DonT and Lucifer: into the next circle of chaos

Bill Eggers is a well-known and very successful reasearcher and writer on government improvement.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Bill several times over the past few years.  This morning Bill commented on the content and style of last night’s Republican Convention.  Among other things, Bill noted that former candidate Ben Carson had mentioned Lucifer in his remarks.  

Personally, I have not watched any news coverage, debates, or the convention this year.  This marks a significant change for me.  I was eight years old in 1960, and remember watching the remarkable Kennedy-Nixon debates, and the conventions that followed.  I had been an avid follower of presidential campaigns. Until this year.

Following is my first reply to Bill Eggers’ post.  This reflects my current thinking about the underlying FLUX dynamics that are dramatically disrupting the status quo of our capacity for civil discourse:

Bill, I completely agree with your comment and analysis. What I see behind all of this is the same dynamic as in the UK Brexit vote. I believe that we have a critical mass of citizens today, whose opinions are primarily informed not by facts and data where available, but by the opinions and rhetoric of others. The same internet that puts the knowledge of the world in our hands, also gives us the immediate access to false narratives, false claims, and false hopes. We have seen a division not only in belief and ideology, but in the ability to “learn, unlearn, and relearn.” We see this manifested in DJT’s awful/brilliant refusal to acknowledge facts, or his own lies.  

And so, we see the consequences, in the breakdown of the framework of civil discourse. The inability to be compassionate, curious, and courageous in hearing the ideas of others, and the inability to enter into respectful dialogue. We have fallen over the cliff of complacency about the stability of the status quo, into a period of chaos. A new coherence and order will eventually emerge, but when and how are unknowable (see the oft-ignored little catastrophe cusp in the Cynefin framework on this). 
From unknowing, unlearning people, it is easy to craft narratives of fear and blame. The arguably false narrative that ascribes some evil intent to “them” (as if there WAS some coordinated plot), in which some wrongs have been perpetrated upon the people. Wrongs that these people believe can, and will, be set right by a Nietzsche “uber-mensch.” A perfect storm to give us DonT and Lucifer.

From “I AM” to “We ARE” – All Relating to Each

Last February I attended a wonderful concert near St. Augustine, Florida. The concert was with the legendary country-rock-bluegrass musician and singer Marty Stuart, and his band, the aptly-named Fabulous Superlatives. Each of these musical artists brought incredible skill to their playing of guitars, bass, and drums. Each got the spotlight in solo songs. Together, they blended their voices on moving a capella gospel numbers.  
It was evident from remarks I heard among audience members before and during the show, that many were of a particular religious and political perspective. Their values and beliefs did not necessarily match my own, or those of other segments of the audience.  
Back then, before Brexit, before the FBI Director’s address to the nation about emails and servers, and before divisive tweets that may have been anti-Semitic, I listened to the great music that filled the concert hall. The theater was itself a made-over church, on an isolated strip of land along the thin barrier island separating the sea from the bay. The particular symbolism of all of this was heightened by Marty Stuart’s most recent album, from which the evening’s show drew heavily. A double-album set called “Saturday Night and Sunday Morning.” The rollicking raucous profane songs, and the hushed reverential sacred songs. Both equally important to Marty Stuart and his band.
As I sat in the audience, and listened to the strongly-held views of some, about God and politics, I couldn’t help but think about the different divisions in this place at this time. A former church, now a pop music haven. In a place by itself, between the land and the deep ocean. With an audience that might well find itself split between one side of belief, and another.
In that experience, I realized what could help people reach across the divides that separate them. In the music of Marty Stuart and His Fabulous Superlatives, people found a common space of appreciation. Not necessarily a space of full agreement. But a space in which everyone present could, and would, cheer for every beautiful note.
What would happen, I wondered, if the people in that audience, were all taken after the show, to a large room with close concentric circles of chairs. Maybe some coffee and cookies. And the simple directive to sit together in circle, and talk with one another about the show they just experienced.
“Music expresses that which can not be said, and on which it is impossible to be silent.” – Victor Hugo
About a week ago, in the midst of the chaos following the Brexit vote, I saw a show on television. It was a performance of Beethoven’s famous 9th Symphony. An astonishing creation, whose complex harmonies and countervailing melodies were composed by the composer when he was deaf. The words put to music in the last movement, “alle menschen werden bruders…” All sentient beings might become as brothers.”  
What would happen, I wondered again, if that audience who came to hear Marty Stuart and his Fabulous Superlatives, came together to hear Beethoven’s 9th Symphony? What would happen after, if they came to the place with the circles of chairs, some cookies and coffee, and just shared with one another what it all meant to them?
We know that the varied dynamics of our lived experience– what we call FLUX — shape how we feel, what we learn and understand, and how much we are willing and able to expand our exploration of the possible. We have also learned that at the social level- in our communities, organizations, and societies – that our ability to navigate the rough currents of significantly disruptive experience, depends greatly on our ability to negotiate meaning and coordinate action together. This was the lesson of those trapped in the Mann Gulch fire, and those trapped in the World Trade Center on 9/11. The Two Questions we seek to answer every moment of our lives: “What does this mean?” and “What will I/we do about it?”
When we are FLUXed at the social level- in our communities, organizations, and societies – we may temporarily lose our ability to respond together. We may disagree on what is happening, and what to do together about it. At the worst, our complacency and presumption of stability in the world around us goes over the edge into chaos. We don’t know what is happening. Some of us think it means one thing. Others have a totally different interpretation.  
At the worst, we lose not only a reasonable consensus about meaning and action, but we lose the ability to engage with one another in respectful dialogue. This is the lesson of Brexit, of America’s current political discourse, and over the past days as I write this, of the response to white police officers apprehending and killing black citizens in Louisiana and Minnesota.
What happens when we lose the ability to sit with coffee and cookies, in circles together, and respectfully share what we think is going on, or what to do about it? What happens when the beliefs and expectations of many, are informed by opinion, where fact is available? When the same internet that puts the knowledge of the world in our hand, also amplifies ignorance?
We are seeing the breaking of the rules of civil discourse. The consequences of FLUX at its most socially catastrophic. How can we help every person be compassionate, caring, and courageous in their curiosity? How can we help every person manage their feelings so they can learn, understand, expand, and explore new possibilities for successful outcomes together?
What if I. . . AM? What if we shared the experiences of Art and Music, and sat together to talk about what it meant to us? How would that feel? What would we learn? What would we understand? What could we then explore. . . together?

Heading For The Br(oken)exit: FLUX And The Dissolution Of Dialogic Relating

The insight for us and FLUX is that FLUX in an organization or group is not just “experience with a degree of difference beyond our capacity to understand and respond.”

At the social level FLUX is seen in that little catastrophe cusp – the curled “cliff” in the Cynefin drawing – that represents the dissolution of stability in the ordered domain (Snowden shows it as being between Simple/Obvious, and Chaotic) and the resulting chaos of the unordered. Perhaps in both natural and social systems, things are FLUXED when either individual agents (people) or the system as a whole, can not negotiate meaning and purpose in relation to the system.

The practical response to knowing and understanding FLUX in this way, at the social and organizational levels, is to work continuously at maintaining respectful, dialogic relationships. We then face the challenge of establishing new rules and patterns for relating and coordinating sense-making and action.

Yesterday I was listening to the TED radio hour. I did not get the speaker’s name, but there was a segment on mindfulness as a key practice in not only presence and observation, but in curiosity. This is the first step in relating to one’s environment (physical and social), which in turn, is the first step to inquiry, learning, understanding and expanding our response capacity.

It’s Always A Day Away: BREXIT, FLUX, and “tellers of the new story”

Remarkably, it is 14 years since an email I sent about lighting on her DVD, resulted in an invitation to meet Margaret Wheatley for breakfast. We’d met briefly a few times at presentations she had done in the D.C. area. But this was just the two of us, talking for hours over breakfast at the Washington Hilton.  

This was post-9/11, and just as her book “Turning to One Another” was coming out. Meg’s earlier books, “Leadership and the New Science” and “A Simpler Way” were widely praised, and were at the forefront of applying understanding of complex adaptive systems science, to the dynamics of organizations and change leadership.During our conversation, Meg told me a story about the initial success of her first book, “Leadership and the New Science.” She said that the praise and publicity had brought her a lot of attention. “I thought I was going to change the world” she said. “But I quickly learned that the world didn’t want me to change it.”
Meg went on to say that she was noticing emerging trends and patterns in the world, suggesting that “dark times were ahead.” Remember that this was in 2002. I had a sense of what Meg was getting at, and I asked, “so what are you doing now?” Her reply was simple and elegant, even as it was frightening in what it might mean for society. “I’m looking for fellow tellers of the new story.” Quite a few years later, Meg wrote about this sense of what is happening to us, in her book “So Far From Home.” Its basic premise and observations flow directly from what Meg Wheatley said to me that day over breakfast.
Today the world awakened to the news from the UK. A slim majority has voted for the UK to withdraw from the EU. World markets have reacted very negatively to the news. What drove the majority of voters in the UK to make this choice? Some factors seem fairly clear, such as fears about the impact of immigrants and refugees. Some consequences will take time to emerge, such as the new border arrangements and trade arrangements the UK must now implement.  
As in the U.S., voters do not always seek the full set of facts and data that are available. The same internet that puts the world’s knowledge in the palm of our hands, also serves to rapidly amplify lies, opinions, and misunderstanding. Not knowing is easily and quickly turned into a shared fear, and the fear, in turn, becomes amplified into hate and even violence.  
If the vote in the UK is a sign of the “dark times ahead” that Meg Wheatley foresaw 14 years ago, what is likely to happen to society? H. G. Wells cautioned us about the rise of dictators and the denial of science and knowledge in his book, “Things to Come.” You can watch the entire 1936 film on youtube. In the story, decades of war, fueled by an egotistical dictator known only as “The Boss” are further ravaged by a spreading plague. Knowledge and science are gradually lost, and the capacity to make fuel, and operate airplanes, are likewise gone. But one day, a sound not heard for many years, come over the city. A plane brings the keepers of knowledge and science. These were keepers of the old ways, and yes, “tellers of the new story.”
Will we recede into more localized communities, even tribal groups? Will the globalized patterns of culture and trade give way to more basic competitive behaviors? Will mutual gains yield to positional negotiation and conflict?
Are we “so far from home” that we will cluster with others of like mind, even into isolation from those whose thinking is very different? Is a level of complacent ignorance pushing us over the cliff of relative stability, into a time of chaos? How will we re-organize and be together, in compassion, curiosity, and courage. How will we find the way back to inquiry, learning, and understanding, in respectful dialogue together?
Tomorrow’s just a day away.

The Single Biggest Mistake: a key cause of failed change initiatives

I’ve posted about this before, but here is a piece I wrote recently.  If there is one piece of advice I’d give to managers and leaders about what NOT TO DO, it would be this.

So again, re-posted here:

The single biggest mistake I have observed in organizations over the last 30 years, is treating what everyone usually knows to be a truly complex problem and system, as though it was a technical or complicated problem. The latter can be broken down into component parts to be studied and changed. The latter can be analyzed and understood in terms of causal relationships (if we do this, then that should happen). The latter then allow for comparatively easy metrics of outputs and outcomes.

But the former- the complex challenges- can not be broken down. Can not ascribe causality prospectively. Can not be managed or controlled or made predictable even though we wish it so. Can be prodded, explored, observed, influenced, and eventually stabilized as understanding and coherence emerge.

The fear comes from the understanding that we do not, and can not, have the solutions to these complex problems. Leaders have to admit they aren’t sure what to do, or how to do it. So we count things that are easy to count, but not really important, relative to the real underlying issue. We set goals, and hold people and programs accountable, for solutions and outcomes that are often impossible to achieve given the current system, respurces, and approach to change.  

We’d be better served by thinking about baseball, or soccer. When my son started little league baseball as a kid, he was upset each time he made an out instead of a hit. I told him about the best hitter who ever lived, Ted Williams. I asked my son, “out of every ten times Ted was up to bat, about how many times did he actually get a hit?” Of course, my son assumed that the best ever hitter, must have had a hit 9 out of 10 times. Nope. Not 8, or 7, or 6, or even 5. The best hitter in history failed 60% of the time. Today, if you can hit the ball just 27% of the time- failing 73% of the time- you’ll be a major league millionaire. Teams on the soccer pitch all know what the objective is- get the ball i to the other team’s net. But in 90 minutes of play, it is not uncommon to have just one team score just one goal. It’s hard. The dynamics are complex.  

So too with many organizational challenges. At SAMHSA, I recall discussions about the NSDUH data on teen drinking or prescription drug abuse. Surveys could tell us the approximate rates of substance abuse in certain populations, in certain areas. The surveys could not tell us the full underlying causes, or point to optimal solutions.

There is a way forward. People must learn the basic dynamics of the complex as opposed to the complicated. There are very different ways to approach problem-solving and change, in each principal domain.

We’re All FLUXed: Deming, Darwin, and the challenge of change

W. Edwards Deming was perhaps best known for his application of statistical analysis to the work of quality and business process improvement. But he was also a brilliant and insightful teacher about human dynamics in any organization and endeavor. Paraphrasing Darwin, Deming famously quipped, “Learning is optional. Survival is optional.”
To survive and thrive in a world of turbulence and uncertainty, we must accept Deming and Darwin’s challenges. We must think. . . 

. . . About the capacity to be ever-curious, and to seek real facts, real knowledge, and real understanding

. . . About courage and confidence overcoming fear born of ignorance 

. . . About being the hero of our own story and life, instead of looking for some swaggering person who we think will “make everything all right” because of what we’re told “they” did to us

Darwin didn’t really say “survival of the fittest.” Rather, he wrote that those best able to survive will be “those best able to adapt to changes” in their environments.

Will we accept the challenge?

Give a #$%! about FLUX: a fat rat’s tale

Pity the poor rat. Though usually lithe and lean, we often talk only about the rotund members of the family. And we seem almost obsessed with their derrieres, as if the conniving rodents’ brains had nothing to do with their survival in less than idyllic circumstances.

Worst of all, is our total and utter contempt for the Southbound ends of the Northbound varmints. How many times have you uttered the dismissive “I wouldn’t give a fat rat’s patoot for…” for, well, whatever it is that you hold in such low esteem.  

But these are no ordinary critters. The rat endures the FLUX of its lived experience in ways that truly “survive and thrive.” In fact, we could learn a lot about building our own FLUX Capacity from the lowly rat. As the good folks at Crowley’s Pest Control write, “The survival skills and physical prowess of rats are unmatched by any other mammal.”

Here are a few choice bits of rat facts:

“There are no mammals that have the resilience of rodents. And no rodent has survived better than rats.”

“Colonies of roof rats lived on the Eniwetok Atoll in the South Pacific throughout ten years of atomic bomb testing. The soil of these islands was literally burned off and tidal waves inundated them. The rats not only survived in their underground burrows; they appeared to suffer no ill effects from the high levels of nuclear radiation.”  

“they have flexible skeletons that can compress and expand enabling them to squeeze through a pipe the width of a quarter. Rats can hold their breath for four minutes; they can get flushed down a toilet and live.”

[rats] “can jump two feet to the top of a garbage can – three feet with a running start. this is the equivalent of a human leaping from the driveway up to the roof of the garage.”
What the FLUX?!

In life, whether you are a rat or a bipodal humanoid, you are constantly in the FLUX. Things that we took for granted as stable and predictable every day, can suddenly change in ways ranging from mildly annoying to hugely catastrophic. What worked yesterday may not work today.  

So. . . what’s a FLUXed rat to do?

Don’t freak out just because you’ve been nuked. When life drops a mushroom cloud, you’re not necessarily covered in shiitakes. Take a deep breath, and tell your amygdala to wait a minute. Don’t let your emotions narrow your ability to act in the moment.

Pay attention, not only in the ways you always have. Suspend your judgment of what you are seeing and what it means, to be open to new interpretation. Watch what others are doing in similar situations, and what happens to them.

Keep learning; keep trying. Maybe something you know or something you can do will work. Maybe not. But if you don’t try, you can be pretty sure your patoot isn’t worth a thing.

Explore the dark tunnels. It might seem crazy, and it might not work. But you’ll get a better understanding of your options, and you just might find a way to get through this.
You might not know a rat’s patoot from a fine cheroot, but building your FLUX capacity can get you through it.
Quotes from Cowley’s Pest Control retrieved on 21 December 2015, at http://www.cowleys.com/pests-we-treat/rodents/rats-survival-skills.html

The Generator of the New: how to influence people and create positive change

In a recent Plexus Institute call, Benyamin Lichtenstein and Pierpaolo Andriani talked about “Generative Emergence” and the dynamics of influencing change in complex human systems.  Several participants on the call, myself included, had submitted questions to the speakers.  To my delight, Benyamin and Pierpaolo engaged us all by email in what is now a rich ongoing dialogue.

Following are my initial comments in response both to the email exchange, and to the content on Benyamin’s “Generative Emergence” website:

As I begin to dive into this delightfully complex dialogue, a few observations and comments, in no particular order:

…what we call “emergence” in human adaptive systems, strikes me as being subjective, and socially constructed. We are noticing patterns and degrees of difference as we observe over time. What we see as emergent and coherent won’t yield to analysis of causality for the purpose of prediction and control, if the underlying dynamics are complex.  

…temporal dynamics rarely seem to get the level of attention that I suspect they deserve. What is the rate of change and behavior we are observing in the system? What is the perceived degree of urgency in the need for our response? 

…I personally do not believe that computational modeling of complex systems is (not yet, anyway) sufficiently able to match the sense-making of informed human sensor networks. The Algorithmists, as I call the pattern-seeking rule-makers, do not yet have sufficient ways to model the full complex dynamics of human systems, to enable successful analysis. One question I always ask of Big Data advocates, is whether they have done any research comparing their computers to human sensor networks (that is, groups of people in the system, telling and signifying/interpreting their stories collectively). After the puzzled looks, and my explaining what I mean, they have to admit that they haven’t thought of this, and have not done it. This would also appear to be linked to the Quantum Zeno Paradox, and the indivisibility of time.

I will add that I recently obtained some anecdotal data on a case in point. The genomics lab at a major university has invested many millions of dollars in computer systems to model and analyze genomic and dna data. Virtually without exception, the doctors and professors there- including prize-winning, world-renowned scientists- prefer to rely instead on their own judgment of the data. One world-famous there told me that he literally teaches their medical and research students to essentially ignore the computer systems.

…with regard to “dissipative systems” and the 2d Law of Thermodynamics in complex adaptive human systems– it took me a couple of years to solve this seeming dilemma when I first encountered complexity and began my learning journey in the late 1990s. One day I realized what the answer was. Human systems organize to increasing levels of complexity over time because they are not dissipative at all. Energy continues to flow into our endeavors (Dawkins was wrong).

…can we purposefully influence the emergence of positive change? That’s the Big Q, of course. I believe we can not know all that there is to know, and all that we might want (or need) to know, in order to truly control change outcomes. What we can do (and must do, if we are to survive and thrive), is continuously seek to learn and understand about what’s going on. We must iteratively try our most promising options, and continuously observe what happens. Where and when stability and desired outcomes occur, we act to stabilize and sustain them (which may not always work, since the underlying dynamics may still be too complex). We must work to keep improving our response capacity in the face of change and emergence of the new.  

…in reading a bit on the Generative Emergence site, I kept thinking about the work of Alicia Juarrero, and the influence she had on the work of Dave Snowden, and Cynthia Kurtz in particular. I am thinking here about the dynamics of intention, and how our purposeful actions yield boundaries, constraints, and simultaneous opportunities.

…I likewise think that the complexity community would be well-served to look at the work of the Bulgarian-born Australian professor, Vlad Dimitrov. In particular, Vlad’s twist on Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety. Vlad posits a Law of Requisite Vorticity. That is, the rate of communicated ideas and info exchanges between and among us. Following on the vortical flow dynamics of liquids, for example, Vlad suggests that a sufficient level of communicated exchanges yield a vortex of thought and action. Like the swirling funnel of a tornado, this vortex results in a specific vector- a trajectory of our intention and shared purpose. We can cultivate and nurture these exchanges and explorations of possibility space. In so doing, I believe we can influence and generate change. Except for…

…the power of social Attractors of meaning. The power of ideas and beliefs, the limits of knowledge and understanding, the barriers of emotion, will all work to simultaneously constrain and hold the status quo. Power and fear, often prime among these. So how then are we to act in the awareness of these dynamics, if we intend to generate new possibility and improved outcomes?

How F.A.R. Will You Go?

Are you…Flexible? Adaptable? Resilient?
Eleven years ago, as the Administrator of Training and Development at the Delaware River Port Authority, I gave the opening keynote at the annual conference of the Eastern States Transportation Network. 

The Network is comprised of people responsible for the operation, maintenance, and security, of highways, bridges, trains, and tunnels from Maine to Florida. The impact of 9/11 was still fresh in everyone’s mind, and there were many police and security folks in the audience.

At the conference, I spoke about the lessons learned from the experience of the first responders, and the people inside the buildings that day:

> How the knowledge and understanding each person had up to that moment was not necessarily sufficient for responding to the unexpected action that occurred. 

> How information, when it became available, was often incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading, because of the limited perspectives of people in their places, in the moment. 

> How in complex situations, life or death literally depends on how people make sense of their rapidly evolving experience together in the moment.

SO…

4 SENSE MAKING SKILLS YOU NEED, TO NAVIGATE DISRUPTIVE EXPERIENCES

My conclusion was that there were several skills we need and must use in the face of unexpected events and disruptive experiences:

> We must be willing and able to change our intention and action rapidly in the face of significantly changed circumstances around us.

> We must know multiple ways and paths to (hopefully) lead us towards our goals.

> We must have the capacity to learn, understand, and adapt rapidly.

> Finally, we must be able to calmly and efficiently negotiate meaning and purpose with others. 
The greater our capacities in these areas, the better our chances of surviving. . . And thriving.

As W. Edwards Deming put it (in his usual dry witty away): 

“Learning is optional. Survival is optional.”
Collective sense-making, exploration of promising options, and continuous learning and adaptation, is the best we can do as we act into the complexities of the unknown future.

Putting It All Together: the “New Lens” of Integrated Improvement

This follows on my appearance last week at FHI 360’s Challenge Development conference. This conference featured Otto Scharmer’s two-hour opening presentation. I was on a panel for a “deep dive” into “polarity and emergence in cooperation and competition” (hint- I said there is NO polarity. These are two aspects of the singular complex experience of living).

My friends at FHI 360 advocate and seek to apply an “integrated strategy” to the exceedingly complex work of global development. 

Here’s my recent comment on Integrated Improvement:

I have been teaching what I call “Integrated Improvement” for years now. I referenced my approach in my remarks at last year’s FHI 360 Advancing the Field Conference, and again last week in my talk at the Challenge Development conference.

The “integration” in approaching the complex challenges of development work begin with applying a new lens to the sense-making and decision-making processes. The New Lens is all about looking at the different types of systems and challenges we face, and understanding that different challenges require different kinds of response. An Appreciative perspective on Asset-Based Community Development help to focus on promising options, without the (false) presumption that solutions to complex challenges are known or knowable. This new lens has powerful implications for sense-making, decision-making, defining metrics, and assessing policy and program results.

We explore possibility without fear of failure. We include everyone in our inquiry. We learn continuously; adapt as needed; keep what works; discard what doesn’t.

And in so doing, we integrate our approaches and actions towards both technical/complicated, and complex/adaptive challenges at the same time. We learn as we probe the multiple dynamics that impact the challenges we want to address. And we adjust strategy and tactics as needed.