neil McCarthy) to expose our own questions, uncertainty or missteps as both transparency, moments of learning and to open up the possibility of different ways forward?
  • Where is it ok to use “performance art” in the process of facilitation and when does it mask things unproductively?
  • When acting as an expert, be a fox, not a hedgehog. (Alas, broken link…)

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 BradburySissel 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: Reason, Purpose and Getting to the NUBBINS!

Close up of a piece of driftwood on the beach that appears to have a face on it.
What do we see when we look in new ways?

This draft post from 2013 was worth my time to go revisit and read the three blog posts in the list below (two from 2006, one from 2013, one re-found via the Wayback Machine/Internet Archivedonate!) I’ve decided to pluck one thing from each list and comment on it below (in italics). These three lists, these three BLOG POSTS still open up new vistas for me. For you?


I am not a fan of lists, but I appreciate the value of the form. What I really dig is when the lists open up a new vista or light up a light for me.

  • Half an Hour: Things You Really Need to Learn, Stephen Downes, 2006  
    • Stephen’s post still rings true, and one of his bullet points relates to a conversation-in-comments that Alan Levine, Ton Zylstra and I have been having in a recent post of mind about what we pay attention to and how we pay attention. #3, How to Read and #10, How to Live Meaningfully seen particularly salient and poignant in our times where consumerism meets climate change meets pandemic meets threats of war. What matters. I know I want to pay more attention to what matters. And WHAT MATTERS. 
  • Ten Things to Learn This School Year 2006 Guy Kawasaki (Via the Wayback Machine)
    • I agree with Stephan that Guy’s list is more about how to succeed in business. It doesn’t inspire. But I have to chuckle when I see #2, How to Survive a Poorly Run Meeting and #3, How to Run a Meeting. We really don’t learn, do we. Why is this still an issue? Oi!
  • How to Create Your Reason by Umair Haque, 2013
    • Umair is regularly thought provoking and this is no exception. Plucking one from his list is as hard as plucking two from Stephens, but I’m going to hit one that has resonance for me, right now, as I reexamine my work/life. Radical Simplicity. What can I/we stop doing, right now, to make space for what matters? Creative destruction, my friends, is a super power. 

Leadership and Trust

So many years ago there was this great blog, Weknowmore.org run by Antoon van het Erve and Johan Lammers. (Hey, both of you are also KM4Dev members. Johan, here is your KM4Dev bio! Remember this post?). The post is now digital dust. I had copied it back in 2009 with the intention of blogging about it. I could not find the particular post on the Wayback Internet Archive, but I was able to find one page for a screen grab.

Screen capture of the weknowmore.org front page from the Internet Wayback Machine showing a crowd of people and links to what the company did and their blog posts.

The post was titled: “Ten ways how leadership can influence and promote interpersonal trust in knowledge management behavior and processes.” 

As I read them, they resonated with the 10 leadership principles that emerged from Liberating Structures. They are not the same, but they are related. Take a look and see if there is something resonant and useful for you. I’ve put a few notes in bold dark red. 

From WeKnowMore.org

Trustworthy Behaviors

1. Act with discretion Keeping a secret means not exposing another person’s vulnerability; thus, divulging a confidence makes a person seem malevolent and/or unprofessional.

  • Be clear about what information you are expected to keep confidential.
  • Don’t reveal information you have said you would not . . . and hold others accountable for this.

In the digital era, this becomes a gnarly intersection with both transparency, and organizational policies and practices. Secrets are rare things these days. 

2. Be consistent between word and deed When people do not say one thing and do another, they are perceived as both caring about others (i.e., they do not mislead) and as being competent enough to follow through.

  • Be clear about what you have committed to do, so there is no misunderstanding.
  • Set realistic expectations when committing to do something, and then deliver.

In complex, uncertain times, there is the layer of working with uncertainty and ambiguity when setting expectations!

3. Ensure frequent and rich communication Frequent, close interactions typically lead to positive feelings of caring about each other and better understandings of each other’s expertise.

  • Make interactions meaningful and memorable.
  • Consider having some face-to-face (or at least telephone) contact.
  • Develop close relationships.

In our remote/hybrid/F2F continuum, we have to reexamine these practices. What worked in the “good old days” pre-pandemic may no longer be relevant. This is a place for creative destruction not only for communications practices, but understanding the value of them – not just doing them because we always did them!

4. Engage in collaborative communication People are more willing to trust someone who shows a willingness to listen and share; i.e., to get involved and talk things through. In contrast, people are wary of someone who seems closed and will only answer clear-cut questions or discuss complete solutions.

  • Avoid being overly critical or judgmental of ideas still in their infancy.
  • Don’t always demand complete solutions from people trying to solve a problem.
  • Be willing to work with people to improve jointly on their partially formed ideas.

Ditto to #3!

5. Ensure that decisions are fair and transparent People take their cues from the larger environment. As a result, there is a “trickle down” effect for trust, where the way management treats people leads to a situation where employees treat one another similarly. Thus, fair and transparent decisions on personnel matters translate into a more trusting environment among everyone.

  • Make sure that people know how and why personnel rules are applied and that the rules are applied equally.
  • Make promotion and rewards criteria clear-cut, so people don’t waste time developing a hidden agenda (or trying to decode everyone else’s).

See #1. I also think we have to rethink the value and application of rules, heuristics and practices in complex contexts where rules are not useful!

Organizational Factors

6. Establish and ensure shared vision and language People who have similar goals and who think alike find it easier to form a closer bond and to understand one another’s communications and expertise.

  • Set common goals early on.
  • Look for opportunities to create common terminology and ways of thinking.
  • Be on the lookout for misunderstandings due to differences in jargon or thought processes.

Reframe to purpose, which can be tracked or measured, even if the indicators are less-than-perfect. The rest is still spot on. But “vision” is too vague these days.  It leads to the very misunderstandings noted above.

7. Hold people accountable for trust To make trustworthy behavior become “how we do things here,” managers need to measure and reward it. Even if the measures are subjective, evaluating people’s trustworthiness sends a strong signal to everyone that trust is critical.

  • Explicitly include measures of trustworthiness in performance evaluations.
  • Resist the urge to reward high performers who are not trustworthy.
  • Keep publicizing key values such as trust-highlighting both rewarded good examples and punished violations-in multiple forums.

What is the line or continuum of measuring trust and measuring performance, progress, etc.?  How do we succeed in lower trust environments while trust is forming or absent but we still work together. This gets to the nubbins of trust itself and how essential it is. I think this is super context dependent. But I’ll save that for another day. This is getting LONG!

Relational Factors

8. Create personal connections. When two people share information about their personal lives, especially about similarities, then a stronger bond and greater trust develop. Non-work connections make a person seem more “real” and human, and thus more trustworthy.

  • Create a “human connection” with someone based on non-work things you have in common.
  • Maintain a quality connection when you do occasionally run into acquaintances, including discussing non-work topics.
  • Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence.

Still resonates with my “if we get to know each other, even a little bit, we are less likely to shoot each other…

9. Give away something of value Giving trust and good faith to someone makes that person want to be trusting, loyal, and generous in return.

  • When appropriate, take risks in sharing your expertise with people.
  • Be willing to offer others your personal network of contacts when appropriate.

Love this one. The most.

Individual Factors

10. Disclose your expertise and limitations Being candid about your limitations gives people confidence that they can trust what you say are your strengths. If you claim to know everything, then no one is sure when to believe you.

  • Make clear both what you do and don’t know.
  • Admit it when you don’t know something rather than posture to avoid embarrassment.
  • Defer to people who know more than you do about a topic.

Well, maybe I love THIS one the most. 🙂

Liberating Structures Principles

As I revisited the principles and cross checked them to the things above, my sense was the principles support the practices noted above. Your thoughts? The comments are OPEN!

  1. Include and Unleash Everyone
  2. Practice Deep Respect for People and Local Solutions
  3. Build Trust As You Go
  4. Learn by Failing Forward
  5. Practice Self-Discovery Within a Group
  6. Amplify Freedom AND Responsibility
  7. Emphasize Possibilities: Believe Before You See
  8. Invite Creative Destruction To Enable Innovation
  9. Engage In Seriously-Playful Curiosity
  10. Never Start Without Clear Purpose