We are deep in the rainy season here on the west coast of North America. I’ve been reflecting on my year of work and noticing a few patterns that are coming to mind as I think about the kinds of questions that our clients have been confronting this year. I don’t know that these observations are especially novel, but they do represent patterns that I have seen this year. they also represent places where I think our work can be helpful.
Something of the bigger context.
As it always has been. But that bigger context is currently full of austerity, fear and polarization. Much of our work is within the non-profit and public sector, and our clients have all been facing declines in funding, uncertainty about the future, skyrocketing need from their own clients and a deep questions about using their leadership to confront polarity and division in their organizations and communities.
It used to be that we were confronting a “scarcity mindset” where we feel to recognize the wealth of ideas and leadership that we actually have. This leaves leaders and organizations retreating into their own shells as they try hard to shoulder the responsibility of the work. Often in our organizational development work, we could do things that lift our eyes up a bit and help activate the leadership throughout the organization.
These days, on top of that dynamic, I think we’re facing an “austerity mindset” whereby that wealth of talent, attention and money is still present but it is actually locked away and not available to us. It has been concentrated elsewhere and everyone seems to be preparing to simply do without it.
I’m certainly not 100% sure of this shift, but it feels like the issues leaders are confronting are shifting in ways that we continue to explore with them and their teams, and my colleagues as well. What helps at this time is continued connection and sophisticated situational awareness to see and name what is happening and to be honest about what is available to work with. Maybe, dear readers, you are seeing it too. All work happens in a context and being able to name this context is important, without getting lost in it. I wrote about this back in September.
Five year strategic planning is dead.
The Covid-19 experience seemed to finally put to rest the typical five year strategic planning process. Everyone now has practical and tangible experience of how the best laid plans can be knocked sideways. And in the last year or two, as organizations have been recovering from Covid, they have no been hit with massive uncertainty in the world, including cuts to their funding. And it very much seems irrational, arbitrary and determined by bigger dynamics that are outside of the control of the organizations we get to work with.
In response, the kind of planning I have been asked to do more and more this year is about scenario planning and arriving at a set of practice principles that can help organizations lead towards a variety of futures. I do love this kind of work. It has relational benefits of visioning and dreaming together, but is rooted in deep and practical need for on the ground responses. I’m not an expert at operational planning – and there is always a need for that kind of work – but bringing people together to think about futures and develop some shared resourcefulness about responding to what might happen is useful.
Connection is needed but trust is shaky at the centre.
I have had a blog posts sitting in my drafts for a little while that talks about how we can move from centralized planning and control towards a more networked form of leadership. Ever since I ran across Open Space Technology in 1995 I have seen the need for this, because as Harrison Owen (who we lost in 2025) observed, Open Space activates an organizational structure of shared leadership and responsibility that is latent in any group of people. He called it “The High Performance Organization” and it checks a lot of boxes for what leaders want: engaged staff, ideas and responsibility sprouting up all over, connected and self-organizing teams that are working in a common direction, but meeting challenges where they are at.
The problem is that such networks really depend on the ability and willingness of organizational leaders to open up space for that to happen. We spend a lot of time in our longer engagements working with senior leaders to help them sustain their ability to truly trust the folks in their groups to do the work. It is sometimes a hard thing to bootstrap, but once it gets going, these types of networks can be quite powerful. Central leaders and organizations become conveners rather than resource sinks, and work becomes meaningful. It requires leaders to do the work they are uniquely positioned to do but to release to the community work that can be better done at the edges.
In the little supporter-owned soccer club I am a part of we do this but having our core leadership care for the fiduciary and technical responsibilities or the club and the rest of us live by the principles of “Assume your talents are needed, and proceed until apprehended.” In this way we activate community and true ownership over what we are doing.
And speaking of polarities…
This kind of things means that polarities abound: centralized control and distributed responsibility; continuity of tradition and new responses to emerging conditions; maintaining fiduciary obligations while stretching beyond; focus on the core external offering and building interior connections and development. Every planning process I have been involved in this year seems to hang on one or more of these polarities. Often the conversations about need and purpose start with an acknowledgement that both sides of the polarity are needed and the challenge is to lean into the skills and talent we have to do both. As contextual uncertainty has increased, our clients seem more willing to wrestle with these polarities rather than simply seeing their current conditions as a problem to be solved.
As always, we need to be thoughtful about how we think about change.
We are living in a world which seems to be revelling in ignorance about complexity. Every problem now seems to have a simple answer, with predictable and brutal results. We are fed this line in our civic conversations too, organizational realities and personal lives too. Social media algorithms have shaped our ideas about what is happening in the world and what we should do about it. I think complexity literacy is more important than ever. Just being able to think about the different kinds of change out there TOGETHER helps us to make sense of things in a more useful way and in a way that builds more relationships and therefore more resilience. Some of my go to frameworks for helping folks understand how change happens, the Cynefin framework and the Two Loops framework, continue to be extremely useful for helping people describe the spaces they are in, and chaordic planning has stood the test of time for collaboratively designing responses to these kinds of conditions.
AI is helping us delude ourselves into believing that we don’t need craft, or the ability to confront uncertainty with relationality.
It used to be fairly common that a client would discover that I was a facilitator and hand me an agenda and ask me to facilitate it. Its the reason I wrote the chaordic stepping stones guide in the first places, so that we could explore the possibility space together and design something that was fit to needs instead of simply rolling out a best practice. This year was the first time I received agendas generated by ChatGPT and asked to facilitate those. It took me a moment to figure this out, but I think that many people are probably asking their favourite large language model to give them an agenda for a two day strategic planning process. We are witnessing a massive cultural crises stemming from the destruction of craft across all the arts including music, writing, visual arts and process arts. Designing and facilitating participatory work is a craft. the two go hand in hand. One would never give an accomplished artist a paint-by-numbers set and ask them to use their technique to fill it out the way one wanted. Or hand a musician a piece of music to play that has notes in it, but no sense of development, harmony or rhythm.
Artificial intelligence is excellent at giving one the impression that the uncertainty they are confronting is easily solved. The tools that we currently have access to are extremely powerful aids to help with facilitation work, but they simply cannot replace the craft of relationship building and the time it takes to do work that generates meaningful contribution and ownership and sustainability. Facilitators and participatory leaders need to continue to develop the skills to work with groups of people in increasing complexity, within decreased time frames and a climate of austerity, polarization and uncertainty. Our chatbots are incapable of understanding what we know when we enter a space like that, but those of us that fear the ambiguity of these spaces can find ourselves retreating into the comforting certainty of a set of answers that come from what appears to be a divine and omniscient source. We just have to be careful not to lose the ability to sit together and figure something out. Keep watching sports like soccer and hockey. Keep making music with each other. Exercise the feeling and abilities that we have to make and undo things together without knowing where we are going or what might happen next. Move together, slightly slower than you think you should be, and seeking surprise along the way.
Stories and shared work are helpful.
I had a lovely call the other day with Cynthia Kurtz and Ashley Cooper are some folks Ashley is working with around using Participatory Narrative Inquiry to work with stories in communities and organizations. I continue to use that collection of methods for dealing with difficult and complex situations, including future scenario planning, because my experience has been that making sense of grounded stories together is the best way to engage with the uncertainty and opinionated conversation that passes for civic dialogue. I’m interested in methods and processes of civic deliberation and address conflict with process design. How can we bring difference into governance without confusing it with conflict? How can we work with conflict without confusing it with violence? This is not an area I have ever been comfortable in, but I have found that stories and circle are the best way to have a group of people dive in together on shared work that helps differences become resources and helps conflict become co-discovery. In watching the current kinds of conversations we are having in Canada around things like Aboriginal title, it’s clear that folks with opinions not rooted in actual experience have a hard time even beginning to understand issues, let alone seeing ways in which reconciling differences can be the work of a mature politics, and a potentially defining characteristic of the Canadian project.
So these are some of the things I have seen this year and I expect that these are threads that will continue to grow and bloom in the coming year too. I’m really interested what YOU have noticed?
My neighbour Alejandro Frid is an ecologist and works extensively with Coastal First Nations in British Columbia. I love his work as a scientist and as an author and I love the way he shares wheat he is doing such as in this story on Kitaspo/Xai’xais fisheries management. Last night he spoke at Speak the Spark, a n every-two-months storytelling even here on Bowen Island where local folks share stories around a theme. It’s a bit like The Moth. Last night the theme was Faux Pas’s and Unexpected Turns and we heard stories about giving up wealth for happiness, photographing New York on the morning of 9/11. accidentaly dressing up as a clown for a school carnival, making an innocent comment to a friend on a train that was taken the wrong way, and we heard Alejandro’s story about how a handwritten request for computer help led to a decades long collaboration with his dearest research partner.
Cory Doctorow is travelling around discussing the history of, and the antidote to, enshittification. Here a transcript of a recent talk which is a kind of call to arms for our participation in the current and ongoing trade wars by creating and selling tools that liberate the users of technology of all kinds, lower fees and prices, and secure some degree of tech sovereignty for Canada and others.
A short story from Thea Lim about a private investigator, his technique and his subject and how it is that we all fade into the totality of a city. The story takes place near where I grew up in Toronto so the setting is vivid to me. Anyone Could Be Anyone is published in The Walrus.
Life in the vast lane. Doc Searles reflects on how the internet has changed over the past 25 years for those of us who create and share our own stuff here.
Anything that, as Mark McKergow puts it “offloads cognitive strain” is valuable especially when a person needs to bring all of their cognitive abilities to the task at hand. Not surprisingly then, you find that the situations where there is likely to be chaos or catastrophic failure, tools like checklists are everywhere: in operating rooms, flight decks, factories, fire halls, kitchens. Mark shares some solid thoughts on these humble tools.
A major bridge replacement project across the Fraser River (Sto:lo) between New Westminster and Surrey is coming to an end, and the new name of the bridge has been released. My blog still annoyingly doesn’t have access to the character set needed to spell the name properly but stal’ewasem Bridge it is!
The new name was a gift from the Musqueam and Kwantlen Nations to the people of the Lower Mainland. It’s worth watching the video on the bridge name page to witness the generosity in the gifting of the name and to learn how to pronounce it, which is as easy as learning how to say Tsawwassen, to which it sounds similar.
It is so important to see this naming as the gift that it is, an offering from local Nations to all who live here to celebrate the place and root our collective identity in the land and water of the region and to join together in celebration the place where this new bridge connects.
Poles and buildings at the Haida Heritage Centre at Kay ‘Llnagaay
In the midst of alarm and manufactured paranoia about the recent Cowichan Tribes case confirming their Aboriginal title to some lands in Richmond, I offer two things to help folks see this decision in it’s historical context and it’s promise for the future.
The first is this: the CBC published a useful background article on the history of these lands and the Cowichan’s relationship to them and it’s worth reading this to understand that this is neither a new issue or a particularly novel issue. The Crown obligated itself to negotiate in good faith with First Nations back in 1763 and in 1998 Aboriginal title was confirmed as existing in law in Canada. The current state of affairs is just one more stage in the long road towards reconciling the reality that both the Crown and First Nations have interests in land that are accommodated in the Constitution. We just need to work them out together.
And to that end, I came across this quote from Squamish chief Joe Mathias from back in 1987. He was attending the First Ministers conferences that followed the partition of Canada’s Constitution in 1981. The federal government committed to a series of conferences with Indigenous leaders and provincial and territorial premiers to figure out what section 35 of the new constitution was really about. That section confirmed that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
There was a fantastic pair of documentaries made about these conferences that are available at the National Film Board of Canada, called “Dancing Around the Table.” In one of those, Joe Mathias says this:
“What’s going to happen if they reach an agreement with the Aboriginal people, is we put something in the earth that’s never been there before: a relationship. Between a Nation of Indian people and European people. That’s the whole point of creation – a planting of the seed. Putting something on the earth that wasn’t there before. so that in modern contemporary Canada, we have put something on the earth that was not there before.”
Back when Joe Mathias said that, in about 1987 or so, I was in the first year of my undergraduate degree in Native Studies at Trent University. This was the kind of thing we heard all the time about the relationship that was being shaped in the Federal-Provincial First Ministers Conferences on Aboriginal Constitutional Matters (link is to one set of proceedings) and the desires that Indigenous peoples and Nations held for the future of Canada when something new, novel, just and creative could happen here. The documentary shows the intransigence, disrespect and outright hostility that many of the federal and provincial leaders held for First Nations, Inuit and Metis people, but that was nothing new for the Indigenous leaders in the room. Since the very beginning of relations between newcomers and Indigenous populations these were the kinds of people and attitudes that they encountered. Every effort to reach agreements was predicated, from the Indigenous side, on this idea of relationally, co-creation and opportunity. And it seems from the government side of the treaty (and often unilaterally) table the idea was to dispose of Indigenous interests quickly, conveniently and forever.
This is the reason why First Nations keep going to court on these issues and the reason why the keep winning. And even when folks like the Cowichan Tribes or the Haida Nations say “WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PRIVATE LAND HELD BY INDIVIDUALS” many people choose not to hear that. I think that comes from a deep shadow of colonization. The folks stirring up the hate see these relationships as a zero-sum game, becasue that is what the colonial mindset has been: “It is either our land or it’s their land.” But that has never been the case on the Indigenous side of the table, except perhaps were things were so framed by a zero-sum game that people had to find to keep what is theirs before inviting a future relationship. Private land title sits on top of provincial land and federal land. This is why you cannot do whatever you want on your own private land. You need permits to cut trees or store toxic waste. You have to abide by local by-laws about septic fields and water runoff. You cannot take your land out of Canada and give it to the United States or Denmark or Kenya. Land title and jurisdiction is not “either this or that.” Aboriginal title is NOT the same as fee simple or provincial or federal title. They can all co-exist.
So with all of the rhetoric (much of which is just plain incorrect legal interpretation bordering on deliberate misinformation) I encourage us all to understand what reconciliation has always been. It has ALWAYS been about planting a new seed together, of using the potential of relationship in Canada to do something remarkable and world-leading and showing humanity what will happen when we place what Joe Mathias would have known as “chenchénstway” – lifting each other up – at the centre of possibility, collaboration, development and relationship. This is the untapped potential of pursuing pathways towards reconciliation. It is hard work but it is SO beautifully rewarding for everyone. I plead with my fellow settler Canadians to deeply understand what reconciliation really means, to hold the potential for a world which no one can see alone, and to approach the conversations and deliberations around this work with the same generosity of spirit and vision that Joe Mathias and hundreds of other Indigenous leaders have always had. It’s an invitation. Let’s say yes.
Some politicians in BC are stirring up some pretty alarming notions about a false threat to private property stemming from a recent Court decision affirming the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title. As a person involved in the field for decades, it’s terrible to watch the lies and racism spread fear to people that are under no threat at all. Horribly irresponsible politicians who know better are smirking through their faux serious stances as they watch the chaos they are sowing spread across the land. If doing your job is predicated on messing stuff up so much that you benefit from the destruction leaving everyone else to clean it up, then I might say your social worth is near zero. Stand down. For more, read this thread on Bluesky which includes a link to Khelsilem’s excellent post on the situation.
Joy! A new song from Jane Siberry. And double joy for me as we are going to see her in Ottawa in a couple of weeks. This song, like much of her music, is an antidote to the above foolishness.
Not so joy. Tottenham’s performance in the Champions League last night against Monaco. If it hadn’t been for Vicario’s stunning performance in net, with a handful of point blank reaction stops, we would have lost 4-0 instead of limping out of there with a 0-0 draw. Spurs’ finishing was woeful, and despite the best efforts of Kudus and Odobert to take on defenders and create some space, shots were ballooned wide, crosses were hopeful reminders of a bygone era (I’m looking at you Pedro Porro) and Monaco’s press forced several turnovers. Although Spurs is still undefeated in the competition, 5 points from three games is only good enough for 15th, towards the bottom of the seeded playoff places. We have a few big chances to make up for lost wins, but in reality, Monaco, with a slew of injuries and poor form, should have been a better performance. Football doesn’t always cure the world’s ills.