Towards Coherence: Interview with Jon Lebkowsky

by

In this series of Wednesday conversations, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Jon Lebkowsky has been an Internet professional for two decades, during which he’s provided community leadership and developed significant expertise in online community development, social media consulting, project and production management, and future studies. He is an author and blogger, as well as cultural strategist and social commentator.  There’s more about Jon at Wikipedia.

Todd Hoskins:  In what context does thrivability evolve, individually or collectively?  Is it all about the distribution of knowledge?

Jon Lebkowsky: Thrivability is a concept requiring social and political coherence, and we’re in a polarized society right now. We don’t have the kind of clear shared vision for the future that we’d have to have in order to thrive as a society. We need a context that gives us that sort of shared vision, and that requires strong leadership. I think it’s very cool to imagine a world where we’re all configuring our own environments and building our own realities to some extent, but we can also be too polarized or fragmented to build the commons, and I think we need a strong commons or commonality as a foundation for a thrivable future.

Todd: What does strong leadership look like?

Jon: A strong leader can catalyze a coherence of perspective in others who follow her lead or respond to her influence, and this can potentially result in synchronization around a common vision.  While there will still be variations in thinking – everyone has a unique perspective – when we’re led to a shared understanding, there will be less conflict about fundamental realities.

Todd: The polarization is evident across the globe right now, but we also see collaboration happening when there is a commonly held vision.  How do we address the social challenge?  What can we learn from the revolutions, as well as the systemic stalemates?

Jon: When people revolt it’s because their needs aren’t being met . . . you actually have to push a society pretty far before you’ll get the kind of explosion we’re seeing in Egypt. They sense that the regime in power is working against their interests. We have that in the U.S. to a pretty great extent right now, but we’re still committed to our civic processes for mediating power. I think we’d have to feel a real sense those had collapsed before we would erupt, but we do have what you might refer to as systemic stalemates. In both cases there’s a sense that the seat of power is not in touch with the base, and I would say the base is unclear and confused. We need strong leadership, but that’s not enough. I’ve been considering how you would work a transformation from the bottom up. I’ve always been interested in the grassroots. Grassroots movements can be somewhat more effective now because connections can form and messages can be shared with very low barriers to communication. However the distributed communications architecture tends toward fragmentation of groups and messages. It’s harder to build strong coherent movements in this context. I think it requires a lot of groundwork from the bottom up. I think a network of physical meetings that bring people into a real understanding of context and opportunity could be very powerful.

Todd:  The growth in participation . . . you’ve worked within the medical, government, publishing, and tech sectors – possibilities are changing, business models are changing, behavior is changing?   What has to shift for these transformations to truly take shape?

Jon: The thing about being in the moment and being creative about it is that you can see so many possibilities and levels of action.  The ideal shift would be in consciousness, and would be evolutionary, but you don’t make or drive or force evolution, and we can’t necessarily control what possibilities manifest even if we have some sense of what they are.   I think there are some people who are experiencing a change in the way we perceive and live in the world, learning to be more cooperative and collaborative. The Internet facilitates a democratization of knowledge, and sharing has become a predominant metaphor within online social networks. So perhaps we’re learning to work together better, and we have access to more knowledge and more meta-knowledge – knowledge that facilitates knowledge. So what has to shift is shifting.

Todd:  You started Plutopia with the mission of creating events rather than publishing white papers.  What is it about events that gets you excited?  What possibilities do you see in facilitating an experience rather than writing a book or releasing a record?

Jon:  We’ve seen an evolution of media from conversations around campfires to conversations mediating by writing, then publishing, then mass broadcast media. Most of us grew up in a world informed by the latter, the broadcast mode, where our experience of culture was largely mediated by various forms of publishing and broadcasting. This is somewhat alienating – experience through media is limiting. We all want a visceral human connection and an experience that engages all our senses. That’s what we produce at Plutopia Productions.  We have the concept of the sense event – “a produced entertainment or educational affair that engages participants in an amplified multi-sensory experience and results in enhanced associated memory formation.” These are accelerated culture-building, convergent experiences that can be extended through media. I think it’s a more raw and engaging form of culture-through-experience. By engaging us fully, it can be transformative.

Todd: What can we do, at an organizational and personal level, to allow for consciousness to evolve?

Jon: I was reading a lecture by P.D. Ouspensky, who was inspired by the work of George Gurdjieff. Ouspensky discusses how we have the potential to advance our consciousness but most won’t, because they don’t want it. Gurdjieff and Ouspensky consider the normal state most of us are in most of the time as a kind of sleep. Which is to say that, by default, most of us are born into various degrees of consciousness that are beneath our true capability; we’re like automatons. In Buddhism we talk about karma and conditioning, which is also about living without real presence and consciousness, in a state that is not mindful and awake at a level that is possible for human beings. Many accept this state, thinking that we are what we are, and lacking aspiration to explore further and deeper. There’s no effective argument with this. You ask what we can do to allow consciousness to evolve – I don’t have a pat answer. I think the evolution you ask about is very difficult, and the best we can do is be present and be exemplary. I know teachers who are effective by getting people to take small – very small – steps. Small and subtle things can change our energy and our consciousness, and perhaps there’s a gradual change.

Todd: How can we encourage the growth of the commons?  Find coherence?  Amplify the shift?

Jon: The growth of the commons emerges from an attitude of sharing. It’s hopeful that the metaphor of sharing is so common in social media, and I’m also hopeful as I meet so many people who don’t seem to be at all greedy or attached. In sharing we also find coherence – as we share ideas and perspectives, we become aligned. And by sharing we amplify the shift, attitude can be infectious.

Todd: Closing thoughts?

Jon: When I meet someone who seems to be more awake, I’m hopeful. One wakeful person suggests the possibility of objective consciousness for all of us.

Todd: Thanks, Jon!

Remixing Community: Interview with Jono Bacon

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Jono Bacon is a changemaker in a seemingly paradoxical sort of way.  He’s a headbanger and a diplomat.  He plays rhythm guitar, swims in big ideas, and has an infectious “Let’s do it!” attitude.  He sometimes screams into the mic, but speaks and writes persuasively.  As the author of The Art of Community, he shared his experience working for Ubuntu, one of the largest open source online communities.  As a musician, Jono recently launched Severed Fifth, an “open band,” that was recently featured in O’Reilly Radar for its potential to reinvent the music business.   Jono sees a new music industry emerging, and he wants Severed Fifth to serve as an example.  The band is in the final stages of crowdfunding their studio album.  (You can help).  But it’s about more than the music.

Todd Hoskins:  Jono, you’ve worked in the open source software business, as well as the music business for a number of years.  What can the music industry learn from the growth of open source?

Jono Bacon:  Open Source has brought tremendous change to the IT industry. Fundamentally it has closed the gap between content provider and content consumer. In the older world, content consumers have little interaction or opportunity to influence the content provider, and this often caused the relationship to feel strained. Open Source changed that: no longer did a programmer rely on a publisher to get their work seen, and no longer was the consumer unable to express feedback to the programmer.

The same thing has affected the music industry: bands would produce content but the content was fed to listeners via the labels. The world I am advocating, via the example of Severed Fifth, is one in which bands are closer to fans, and fans feel they are an integral part of how the band works.

Todd:  You’ve said the uniqueness of Severed Fifth is your community, not that you openly give away your music for free (which others do also).  Why are people motivated to join your Street Team, be your advocates, and send donations for producing a studio album?  Why is the Severed Fifth model thriving?

Jono:  Community has taught us that when people feel empowered by a mission, by an ethos, and by a goal; they will feel an overwhelming sense of unity in contributing their skills and abilities to that mission, ethos, and goal.  We have seen countless examples of this — be it software freedom with Open Source, public availability of knowledge with Wikipedia, or political resistance with various forms of activism.  When a community feels empowered and has the tools and venue to contribute their efforts, great things happen.

Of course, the mission and ethos needs to be one that people genuinely care about. “Getting Jono weekly bagels”, while interesting to me, would not be interesting to most people. I believe that we have seen Severed Fifth gain momentum because this is a problem that many passionate free culture folks care about, but it is also easy for other people to understand and care about too. My goal is to get as many people as possible to understand the mission and ethos we are empowered by — a more open music industry — and to get people on board the Severed Fifth train to produce a great example of success in the new industry.

The challenge is that culture-changing goals such as these can often sound incredibly ethereal and difficult to understand.  My goal is to produce a concrete example of something everyone can point to that demonstrates that a band who harnesses their work with professionally produced music, free access to content, empowered community, and fair financial contributions decided by the fans, will be successful. This is what I want Severed Fifth to be – so other bands can point at it and say, “If they can do it, so can we.”

Todd:  There is this Creator’s Dilemma . . . people have creative power, but often limited ways to make an income without making sacrifices in integrity.  How do you see this becoming more resolved in the future, for artists as well as engineers?

Jono:  Music isn’t any different than software.  When Open Source first came into focus, people were asking the same questions about that too.  On one hand we are giving the music away for free, but free content lowers the bar for listeners to enjoy it – more people can download it, share it with their friends, put it on YouTube and elsewhere.  Therefore, the fanbase grows naturally as people like to share and recommend great experiences to others – it is what makes us human.  A bigger fanbase means more potential customers.  This is a big part of the experiment, and I have a series of ideas of methods for generating revenue that fit into the wider ethos of Severed Fifth.

Todd:  Even with Radiohead’s successful In Rainbows experiment in 2007, it seems bands are still waiting for labels to court them.  With Rock n’ Roll’s history of breaking rules, rebelling against cultural norms, and exerting independence, why has this taken so long to take shape?

Jono:  I believe part of the challenge is that bands traditionally have not had the tools or skills to get out there and build awareness on the back of the free availability of content.  It is hard enough trying to persuade a label to give the content away for free, but then you need to develop a set of skills to really raise awareness of this. Finally, you have the final complicating factor that record deals are so romantic – they hold so much promise for so many bands.  Unfortunately the reality in these economic times is often in conflict with the fantasy.

For years bands have pushed their music in their local areas, but it is only in the last few years that we have seen people developing skills in the area of global community growth and empowerment.  While I am not suggesting for a second that I am an expert, I have been working on this a lot over the last ten years in Open Source, and I think we are starting to see more and more focus being placed on communities and growth – this is another area in which Open Source has led the curve.

Part of the goal with Severed Fifth is expose many of these techniques and approaches and transition them from Open Source and technology to music. Down the line I want to write a book explaining how all of this worked in a format that other bands and artists can harness. focused on musicians and creative types. We have already seen the impact of digital sharing on the music industry, and I think we will next see the impact of sharing this knowledge about building your own fanbase, and this will contribute to the change.

Todd:  We see an aspect of thrivability as self-evolving and self-organizing, requiring an openness to experimentation.  How do the Severed Fifth experiments apply to businesses outside of the music industry?

Jono:  The key point is that software and music are links to other commercial opportunities.  Take Open Source for example – we have huge companies who have successfully built businesses around giving their primary products away for free.  They have instead generated revenue from other areas such as support, training, commercial sales, custom engineering, etc.  It’s happening everywhere, but you have to look for it.

Todd:  On your dream tour, who would be headlining?

Jono:  I would love the exposure of touring with a number of bands, but I’ll say Iron Maiden.  Up the irons!

Todd:  Thanks, Jono.   Good luck with the album and the mission.

Directing Change: Interview with Malachi Leopold

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Malachi Leopold is an award winning film director who runs the full service production company Left Brain/Right Brain Productions.  His 2009 short documentary, 22 Years From Home, followed the return home of Kuek Garang, one of the Lost Boys of Sudan.

Seeking to have his company embody his personal values, Malachi has been proactive in communicating the company’s mission to enact positive social change.  By inspiring others to overcome adversity, combating poverty, advancing education, and taking care of our planet, we can make a living and make the world a better place at the same time.

Disclosure:  Left Brain/Right Brain Productions is a client of Thrivable, Inc.

Todd Hoskins: With the diminishing returns of “messaging” and the return to more authentic “storytelling,” where does film fit in?

Malachi Leopold: Well, I think that it’s a really cool way that humans continue telling stories from generation to generation.  But in essence, they still function as part of a society’s or culture’s way of communicating a vision, passing on values, relating humor, rallying people to a cause.

It’s an interesting question because, in my opinion, there are a lot of films that are very much geared towards a “messaging-oriented” audience.  A 90-minute feature film that is created for an audience with a [perceived] attention span of 30-seconds.  I think that approach often leads to films (actions and comedies, especially) which feel much more about special effects, gimmicks, and so forth rather than substance – less about the craft of storytelling and more about 90 minutes of eye candy.

There are films that have a bit of a “guy talk” (“American Pie”) or “girl talk” (“Sex and the City”) vibe, others that have a more serious, parable kind of tone (“Michael Clayton”, “Children of Men”);  others that simply spark the imagination (“E.T.”, “Inception”), others that document history (“Saving Private Ryan”) or collective history (“Social Network”).

I think that we can see trends that point to greater appreciation and usage of telling great stories.  From traditional :30 TV advertising to the increased popularity of documentary films, I think there’s an awareness that telling a great story that inspires people is a great way to connect them to your cause, your brand, your product or service.

Todd:  How do you balance or shift from working commercially to working for a cause in which you believe?

Malachi:  I want every day to be spent driving our mission of creating positive social change.  For me, it’s not about “giving back.”  I don’t want to spend my time working and then “give back” what I have left over in terms of time or money.  So we proactively seek out relationships that allow us to support the missions of others, and through those relationships we leverage our impact.

For example, I could volunteer once a month with an organization and it could make a difference for perhaps one person or perhaps a handful of people.  Important?  Absolutely.  Meaningful?  Without a doubt.  But what if I spent my time collaborating with an organization that takes the work of the volunteer organization further?  What if I create an actual change, a shift, that is sustainable, big?  It’s now a true, sustainable change.  And I believe that, for myself, to create sustainable change, it has to be my day to day – it has to be my life’s work.

And there is another dimension to it.  If we’re doing a TV ad for a fast food company, someone might say, “How is that promoting a cause, creating change, etc.?”  It’s a good question.  Here’s my answer to that – I believe in active engagement.  If I won’t do business with someone, I’ve effectively put a stop to a possible dialogue, a possible conversation about sustainability and food systems, nutrition and so forth.

But if I am open to doing business with them, I have the chance to build a relationship and potentially have a strong influence on a company that has enormous reach, and enormous consequences connected to the decisions of their day to day operations.

Todd:  So, your mission remains the same regardless of who is financing the project?

Malachi:  Yes, we don’t really separate working commercially and working for a “cause.”  To me, it’s not so much about “cause” as it is “this is just what I do.”  My day to day is about driving mission.  Creating change.  If it’s a TV ad about carpet or a documentary about sexual violence in the Congo, I’m actively finding ways to make the world a better place.

Todd:  You have been working on projects in the Middle East and Africa.  In a war-torn or impoverished region, is there thrivability?

Malachi:  There is evidence of a unique development of a civilization in the Niger delta where, for about 1600 or so years, a complex society of specialists collaborated for mutual benefit in relative peace and prosperity.  I say it’s unique because the traditional way I think we in the West have thought of the development of civilizations and urban centers has been more about exploration and conquest, conquering, victors and spoils, a concentrated few ruling over many.  However, this was an example a “thriving” society that occasionally had evidence of clashes, but not the type that we think of today as “ethnic rivalries” or “inter tribal warfare.”  In fact, there seems to be a lot of evidence of there being an emphasis placed on the importance of differentiating oneself and one’s culture through pottery, music, food and food production, dance, weapons, tools, physical marks, clothing, while at the same time celebrating and appreciating the diversity and benefits of other cultures and societies and ways of life.

The only way I could see “thrivability” in action in some of the places I have been would be more in terms of being at peace with one’s circumstances, finding peace within the midst of an impoverished situation.  However, I think it’s too easy to sort of romanticize a “pastoral” way of life, a “simpler” way of life.  Living off the land, producing only what one needs, “in harmony” with the environment.  The reality is, that life is extremely difficult.  Every day a struggle.  It’s survival, and difficult for me to think of as “thrivability.”

In the post-conflict and impoverished regions of the world, I think it’s usually about survival.  I look at thrivability as holding a vision of what is next, another branch of our evolution.  But I think the reality on the ground is that, with billions living in conditions of poverty, war or post-war or could-be-war-at-any-time, disease, lack of economic opportunities or means – sustainability doesn’t even enter the picture, much less thrivability.

For example, one of the things I noticed in Sudan was a large amount of trash just blowing around some of the villages we visited.  For me, coming from an environmentally conscious city and way of life, an impulse happened – I judged. I thought “Oh, this is terrible – littering, polluting the environment.” I start picturing birds tangled in junk, animals rummaging through garbage in search of food.  Humans encroaching on the environment around them.

But it’s just an entirely different type of situation.  How can someone worry about recycling a bag when they’re not sure if the one meal they need to have that day is even going to happen?  Or wondering if a violent clash is going to break out?  I’m not saying let’s trash everything, but I do think it’s difficult to address issues such as that when someone has hunger pangs.  Or when someone has been a victim of violence, or lives with a daily fear of being bombed.

Todd:  Kuek, featured in 22 Years from Home, is a resilient man.  What qualities have made him thrive?

Malachi:  I think the quality that allowed him and the rest of the Lost Boys of Sudan to survive was a strong sense of family and community.  Coupled with a will to live, to overcome the adversity, and then to come back and make things better.  A generosity of spirit.

Todd:  So, what would be your dream project?  What would you love to film?

Malachi:  If I could be sitting in a theatre next to Terrence Malick, and at the end of my film he turns to me, nods his head, and with a smile says, “That was pretty good.”  Whatever that film is, that’s my dream project.

Todd:  Thanks, Malachi.  I look forward to viewing more of your storytelling.

Creativity & Emergence : Interview with Michelle James

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Michelle James has been pioneering Applied Creativity and Applied Improvisation in business in the Washington, DC area since 1994. She is CEO of The Center for Creative Emergence and founder of the Capitol Creativity Network – an Applied Creativity community hub since 2004 – and Quantum Leap Business Improv. Her mission is to integrate the worlds of creativity, service, meaning and commerce, and cultivate whole brain, whole-person engagement in the workplace. Recently, she was recognized for Visionary Leadership in Fast Company’s blog, Leading Change, for “her commitment to bring creative expression into the work environment in a very deep and meaningful way.”  Michelle is a business creativity consultant, facilitator and coach who has designed and delivered hundreds of programs for entrepreneurs, leaders, and organizations such as Microsoft, Deloitte, GEICO, NIH, World Bank, and Kaiser Permanente among others. Her original programs have been featured on TV, the radio and in print. She produces the DC-based Creativity in Business Conference – next one in Oct. 2011 . Michelle also performs full-length improvised plays with Precipice Improv, paints, and is a CoreSomatics Movement and Bodywork Master Practitioner.

In our Five Point Model, the Creative is one of the primary elements in facilitating thrivability.  At Thrivable, we are influenced by, and grateful for the work of Michelle James in the domain of the Creative.

Todd Hoskins:  Michelle, you have led conferences, workshops, and done coaching around facilitating creativity in business. How do those in business organizations, beyond the design team, work towards fostering creativity?

Michelle James:  The most effective and meaningful changes I’ve observed have come from both embracing creative practices and also establishing new foundations: generative principles of engagement, expanded mind sets, new frameworks, and entering into a “co-creative partnering” type of relationship with each other, and with the unknown. For example, weaving improv-based principles as the rules of engagement in meetings can transform both the energy and outcomes. One client transformed their meetings – which were either boring or contained continual battles for whose idea was best – into Discovery Sessions just by setting three of the improv principles as the foundational container for each meeting: yes-and, make everyone look good, and serve the good of the whole. Their once dreaded meetings, where little got done and all felt drained, became lively, co-creative sessions where new and different ideas and applications emerged in the meeting itself by just adhering to new principles of engagement. People began building on each other’s ideas instead of only defending their own.

Another example: an aspiring entrepreneur may have three different passions or business ideas and believes he or she has to choose one. By engaging emergence by conscious pattern breaking, whole-brain and somatic creative techniques, and deep immersion into the question, a new and completely unexpected pattern can emerge that reveals a coherent structure that could not have been predicted before that exploratory deep dive. A new coherent business structure can emerge that contains what is most alive and relevant of the three previous ideas, along with surprising new qualities. I have seen this so many times with entrepreneurs who are creating a business that doesn’t fit neatly into a current business model, my own business included. One level of thinking’s either/or question becomes the next level of thinking’s both/and solution. It often requires hanging out in “not knowing” for part of the process.

Todd:  How is emergence related to creativity?  What does it look like when it happens?

Michelle:  I’m not sure how to do that question justice in a few sentences without it either being vague or too reductive, and there can be many different answers. After years of working with it, It’s still hard for me to define because I see it as a universal process linked in to how life itself works – and myself as a life-long student of that process. Creativity, for me, is both means to cultivate the emergence – using creativity practices to engage emergence – and the outcome of an emergence. That’s why “creative emergence” resonates with me – the terms are so intimately linked. Creativity generates emergence, and emergence produces creativity – the whole process is an ongoing creative, emergent feedback loop.

A creative, emergent process requires navigating the dynamic balance of listening and choosing; knowledge and discovery; stepping up to create, and letting go to receive – in other words, doing what is yours to do, and letting the self-organization of emergent creativity do its part. Like midwifing any new birth, there is a natural trajectory already happening…and…there are things you can do to help facilitate a healthy birth, and then clean it up and make it accessible to the world.

In groups, you can see this emergence in action in highly functioning improv theater groups, jazz ensembles, sports teams, etc…and in co-creative work teams that have trust at their core.  Often the emergence happens after the “efforting” is released. Something takes over that is greater than any individual’s agenda that has an intelligence of its own. The group “field” produces something unexpected that emerges from the interaction of its members – whether it’s comedy line, a piece of music, a new strategy or business, a world changing idea or the next iteration of solution. In a group, emergence has the after-effect of “Look what WE did!” Something new was created that no one could expect, and each person sees how they needed the others in order to become something beyond any single person’s vision or agenda.

Facilitating emergence in an organization is partly about creating the conditions that allow people to contribute more of themselves than just their job description…to bring their unique creativity out in service of the vision, the team and the organization. People buy into what they help create. To bring out the creativity requires leaving the “control” mindset, and trusting in the natural self-organization of the creative process, while also creating boundaries for that creativity to emerge. One paradox of emergence is that flow needs boundaries.

For both individuals and groups, one activity to practice engaging the unknown is to ask the question, hold it without rushing to answer, then get the right brain involved and start drawing it – with NO recognizable pictures or symbols. Just draw the “energy” as you feel it moment by moment – colors, lines and shapes. This can be uncomfortable at first for some people because all the inner voices of judgment and the fear of the unknown can show up – and it is unfamiliar. Allow yourself to not know what it is. Get in the practice of not knowing…and just keep drawing. With practice, it actually becomes liberating. Research has shown the right brain processes more quickly than the left. And it expresses differently, so working this way can be like learning a new language at first. If you rely only on images you already know, you’re still letting the left-brain dictate the process. After allowing the right brain’s expression, THEN go back and bring in the left brain to try to find meaning through inquiry into the abstract drawing. It’s amazing what patterns and practical, concrete insights emerge just from diverging into the abstract unfamiliar first before converging back into the familiar.

Resistance often show up in the creative process, and it’s temping to turn back to what’s familiar. The act of moving through the discomfort of the contraction of resistance gives more power to the expansion of the new emergence – like the chick’s beak, which gains its strength by having to peck through the resistance of the shell as part of its hatching. The status quo wants to maintain itself; the new birth wants to come forth…and both are essential parts of the dynamic tension within the creative impulse.

Todd:  What other tensions and paradoxes are in the process of emergence? How can an organization move from either/or to yes/and, allowing for these tensions?

Michelle:  Included would be the dynamic tensions/interaction between divergence and convergence, the yin and yang archetypes, planning and improvising, stillness and activity, reflection and action, logic and intuition, using both what is seen and unseen, directing and unfolding, incubating and birthing. There are many more. The creative emergence process itself is paradoxical – what seems opposed or disconnected at one level emerges into something new at another level.  It is learning how to not see these aspects in conflict and to welcome the dynamic tension as a gift of creative process. And, of course, it can still be challenging – and messy – like any new birth while it’s happening. It can feel exciting and energizing at times, and painful and doubt-ridden at others.

Creativity contains both “yes-and,” which is expansion and divergence, as well as “either/or,” which is contraction and convergence. The key is to expand the playing field by diverging (yes-anding) first, before starting to organize and focus on convergence (discerning). I believe organizations need to create space, time, a value system, and set of practices that more explicitly embrace divergence. We need to infuse that into the company culture at every level. The need for exploration without judgment is significant before going into strategizing – it informs new structures. Discernment is necessary in the creative process – we just need to give more time to divergent practices to generate more novelty first before going there.

Todd:   With the yin and yang, what have we been missing within culture and organizations?

Michelle:  Culturally, we have been out of balance. We have focused mainly on the creative yang archetype: outward-focused, production, efficiency, results; forging ahead, focused, driven, goal oriented. When in balance with the creative yin archetype these can be healthy parts of a larger co-creative whole. But we have left out the yin as “too soft” or even “woo woo” so we have experienced a predominant work culture of the yang out of balance. Without the yin for balance, we experience the shadow side of an out-of-balance work culture: cut throat, uncaring, stressful, back stabbing, lack of work/life balance, fear-based, driven to excess or striving to keep up, trying to impress, lack of feeling safe to explore or take creative risks, binary thinking (success/fail, right/wrong), disconnected, etc. I believe many of our challenges in the workplace stem from our over-emphasis on the creative yang and our de-emphasis, or sometimes complete rejection, of the creative yin instead of integrating them.

Creative organizations need both. The yin is relational and includes incubating, being with, integrating, supporting, and yes-anding. More than just left-brain linear thinking, the yin is about engaging embodiment and somatic wisdom, intuition, right brain, non-linear practices. It is experiential and whole-person. It more than just talk, and more than just action – it is a connection to what is most alive in ourselves; a connection to our stories, our inner voice, our senses, our bodies and our hearts. Actions and interactions that emerge from an integrated connection to the yin archetype look different than the actions we’ve seen come form its absence. The yin and yang archetypal energies need each other for generative, whole-systems, meaning-filled creativity.

This integration is something I have been deeply committed to in my work for a long time. Some years ago I created a program on “Creativity and the Yin/Yang Archetypes” about the integration of both for a more engaged, alive, creative workplace. I found – and still do – it’s easier to facilitate and apply it than to talk about it because it needs our whole brain, not just left brain, to engage it. We’re in a time where more whole-brain practices (improvisation, visual communication and thinking, ritual, storytelling, embodiment, movement, etc.) are being brought into the business world all the time. We are also seeing more focus on meaning, calling, passion, aliveness, empathy, finding your voice, deep listening and internal motivation. Our metaphorical landscape is expanding to include more yin-centered metaphors. By infusing more yin practices, language and foundational ways of interacting into the yang workplace, it becomes holistically generative. The creative yin and creative yang are deep, archetypal patterns which, working together, allow exponential levels of creativity to emerge.

Todd:  You’re producing a Creativity in Business Conference in October.  How does the mode of your conferences, retreats, and workshops reflect the purpose?  How does the form follow function?

Michelle:  I believe the most dynamic, alive, creative organizations and individuals are those most in dynamic balance with yin and yang creativity. The intention of my work is to have my all my workshops, events, and coaching session reflect that balance of rich content and whole-brain/whole-being experience; mind and heart integration. They all use multiple dimensions of creative process and they are based in life-giving principles of engagement. At our conference, we used improv principles as our basis of interaction for the day. At our creativity network, presenters commit to doing something new to be on their creative edges. I also constantly create new activities, offerings or programs to keep and me on my own creative and evolving edges. My passion, among other things, is to create structures and conditions to support the balance of learning, wisdom, real-time creativity and emergence that supports aliveness, generative connections and serving the greater good. Part of living that mission is to imagine it, try it, get feedback, and modify. They do not all play out as hoped – some better, some worse – but they all contain seeds of learning and growth.

Todd:  Thanks, Michelle!

Thrivable Leadership : Interview with Kevin A. Clark

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Kevin A. Clark is an award-winning brand strategist, experience designer, author, and transformational catalyst.  He is President and Founder of Content Evolution LLC formed in 2002 to provide leadership in brand behavior and experience strategy.  In early 2009 Kevin retired from IBM with 30 years of service.  He is Program Director emeritus, Brand and Values Experience, IBM Corporate Marketing and Communications – responsible for discovering and creating new ways for people to experience IBM.  As a business metaphysicist, Kevin also is a member of the North American Thrivable Network.

Todd Hoskins:  In your experience how are the impacts, methods, or requirements of leadership changing?

Kevin A. Clark:   Yes, there’s definitely a shift.  John Perry Barlow says the role of the manager is changing from telling people what to do, to helping them make sense of things (so they can act on their own).  Leaders need to move from directing to enabling.  Governance at the board level needs to move to enablement too, and environmental scanning.  This is part of the resilience and adaptive function leaders need to embrace.

Business schools are creating technically capable professionals, yet they are not delivering two things you get promoted for:  leadership and judgment.  Leadership gets some air time mostly by case study, yet more focused on outcomes than the journey.  Judgment hardly at all.  We need to find better ways to provide learning environments to hone good judgment – both inside the enterprise (the federation in my case) and the classroom.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter at Harvard Business School said two decades ago the new deal with employers and employees is:  We can’t guarantee your employment, but we can guarantee your employ-ability.  I like that deal.  It means you take full advantage of being the best you can be as a lifelong learner and professional, and it places the burden on the organization to find ways to hold on to you.

Todd:  There is a collapse of disciplines/silos that we see happening, which also seems to point towards the more thrivable whole.  Business leaders are no longer just reading business books.  You are influenced by Don Beck, Ken Wilber, Dave Snowden, Carl Jung, Dan Ariely, among others.  What is happening here?

Kevin:  Business leaders are beginning to act as authentic selves in all contexts as opposed to acting situationally.  Situational management techniques lead to multiple personality disorder; and organizational schizophrenia.  If you treat all the people in your life with respect and don’t become another person when you go to work, you start to understand how to play non-zero – or more ways to play in an increasingly win-win world.

I believe we’re also inheriting a new generation of people who are broadly networked and think in bursts (texting-minds), combined with short attention spans and a width of broad knowledge.  I see imprinting and collective consciousness moving toward bite-size interaction with implications for short-burst projects and direction.

I work with companies in other parts of the world that have 100 year plans and accompanying scenarios – we have a shorter time horizon in our Western left-brain linear processor world.  We need to embrace the non-time-dependent, holistic side of our thinking to be fully ready for economic forces emerging that have a much longer term and more comprehensive outlook.  There is also a perceptual and cognitive readiness emerging that makes it possible to both collaborate and compete simultaneously.  It is the “I” and the “we” held in dynamic tension – not canceling out each other, but amplifying the strengths of both.

Todd:  Is business planning changing?

Kevin:  Business planning is changing from simply doing “well,” to doing well and doing “good” for a number of stakeholders.  We encourage an understanding of the full spectrum of resource acquisition and resource allocation, making provision for alternative futures and preparing for them.  We look at monitoring emergence, and understanding both the permissions to operate freely and unconstrained along with the behaviors that will trigger regulation and customer defection.  These are all needed by the contemporary business planner.  Spreadsheets will no longer be the primary planning tool.

Visual models accompanied with explanatory narrative and a financial business case will be needed to deliver competitive resilience in the future.  The planning cycle will also have to move from annual or quarterly cycles to continuous modes with selected deep dives.  This will provide new insights and help eliminate the unjustified assumptions which can deplete the energy of companies through unnecessary activities and operations.

Todd:  Content Evolution is a global “non-holding” company.  I know you’ve called it a “federation.”  How do the companies relate to one another?

Kevin:  Content Evolution functions as a global ecosystem of member companies – we work together to organize intention around marketplace behavior.  Much of this is done by exposing members to each others’ capabilities, participating in joint business development activities, and global teleconferences.

We have a business development commons that brings together the sales and development executives from the member companies and provides a safe environment for them to collaborate and quietly do horse-trading.  We also have an annual conference for our 40 companies worldwide – last year at Interbrand headquarters in Manhattan – and this coming year in the spring at Jack Morton Worldwide in Boston.

Todd:  How does this model represent a shift from the old “if you can’t beat them, join them” model of compete or acquire?

Kevin:  We collaborate.  I’m reinvesting the 30 years I spent in the corporate world and taking my professional relationships and federating them into something integral that hasn’t existed before.  It’s also better being a global mentor than being a traditional manager – just like it’s better to be a grandparent than being a parent!

Content Evolution as a member federation has no debt, since no one acquired anyone.  We have more capabilities than the largest of the marketing holding companies, spanning customer and market research, product and service ergonomics, business and thrivability strategy, brand strategy and management, and customer and constituency experience design and strategy.

Todd:  What have you learned in pioneering this federation?  What mistakes have you made?

Kevin:  I have made no mistakes (says the ego).  “Ha!” says the rest of my consciousness.  I like to move in several different directions at once.  Some of my experiments failed, such as working on a collaborative book (too much effort for too little collective reward).  We refocused our group energy around driving revenue rather than driving early visibility.  The recognition we’re here is growing – commensurate to our practical contributions to solving client problems and adding breakthrough value.

Our strategic selling method: listening, just like I’ve needed to direct less and listen more to the members.  Today we’re working together better than ever and thriving as a group.

Todd:  Anything else, Kevin, that can help us thrive in the New Year?

Kevin: Be intentional!

Todd:  Thanks, Kevin.

People-Powered Innovation: Interview with Robin Chase

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Robin Chase is founder and CEO of GoLoco, an online ridesharing community.  She also founded and leads Meadow Networks, a consulting firm that advises city, state, and federal government agencies about wireless applications in the transportation sector, and impacts on innovation and economic development.  Robin is also founder and former CEO of Zipcar, the largest carsharing company in the world.  In 2009, she was included in the Time 100 Most Influential People.  Robin lectures widely, has been frequently featured in the major media, and has received many awards in the areas of innovation, design, and environment.

Todd Hoskins:  Robin, you’ve been looking at the possibilities of using excess capacity for quite a number of years now.  What is compelling about excess capacity?

Robin Chase:  Excess capacity lets us tap quickly and cheaply into resources that already exist.  We don’t have to pay for the asset, place it, maintain it.  I think about excess capacity very broadly: assets, physical space, temporal space, experiences, expertise, and networks.

Some obvious examples of making use of excess capacity are Wikipedia (excess mental capacity and expertise), eBay (excess junk), Flickr (other people could use your photos), LinkedIn (ditto for networks), CouchSurfing (beds).

Less common examples are Cyclovia in Bogota, Columbia, where excess road space on Sunday mornings led them to shut down 121 km of roads to car traffic and open it up for pedestrians and bikes.  From 7am to 2pm 1.3 million residents go out and play, dance, exercise, and meetup.  It has been an enormous success.  All for very little money and implemented very quickly.

Todd:  Are we cooperatively enabled to apply this excess capacity?

Robin:  Ah, technology!  I love it.  We may or may not be cooperatively programmed, but that is beside the point.  All of the examples I listed don’t require cooperation in the way we usually think of it.

With Zipcar, for example, 450,000 people are using 7,000 cars.  But it is painless.  No one is waiting for someone else or waiting their turn. Through the miracle of technology the sharing is easy and frictionless.  Of course, there are lots of examples that do require some cooperation.  My point just is that this is not required.

Todd:  You are serving on the National Advisory Committee on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and advising on policy issues.  How can our governments possibly become more adaptive and less rigid?

Robin:  Innovation is a country’s lifeblood.  Imagine if our lives stayed exactly the same.  The 1980s forever! (or choose your decade).  On the other hand, people hate change because they can’t quite see the future so it is unnerving.

Big companies and governments (who occasionally respond to their constituents who like the status quo) are not that easy to change.

By enabling innovation — 1) creating a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship; 2) reducing barriers and costs to experimentation; and 3) reducing the costs of the innovation inputs — government can make it possible for people to do the changing themselves.

This committee is specifically looking at ways to improve K-12 and university education to change the culture and provide more opportunities to innovate, making sure that government-funded research that has the potential for commercialization is easier to get at.  We are looking at reducing the effort and time to participate in the US government small business programs and procurement programs, and changing capital incentives for investing in startups.  Lastly, we are looking at ways of celebrating innovation and entrepreneurship.

I am particularly interested in getting more value out of government technology policy and procurements so that we maximize its potential for repurposing by innovators and businesses.  The government is about to make huge investments in smart transportation, smart health, smart grids, smart education.  We can unlock the excess capacity found in government purchases by making them more open.  Open as the default.  Closed proprietary single-purpose purchases need to be argued for.  Open data, open devices, open spectrum, open radio, open networks should be the norm.

Todd:  If we cannot rely on government or big business to facilitate change quickly enough, who can we turn to?

Robin:  People! I think of it as people-powered innovation: collaboration production, collaborative consumption, collaborative infrastructure, collaborative financing.  The excess capacity of individuals (their expertise, networks, assets, time) beautifully leveraged and joined together on the internet will be the most powerful force for change in the next 20 years.

Together, we get incredible speed and scale, at a fraction of the cost, and using resources of all kinds efficiently.  Beginning examples of this — we are in our infancy of this idea right now — include Airbnb and Etsy.  Smart phone apps are an example too. Based on the excess capacity made available in these devices over the last 2.5 years, we have seen 500,000 applications built — primarily by individuals.  Yes, Apple has made out like a bandit, but Android is surging ahead with its reduced tolls.  And hopefully, some of those innovating engineers are making a living and starting some interesting new companies.

Todd:  You’re currently living in Europe.  What are you seeing and experiencing that you would like to bring home to the US?

Robin:  It is totally intriguing to experience firsthand the differences that result from very different government spending priorities. Both systems are imperfect.  France has really terrific transportation, road, rail, and airport infrastructure compared to the US. My ability to move around this city without a car and having so much choice (walk, bike, metro, bus, high speed train, etc) is a great pleasure.

On the other hand, the amount of duplicate forms to be filled out and mailed places — back and forth — is pretty amazing. The value of some of the bureaucracy around opening a bank account, getting an apartment, signing up for a transit pass eludes me. This frustrates me to no end since I’ve experienced the same transactions so easily and quickly in the US.

Todd:  Robin, thanks for making the world a more thrivable place!

Expansion and Movement: Interview with Leilani Henry

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Leilani Henry is an Educational Kinesiologist and pioneer in bringing innovative whole brain strategies to personal, professional and organizational transformation.  In addition to running her own business, and being an artisan, Leilani is a member of the North American Thrivable Network.

Todd Hoskins:  You’ve said thrivability involves embracing the dangerous parts of ourselves and our world.  What does that mean?

Leilani Henry:  It is difficult to acknowledge that we are afraid.  So many things are the opposite of what they seem to be.  For example, letting go of control to allow things to emerge gives you a different type of control.  Admitting we are not perfectly strong makes us stronger.  To be vulnerable could feel dangerous, but opens up new possibilities.

There is a dot of yin in the yang, and yang in the yin.  There is a bit of safety in the danger, and danger in the safety.  We need to reframe danger.

Todd:  In an organizational setting, what are the dangers we need to embrace?

Leilani:  Risk is often the danger because we are oriented towards security.  How much risk are we willing to take?  Are we willing to shake up our relationships with stockholders or customers for long term benefit?  What will we do for the greater good?

Risk is evaluated on the continuum between opportunity and danger. The flow stops if you don’t take any risks.  If it is an opportunity, there may be danger involved.  We learn through mistakes and failure, so a thriving organization does not play it totally safe.  Think fragile balance!

We contract because of fear, both as individuals and organizations.  How do we train our talent, engage in our market, make investments, and expand when everyone else is contracting?

This is an essential part of thriving – to expand within contraction.

Brain cells are not given the chance to work in contraction.  We can either be creative as a choice point, or be fearful and submit to fight or flight, locking up our brain cells.

Brain cells are a metaphor for the organization.  Employees have ideas and want to change things, but if fear and contraction are ruling the organization, the brain cells will not be activated.  A thriving organization must be able to open and trust its people, just like a person must be able to open to the contraction and trust his or her brain cells .

Todd:  What are we learning about the brain?

Leilani:  The brain has plasticity.  It used to be believed there were a finite number of brain cells.  This is not true.  We continue to learn, change, and grow.

Habits create ruts in your brain.  In order to change a habit, you have to create a new neural pathway.  That requires the body, and new research suggests movement helps forge these paths.

We need to be moving more often, even if it is only stretching or doing neck rolls in your chair.  This is not just for the good of your body, but also facilitates brain activity.

The brain likes sensory stimulation.  Kaleidoscopes are loved not just because they are pretty, but because they enliven the mind.  Smells, colors, tastes – all rejuvenate brain cells.

Todd:  You talk about “embodying change.”  How does change move through the body?

Leilani:  We often freeze in situations of fear.  We stop breathing.  We contract physically.  We have a choice to move into expansion with curiosity.  To breathe consciously and move consciously is to encounter the possibilities of change in new ways.  We can move toward the object of our fear and explore it.  Or we can back away with a neutral stance.

By allowing the body to move and be aware of our inner state, new possibilities can emerge.  We release stress in our muscles.  We see our situation from a new perspective.  We learn from our body, and our bodies help us learn.

I use movement in workshops.  People often respond with varied combinations of joy and resistance.  It can be a polarizing experience.  I’ve learned to integrate it more effectively. Organizations need to think about how they can breathe and move as well.  It’s not just the people who contract.  An entire organization can contract as well.

Todd:  Anything else?

Leilani:  For change to be moving freely we need to move consciously more often.

Todd:  Thanks, Leilani.

You’ve said Thrivability involves embracing the dangerous parts of ourselves and our world. What does that mean?

It is difficult to acknowledge that we are afraid. So many things are the opposite of what they seem to be. For example, letting go of control and allowing things to emerge gives you a different type of control. Admitting we are not perfectly strong makes us more strong. Getting to vulnerability is dangerous, but opens up new possibilities.

There is a dot of yin in the yang, and yang in the yin. There is a bit of safety in the danger, and danger in the safety. We need to reframe danger.

In an organizational setting, what are the dangers we need to embrace?

Risk is often the danger because we are oriented towards security. How much risk are we willing to take? Are we willing to jeopardize our relationships with stockholders or customers? What will we do for the greater good?

Risk is evaluated on the continuum between opportunity and danger. If it’s an opportunity, it’s probably not that much of a risk. The flow stops if you don’t take any risks. We learn through mistakes and failure, so a thriving organization does not play it safe.

We contract because of fear, both as individuals and organizations. How do we train our talent, make investments, and expand when everyone else is contracting?

This is an essential part of thriving – to expand within contraction.

Brain cells are not given the chance to work in contraction, the body does most of it. We can either be creative as a choice point, or be fearful and submit to the danger, locking up our brain cells.

Brain cells are a metaphor for the organization. Employees have ideas and want to change things, but if fear and contraction are ruling the organization, the brain cells will not be activated. A thriving organization must be able to open and trust its people, just like a person must be able to open to the contraction and trust his or her brain cells.

What are we learning about the brain?

The brain has plasticity. It used to be believed there were a finite number of brain cells. This is not true. We continue to learn, change, and grow.

Habits create ruts in your brain. In order to change a habit, you have to create a new neural pathway. That requires the body, and new research suggests movement helps forge these paths.

We need to be moving more often, even if it is only stretching or doing neck rolls in your chair. This is not just for the good of your body, but also facilitates brain activity.

The brain likes sensory stimulation. Kaleidoscopes are loved not just because they are pretty, but because they enliven the mind. Smells, colors, tastes – all rejuvenate brain cells.

You talk about “embodying change.” How does change move through the body?

We often freeze in situations of fear. We stop breathing. We contract physically. We have a choice to move into expansion with curiosity. To breathe consciously and move consciously is to encounter the possibilities of change in new ways. We can move toward the object of our fear and explore it. Or we can back away with a neutral stance.

By allowing the body to move and being aware of our inner state, new possibilities can emerge. We can release stress in our muscles. We can see our situation from a new perspective. We can learn from our body, and our bodies can help us learn.

I use movement in workshops. People often respond with varied combinations of joy and resistance. It’s a very polarized experience. Organizations need to think about how they can breathe and move as well. It’s not just the people who contract. An entire organization can contract as well.

Anything else?

For change to be moving freely we need to be moving.

Network Thinking: Interview with Valdis Krebs

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Valdis Krebs is the Founder, and Chief Scientist, at orgnet.com. Valdis is a management consultant, researcher, trainer, author, and the developer of InFlow software for social and organizational network analysis.  Valdis is also part of the North American Thrivable Network.

Todd Hoskins:  What is social network analysis?

Valdis Krebs:  Social network analysis [SNA] is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and other connected information/knowledge entities.  The nodes in the network are the people and groups while the links show relationships or flows between the nodes.  SNA provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis of human relationships and forms a basis for improving the relationships and connections in the social group.

Todd:  How does understanding the network relationships contribute to thrivability?

Valdis:  Some network patterns support a thrivable outcome and others constrain it.  A network map shows you an “as is” picture of where you are at.  You know your goal is thrivability and the network map says “OK, you are here now.”  The community leaders, coaches, or weavers then have to figure out how to get “from here to thrivability.”

Creating or building the network for thrivability is not following a blueprint and building a house.  It is more like getting in shape for a marathon, or for rock climbing – you get the system ready for maximal performance in the space you are in.  You get ready, but there are no guarantees of success.  You can be in great shape and still run a bad race today.  But, you probably beat all of those who are in bad shape and ran a bad race today!

Todd:  What structures or prescriptive approaches have you seen that promote a thriving network?

Valdis: The structures that maximize emergence, learning, agility and adaptability.  Those structures that prepare you for the unknown — after all we can NOT predict the future, but we can partially influence it and be ready for it.

One big item is each person’s network awareness — do you know what is happening around you?  Who is involved and how they feel about and contribute to what is going on around you and them?   Do you know who needs help?  Who has the answers?  Who needs to be connected or introduced?  We can only keep so many relationships in our heads and in our software — how do you best utilize that limited number for yourself and others?

Network awareness depends not just on your connections, but also your connection’s connections.  How do you create a close, comfortable network and still have it wide and reaching, so that you can be aware of non-local events and knowledge?

Todd:  You have written that we need to build creative combinations of similarity and difference in order to foster interdependence?   How does a network not become homogeneous?

Valdis:  Yes, birds of a feather flock together!  And if we do not pay attention, and just let things go naturally, we will build highly homophilous networks.  It is easy to build a network of similarity.  It is more difficult, but much more useful (for ourselves and others),  to build a network that utilizes both similarity and difference and thrives on the interplay.

We don’t want too much of either – similarities or differences –  we want a nice combination.  Enough similarities that we feel comfortable and can communicate with each other, but also enough differences that we can innovate and turn each other on to something new and different.

Todd:  So, it requires intention?

Valdis:  Yes, intention and attention!  Know what you want to do and be aware of what has been done around you.  We are always self-organizing, and so are others around us.  With a group of similar intention we will build a thriving network to support that intention.

Todd:  Speaking of building groups of similar intention, are leadership structures changing?  What is emerging?

Valdis:  Yes, leadership is often emergent in networks, and also different depending on need.  Most people don’t think of networks as having leaders — they think everyone is equal in networks.  That is not true.  Some people always have better connections than others in some situations.  Person A may lead in situation 1, but person B takes over in situations 2 and 3, and then in situation  4,  a third leader emerges.   It is usually not one leader all the way through as it is in most hierarchies.

A thrivable community recognizes expert and situational leadership and allows and encourages it to happen.  Even co-leaders are fine.  Whatever implements the intention.

Todd:  If recognizing the power of networks is a valuable lens through which to look at our communities, groups, and organizations, how can we all become better network thinkers?

Valdis:  First step is to recognize that you are embedded in multiple networks:  work, family, friends, hobby, sports, religion, neighborhood, etc.

Second step is to “Connect on your similarities and benefit from your differences.”  Think of the introductions you can make to benefit those around you, including yourself.

Third, is practice simple network weaving.  You do this around triangles — social triangles.  A knows B and C knows B.  B realizes that A and C could benefit from  knowing each other and makes the introduction.  This is called “closing the triangle” — all three people, A, B, and C now know each other.  Look for opportunities to close triangles around yourself.  Don’t introduce everyone to everyone else — just make those introductions that have a plausible positive outcome for the community.  At the same time you are closing existing triangles, open up new ones by making connections outside of your immediate circle of friends and colleagues.  This will open the network to diversity and possibility as new people with new ideas and knowledge now interact within your community.  Anyone can close and open triangles — they do not need anyone’s permission.  This is grass-roots, bottom-up network building.

Todd:  Thanks, Valdis.  I look forward to seeing you at the next workshop!

Savoring Optimism: Interview with Lonny Grafman

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Lonny Grafman is an Instructor of Environmental Resources Engineering and Appropriate Technology at Humboldt State University; the co-founder and instructor in a summer abroad, full immersion, Spanish language and appropriate technology program in Parras, Mexico; and the executive editor of the International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering. In addition, he is the President of The Appropedia Foundation, sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

Academically, Lonny seeks ways to increase knowledge of the world through exposure and synthesis, highlighting that science, culture and language are inextricably linked. He seeks to demonstrate this connection through service-learning based education, working to improve existing conditions by leveraging local knowledge, materials, wealth and labor through transparency and stakeholder participation. Professionally, Lonny supports and develops tools to thrive, catalyzing and strengthening networks of positive change, to help us be better ancestors.  Lonny is also an advisor to Thrivable.

Todd:  Lonny, you are a teacher, facilitator, designer, consultant, non-profit president, international program director, and editor.  What ties all these roles together?

Lonny:  I love to see projects that make the world a better place manifest.  The way a project manifests from inception, brainstorming, researching, creating, testing, iterating, promoting, etc. always fill me with wonder and excitement.  There is no one way that it unfolds, but my favorite ways to be part of are those that are collaborative.

My different roles allow me to take part in multiple aspects of how a project unfolds . . . and they all feed back into each other to make me more effective at each.  In the end, I think that for most people “roles” are exiguous boxes that don’t justly describe their capabilities.

Todd:  As someone who is not just a sustainability advocate, but involved in the design and implementation of projects, what do you see as the difference between thrivability and sustainability?

Lonny:  As an individual I do not see a difference.  But I think that sustainability has a common connotation, especially in poor communities, that we are sustaining the status quo.  Or at the maximum trying to be zero impact – minimizing our footprint.  I see thrivability as engendering a sense that we are trying to go past minimizing our impact, instead aiming for a positive impact. Sustainability is about conserving resources and thrivability is about savoring them.

Todd:  How does “savoring” fit into thrivability?

Lonny:  Conserving is about limiting the use of our resources because it is the right thing to do.  Savoring is about really enjoying the use of our resources, because it is, well, enjoyable.  Access to dependable energy, clean water, healthy food, fun and connected transportation, etc… is incredible.  We should all be so lucky to have it.  And by lucky, I mean work hard to secure it.

Todd:  What reasons do you have to be optimistic about our future?  Why should we be positive?

Lonny:  Every day I am surrounded by people making their world better for themselves and their descendants… striving to be better neighbors and ancestors while enjoying an improved quality of life.  So it is easy for me to be optimistic because of the nature of my work.  Be what you want –  positive, negative or otherwise – but be part of a set of solutions.

Todd:  Appropedia is a project you for which you have a high level of passion.  What positive impact are you seeing from its growth?

Lonny:  So many. . . My favorite is that I am seeing people make new errors instead of the same old errors on projects.  I have visited rainwater catchment systems and asked where they learned to put on a first flush, and the response was Appropedia.  I have seen a new level of projects from students each year as they learn from the projects of the students that came before them.  Appropedia has helped provide much needed knowledge to projects all around the world. We are approaching 19 million pageviews and 150,000 edits.  Now there is a source of optimism.

Todd:  How can people on any corner of the globe be oriented more towards solutions, not just talking about best practices?

Lonny:  They already are.  A lot of the solutions are happening on small scales, by people to busy working to start documenting.  I think that we need to partner the people that have the energy to discuss, document and just be on the computer, with those people that have the energy to draw, plan and get their hands dirty.  Not that people can’t be both, but the more collaboration of those abilities the better.

Todd:  So, we need witnesses?  Storytellers?  Ambassadors?

Lonny:  Absolutely.  If you have a lot of energy, and not much experience, talking about your ideas is great… but helping other’s document their projects can have much more lasting, tested and useful impact.

To that end, Appropedia has started a travel internship program. In the program, bright ambassadors head out to document effective community projects. Recently we have had two interns in Latin America.  They have documented dozens of projects and techniques that have never been on the internet before.  The projects (natural wastewater treatment) and techniques (e.g. testing methods for improved cookstoves) are now available for others to learn from and adapt.

Todd:  Thanks, Lonny.

Economic Crisis & Transparency: Interview with Scott Reynolds Nelson

by

Each Wednesday, we post an interview with someone who is living, exploring, or championing aspects of thrivability – people at the forefront of cultural, organizational, or individual change.

Scott Nelson is Legum Professor of History at the College of William and Mary.  He is an award-winning writer, lecturer, and student of economic and social history.   In 2008, National Geographic published Nelson’s Young Adult book about historical research (co-authored with Marc Aronson), entitled Ain’t Nothin’ But a Man.  It received a full-page review in the New York Times, won 7 national prizes, and was named a best book of 2008 by Publishers Weekly among others.  His current book, Crash: An Uncommon History of America’s Financial Disasters, will be published by Knopf in 2011 or 2012.

Todd: You have recently completed a book called Crash, looking through history at economic crises.  What can we learn from the past?

Scott: Well, crashes are more than financial downturns.  They demonstrate a general sense of uncertainty about institutions, what I call semiotic doubt.  Is this dollar worth what I think it is?  Is this debt going to be paid?  It’s a deep problem with objects that represent wealth as well as fears or concerns about the institutions that create them: banks, mutual funds, or states.

Todd: In what way is the current crisis different than the rest?

Scott: Well, it’s very different from 1929 but more like 1837 or 1819.  In those crises banks were at the center of the controversy – there was a general sense that banks were not pillars of the nation but (in the words of one Senator from 1819) caterpillars.  That is, institutions that ate up everything in front of them.  Bank-centered panics tend to be much more about liquidity, and tend to draw much more concern about the future of banking as an institution.  Now there is lots more rage at banks, too.  There was a little of that in 1929, but not as severe as in this crisis.

Todd: You have written that transparency is often an outgrowth of a crisis.  How has this happened in the past?

Scott: In the 1857 panic, Elizur Wright pushed most for transparency, and he’s really responsible for much of the transparency we see in business now.  He was a socialist, abolitionist and an actuary (no lie) and he was one of the first to apply mathematical analysis to business firms.  He coined the term “return on investment” in the US.  He was angry about how opaque big insurance companies were and pushed Massachusetts to regulate them – effectively to list all their investments and make their books public.  The companies resisted it, but he won his battle in the depths of the 1857 panic.  In later panics his accounting requirements became generally demanded of all publicly-traded firms.

Todd: Transparency seems to be a buzzword, but it is often not clarified, “What are we being transparent about?  And to whom?”  What is called for now?

Scott: Openness of books, transparency, clarity aren’t just things that are nice to have – they can make or break any institution that relies on trust to function.  That includes banks but also NGO’s, funds, etc.  Much of the internal workings of banks for example had been invisible to most folks.  The so-called “stress test” that the federal government used on the banks in 2009 exposed some of the problems with bank operations.  It turned out that many banks had much higher reserve ratios than they claimed.  Likewise many of the big banks were forced to take off-the-books vehicles back into their firms for accounting purposes.  In banks, anyways, that transparency can remove that semiotic doubt.

Todd: Are oversight and legislation sufficient to address the system’s failures?

Scott: No, the institutions really have to change from within.  Legislation can push an institution to make certain numbers visible, but we all know that books can be cooked.  In Countrywide, for example, there were regulators, risk managers, and accountants who were supposed to prevent the firm from taking and reselling the “liar loans”.  But the structure of that firm was such that the folks who were supposed to regulate were the last to find out about an operation.  They had to sign off or be sidelined.  Likewise the biggest banks like Bear Stearns and others found ways to pressure the “regulators” like the bond-rating agencies.  That’s generally why open books are better than what firms call transparency and transparency is better than legislation-mandated rating organizations.

Todd: What do you see as the new context in which institutions or organizations can thrive?

Scott: Well, part of this might be restructuring from the ground up: making internal review of procedures an integral part of the operation of a firm.  Any institution can be stress-tested.  The time to do that is now, when times are tough.  One thing about the 1929 troubles . . . There was a stock market crash in 1929, but the depression arguably came in 1931 when banks carrying lots of foreign debt proved unable to survive once German borrowing institutions failed to pay their debts.  Many of our banks are still sitting on toxic assets that they haven’t marked-to-market yet.  This may be a prologue.  Stress-testing is essential.

Todd: What role can the people and organizations who are not associated with the financial system play in the revamping of the system?

Scott: For years many of the big corporate institutions that I know about modeled themselves on banks.  The CFO really ran the place – he or she made all the important decisions.  Now we see the problem with that environment.  Other organizations need to make themselves into models of the next banking institution we will have.  What will that new organization look like?  It’ll likely be more open, more flexible, and thus more fundamentally trustable than the institutions we have now.  If they aren’t, then we’ve gotten nowhere.

Todd: Thanks, Scott.