My friend Michelle Holliday has been devoting her life the past few years to understanding living systems and bringing her learning to organizational settings. She’s been with us at two Art of Hostings and has brought a wonderful group to both events. Here is her slideshare on her recent thinking and above is a TEDxTalk she gave in Montreal. I love the way she sees hosting practices as pathways for action as organizations move to living systems approaches.
Share:
From an email sent to a friend of mine (a Mohawk, for context!) about the art of harvesting. It includes an uncited hat tip to the Cynefin framework, and focuses on his particular field of education:
Harvesting, as you know being from a tribe of long standing agrarian practice, (!) is constituted of all kinds of things. Mostly though, you need an artifact and a feedback loop. What is the tangible piece I can hold in my hand and point to, and how does it fold back into the system to create learning. many systems do well at harvesting the artifacts (evaluations, studies, reports) but do very little in creating an architecture for implementing the results. Think Royal commission. It’s the equivalent of harvesting the corn and then storing it on a shelf and inviting people over to come and look at it. Anyone in their right mind would call you crazy, but that is what passes for harvesting in the organizations and institutions of our day.
Within schools there is a special kind of problem with harvesting. When I work in organizations and communities I take great care to make sure that we harvest both the intentional results (evaluations against objectives and so on) AND the emergent results. If we are trying to do new things we need to work with the complex dynamics of emergence. Schools get stuck when they just look at how well the year went with respect to the goals they set out in the first place. It is a set of blinders that turns them away from emergent practice and limits innovation. You will not get much information about the new practices, instead you get a sense of best practices, which is fine but which, by definition, gets us stuck in the past.
The problem is that this analytical, reductionist view is driven in education by accountabilities which are more and more tight every year. Under the guise of spending tax dollars well, there is a real shackle being put on innovation and learning about new ways to do education. Much of the innovations is happening therefore in the private sphere, but the results aren’t being brought to public education. This is BAD harvesting. If someone has figured out a better way to grow corn (what if we planted beans and squash along side the corn?) but didn’t share it or have any way for that information to get to those that need it, well, that’s not working. People go hungry when they don’t have to, and that is happening in education. I’ll bet when you go to conferences mostly you hear about how well people are meeting their targets and you get presentations on best practices. But you are probably not hearing about the trials and tribulations of experiments that fail.
Evaluating emergence and creating the conditions for SAFEFAIL experiments (as opposed to the fail safe plans that every school authority wants) requires a very different mindset. Instead of “merit and worth evaluation” people are starting to use methodologies like developmental evaluation which works with emergence and complexity. I think you need both, and not to privilege one over the other.
At any rate, this is a long conversation obviously, but it comes down to a couple of things:
1. Start with understand what aspects of your work are simple, complicated or complex.
2. Choose in advance a harvesting methodology for each of these three domains.
3. Choose in advance a strategy for using the harvest from these domains.
4. Build a harvesting strategy into the work up front, as a key piece of design.
And as a special treat, here is an hour of me teaching harvesting at a recent Art of Hosting in Calgary.
Share:
Still playing with the Cynefin framework and thinking about how it helps us to understand the processes for decision making and action in the domains of simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disordered domains.
Today talking with clients and friends we were discussing the “spaces inbetween,” especially with respect to cultures. In British Columbia, services are increasingly being separated between indigenous and non-indigenous service providers which isn’t a bad thing on the face of it, but the enterprise is being undertaken from a scarcity mindset. in other words, resources are being moved from one part of the sector to the other in a zero sum approach leaving people resentful and frightened of the spaces in between, which is the space that clients live in.
One of the results of this fear of space is a collapsing of leadership into a certainty based mindset. We look for the failsafe solutions and then implement, externalizing all that is unknown and unknowable. Increasingly however, there is a growing appetite among some leaders for the potential of the space of “not-knowing.” One can approach that space from the perspective of reductionist analysis, or one can embrace the possibility there. Working with emergence is not always a secure thing however, as you never know what you are going to get in this space. What is required there is principles and practices that help one to navigate and make good decisions in the complex, chaotic and disordered domains. In the simple and complicated domains, where analysis is an excellent approach, rules and tools are very useful. Previous experience, case studies and best practices are useful for simple problem solving.
Things become dangerous when we seek security in the rules and tools and try to apply them in the complex and chaotic and disordered domains. Often people will come to learning events with me and ask for a definitive list of situations in which a particular methodology will work. If I find myself saying “it depends” then I know I am dealing with that unknowable “space inbetween.” In that case I point to principles and practices. It sometimes leaves people frustrated, especially if they have come seeking rules and tools.
The goal here is to provide support for leaders who are prepared to enter the spaces of not-knowing and dwell there, sitting in the uncertainty and attentive to all the emotional difficulty that crops up. It also means taking a disciplined approach to working with safe fail experiments that allow for emergence that then gives you some indications of what is useful and what is not.
In a world besotted with analysis, this is a tough sell, and yet increasingly I meet decision makers who suspect that something is up with the way they have been taught to reason out every situations. Rules and tools are increasingly failing us as we become more aware of how difficult it is to manage in complex and chaotic domains. Principles and practices are much more useful.
As to what those practices and principles are, well, it depends. And that is an invitation to a jumping off point for diving in and learning together.
Share:
Nice post on using the Cynefin framework to design an ideas generation workshop:
At a workshop I facilitated last week – the challenge was helping a team to generate new ideas for innovating their business – I used Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework to great effect. This was a smart crowd, who were willing to go along with our approach on helping them see new directions through a process of emergent discovery – but they wanted to understand why we were following this approach. For the many cerebral folks in this crowd, I explained the Cynefin framework – and they got it! We could have studied ‘best practices for establishing an innovation culture’, or we could have thoroughly analysed successful innovations of the past for ‘good practices’ and for discovering cause-effect relationships between new ideas and successful outcomes. But we didn’t. And they were ok with it once I explained to them why innovation and ‘best practices’ or ‘analytics’ don’t go well together, using the Cynefin framework. In short, I argued that innovation – the activity they wanted to engage in – has many characteristics of a complex adaptive system: cause and effect are not linked in a linear way, many agents are interconnected and interacting, etc.
Share:
A colleague emailed today and asked me this question: “which tool do you use when you have to analyse the content of your harvest with groups?”
My answer was that it depends on so much. Which means there is no one rule or tool but rather a principle. The principle would be this: “Participatory process, participatory harvest, simple process, simple harvest” The primary tool I use in complex decision making domains is diversity.
A story. Once, working with the harvest of a a series of 4 world cafes that had about 100 people in each, I ended up with 400 index cards, each containing a single insight which we later transcribed. It would be folly for me to work with a taxonomy of my own design, so I invited eight people to help me make sense of the work. We all read the 18 peages of raw data and noticed what spoke to us. From there we created a conversation that drew forth those insights and organized them into patterns. The final result was a report to the 400 people that had gathered that was rich and diverse and as complex as the group itself without being overly complicated to implement.
So it depends. If you use the Cynefin framework, which I have been studying and using a lot lately, you will see that different domains of action require different harvesting and sense making tools. So be careful, use what is appropriate and try to never have a place where one point of view dominates the meaning making if you are indeed operating the realms of complexity, chaos or disorder..