Creating Conversations that Matter
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Category — Emergence

Appreciative Governance

Introducing Appreciative Governance – Part One

Neil Samuels*

Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of joining an international consortium of practitioners to research and write about a topic of the future – Appreciative Governance. With thought leaders in alternative governance models we have been exploring the creation of new and more life-giving governance models – models that sit at the intersection of shared contribution and the alignment of strengths. The goals include creating organizations where all thrive and sustainable value is delivered as ‘the new normal.’

 

Why a New Governance Model?

In our conversations, experience, and research, the idea that major change is afoot was evident; there seems little doubt that we are in the process of a significant global paradigm shift. Our current structures and systems have clearly shown their limits. And new possibilities are emerging – even as the old are collapsing around us. Our growing understanding of complexity and intentional living systems is changing the basic premises for what it means to organize, to be human, to work and live on our planet. This new paradigm reinforces that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and that rather than objective in nature, knowledge and action are subjective, contextual and interwoven. Attention to relationships, processes, networks, growth and development (evolution) is important: these are the essential elements of vitality and sustainable value.

During a year long inquiry into how we might reframe governance, the research carried out by the Appreciative Governance (AG) team showed that AG is distinct from traditional forms of governance in three essential ways:

  • First, there is an intentional commitment to distribute decision-making throughout the organization.
  • Second, AG capitalizes on individual and collective strengths to achieve organizational vision and mission.
  • Finally, AG is grounded in human systems theory and social constructionism, which translates into active support of self-organizing systems within organizational boundaries.

AG offers a set of principles that help to intentionally design the practices, structures and processes within which governance at all levels takes place. An AG design is more than changing the boxes on the ‘org chart’, more than ‘eliminating waste’, and more than simply publishing a new list of organizational values – although all of these may be outcomes.
Imagine a design process that is strengths-based where everyone in an organization, together, generates a life-giving governance process – one that finds people looking forward to the work week.

What’s next?

Future blogs on the topic of Appreciative Governance will cover Principles and Processes for collaborative redesign of an organization’s governance system. In the meantime, if you would like to jump more deeply into this topic, the November issue of the Appreciative Inquiry Practitioner, dedicated to this topic, is available at << http://www.aipractitioner.com/index.php/issues>>

Join the Conversation

Creating organizations where individuals thrive and sustainable value is delivered as “ the new normal” is our goal. Appreciative Governance, its creation and practice, is in its infancy. You are invited to be part of a worldwide conversation. Join the LinkedIn Dialogue on AG led by Sallie Lee, Cheri Torres and Bernard Mohr.

The link is <http://linkd.in/oDZFbJ>. You need to join LinkedIn to take part in the discussion.

 

* These ideas are based on work developed in collaboration with the team who produced the November 2011 AIP issue on this topic. That team is composed of Patti Millar, Joan Hoxsey, Bob Laliberte, Joep de Jong, and Dan Saint along with Sallie Lee, Cheri Torres and Bernard Mohr who were the co-editors of that issue.

 

November 4, 2011   No Comments

Green Cape or Red?

 

Solving “Wicked” Problems

Red Cape or Green?

 

      Imagine you have been charged with making the biggest possible difference for the world and the seven billion of us on it. Quite the challenge. But you are in luck, for I am a magic genie and can grant you one wish. I can give you a RED cape which will let you stop “bad” things. Or I can give you a GREEN cape which will let you grow good” things. Which cape will you choose?

 

green-cape-red-cape

      Want to stop Famine? How about Disease? Simply put on your red cape and wish them away. But what do you get if you stop famine? People who are no longer starving. (Don’t get me wrong; that would be a good thing. But is it enough?) What happens if you stop disease? Does the absence of sickness imply health? I think not. Simply ending the problem is insufficient.

      If you wanted to end famine, what would you grow instead using your green cape? How about something like “well-nourished” people.  If you wanted to end disease, what about growing “healthy” people? Notice how focusing on what you want more of, versus what you want less of can actually have a much bigger impact in actually dealing with the problem. Also note that in no way does Green Cape thinking ignore the very real problems facing the world.

      So if it’s true for changing the world, does it also hold true in business? What do you get if you stop customer dissatisfaction? Customers may no longer be leaving (again, a good thing) but are they telling their friends and families wonderful stories about your business. What if, instead, you grew loyal and passionate customers? Might that have a greater impact on your bottom line?

      Having a problem with staff turnover? Need to stop your best people from walking out the door?  What if you could grow an engaged and motivated workforce? Might your talent stick around?  The positive image of the future you want carries incredible power, much more than the negative image of the past you wish to avoid.

Positive Image              Positive Action

      What impact can a positive image have? At the individual level think of the power of our images of ourselves evident in the Placebo Effect. Most of the medical profession now accepts as genuine the fact that anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of all patients will show marked physiological and emotional improvement in symptoms simply by believing that they are being given an effective treatment, even when that treatment is just a sugar pill or some other inert substance.

(The Placebo: Is it Much Ado About Nothing? Arthur K. Shapiro and Elaine Shapiro; The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration; By Anne Harrington 1997, Harvard University Press, Boston, Mass.)

 

      At the group level, the Pygmalion effect is equally persuasive.  In 1968, Robert Rosenthal, a Harvard University professor, and Leonore Jacobson, a principal of an elementary school in San Francisco, published ‘Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development’. The main argument of the book is that the expectations that teachers have about their students’ behavior can unwittingly influence such behavior. This influence, or self-fulfilling prophecy, could have a positive or negative impact. In other words, when teachers expect students to do well, they tend to do well; when teachers expect students to fail, they tend to fail.   

Rosenthal and Jacobson borrowed the term ‘Pygmalion effect’ from a play by George Bernard Shaw (‘Pygmalion’) in which a professor’s high expectations radically transformed the educational performance of a lower-class girl. ‘Pygmalion in the Classroom’ describes an experiment carried out in an elementary school (which the authors call Oak School) to test the hypothesis that in any given classroom there is a correlation between teachers’ expectations and students’ achievement. In the experiment, Rosenthal and Jacobson gave an intelligence test to all of the students at an elementary school at the beginning of the school year. Then, they randomly selected 20 percent of the students – without any relation to their test results – and reported to the teachers that these 20% of students were showing “unusual potential for intellectual growth” and could be expected to “bloom” in their academic performance by the end of the year. Eight months later, at the end of the academic year, they came back and re-tested all the students. Those labeled as “intelligent” children showed significantly greater increase in the new tests than the other children who were not singled out for the teachers’ attention.”

History of Education Daniel Schugurensky, URL:  http://www.wier.ca/~%20daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/1968rosenjacob.html

 

It was proven that the image that the teacher held of the student was a more powerful predictor of a child’s performance than IQ scores, home environment, or past performance. Image creates action!

 

Green Cape thinking carries a much more positive, and therefore powerful and energizing image of the future galvanizing action rather then resistance.

 

So, which do you choose– Red or Green?

Note: I was first introduced to the Red Cape/Green Cape idea by Dr. James Paweski, PhD, from the Positive Psychology Center at University of  Pennsylvania.

March 27, 2009   3 Comments

How does change really happen?

What have been your real lived experiences with major change inside an organization? What was the initial catalyst? How did it migrate throughout the company? What might the model for that messy, complex change process look like? 

For me, the most appropriate metaphor is the hologram because it best captures the true complexity involved. Over the next few weeks, I plan on going into detail for each aspect of my model for change. For now, I invite you to simply reflect on the words and image and see what emerges for you as you think about your own lived experiences of change.

I once heard Meg Wheatley say that if you trace any major change back to its origin, it started with: “A friend and I were talking.” The example she shared was Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) which began when two women were chatting and discovered they both had lost children to drunk drivers. Their conversation deepened into wanting to make sure other mothers did not experience the same tragedy. They built their relationship, broadened their inquiry to many others, tried different approaches and built on those that seemed to work and learning along the way. Their initial connection and conversation in 1980 sparked a movement that has grown into one of the nation’s most respected non-profit organizations.

What about change inside an organization? Does it happen the same way? I believe it does. In fact, I think it is the only way that successful change occurs. And by successful, I mean long-lasting and beneficial to all stakeholders–change that lasts beyond the existing leadership! But how to convey that kind of messy, complex, emergent process in a two-dimensional graphic. Through conversations with my colleagues Patricia Shaw and Nic LeDourec, I came up with the model below. (Note: Models make me very nervous because they are both our best friend and worst enemy. Friend because they simplify the messiness and complexity of real life and help us make sense. Worst enemy because they simplify the messiness and complexity of real life and can easily give us a very distorted sense of reality! What a paradox!)

I call it a “holographic” model because even though it looks on the surface like 6 discrete steps, in actuality, every step is embedded in every other. Consider a hologram: When a laser is bounced off the plate a 3-D image appears. If that plate should break, a laser bounced off any piece will still reveal the WHOLE image (though dimmer). I chose the image of the fern to convey the fractal nature of the model. That is, that the pattern repeats at every level of detail.

Reactions?

May 15, 2008   No Comments