Organizational Heartbeat

by

I am working on a book about agency, and the power and requirements for transformational change. This comes out of about a decade of writing about philanthropy – both for effective donors and the sector as a whole.  Today, Eugene Kim posted to Facebook a link to a groupaya post, How Can We Make Nonprofit Consulting Transformational? And this reminded me of Geoffrey West’s TED talk on The surprising math of cities and corporations.

My sense is that the larger the organization, the slower the heartbeat of the organization – AND the less it is capable of transformational change. This is all about efficiencies of scale. And you know from previous posts that I have an allergic reaction to scale as a lauded idea in and of itself. It always, to me, requires clarification. Mostly because people act as if scale operates as a power law – when I think it is a sigmoidal function. Probably because of that West TED talk, of course, since I am not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination.

Sigmoid Curve via Wikipedia

West makes clear is that companies grow on a sigmoidal curve – an S curve. You grow on an s curve too. And then you stop growing. These economies of scale are not infinite. At a certain point the energy required to transmit information throughout the organization and engage all the people in it exceeds the effectiveness gained by adding more people to it. [See also what West says about cities not being sigmoidal.]

Let’s be a little more clear about this scaling thing. The Long Now has a lovely essay on West’s work, which I pulled this quote from:

Working with macroecologist James Brown and others, West explored the fact that living systems such as individual organisms show a shocking consistency of scalability. (The theory they elucidated has long been known in biology as Kleiber’s Law.) Animals, for example, range in size over ten orders of magnitude from a shrew to a blue whale. If you plot their metabolic rate against their mass on a log-log graph, you get an absolutely straight line. From mouse to human to elephant, each increase in size requires a proportional increase in energy to maintain it.

But the proportion is not linear. Quadrupling in size does not require a quadrupling in energy use. Only a tripling in energy use is needed. It’s sublinear; the ratio is 3/4 instead of 4/4. Humans enjoy an economy of scale over mice, as elephants do over us.

With each increase in animal size there is a slowing of the pace of life. A shrew’s heart beats 1,000 times a minute, a human’s 70 times, and an elephant heart beats only 28 times a minute. The lifespans are proportional; shrew life is intense but brief, elephant life long and contemplative. Each animal, independent of size, gets about a billion heartbeats per life.

Picture a mouse trying to do a startup pivot. Now try to imagine your favorite large scale organizational gorilla trying to pivot. The larger the company, the more difficult it is to turn the entire company on a single point and do something related but quite different.

Startups often go through multiple transformations of what they do, how they do it, and who they do it for. Their organizational heartbeat is fast and their scale is small. (And some of them get successfully gobbled up by the larger organizational bodies, but we can talk about that another day.)

You can have nonprofits, whose social mission talks about transformational change, hiring consultants to help them do that as much as you want, but they won’t be very good at it. The kind of organizational heartbeat needed for transformational change – that leading edge early adopter game changing innovation in the social sector – well, it isn’t going to happen in the large organization. (We could talk about how big donors impede that, how organizational mission moves from “change” to “keeping the org alive” or how larger orgs attract stable-present-focused people who aren’t keen on transformational disruption, etc… but understanding the why doesn’t change that it happens. And we ought to just be honest about it and stop speaking transformational change in organizations that don’t do it.)

Do you think organizational scale relates to ability to be transformational? Or not? If not, why not?

ps. the antidote or innovation that can disrupt this exists – organizational slime molds… crowdfunding transformational change experiments, etc. I don’t have clear answers on how that all works, but I am deeply curious about how it is connecting.

5 Changes I Want to See in Philanthopy

by

1. Big Lever Funding

I am currently participating in the Illinois Task Force for Social Innovation. And working on ci2iglobal, and transitioning Inspired Legacies. Having worked in or around nonprofits and philanthropy for a decade, I have seen the field changing. I remember the first budding of Mission Related Investing, when there were basically 3 foundations championing it. Then I discovered people were doing Program Related Investing, and we started to see a broader spectrum of how money was being used in the philanthropic sector. We were collectively working to optimize how much money was creating purpose-filled value.

Last year I toyed around with some friends on mapping the financial spectrum. We are doing it again with the task force. It is exciting to see the hybridity between for-profit and for-purpose work and the financial innovation to support it.

However, concurrently there has been an increasing demand for nonprofits and social purpose organizations in general to quantify what they do. When I look at what I consider charity (aka bandaids on existing issues), these metrics really help tell the story about what an organization is doing to deliver that bandaid.

And… my struggle all along, even before I joined the social change effort, was to find the big levers that shifted how things are. What would it take to remove the need for these bandaids? I keep looking for the big levers.

But big levers don’t get funded until they pay off. Usually.

I never bothered to even look for foundation funding or grants for my work on shifting culture to be more thrivable. Who gives grants for core culture change? I think it ought to be funded. It may actually catalyze more transformation in the system, by aligning people and projects along a story. But how do you measure that? How would you even track the spread of the idea, all the people making hundreds of choices differently because they started to see the world differently? At the end of the journey, you can find your way back. But where is the end of the journey? Can you find where it ends and hear back? Do people even come back to you 2-5 years later and tell you a story of how “thrivability” led them to do something different. (Usually only when they know you.) If five years from now, scientists working on environmental science shift their view to look at the world from a thrivable perspective and it unlocks something that allows a cascade of action to follow that make the world more livable, can I claim that as my impact? Could I possible ask for money for the hope that this happens?

 

2. Be more like an investor and less like middle management

In startup land, this isn’t unreasonable. A startup can develop a product or an idea, pitch it to investors, get some funding…and if their idea works, the funder gets payback. If it doesn’t…well, losses all around. Investors know that most of what they fund will fail. It is an art of finding enough that succeeds with big enough returns to keep going. Where is this attitude in philanthropy? Both transformational change and startups live in complex adaptive systems… they can’t be predicted and causality is challenging if not impossible. And yet, there is a vital part of the startup world funded by people willing to put big dollars into unpredictable possibilities for the small opportunity of making a big return.

Philanthropy, in adopting more practices from the business world, took on a middle management mindset in far too many cases. Instead of optimizing for what might make the biggest change in the area to address, the optimization has tended toward who can show impact in the funding cycle. It tends toward projects that have strong “predictability” in them. I know how many people will be fed, clothed, housed, cared for if the project is funded.

Let’s be careful here. There are some foundations and philanthropists that are willing to be risky with their giving. They give to a collection of efforts knowing that some won’t turn out as hoped. They may even fund across the spectrum from highly predictable charity efforts to systemic change efforts. But the general vibe of the field is one of mitigating risk of money being used ineffectively by having the metrics to back it up.

 

3. I want to see a Venture Capital Philanthropy company. 

adVenturePhilanthropy or something. They share the risk of some of the projects not achieving desired results…but have smart portfolios of giving capital. Think of it like a high end giving circle where you pay sophisticated philanthropic advisors to fund a portfolio of efforts on causes that you and others care about. The advisor or firm then shares with all the donors the report on value created through giving.

 

4. And, like a business, ROI can be based on value created instead of “impact” made.

Impact. Benchmark. Difference from before. What is the impact? I want to see what is the value. Can we switch from impact assessment to tracking the value created? By doing so we open up more options for tracking the transformational work we want to do in really evolutionary giving. (We are working on this in the book Christelle Van Ham and I are writing called, for now, Action Spectrum).

 

5. Power Adjustments

Additionally, as someone who has managed to avoid having any big donors to yank me around, we have got to get better as a collective about the co-creation of strategy. Grantees are so beholden by the power of the money a donor offers that they can’t say, “what you want me to do doesn’t work.” Instead they all too often feel like they must say whatever pleases the money master. This isn’t really their fault. Nor is it the fault of the givers of money. Both sides need to work on creating agency for everyone involved, which takes a lot of conscious practice and communication clarity.

Collectively, we need to truly and deeply believe that everyone at the table working on transformation has some value to contribute. That value may come in different forms: it may be time or ideas, or network or skill, and of course money or influence. When we cater to the one with the money we make small or even invalidate the other forms of capital at the table – the experience capital or intellectual capital etc. And that will undermine our shared goals. It gives us less assets to work with instead of more! We all have power. It can come in many forms. It doesn’t make us equal… it just allows us each to have something to offer. And thus everyone at the table of social transformation is valuable.

Adventures in New Giving

by

I am super excited to see Adventures in New Giving http://www.adventuresinnewgiving.com/. And perhaps a bit jealous. If I could focus the time and energy, I think Nathaniel is doing what I would do. (see his video here: http://vimeo.com/37718193 ) For years, I have lived a double life working in traditional progressive philanthropy to pay rent while working on bootstrappy social enterprise as a passion. In my consulting work within traditional philanthropy, we talked about the democratization of philanthropy. However, I did not see much of it in practice.
That seems to have come from somewhere else. Tech start-ups culture maybe? Socent pragmatism? Microfinancing brought home? Whatever the path, it has been interesting to watch the birth of efforts like kickstarter and startsomegood.

It seems aligned, naturally, somehow with the collaborative consumption “Mesh” culture.  All of which seem part of a larger movement toward network production. So I am super excited to see Nathaniel capture the stories of this practical democratization of philanthropy.

I am also curious to see how this will hybridize with traditional philanthropy. I have visions of foundations and philanthropists using crowdfunding as part of their due diligence. Something of an early market testing and reliability assessment before or as part of larger funding efforts. Picture a foundation giving a matching grant – matched via startsomegood. This could be really a good time saver for family foundations with intentions to give and little time for sorting through applications.

I can’t wait to see what Nathaniel does with Adventures in New Giving.

I can’t wait to see how we all play together in evolving new giving.

To help fund our awareness of ourselves in this evolution, pitch in at

http://startsomegood.com/Venture/adventures_in_new_giving/Campaigns/Show/adventures_in_new_giving

Financial Thrivability

by

I have had google alerts on “thrivability” for three years now, and I was very excited when a recent alert sent me to a press release: The Patterson Foundation Invests in Partner’s Thrivability. When the Patterson Foundation uses the term thrivability, they mean financial thrivability. Our collaborator Kevin Clark has also been working with nonprofits on thrivability plans (rather than business plans because nonprofits are not businesses nor should they pretend to be). He has a template for those plans, if you are interested. I wondered if the Patterson Foundation thought of financial thrivability in the same ways as Kevin Clark.

I was so excited by what I read on the press release that I contacted the foundation to open a dialogue. I have been working as a writer and editor in philanthropy since 2003, and I co-founded Inspired Legacies, a donor education organization catalyzing millions of dollars in philanthropy. And I have been, in that space, particularly interested in innovative forms of philanthropy, so for me, this was doubly exciting. I spoke with their interim COO, Michael Corley.

So often in the philanthropic world, grantees receive gifts on an annual basis or on a short term cycle (such as three years). Executive Directors in small organizations and Development staff in larger ones can devour large amounts of time and energy in a revolving cycle of chasing the next round of funding. I have personally watched an ED devote 50% of their energy to this funds-chasing cycle {note that this is also true in startups seeking funding} This significantly detracts from the organization’s ability to act on the mission they have. Patterson Foundation wants to change that dynamic with their grantees. Debra Jacobs, their president and CEO, explains this perspective on the Patterson Foundation blog in an article entitled: Investing in endowed philanthropy to thrive for impact.

Think of it like incubation. The Patterson Foundation perceives the potential in an organization or collaboration for them to achieve financial thrivability. Over the course of two or three years, the Patterson Foundation works beside the grantee much like an incubator – making connections, providing appropriate consultants, building necessary software and skills as well as financial support, so that the end of the grant period the organization is launched and standing on its own financial viability/thrivability.

What does financial thrivability look like? I am not completely sure yet. We are making this up as we go along. There are likely many ways that can be achieved. In the case of the press release from the Patterson Foundation, this is about creating an endowment that enables the organization to exist into perpetuity. I imagine it can also be the case if we view the philanthropy as seed capital for a social enterprise that is then enabled to grow itself. In the Patterson Foundation blog post it is clear they are also looking for more methods for supporting financial thrivability. Perhaps you have some ideas or suggestions that you can share with us? I have spoken with several donors who believe similar to the Patterson Foundation that the circling back year after year for more funding of programs isn’t as potent in the transformation of our world and organizations as the nudge that philanthropy can give to enable an organization to move toward more self-perpetuating financial methods.

I am eager to see more organizations working in parallel with the Patterson Foundation to incubate socially transformative organizations – both by assisting with financial thrivability and by acting as partners to help organizations learn, evolve, share and take effective action. There is significant waste in the philanthropic process. And I excited to see lead organizations leap in to address those inefficiencies.

Nurturing Change: Metrics Matter

by

Summary:

We live in a complex emergent world. When you put energy into nurturing a larger space – one beyond your control and possibly even your influence, be wary of assuming causal connections. Look for probabilities and correlations.

When looking for metrics: use multiple perspectives to help develop measures that go beyond your assumed (and blinders on filters). Think through time. And Be sure to track data that allows you to have quick feedback on blue oceans and black swans.

Article:

In an uncertain world – one where emergence from complex adaptive interacting systems is the way most things operate (to a greater or lesser degree) there are things you can control… a broader range of things you can influence/guide, and an ever larger sphere that you can nurture or care for.

Using network theory, we suppose that the impact you can have through the things you can control is small… it operates in the world of Gaussian curves – what Taleb calls Mediocrastan of sorts. And the things we can nurture can possibly (or are more likely to) result in power law dynamics – what Taleb calls Extrimistan. Thus, the impact you can have through nurture has the potential to be much larger.

However your risk and your “authorship” influence this as well. In the world you nurture, it is much harder to attribute outcomes to your actions… there are probabilities and correlations rather than causal connections. I can trace the causal chain on donating $100 to feed the homeless. Did they get fed? How many? Is that where my dollars went? I can’t say that my advocacy of a ban on texting while driving saved lives. I can say there is a correlation of texting while driving and car accidents. And then I infer that reducing texting while driving may reduce car accidents.

And the risk of planting seeds in the nurture space is larger (you have less control and thus less assurance of having a particular outcome). I convince my neighborhood to have an annual potluck and I lead the committee to make it happen. Does this make my neighborhood safer? Reduce crime? Increase sense of meaning and connection?

Transformative philanthropy operates in this nurture space – having potentially larger impacts over time, but it is harder for any change agent working in planting transformative seeds to give direct impact measurable results to funders.

Similarly, if you work in social media (or advertising for that matter) this dynamic of probabilistic correlation but not causal connection makes it rather tricky to say your campaign led to x, y, and z results (through your specific efforts alone). What is that saying? Something like “We believe 50% of our advertising is effective. We just aren’t sure which half.” or something like that.

We can come up with metrics to see if we are achieving the goals we set for ourselves – from products sold to child mortality. However, it is an illusion to think that we can attribute success in these ways to activities we conduct in the nurture space. We campaigned on twitter. Did that increase sales? How can we be sure? In the short term or long term? Did more children survive? Was it because we built a well, gave soap, covered them with nets, increased access to health clinics? Are we sure it was our intervention that made the difference? Or is it the convergence of interventions that tipped impact?

Creating metrics that show your goals are being achieved is level one. Being sure those metrics help link our activity to the outcome is level 2. Being able to look over longer and longer spans of time is level 3 (our action might have delayed or long term impacts which don’t show up in the short term funding calendars). And level 4 is being able to look outside of our own perspective to create metrics that allow us to notice a blue ocean move or a black swan.

My friend Manar, in our conversation on this, gave the example of Nescafe. They were very rigorous in their metrics on grocery store sales of coffee. What they couldn’t see or expect was Starbucks, with an existing brand, moving their coffee into grocery stores and having intense escalating success. Nescafe was blindsided. If you ran a bookstore, how would you have been using metrics that would have helped you anticipate Amazon.com impacting your business?

*** This post is part of the series for the Breakthroughs book. Please see Contribute to Book for more. ***

Why the optimism?

by

In the face of all the catastrophe thinking and story-telling, why the optimism of thrivability?

This optimism is not blind idealism or the search for some dreamy utopia. A thrivable world will exist (and has existed) in a strange balance and tension where there is more health and generativity than illness and destruction. That does not mean there is not destruction. Old orders must fall, become the compost of new life, and cycle through. Ideas get refined and transcended. A thrivable world is not static. It is not the end of suffering or the birth of a hedonistic paradise. Instead, think of a garden or better yet a meadow.

So, let’s be pragmatic. What is the basis for being optimistic about thriving given stories of catastrophe and crisis. I will merely mention these – you can find more easily by digging deeper on any of it. This is the big picture overview. Also, it is not comprehensive. I offer here only a half dozen examples of why optimism is warranted.

  • communication – never before has communication been so possible – over distances, between languages, across cultures, etc. Information can flow. There is talk of a global brain (although at times that brain may seem primitive and dumbly focused on sex, superficiality, or bad news). It still remains – never before have we had such access to each other. (nods to Deanna Zandt)
  • cognitive surplus – never before have so many had so much liesure time. Not saying we are effective with it, but the possibility of people contributing their time, wisdom, and resources has never been greater. (nods to Clay Shirky)

Yeah, you heard those before….but it is working? What about people who are dying!

  • hearts break as we read of children dying, but what is the trajectory? UNICEF says:
  1. “Research and experience show that six million of the almost 11 million children who die each year could be saved by low-tech, evidence-based, cost-effective measures such as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticide-treated bed nets and improved family care and breastfeeding practices.”
  2. “While global immunization rates have risen from less than 20 per cent in the 1970s to about 74 per cent in 2002, millions of children must still be reached.”
  3. “In its sixty years of existence, UNICEF has seen a fifty per cent reduction in under-five mortality between 1960 and 2002.”
  • Peace on the rise. I know it seems like the opposite. But let’s look at some charts to see what the numbers tell.
    via systemicpeace.org

    via systemicpeace.org

    We can see from figure 8 that the conflicts that do exist produce more refugees and exist in poorer states and thus require more humanitarian relief. However, note, “The end of the Cold War, marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, had an equally dramatic effect on the general level of armed conflict in the global system.” A couple key points:

  1. “Separate research indicates that the increasing level of societal war results from the protractedness of societal wars during this period and not from a substantial increase in the numbers of new wars.”
  2. “At the peak in 1992, nearly thirty percent of the countries in the world were experiencing some form of major political violence. This percentage of the world’s independent states (with total population greater than 500,000 in 2008) has dropped by nearly one-half since the peak, registering at slightly more than 15% with major episodes of political violence in 2008.”
  3. “There has been substantial improvement in general resilience in the global system since 1995.”
  4. “Global gains are observed for seven of the eight fragility indicators; only “economic legitimacy” shows no improvement, indicating that there has been no substantive shift away from primary commodities production toward manufactured goods in the world’s more fragile states.”

There are a few counter-trends to be wary of (see end of page)

Okay, so kids are more likely to live (but we can keep improving that) and there is a downward trend in warfare/armed conflict. We can communicate better and have more time to make the world better (or be entertained or both). But what about the environment?

Let’s try wikipedia this time:

In 1999, the United States EPA replaced the Pollution Standards Index (PSI) with the Air Quality Index (AQI) to incorporate new PM2.5 and Ozone standards.

The effects of these laws have been very positive. In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:[48]

  • carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons
  • nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons
  • sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons
  • particulate emissions fell by 80%
  • lead emissions fell by more than 98%

Please don’t take this to mean that we are done. We are not. AND, when was the last time you heard that we had made progress?

So we have been making some progress, and actually there are some positive trends. Now let’s add in a few juicy additions:

  • Purposeful or meaningful life pursuits are on the rise, in fact there is a convergence. Millenials – in general – prefer purposeful work and play, GenX is interested too, and the Boomers who made money so they could have a meaningful life later – well, that later is arriving. What happens when you have multiple-generations with a growing interest in living on purpose, with intention, and therefore being conscious about doing more good in the world?
  • Social entrepreneurship (probably in part as a result of the previous) is on the rise – a very hot trend with many subsets and variations in making money by or for doing good. Let’s call corporate social responsibility one of those variations.
  • A paradigm shift in leadership and collaboration is underway. Beginning a few decades ago with the birth of servant leadership, and reinforced by books like “Outliers” (which shows the supporting factors that go into supposedly independent genius)… now we have open source, crowdsourcing, and so much more. How we think about working together is changing. And that change makes more successful collaboration possible.
  • Green technology. Some of us find it so incredibly sexy. And sometimes it really is. Sometimes it is wishful thinking or innovation many years from implementation. However, I can count 4 wind farms on my 120 mile journey to see my family. I sense some potential black swan like shifts if some clean green energy or technology comes to market… whether that algae that eats pollution or cars run on the biofuel made by your food waste… I have hope that something out of the bright green movement is going to come to fruition in a way that changes the world dramatically.
  • I’ll close my brief list with metrics… we have been improving our metrics (and our intelligence in how those metrics can be used to tell different stories). The better our metrics – and the better we are at realizing what to measure, the tighter and more useful our feedback loops become. From using social network analysis to map out which congresspeople are being lobbied by what organizations (and who is paying them)… to stats on child mortality, the environment, and energy consumption and creation – we know more about our world than ever before. And that empowers us to do more about it.

These are just a few of the things that make me optimistic in the face of catastrophe stories. What are yours?

On twitter–

@jhagel: More cause for optimism – we are having fewer children and living much longer – great visualization of global trends http://bit.ly/c93ven

Fiscal Futures

by

This evening I attended (with a brand new twitter friend) the MacArthur Foundation and Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s America’s Fiscal Future: Making Difficult Choices event.

Oh, I have lots of thoughts to share, but sharing them usually only gets half done… so I am shifting modes and sharing with you just a light dose of the questions and notes that I jotted down in my notebook as I listened to the panel. Think of it as live blogging. Does it provoke anything interesting for you? I would love to hear if anything sparks for you.

This talk seems to be focused on the deficit…with a lot of concern about how in debt the government is. (Oh geez, what about all those families who are in debt? hmmm….)  Debt is actually quite difficult for families but at the governmental level, it is a floating issue (the being in debt isn’t so bad, it is the lack of confidence others have in the dollar that is troubling)…

Yikes, we have a debt-based currency, so please don’t tell me debt is bad. All our money is based on that!

I wonder what these panelist would say if we talked about the depression of 1873 and how that crisis in confidence was resolved through regulation (which lasted fairly well until computers made complex math easier and thus derivatives possible).

How much of this is fear-mongering. Really? They aren’t speaking to some current crisis (which we actually have on hand) but threaten some future crisis with terrible things like “triple digit” …was that inflation or interest rates or something?

I wonder, in a system of debt-based currency, as the economy grows, how does that work, really? Is that dependent on the growth of debt? Who holds that debt? Doesn’t something have to give?

I hear a lot of “uncertainty” but not yet a recognition of black swans and a system living in extremistan… How do these complex adaptive systems respond? How can you possibly predict them? I am so often frustrated by long term thinking that assumes some consistent or steady trajectory.

While there is acknowledgement of the Baby Boomer issue (how can we pay for all these people about to enter retirement age?) – do we understand that this is an issue in many other countries as well?

Fiscal responsibility is getting framed as if government manages a pocketbook like a family does. URgh… it is NOT like that at all. And framing it that way feels like a pretty nasty way to DUPE people.

Huh, fundemental tax reform. Suggesting two tiers 10% and 25% ... hmmm… by the way, in case you didn’t know your tax history, I looked it up again for you:

“By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.” then… “By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent.” oooh, and if you think that was high, check out “By the end of the war the nature of the income tax had been fundamentally altered. Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent. These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945.” And numbers of people paying count too, so “Beyond the rates and revenues, however, another aspect about the income tax that changed was the increase in the number of income taxpayers from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945.” http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

And where oh where did this gigantic deficit come from…

“By 2001, the total tax take had produced a projected unified budget surplus of $281 billion, with a cumulative 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion.” http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Oh never, mind, those deficit deniers are crazy…

One option is to phase in a carbon tax. Hmmm, interesting… Another is focusing tax increase on consumption rather than income (and especially tie this to healthcare)

Healthcare costs keep going up! Oh my! Let’s really call this ILL-care, because the costs of keeping me heathy are not so bad, it is the cost of being ill and treating illness with hospital and medicines that is expensive.

Should there be an income cap on Social Security? Hmm, I don’t know. I guess I have grown up expecting that social security won’t be around when I get to retirement age. So I just shrug at this. There might be an age hike for full payout… great, add a few more years and decrease the number of people that can live to retirement. And let’s not even begin to discuss what that does to employment issues… (especially in an information age where many of these people don’t intuitively navigate computers)

How will State and Local governments be impacted by our deficit issues? Well, expect more unfunded mandates. (ouch) and if they raise taxes at the federal level it will be harder for States to raise their taxes. If we create federal consumption taxes, those hurt States too.

Sure our treasury is allowed to borrow at low rates- we are the best looking horse in a glue factory. No, really he said that.

If you look, he says (it doesn’t matter which him- the antiquated white guy at the front of the room pontificating) – if you look at the history of deficits in many countries over hundreds of years, you can see that it often looks like borrowing is fine… then everything collapses fast. There is so much uncertainty. (Which is about as close as they got to admitting these are complex dynamic systems that a panel of old school “experts” would not be able to predict or sufficiently analyze (in time).

Haven’t we been living on mortgage debt for a long time? Is that what grew money in our economy? The issuance of debt to families?

He admitted the system is broken! Yeah!!! Now we get somewhere!

Huh, it won’t compromise national security to cut some of the defense budget, but… ummm, it does impact jobs (which can be tracked to a specific district making those cuts politically very unpopular no matter how obsolete or irrelevant the defense product is).

A great question – one that was mentioned on my European tour this summer – Is immigration something that can help solve the deficit and social security? Antiquated white guy says – well in the short term maybe, but in the long term they pull out from the system too… and anyway we just want bright enterpreneurial innovators as immigrants – that helps the economy. Okay, maybe that wasn’t in one sentence… but the parts were all there! <insert invective of choice>

Another question is about the recent G20 meeting and their commitment to lower deficits by 50% by the year 2013. Aggressive! Answer: well, some of those countries are emerging economies growing very quickly, which makes it easy to reduce debt.

Huh, you didn’t mention that before – that emerging economies grow quickly and that makes it easy to reduce debt. Why don’t we do THAT?

Another wonderful question from the floor… uh, sir, so we have all these subsidies for corn… and corn products are what leads to obesity and diabetes… which are major healthcare costs… so um, would it be prudent to reduce subsidies? (answer: well subsidies blah blah blah…. umm, yes)

Someone else asks about unemployement issues, to which they say – we didn’t look at that. What? You didn’t look at how unemployment impacts the economy, taxes, and the deficit? What experts are these?

Enough, I am out of here…

WonderWomanGang

by

Yesterday I was missing my friend @rachelannyes – so I looked at her twitter feed to see what she has been up to and get a sense of how she is doing. I found a lovely post:

@rachelannyes: What the world needs now is a Wonder Woman gang.

Absolutely.

So I hereby nominate for the Wonder Woman Gang the following amazing women. Please feel free to nominate those who inspire you and seem to have super powers in transforming our world.

@rachelannyes @randomdeanna@CDEgger @juneHolley @HildyGottlieb @amoration@amyrsward @VenessaMiemis @kanter @caseorganic@p2173 @kitode @ruby @silona@samsweetwater @wseltzer @rmchase @nilofer@deborah909 @sgleason @kristinwolff @staceymonk @joguldi @christinasworld@identitywoman @mariadeathstar @lizstrauss@ruthannharnisch @ladyniasan @beandlive @sheriherndon @nancywhite@alizasherman @CreatvEmergence @slboval

Then I asked for other nominations.

@kg posted: @NurtureGirl I nominate @sloane@beautifulthangs @ericaogrady@ShaunaCausey @willotoons@emgollie @khartline @Rapetzel#WonderWomanGang 🙂

plus: @kg posted: @NurtureGirl Are so many! @coachsizzle @nspilger @avivamo@realize_ink @snesbitt @susangordo@suzboop @penguinasana too 🙂#wonderwomangang

Who do you nominate? And when you think of wonderwomangang, what comes to mind? What super powers do you think these women have?

Catastrophe Thinking

by

I am pretty sure my entire life has been lived under the hovering cloud of the apocalypse. Sure there were moments of possibility – the fall of the wall, the election of Obama, the end of apartheid in South Africa. But mostly the global events we hear about focus on the end of civilization as we know it, albeit in small chunks at a time. It is still framed as disaster…. we are losing what we had and aren’t moving into a better world (except in small isolated ways). From AIDS to Bird Flu, from Rwanda genocide to Sudan and Burma, nuclear proliferation, the Gulf Coast disaster 2.0 (and Katrina as 1.0), Haiti (and so many other earthquakes, mud slides, volcanoes, and other weather/geological disasters for humans) – plus economic crisis and climate change, the extinction of so many species, and the war on terror (which just grows fear and terror) all converge – even for those of us who don’t watch the news. There is overpopulation, sex slaves, and child mortality issues as well as deforestation, crumbling infrastructure, and coach potatoes living in suburban nightmares. There are activists working cancer into their bodies with their martyr-like dedication. There are those in sedated near oblivion – zombie-living. There are hedonic wealth-seekers facing doom with greed and opulence. This is the story of crumbling and disintegration. Our globalized post-modern world tumbling through catastrophes.

We tell this story, and we have been telling this story, for my whole life. And the fear-mongering started long before I was born – the the cold war threatening nuclear annihilation for half a century.

I am tired of this story. I am tired of seeing faces worn down with the contraction of fear. I am weary of the negativity and desperation driving people to hate, divide, hoard, and fight. I am sick of finding out my government is justifying killing people in order to obtain more resources (because, I guess, we are in such a state of lack!).

We victimize ourselves, and in that suffering, we victimize others with our trauma.

Enough. Put it down. Don’t believe the hype. Don’t fight for a world you already gave up on.

Look for the flower emerging in the sidewalk – life pressing through without complaint or blame to assert its urge for sunlight. Nature is incredibly resilient and adaptive. Work within the world we have to co-create the world we want. Focus on what is going well and right, and encourage more of it. Breathe and be the serenity prayer.

Do not deny the brutal facts before us, but know that you see those facts through a filter of the story you are telling yourself (and others) about the world. You can transform that story and see those facts in a fresh light – from a different vantage point. Turn on the thrivability light, and recognize that life gives rise to more life. Never before in human history have we known a greater wealth of possibility.

After three days in Philadelphia discussing philanthropy and philanthropic strategies for transformation, I feel deeply convinced and inspired by a model I can see of thrivable philanthropy. Gerard calls it evolutionary philanthropy, and there might be some subtle distinctions. However, let me explain. And then I hope it will be more clear why our stories about our world could shift to transform our experience of it and the world itself.

Let’s call charity the work that we do to address immediate needs of others who can not, for whatever reason, care for themselves. It is as if you are standing on a riverbank, see a baby floating downstream, and you rush out to save the drowning child. Only, there are not enough people pulling drowning babies from the river, and the babies have suffered from being in the river. Our hearts break open. Some savvy volunteer wonders aloud – “who is tossing babies in this river?” And a crew of helpers decide to go upstream to find the cause. And they discover a system out of balance allowing babies to land in the river. They decide to change the system and set up programs to help mothers and advocate for social justice. We call this social change and social justice work. Still, babies are floating down the river. The philanthropist supporting this work starts to wonder – huh, what impact is my giving having? I want babies to stop ending up in the river – this is madness! And the social justice worker says – well, we think we have decreased the number of babies in the river, but this is a complex adaptive system so I can’t name all the causes and effects! I can’t clearly attribute your dollars having saved babies without acknowledging other programs and the dynamic changes in the system in which our town operates, babies are born, the economy shifts, and nature takes her course. We might have even changed our baby counting practices in a way that changed how many babies we can account for, which skewed the numbers giving an artificial bump. But we are not sure.

Then a thinker stands up and says – it is the very culture and beliefs in which we operate that give rise to these systems that aren’t taking care of all these babies. And the philanthropist has to choose now – either fund better metrics to know whether there is an impact… or fund cultural shift. And there are still babies in the river, and everyone’s hearts break open knowing it and seeing it. And they are sad.

Transforming culture takes longer, it is harder to measure, the complex dynamic system of it all makes it next to impossible to attribute agency clearly. And, it is where the greatest possibility for creating a culture that ever more deeply transforms itself, cares for each other and the whole, and enables the world we want.

Change your story.

Asymptotic Understanding

by
What I learned from mystical language: In Search of Truth in a World of Language
It struck me in philosophy class. Ancient Philosophy. The year was 1993. Bang, how do you solve Zeno’s paradox? Hmmm, what is wrong with most philosophical questions? It came again in the course on knowing. A priori, A posteriori. Humbug.
We construct these arguments and logic with a language we created. It is meant to point to the world, but it is not a direct correlation with the world. Language is not bound to the same logic as the universe. If it was, we would not have A Wrinkle in Time or even the whole genre of Magical Realism. And yet, we play with this language, pointing toward a world we can’t really gain direct access to (it is always mediated through our senses and filtered through our culture… always and already. Inescapable).
And we can get some sort of post-modern laughter from it, sometimes slightly uncomfortable and disturbed laughter, and other times hilarious gaiety. Sure. However, unlike the laws of math or physics which strongly intend to accurately portray the world, language is not created to do so. It is not bounded, tied, strapped on to the world as it is. Instead language is the arrow we throw at what we sense and feel, the metaphors we use to describe experience, the expression of our creativity, and the communication medium of some of our emotions.
What can I know? Hmmm, answering that question means I have to answer the question “what do these words even mean?” I may describe something or make an assertion, but I can’t mistake that map for the territory. I am simply pointing toward and can never point directly at… My location isn’t fixed, the thing described isn’t fixed, and the relationship between the two isn’t fixed.
In graduate school, my first course was Language and Negativity. We studied a bit about mystical language. In particular the book Mystical Languages of Unsaying by Michael Sells. To know God by saying what he is not is to talk apophatically. To assert and then remove the assertion. God is all knowing, but he is not all knowing, he is more than that. We point toward the thing and then acknowledge it is not that thing at all, it is beyond that. It is something we can’t even point at directly. And really, this is how language works in relation to the world. We can point toward the world, but we can never surely say the world IS that or DOES that or PERFORMS that way. It seems as if…. From all that we know, it seems like the case that…. Transcend your paradigms of explanation.
Where does this leave us? Living in paradox? Living with approximation? Truth as the most useful thing we can understand and communicate. Does this mean we should rest, dejected and surely wrong about our approximations? No, just as Bonjour argued that while we might be brains in a vat, it is highly improbable that we are; it is highly probable that we are pointing ever closer to the thing we really mean to approach. Asymptotically. We strive for ever more accurate approximations. Always understanding that the truth is likely between or beyond our language.

or What I learned from mystical language: In Search of Truth in a World of Language

It struck me in philosophy class. Ancient Philosophy. The year was 1993. Bang, how do you solve Zeno’s dichotomy paradox? Hmmm, what is wrong with most philosophical questions? It came again in the course on knowing. A priori, A posteriori. Humbug.

We construct these arguments and logic with a language we created. It is meant to point to the world, but it is not a direct correlation with the world. Language is not bound to the same logic as the universe. If it was, we would not have A Wrinkle in Time or even the whole genre of Magical Realism. And yet, we play with this language, pointing toward a world we can’t really gain direct access to (it is always mediated through our senses and filtered through our culture… always and already. Inescapable).

And we can get some sort of post-modern laughter from it: sometimes slightly uncomfortable and disturbed laughter and other times hilarious gaiety. Sure. However, unlike the laws of physics which strongly intend to accurately portray the world, language is not created to do so. It is not bounded, tied, strapped on to the world as it is. Instead language is the arrow we throw at what we sense and feel, the metaphors we use to describe experience, the expression of our creativity, and the communication medium of some of our emotions.

What can I know? Hmmm, answering that question means I have to answer the question “what do these words even mean?” I may describe something or make an assertion, but I can’t mistake that map for the territory. I am simply pointing toward and can never point directly at… My location isn’t fixed, the thing described isn’t fixed, and the relationship between the two isn’t fixed.

In graduate school, my first course was Language and Negativity. We studied a bit about mystical language. In particular the book Mystical Languages of Unsaying by Michael Sells. To know God by saying what he is not is to talk apophatically. To assert and then remove the assertion: God is all knowing, but he is not all knowing, he is more than that. We point toward the thing and then acknowledge it is not that thing–it is beyond that. It is something we can’t even point at directly. And really, this is how language works in relation to the world. We can point toward the world, but we can never surely say the world IS that or DOES that or PERFORMS that way. It seems as if…. From all that we know, it seems like the case that…. Transcend your paradigms of explanation. They are already and always formed through a fallible language of approximation.

Where does this leave us? Living in paradox? Living with approximation? Truth as the most useful thing we can understand and communicate. Does this mean we should rest, dejected and surely wrong about our approximations? No, just as Lawrence BonJour argued that while we might be brains in a vat, it is highly improbable that we are; it is highly probable that we are pointing ever closer to the thing we really mean to approach. Asymptotically. We strive for ever more accurate approximations. Always understanding that the truth is likely between or beyond our language.