HOW CAN SEVEN MINUTES CHANGE THE WORLD?

Why don't networks innovate?

Mon, 13 May 2013 19:42:45 -0400

The ability to recognize opportunities, recombine expertise and prototype solutions is often the most difficult for people closest to a problem – the same people who are frequently at the network’s core. They play a huge role in perpetuating the problem and maintaining the status quo. They are often trapped in a system that no longer works. As a result, they are no longer able to see the possibilities that are always present to transform the system.

The obvious challenge, then, is to make sure that not only is the network core actively engaged, but to ensure that there are also actively engaged clusters and a periphery. These terms are simply defined in The Monitor Institute’s article, Catalyzing Networks for Social Change:

1) Clusters — groups of people who are closely connected
2) Network core — a highly interrelated group
3) Periphery — loosely affiliated people who are not as well connected to the core

In a successful innovation network, the healthy core is made up of overlapping clusters of people with varying perspectives. To create an innovation network is to create a healthy core and a robust periphery, because you can’t have an innovation network if you don’t have both in deep relationship with each other working together to create transformation.

By forming a network with this kind of “planetary” structure, we can overcome obstacles and enable people to recognize possibilities, recombine expertise and prototype new ideas based on the recognition of new opportunities.

Can an innovation network change the education ecosystem and transform education?

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:29:18 -0400

I recently read “Driving Results through Social Networks: How Top Organizations Leverage Networks for Performance and Growth” by Rob Cross. Cross’s work helps explain and clarify ALF’s current efforts to create an education innovation network in Silicon Valley.

The bottom line is that there are network attributes that create a different set of relationships when compared to a hierarchical effort, or even a collaborative approach, and that difference is largely due to the primacy of relationships in an innovation network…”human relationships are critical to both short-term improvement and long-term game-changing innovation in core organizational processes”…(Cross pg. 41).

In everything we do at ALF we attempt to build deep relationships, because it is only through trust that people take the risks that real transformation requires. It is when people trust each other that an innovation network can be formed, as opposed to more limited types of networks in which many people know each other on a superficial level, or in collaborations where consensus on immediate actions often drives the process, or in hierarchical groups where strong decision making usually carries the day.

And yet, while people in trusting relationships are the basis of an innovation network, they are not enough on their own. As Cross explains, a network allows for the free and transparent flow of information and resources which closely approximate a natural ecosystem for human relationships.

There are three network principles taken from biology and physics that help us to see the relationship between a healthy network and a natural ecosystem:

1. Permeable boundaries - a system that wishes to innovate must be engaged in an ongoing exchange with its environment.

2. Minimal critical rules - a system evolves to a higher order, they learn new and better rules, but shed an earlier one for each one they add. Also, essential, not excessive, rules.

3. Flexible resources - insufficient variety in internal resources require engagement in a larger ecosystem in which boundaries remain permeable…(Cross pg. 188).

The primary challenge for the ALF education class is to make the time and create the space necessary for an innovation network that mirrors the natural ecosystem to emerge, a process of establishing interconnectedness that allows for permeability, flexibility and the willingness to share, rather than hoard, resources.

The comfortable approach would be to move directly to action - let’s agree on what we can do and get the damn thing done! Recognizing that this approach often has value, it has to be weighed against the need to address complex problems like education reform that do not easily lend themselves to simple and independent responses to interdependent systems.

Cross notes, “History teaches us that most breakthrough innovations are re-combinations of existing ideas or technologies, the integration of which occurs through networks.” (Cross pg. 43).

A driving force behind the ALF education class is the assumption that, while examples of education innovation are plentiful in Silicon Valley, these innovations are not nearly transformative enough because of the obstacles inherent in the current system. It will not necessarily be the responsibility of ALF’s education network to come up with the next great idea – in most cases that’s already been done.

It will be the responsibility of the network to create an innovation network based on deep relationships that will overcome these obstacles and allow innovation to play a significant role in transforming the system.

An Afternoon Without an iPhone

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:47:00 -0400

Post by Jayne Battey, ALF Class XXIV, who, along with her husband, Mark Battey, is the founder and owner of Miramar Farms. Located just north of Half Moon Bay, California, Miramar is a start-up family farm and executive retreat center committed to environmental and organizational sustainability.

A couple of weeks ago I took a much needed few days away with two of my sisters to Carmel Valley, California. We did the typical girl-weekend stuff: spa, shopping, yoga, and lots and lots of talking. On our second afternoon there, as we were enjoying downtown Carmel, I realized I’d left my iPhone back at the hotel. While this really didn’t bother me very much (except the small nagging concern that I’d lost the darn thing. Again.), my sisters appeared quite concerned. How would I survive the afternoon without a constant connection to the rest of the world?

Not only did I survive, it was one of the most relaxing and enjoyable afternoons I’ve had in a while. I did not miss being interrupted by two calls that afternoon; I did not miss squinting to check my messages while walking down the sidewalk or waiting for the bathroom, or sneaking a peek at my phone when the lunch conversation lagged for twenty seconds. I fully enjoyed my sisters, the laughter we shared with friends we met for lunch, the sounds and smells and sunshine of Carmel, and the quiet random thoughts running through my brain.

So, this got me to thinking about our work at Miramar Farms and the Executive Retreat Center we are building. How do we get our (often stressed and over-scheduled) guests to understand the value of putting the phone away for much of a day and fully diving in to the time with their team? Here are a few things I’ve learned:

It’s not really about the phone. But you know this already, don’t you? It’s really about your attitude, about your willingness to put the texting-emailing-googling-tweeting aside and really pay attention to where you are and who you are with, and to devote yourself fully to the time you’ve committed to yourself and your team. You might even get a moment or two to let your mind wander, and who knows what crazy, amazing, innovative thinking might come from that.

You and your team need a break now and again. I see it with all of our clients—corporate America is generally exhausted. And why shouldn’t we be? We are constantly connected and processing information; and the expectation has become, in both our personal and work life, instantaneous response.The value of a retreat is largely in the break we give ourselves from the constant adrenaline rush of the pinging and vibrating and marimba of our phones. This isn’t just attitude, it is science, and numerous medical studies testify to the stress and distraction cell phones bring to our lives. How grateful would your team be if you gave them, in fact insisted, that they take a break from the technology and join you for a day or two, or even just an afternoon, to focus solely on one conversation about the future of your organization?

(So far) Nothing takes the place of real-time, in person, human connection. This is another truth most of us already know. We can only go so far with phones, and email, and teleconferencing. These are all great tools, but ultimately we are biological beings with the need to connect on a very personal and human scale. The handshake, the hug, the laughter that erupts from a funny quip or knowing look across the room—these are the things that teams build memories on and grow a culture.

Place matters. And lastly, I have to say something about environment. If you are going to get your team away for the day, and you are going to have them put their phones aside as well, make sure you spend your time together in a place that feeds the human heart and soul. I can’t overstate this: Avoid the windowless hotel conference room at all costs. There are so many options for spaces that connect on a more human level—from farms to historic buildings to community centers to museums. Take the time to find the right fit for your team, so that the time you spend together away from the rest of the world is well worth it. With some good advance planning, they will never even miss their cell phones.

Word of the Day from Wikipedia: Nomophobia is the fear of being out of mobile phone contact. The term, an abbreviation for “no-mobile-phone phobia“ was coined during a study by the UK Post Office who commissioned YouGov, a UK-based research organization to look at anxieties suffered by mobile phone users.

On Learning a Dynamic Leadership Stance

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:31:00 -0400

Post by Patricia J. Gumport, Class XXIV, Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Professor of Education at Stanford University

“Breathe. Walk, One, Two. Stop. Sit. Watch me!” This is how I learned to walk with Zoe, my very exuberant and highly reactive terrier puppy. My goal was to walk her with a loose leash, holding it ever so lightly with only two fingers—Zoe keeping pace by my side.

When Zoe would lunge ahead in an excited state, she had to go back and start over. I couldn’t let her continue in that state of mind—we had to re-set. She was expected to walk by my side (not in front), even in the face of tempting distractions like squirrels, birds, a thousand scents, kids playing ball, and Winston (a stocky 75 lb. white bulldog who propelled himself on a skateboard).

Those first few months Zoe and I didn’t get very far—sometimes no more than 40 feet in an hour. It was difficult to establish and maintain the calm, assertive stance that our trainer advised. I didn’t know a walk could be so filled with tension and frustration!

According to our trainer, mastering the walk required that we both had to start over. First, calm. She said “Give calm to get calm.” Breathe. Release tension. Be totally present. Stand up straight, project to her “I’ve got this.” Show her I trust her. Be loving….This state of energy was required before we could take a step. It took us over a year to master loose-leash walking, relaxing into that peaceful zone they call “traveling together.”

By coincidence or not, what I learned with Zoe came to the fore when I began my journey last April as an ALF Fellow. In fact it became a metaphor for a fundamental lesson I learned in my first year with ALF.

I was honored to be invited to become an ALF Fellow, to have an opportunity to connect with other leaders of local organizations, people committed to public service. As the orientation neared, with great excitement I cleared my work schedule. Our two-day orientation brought us to a serene retreat setting at the Stillheart Institute up on Skyline. The orientation began with mindfulness exercises.

Breathe, be here, notice tension and release it, expand awareness without judgment…

Truth be told, at the time I was thinking, a little bit of this was okay—since we all needed to “get here” from the busy-ness of our lives. But then this took up most of Day One. By the end of Day Two, it became clear that we’d sit in a circle, always; we’d be asked to breathe, and at times sit together in silence. I confess this was not what I had expected. It was like a campfire only indoors, and without the fire and marshmallows. No tables, so I had to balance my notebook on my lap when I took notes. Moreover as I came to see, each time we’d gather as a group, not only would we have periods of silence, but these were followed by lengthy check-ins, as well as check-outs to conclude our sessions. And lots of personal stories in between.

I quickly came to see that my classmates are remarkable people, with very impressive biographical arcs, many having overcome adversity, demonstrating incredible resilience, making significant contributions all along the way.

As we talked more, I was surprised by our candor and vulnerability. But though I was fascinated by our stories, I wasn’t looking for more friends—let alone 24 new friends all at once—since I didn’t even have enough time to see my old friends. And I became a little impatient with the emphasis on “mindful witnessing.” I thought, when are we going to get to the “leadership” content? I can sit and reflect quietly on my own time. I had brought a sense of urgency to this meeting, so the time away from the office would be worthwhile. I was ready to soak in all the ALF folks had to teach about leadership. Where is the material on how to be a better leader? What did I sign up for, anyway? Did anyone else feel this way? This sure is a long “on ramp” to getting the program started.

It was an even longer “on ramp” for me personally, since I had brought along another level of reservations. Okay, let’s call it what it was—resistance. I had an issue with breathing. This wasn’t just one breath like setting up to begin a dog walk. They wanted deep breathing, and it went on for several minutes. And then there was the sitting, not just being still, but noticing, becoming aware of our bodies as well as our thoughts. To be honest, I dreaded every minute. I couldn’t breathe beyond shallow breaths due to a respiratory condition, and I had a deep ache in my legs from osteoarthritis. Both conditions had developed from years of running competitively where I had mastered the mental discipline to detach from pain.

So here I was, 40 years later, at the start of the ALF orientation, asked to scan my body and notice sensations. I somehow summoned the courage in this group of strangers to ask the “mindfulness facilitator” if she had any suggestions for how to do this activity when you have pain.

Among other things, she said that pain doesn’t have to be suffering. Just because you have pain doesn’t mean that you are pain, or that you have to suffer. You can just be aware of it. And it does not have to be all-consuming—it may be easier to appreciate other parts of the body as you scan to “feel where you are.” You need to be gentle with yourself, practice this. She was asking a lot—an invitation to return to the body, as a way to get grounded and be present. It was possible to unite body and mind, instead of persisting in my mind-over-body conditioning. Well, even if I didn’t learn about leadership, I thought, this is a gift. Step One.

During orientation, we learned that ALF offers a model of collaborative leadership that will expand networks to work together for the common good. First, we need to learn how to be in deep relationship with each other and with the larger world. We do that by learning how to be present, to expand our capacity for witnessing, to listen without judging others—or ourselves, to embrace not knowing, to accept and move through discomfort, to engage in inquiry together so that we hold complexity within our dialogue.

This is all possible if we are open to a future that’s distinct from the past, and where we trust that collective wisdom will emerge. The result is that, with each ALF convening, we experience firsthand what it is to create community, and consider how it’s possible to do that in all segments of our lives—convening by invitation rather than mandate, by generosity of spirit, by focusing on gifts rather than deficiencies.

The ALF approach to collaborative leadership seemed to align with my values and longstanding commitment to social change, and it resonated with my ideals of servant leadership. All of it except for the “not knowing” part. And they made such a clear point about that, as if they were holding up a signpost just for me: Problem-solving and analytical skills not valued here! Hmm. What could I possibly bring to our convenings?

Reflecting on the principle of not-knowing, I had developed a love of complexity and a high tolerance for ambiguity. But I knew my academic training had hard-wired my habits of mind to problem-solve, and to use different kinds of data and analytical skills to advance decision-making.
I practiced this over 25 years as a professor. How could this be limiting? Was all my academic training and scholarly expertise of no value to ALF dialogues? Why is it essential to come together in a space of not-knowing? Step Two.

Over the next several months a lot happened, during and between ALF sessions, and I saw how essential it is to Stop, and Sit. Bonds deepened among classmates. We became clear about and comfortable in our interdependence, and celebrated it. Practicing this mode of being with them opened the door for me to turn the compassion inward—without judgment, expanding my comfort with the parts of myself that I still struggled with, honoring my gifts, which aren’t simply—or ultimately—those cultivated in my academic training. It also inspired me to act from this place with others.

I began experimenting with all that I was learning at ALF, especially leading through inquiry and mindful convening to build community. I do this in my work at Stanford, both with the team that I lead and other relationships in our collaborative projects throughout the university. In all my relationships.

I’ve always had an ethos of service. I knew how to build trust in relationships, and knew that doing so was the first step for anything to be accomplished. But now, in ALF, I’ve gained a deeper understanding of strength as a much more dynamic quality of leading and facilitating. What’s asked of me of a leader? I came to see that it would serve me well to ask this question of myself often—even from moment to moment. It was so simple, but profound. I saw my classmates asking themselves similar questions.

As a class, how did we get here? We belayed and rappelled and climbed a mountain. We shared more stories about our journeys, fears, purposes, passions. We laughed a lot. We sat in silence. When we lived together for a week on a wilderness retreat, it deepened our bonds further. In that context, the overnight solo was a great opportunity to clarify my deep purpose—and declare it. I saw in a new light how that sense of urgency I felt at orientation, the unwavering passion for my work—how it could be harnessed to the greater good in even more powerful ways. I learned that “if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” I had heard this quote before. But now I believe it. I think we all do.

So if Step One was to breathe and be open to the possibility of uniting body and mind, and Step Two was getting comfortable with not-knowing and the power of asking questions, I came to see the enormous value of “Stop, Sit” in a community to cultivate shared understandings. Similar to what I learned with Zoe. Re-set, rather than launching full speed ahead to a predetermined destination.

Full post here

How many gorillas am I missing?

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:01:00 -0400

Post by John Hollar, Class XXIV
President & CEO, The Computer History Museum

Understanding the leadership “blind spot” is central to the U-shaped theory described by Otto Scharmer in his must-read book of every ALF class, “Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges.”

The key step toward U-shaped leadership lies in building a personal capacity for awareness—and, with it, a willingness to understand and consciously overcome limitations that often masquerade as experience, intuition or even just memory.

Scharmer calls this the “open mind, open heart, open will” approach. He describes it as the antidote to believing we see or know more than we really do, or that we can predict the future based on what we know rather than simply paying attention, and being open to new and unfamiliar possibilities.

Why is this so difficult? I believe it has something to do with “The Invisible Gorilla.”

In 1999, psychologists Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons surprised the world with their selective attention test known as “The Invisible Gorilla.” Chabris and Simons asked the test’s participants to watch a short video of six people passing two basketballs to each other in a circle. Three passers were dressed in white, three in black. Participants were asked to count the number of passes thrown and caught by the people dressed in white. To do this requires a pretty intense and sustained amount of concentration.

(The Invisible Gorilla video, 4:46)

Halfway through the video, a large man dressed in a gorilla suit walks through the scene, stops briefly, thumps his chest, and then walks off. The shocking result was this: more than half of the test’s participants did not report ever seeing the gorilla. Chabris and Simons summed up their learning this way: “We are missing a lot of what goes on around us, and we have no idea that we are missing so much.”

They called the phenomenon “inattentional blindness”—reminiscent to me of Scharmer’s use of the phrase “the blind spot” in leadership. The Chabris / Simons study has gone on to be one of the most popular studies in psychology (and Simons, by the way, has gone on to be a popular TED speaker).

It gets even better.

Less than a month ago, NPR featured a new study by Dr. Trafton Drew, a research fellow at the Visual Attention Lab at Harvard. Drew and a colleague studied a group of highly trained radiologists who were given a lung scan and asked to detect cancer in the scan. As Drew put it, radiologists spend hours studying such images every day in dark rooms that resemble caves. “These tiny little nodules that I can’t even see when people point to them — they’re just in a different world when it comes to finding this very, very hard-to-find thing,” he said.

Except, like Chabris and Simons, Drew also superimposed a gorilla in the scan—a static image of a man in a gorilla suit shaking his fist at the viewer. It was about the size of a matchbook. And 83 percent of the radiologists missed the gorilla.

“Inattentional blindness” can have low consequences, like failing to see a gorilla walking through a basketball drill. It can have high consequences, perhaps like failing to see everything in a lung scan. It can, as Scharmer points out, cause us to have “the blind spot” when it comes to seeing opportunities—and threats—as leaders, whatever the context.

When people ask me what I’m gaining from ALF, I now like to say that I’m learning to ask myself, “How many gorillas am I missing?” Or, as Paul Bloom of The New York Times put it, “The invisible gorilla just might teach us to be more humble, understanding and forgiving.”

Can you think of a problem that doesn't have a solution?

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:39:00 -0400

Consider:

AIDS: There is a behavioral based solution that has been available almost since the beginning of the epidemic. If abstinence is too difficult for most people, what about safe sex? The issue is not a lack of condoms but the type of relationships we have with our intimate partners.

I am on the “down low”, so I can’t plan for it.
I can’t ask, because it implies there is someone else.
I need to use drugs and alcohol to enjoy myself and then engage in risky behavior.
Prostitutes aren’t people.

The list of bad thinking and lack of communication leading to infection is almost endless, and is based primarily on the types of relationships we are in and not the intractability of the problem.

World hunger: It’s not about a lack of food, but our willingness to share the resources we have.

Achievement gap: It’s not about the lack of programs or approaches or schools, but the expectations we have about certain “types” of students.

Poverty: we know how to significantly reduce poverty in this country-we’ve done it before.

Once our thinking becomes “unstuck”, we realize that it is possible to change the system. Then we discover the courage to act with urgency and conviction. This is the beginning of transformational change.

And the way that we get unstuck is to be in the kind of deep relationships that allow us to take the risks necessary to create transformation.

Why are most meetings set up to create as much distance as possible from our passion and from each other?

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:43:00 -0500

Getting people to take action next to a burning building is no problem: some inhabitants will flee, others will help people escape, someone will call the fire department, and still others will administer first aid.

If the burning building is at a distance and I am an observer, however, the result will be different. I may go over to see if I can help, or I may make a call, but likely I will assume that someone else is taking care of the problem. And the farther the distance separating me from the fire, the less urgency I will have.

Perhaps this is why we structure meetings that establish as much distance between the issues and each other as possible. Why else would we show slide presentations that bore people into submission until they become like the distant observers of the burning building?

For example:
Peter Norvig’s Gettysburg Address PowerPoint (4:54)
Deborah Elizabeth Finn’s “Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. (Redux)

Bottom line? We’re afraid of failing.

Because to feel deeply around a difficult issue, to be willing to do whatever it takes to solve, is to acknowledge the real possibility of failure, sometimes over and over again.

And the only way to move through that fear is to be in deep relationship with others.

Relationships give us the courage to accept the very real possibility of failure, to move through it, and to explore the next possibility and the next, and in the process, create a future distinct from the past.

Consider: I am passionate about an issue, let’s say education, and I have been working on it for a long time, perhaps my whole life. I go through a process that puts me in deep relationship with a group of people. As a result of these deep relationships, I have the courage to look at the reality of the situation and my role in it.

I am no longer paralyzed by fear of failure.

I see that all of the possibilities to create real transformation already exist. They always do.

FORGIVENESS

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:20:00 -0500

Post by Chike C. Nwoffiah, ALF Class XXI Senior Fellow &
Executive Director, Oriki Theater

“Sometimes in our lives / We all have pain / We all have sorrow
But if we are wise / We know that there’s always tomorrow”
– excerpt from lyrics to the song “Lean on Me” by Bill Withers.

Life is a complex web of interconnectedness and relationships.

As we journey from the cradle to the grave, we weave our web and more than once get entangled in it. There are always people in our path, that will extend a hand and help set us back on course,but unfortunately will also encounter people that will steer us off our path and maybe shake our core. Offenses big or small, offenders living or dead affect our core, weaken our essence and destabilize our balance consciously or otherwise.

A few years ago my ALF class had a session on forgiveness and I remember how difficult and profound the session was. As we wrestled with the enormously difficult dynamics of tragic personal offenses and mundane grievances, it became clear to many of us that as servant leaders, we must learn how to forgive so we can be free to lead with clarity of mind.

But what does “Forgiveness” really mean and how practical is it?

In my many years of working regionally and internationally on the complex and difficult twin subjects of forgiveness and reconciliation, I have learned a few things about the profound nature of forgiveness. So permit me to briefly share with you three main characteristics of forgiveness that I have learned on this journey.

Forgiveness is a GIFT:
It is not about the other person; it is ALL about US and the burden that we bear. To forgive is to let go, to shed the weight of grudge, guilt, fear, anger, animosity,vengefulness, that ties us to the event, incident, situation, person or people that “offended” us.

Forgiveness is UNCONDITIONAL:
It is to completely set down the backpack without preconditions or expectations of apology or admission of wrong from the offender.

Forgiveness is about MOVING ON not MAKING UP:
It requires doing some soul searching, contemplation and preparation of the inner self. It requires the highest degree of honesty to self and courage to overcome the instinctive self in order to heal and realign the spiritual self. We forgive for us.

When we forgive, we do not have to make up and hang out with the person again. When we forgive, we let the offender and the offense go; we move on. The journey to forgiveness can be painful and slow, but the payoff is an infinite joy and wholeness of life that is free from the burden of grudge.

I have seen “forgiveness” at work, felt it’s liberating power and, therefore, submit that it is an essential ingredient for collaborative leadership.

Can the quality of relationships affect the bottom line?

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:55:00 -0500

In Sean Safford’s book, “Why the Garden Club Couldn’t Save Youngstown,” he shows how the city of Youngstown, OH was not nearly as effective as the city of Allentown, PA in adjusting to the economic crisis caused by the collapse of the steel industry, even though they were just 300 miles apart and shared many common characteristics.

Why?

Because the people in Allentown were in fundamentally different relationships with each other than the people in Youngstown.

A dialogue emerged in the Lehigh Valley (Allentown)…which over time allowed organizations in the region to redefine themselves and their place within the community and this was responsible for the deep engagement of key individuals within the Lehigh Valley over the past 25 years.

Stafford goes on to illustrate how exactly the opposite scenario occurred in Youngstown, and as a result, key players failed to emerge in the immediate aftermath of the steel plant closures. The vacuum that was created by this inability to engage in constructive dialogue was filled when the Mafia moved into town. Although today there is guarded hope that Youngstown has turned a corner and can begin to mend its broken social and economic infrastructure, much damage has been done.

In Youngstown, a battle doomed the effort to enable revenue sharing for an industrial park at the airport, while in Allentown, a revenue sharing agreement and collaboration led to successful economic development strategies.

The same was true when it came to labor-management relations. Youngstown experienced internal squabbles between labor and management that were significant impediments to creating an effective economic development strategy. Additionally, conflicts between ethnic and racial communities, as well those in the cities and suburbs surrounding Youngstown, created significant impediments to comprehensive planning.

Safford is clear on what he describes as an ”important element of what makes civic society vibrant: particular organizations must bring together actors who are not otherwise well connected in order to serve as a focus of civic engagement…And where these linkages do not exist it is necessary to develop strategies for forging closer ties across the most strategically important disconnects within the community.

At American Leadership Forum, we believe that people need to be in fundamental relationships with each other to address important issues as effectively as they did in Allentown. We have spent the last 25 years bringing established leaders across sectors together in deep dialogues that enable them to build significant relationships. As a result, they are able to take the risks necessary to significantly impact their companies and their communities.

It takes energy to create even the smallest change, and it takes a good deal of energy to create big changes.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:56:00 -0500

Recently, I attended a meeting with a group of Silicon Valley decision-makers who were spending a morning together to discuss an important collaboration.

At the beginning of the meeting, the room was filled with a sense of great possibility to create transformative change. The potential felt like a helium balloon filled to the point of bursting! The next several hours, however, were a series of pin-pricks that slowly deflated the balloon.

Pin-prick #1:
We entered our meeting room via a reception desk better equipped for security monitoring than welcoming: security checkpoint, scanner, frisk, guard dogs sniffing for body explosives, etc. (Just kidding about the security checkpoint, scanner, frisk & guard dogs, but there was definitely a reception desk set up for security.)

Pin-prick #2:
We met in a room with no windows.

Pin-prick #3:
The chairs were arranged in a horseshoe shape with a large screen at the open end (the polar opposite of the configuration that Class XXIV Fellow John Hollar described in a previous post).

Pin-prick #4:
We began with short, self-introductions, in addition to our aspirations for the meeting. While this sounds promising, our introductions failed to include any information about who we were, or why we come to this work, or why we urgently cared about the issue. If we are to be inspired, our aspirations have to be much greater than what we can accomplish in one meeting or a series of meetings.

Pin-prick #5:
After introductions, we settled in for a l-o-n-g PowerPoint presentation with multiple graphs and statistics telling us exactly how badly we were failing in reaching our goals.

It takes energy to create even the smallest change, and it takes a good deal of energy to create big changes.

By the time the meeting was halfway through, there was very little energy left, and by the end of the meeting, there was so little energy that our facilitator had trouble getting people to consider next steps.

There was a suggestion that we gather again, and someone boldly suggested that we start the next gathering by sharing how our work ignites passion and hope for the future.

Now we’re on the right track! Here is something we can build on…

Next week, I’ll talk about urgency and possibilities and how to assure that they show up abundantly in our work!

Why will ALF be successful around education reform when so many other efforts have failed?

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:29:00 -0500

The “possibility conversation” frees us to be pulled toward a new future.
The distinction is between possibility, which lives into the future, and problem solving, which makes improvements in the past…This distinction takes its value from an understanding that living systems are propelled by the force of the future, and possibility as we use it here…is one way of speaking of the future.
Community, Peter Block

At our last board retreat we were having a very forthright – even contentious dialogue – answering the question: Why will ALF be successful around education reform when so many other efforts have failed?

And we were having it the ALF way – our meeting began with silence followed by a check-in, and the dialogue was informed by powerful questions – no POWERPOINTS or graphs proving that we were failing our kids. Simply put, we stayed away from having the same people in the same room having the same conversation and expecting transformative change.

As a result, we concluded the dialogue with a higher level of energy in the room than we began with, and the firm belief that ALF could play a significant role in transforming the education system in Silicon Valley because:

ALF has spent the last five years effectively turning the organization
inside-out; using everything we have learned over the past 25 years to
do so.
We invested time gathering diverse stakeholders who are in deep
relationship as a part of our network and engaged in dialogue at every
step of the process in selecting education as ALF’s first single sector
class offering.

We will launch this class with seven-minute talks in which each participant introduces themselves – not by listing their professional accomplishments – but by answering powerful questions that get at the heart of our personal stories.

In this way, we will begin to create an education network where people are in deep and trusting relationships with each another that allow them to explore the myriad of possibilities that exist for transforming education in Silicon Valley.

It is important to acknowledge that ALF is not going to succeed or fail around education reform on our own. We will be successful only if the time is right for our work to leverage and blend with many other efforts to create the tipping point necessary to transform the system and create real reform.

We also acknowledge that, while many would argue that education reform has failed, there are many great schools – public, private and charter. Likewise, there are many children from vastly different backgrounds who succeed each year. Success will be dependent on our ability to recognize and celebrate these successes and activate the possibilities represented by them, not on a single-minded obsession on what has failed.

Peter Block reminds us in his book, Community, that if we are primarily focused on problems, we will only make incremental improvement to the status quo, because problems are necessarily defined by the existing paradigms, and are merely symptoms of something much deeper. It is possibilities that allow us to create a future distinct from the past; the essence of transformation.

ALF will add significant value to the conversation around education reform because we excel at relationship building and network nurturing, which enable people to take the risks necessary to explore the many possibilities to transform the education system and create real and lasting change.

We’d love to hear from you.

Whose job is it to activate the ALF network: yours, mine or ours?

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:27:17 -0500

This was one of the questions a group of Senior Fellows recently discussed when meeting to learn about state-of-the-art networks.

It seems that most Senior Fellows tend to wait for ALF to activate our network in an “official” way, yet the more we learn, the more we understand that truly “leader-full” networks are both self-organizing and more effective.

The greatest asset of the ALF network is the depth of the relationships created through the ALF experience and the high level of trust that accompanies that experience. This should make for what is called in network parlance a healthy “core”.

But are we really doing all we can to create the “clusters” that we need? And how about our “periphery”? Most of the time, we endeavor to get everyone involved in the core, but having a vast periphery actually provides more opportunities to learn and grow.

If these are the kinds of questions you find intriguing, we invite you to join the working group studying network theory and practice with the goal of better engaging the ALF network.

Email alfsv@alfsv.org or call 408-554-2000, x205 for details.

Maybe, it's not merely who you know, but how you know them that matters?

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:04:07 -0500

Every time we gather becomes a model of the future we want to create.
- Peter Block, The Structure of Belonging

Recently, I was talking to a group of graduate students at Stanford over dinner, many of them from the School of Engineering. I arrived late, and therefore didn’t feel comfortable setting a context that was different than what had already been established.

And so we began with a traditional round of introductions, in which everyone introduces themselves by giving name, rank and serial number – or, in this case – their names and what they did or planned to do by virtue of the degrees they were pursuing.

This is fairly status quo, and serves as a perfect device to create separation by giving the false impression that we are actually sharing something about ourselves at the beginning of a relationship.

The simple act of labeling ourselves by what we do rather than who we are creates a barrier that allows us to have a conversation that skims the surface and protects us from going deep enough to take risks.

As soon as the “barrier setting” was complete, we began to eat, and I embarked on a long rant about what effective leadership is and what it isn’t, etc., etc., etc.

After my remarks, the group’s traditional roles kicked in. Someone asked a
clarifying question, somebody else made a comment masquerading as a question, and someone else politely challenged me. It was all very prescribed; I was the expert expounding on leadership to a group of bright-eyed students asking insightful questions.

As a result, zero transformation took place.

About half-way through our time together, I asked the group if the process was working as poorly for them as it was for me. I got a lot of veiled looks, so I decided to pierce the veil and asked if we could start over.

We began by observing a brief period of silence, followed by an ALF-style check in in which we share something about ourselves at level beyond the surface.

Next, I read “The Invitation” by Oriah, which opens with:
It doesn’t interest me
what you do for a living.
I want to know
what you ache for
and if you dare to dream
of meeting your heart’s longing.

The poem closes with:
I want to know
what sustains you
from the inside
when all else falls away.
I want to know
if you can be alone
with yourself
and if you truly like
the company you keep
in the empty moments.

Halfway through the reading, I was filled with doubt: I should have done a PowerPoint; this reading is way too New Age; I’ll be greeted with a deafening silence at the end. It didn’t help that I get emotional every time I read this poem. The whole set up was a recipe for disaster.

But the risk often paid off. I finished reading. There was a pause - which I did not step into – and the first person who spoke told the group that his father had recently died and that was what was actually on his mind. Everyone then shared something about themselves that went beyond their major.

And the energy in the room was transformed.

A commitment to transformative leadership and creating a future distinct from the past requires us to overcome self-centered fears. The conspiracy of the status quo creates huge disincentives for us to behave differently, and yet leadership requires it.

How do you know the people in your life?

Bringing the Circle to the Board

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:15:24 -0500

Post by John Hollar, ALF Class XXIV Fellow

Check-in and circle time are powerful dimensions of my ALF experience. I know my classmates agree. As I’ve reflected on our work together and on the circle’s influence on it, I’ve found myself asking two questions:

Why is the circle so transformational?
And how can I bring the power of our dialogue there into other areas of my “emergent leadership” work?

For any CEO, the boardroom is a vitally important channel of ongoing dialogue. One of my ambitions is to improve the quality of our board discussions and the engagement of my trustees at every meeting. The Computer History Museum benefits from having an awesome board. As with many nonprofits, it is also a large board: 37 trustees in total, with 30-35 attending every quarterly meeting on average.

With a board that large, deepening the dialogue and staying productive is an obvious challenge. After several months as an ALF Fellow, I concluded it was a challenge worth tackling by tapping the power of the circle.

I approached it through a simple transformation of the meeting space. Previously, the trustees sat at a U-shaped table. The open end of the “U” was dominated by a large screen for PowerPoint slides. The board’s attention was continually directed at the screen and the presenter at the front of the room. The nature of the dialogue was often “call and response” rather than engaged conversation. Many trustees never spoke.

We’ve all been to this meeting a hundred times, haven’t we?

At our two most recent meetings, I had our staff transform the shape of the table. The “U” is now closed. The trustees face each other. It’s hard to tell where the “head” of the table is at any given moment. PowerPoint slides are displayed on four flat-screen monitors in the center. The screens are easily visible from any angle but are mounted below eye level.

This small redesign produced profound effects - almost circle-like - in fact. The board meetings changed in three significant ways:

1. Every trustee participated. At the two “circle” meetings so far, every trustee has made a contribution. Trustees who once spent a fair amount of time checking email or working on other matters have closed their laptops and engaged in the discussion.

2. The quality of the dialogue is elevated. Trustees now talk with each other. Ideas are sustained rather than being scatter-shot. The conversations are more open, transparent and creative. Every board - especially one this large - can have one or two (or more) trustees who tend to monopolize discussions. That dynamic has ceased.

3. The tyranny of PowerPoint has ended. The slides (and the presenter) no longer dominate the agenda. PowerPoint slides are an aid to the discussion, not the focus of it. Productive, focused dialogue is the star.

The results surpassed my expectations. Our chairman is enthusiastic about the new look and feel. One board member commented after our latest meeting, “These have been the best two meetings we’ve had in years. I’m not sure why. But we certainly do have a great board!”

He’s right. We do have a great board. The power of the circle has helped it in a wonderful way. The reason may not be apparent to everyone, but the three trustees who are ALF Senior Fellows and I understand.

This relationship stuff is "a good idea"; we'll get to it when the important stuff is taken care of.

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:42:04 -0500

Excerpt from recent New York Times article:
On Saturday, the two government officials who had been briefed on the case dismissed a range of media speculation that the F.B.I. inquiry might have focused on leaks of classified information to the news media or even foreign spying. “People think that because it’s the C.I.A. director, it must involve bigger issues,” one official said. “Think of a small circle of people who know each other.”

I don’t know any more about the David Petraeus case than what I read in the papers, but it seems that even - and especially - when you are the Director of the C.I.A., relationships boil down to a small number of people who know each other.

As leaders we must challenge ourselves and ask: How am I in relationship with the people closest to me? Because it’s not who you know, but how you are knowing them that matters.

How are you? Busy? Me too!

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:41:48 -0500

In fact, I am probably busier than you. I am so busy that I have to check my emails and texts while we’re talking, and, yes, (I am already thinking about what I’m going to do when our conversation is over.)

When I consider the mindset necessary to have a conversation that matters, I often picture myself sitting around a campfire. There is a thoughtfulness involved in coming together; it’s necessary to find the right fuel for the fire and the best rocks to sit on. There is a soothing nature to the darkness and the glow and warmth of the embers.

Instead, our meetings have become a race to disseminate and collect as much information as possible, as quickly as possible, so that we can proceed to the next meeting to exchange more content and assignments to add to our “to do” list.
All the while, more content is piling up in our inbox while we are meeting to get more content and be assigned more tasks and have even more to do than we
did before…

The ongoing battle to collect, organize, and understand content and complete an ever-increasing number of tasks is a failed effort that simply can’t replace our innate human need and desire to be in relationship with one another around the nurturing warmth of a campfire.

It is necessary that we find time in our BUSY lives to circle up around a campfire and have those conversations that matter. This requires that we slow down, take a deep breath, remove the tables, sit in a circle - in short - do all of the things that position us around the fire.

I can hear a collective groan already. You’re asking yourself, “How can I find time for these kinds of conversations? I am simply too busy, have too many meetings, obligations and responsibilities, not to mention those damn emails.”

The short answer is that you can’t find more time because it already exists. The question is whether or not you will use this time to maintain the status quo or to exercise leadership? Because it is in having conversations that matter that we create a future distinct from the past, and enable breakthrough thinking.

Am I in relationships that matter?

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:24:00 -0400

It is through relationships that people have the courage to explore the possibilities that exist in every problem, opportunity or situation. And so, in order to do our work with vision and to live our lives with joy, we need to ask ourselves this very simple question: “Am I in relationships that matter?”

In your professional life, are you in caring relationships with colleagues that you trust, who not only “have your back” but are willing to give you a pat on the back when you need it and a shove when necessary? Are there people in your circle of colleagues who really know who you are: how many kids and dogs and hobbies you have; what your dreams are - both fulfilled and unfulfilled?

If you don’t, than you are probably surrounded by people who act the same way as you, and you have created a closed environment that is perfect for protecting the status quo. The wagons have circled, blocking the way for a future that is distinct from - and not enslaved by - the past.

Recently, I spent the weekend in Detroit at an alumnae gathering of the Kellogg National Leadership Program Forum. It was the first time my entire class had been together since we “graduated” more than a decade ago, and we did a Friday night ALF-style check in that lasted several hours.

At ALF, we begin meetings with a check in process in which we maintain a short period of silence followed by an opportunity for people to share what’s on their minds that’s keeping them from being present in the group. Check in is a chance for people to acknowledge each other as human beings, and to make public those things - professionally and personally - that we bring into the room that aren’t on the agenda; from a child’s first day at school to the bad traffic and the rush to be on time for the meeting.

It was only after my Kellogg classmates in Detroit commented on the power of
the experience that I realized how much it meant to them, particularly as the majority had not had this opportunity in a very long time. Check in provided them the time to share their lives at a very deep level in a straightforward and nonjudgmental way.

I was reminded yet again that when our lives are filled with people who matter to us, we can do the courageous work necessary to transform ourselves and the world around us.

Everything is as it should be, right here and right now, with these people in this room.

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:38:24 -0400

The act of beginning a meeting in silence is actually a profound and radical shift from the way that we are normally in relationship with one another. It is the acknowledgment that everything is as it should be, and that everything needed is right here, right now in this room with these people.

Typically, we rush around going about our day-to-day business, being pulled into meetings, parking ourselves for awhile, and then moving on. This makes a certain amount of sense in interactions at the superficial level that involves sharing information, exchanging pleasantries and maintaining the status quo, all of which are necessary activities in our daily lives.

But what about those times when we want to make a profound difference, when it is necessary to create a future distinct from the past? It is then that we have to listen like an infant who can’t speak and therefore must listen to everything being said, especially what is being said non-verbally at a much deeper level.

To begin in silence is to acknowledge that there is something at the root level which is operating all the time that we often ignore. We can get away with this when we are operating at a surface level. When we want to go deeper, an awareness of the deeper reality that is always present is critical. It is here that fundamental reality exists and where profound change manifests. It is also where authentic relationships are discovered and nurtured.

The first step in listening is silence.

Will you repeat the past to create the future - skipping the present - so that nothing changes?

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:08:36 -0400

The more I blog, the more it becomes like a dialogue, in that I end up in a different place than I started and questions come up that are the basis for deeper dialogue.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of staying present when having transformative dialogues. It is critical that we are right here, right now when we want to create a future distinct from the past, otherwise we will simply repeat the past to create the future - skipping the present - so that nothing changes.

There are simple things that I have touched on previously that you can do to have a different kind of conversation: starting in silence and check-in are two ways help to bring us to the right here, right now. But, there is a deeper opportunity, which involves a practice that allows us a greater awareness of our ego and how it can interfere with our desire to change the status quo.

The ego thrives on the status quo!

When asked the all-important question: “How am I creating the very conditions I’m complaining about?” the ego gleefully answers, “By continuing to complain about them, over and over again”. In this way, nothing changes and our egos are protected.

Building a better mousetrap…brought to you by the ego.

There is a little voice inside of me that tells me over and over again, like a broken reel-to-reel, that I’m not good enough. As a matter of fact, I am so not-good-enough that I am better at it than anybody else. I am so not-good-enough that I am actually quite extraordinary!

This is the better mousetrap created by our ego. It is what often drives us and makes us fearful and forever wishing that things were different.

It is why we generally find it impossible to live in the present moment - because we can’t believe that this is all there is - that I am all that I can be. In other words, if I am convinced that I am not good enough, then I can’t stand being in the present moment because it would be unbearably painful.

How to reconcile this dilemma is the answer to happiness in life, and also the reason why we don’t structure American Leadership Forum (ALF) as a self-improvement program. The goal of our lives and one of the primary goals of ALF must be to accept who we are in the present moment and in the relationships we are experiencing right now.

This is why I tell the ALF Fellows class that I have never seen or heard or experienced anyone do anything wrong when we are together in a circle.

Do we need to stop talking to have a great conversation?

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:08:59 -0400

Is listening waiting until someone’s lips stop moving?

The silence of speech is important and obvious. It is only by disciplining desire for talk that we become aware of an omnipresent reality behind the chatter. As we master our tongues, we experience a pervasive peace and a freedom from compulsive speech and then behavior. But, the silence of speech, and the disciplining of our desire to talk, is a sign of, and an invitation to, a more profound silence: that of mind, or thought.

- A Monk in the World
Wayne Teasdale

To appreciate what it means to listen, have a conversation with a baby. A baby listens to the words being spoken, but also to the tone of your voice, your facial expressions. When we are infants, we have the innate capacity to listen at this very deep, multidimensional level, because we do not have the luxury of speech.

Over time, the stresses, concerns and responsibilities of our lives cloud our ability to listen. We know what we know, and we want you to know it too! We spend a lot of time making sure that people understand what we are trying to say. We are spinning on the hamster wheel of the status quo, going round and round in the same direction.

Teasdale invites us to a “more profound silence: that of mind or thought,” a silence we can’t hear unless we have the ability to slow down and center ourselves so that we can discover the underlying rhythm to life. This kind of deep listing can’t occur simply because of our desire to be a better listener. It requires a practice that allows us to slow down, step back and take a deep breath.

A practice is anything we do habitually that allows us to appreciate that there is something at play in the world that is much larger than ourselves. It reminds us that we are connected in a substantial way and that there is an underlying rhythm to life. A practice can be many things, from formal meditation to yoga to a long walk.

Or as Teasdale would say, it is that which creates the space where “we become aware of an omnipresent reality behind the chatter.”

It is in truthfully answering these questions that we gain an understanding of our desire – though not necessarily our ability – to listen at a deep level.

Do you feel that you have anything to learn from others?
Will this conversation simply add to what you already know?
Are you simply waiting for the other person’s lips to stop moving?
Are you mostly seeking to be understood, rather than to understand?
Are you listening at the level necessary to create a future distinct from the past?