A Way To Ease The Current Stress

A recent interview with Parker Palmer on PBS's Bill Moyers' Journal got me thinking about how the way we view the current state of the world might be worthy of further examination. 

What I experience from talking to clients, colleagues and friends is that the long-anticipated cultural shift is well underway and has been for some time.  In many ways, it's a good thing AND it's scary as all get-out.  The media is really focusing attention on governmental intervention. Will it work?  Is it enough?  Who likes it?  Who doesn't?  On and on, ad nauseum.

The current crisis didn't start with the failure of banks last Fall anymore than the CO2 emitted  today is responsible for the hole in the Ozone layer.  The hole is already there.  The CO2 that created it was emitted a long time ago.  The process that started it began in the 1940s.  Our current economic and cultural shift didn't start when banks began to  fail.  When former Secretary Poulson decided to let Lehman Brothers fail,  he created a tipping point.  A change that was already underway became visible, impossible to ignore and began to accelerate.  There will  be no going back to way things have been in the sense that huge shifts tend to create transformational change - change that is lasting  -- And paradoxically, the pattern of cycles of change continue.  Eventually, we will return to a more prosperous world and probably right on schedule.

It seems worthwhile, in light of the scale of this change, to do what we can to buy some time to get some new things going to replace the old -- to ease the pain a little where we can, even if the change is inevitable.  It's a little like giving a person in hospice morphine.  They are going to die, but with some morphine, perhaps a little more comfortably.

In my work with organizations, what I notice is that most organizations and projects fail because of people -- people who choose either short-term gain or long-term gain instead of both.  For publicly-held businesses, our regulatory system actually mandates short-term gain.  This creates tremendous momentum for our culture and even the world, given our influence -- to numb out on issues that create long-term damage.  

It is possible, even if our regulatory environment and even in these funky times to choose both short- and long-term gain,  but it's harder.  First, it requires us to let go of the notion that there is only one way to do something.  It's not the way we think in our culture.  We are more about right or wrong.  We treat most situations like there is only one way to handle it, and that way if the right way, the best way, and by the way, it's "my way."  It's simply not true.  In fact, there are nearly always many ways to address any issue or situation.  (Note, I said, 'nearly always. There are exceptions to everything).

There is an interesting book, called The Fourth Turning in which the authors, Strauss and Howe demonstrate how going back to the 14 century, every four generations (4 x20 -= 80 years) there is a large scale crisis.  They also demonstrate how the 20 year cycle in which you are born predictably determines how each generation feeds into the next 20 year cycle and the inevitable patterns of crisis and prosperity and cultural growth.  Therefore, amidst all the gnashing of teeth about right and wrong, you might consider this -- the context will be different but so far, the pattern has been quite reliable and is likely to continue.  

Being part of a pattern doesn't imply that we should give up an active role in growth and development of a better way of doing and being, because both good and bad things come out of every generational cycle and situation.  It just provides an opportunity to see how we might seize the opportunities of this time.  

Seizing the opportunities of this time is one way to express your personal creativity and leadership.  It is a concrete alternative to thinking about how we can be part of the current government interventions or whether those interventions are the "right ones."  Thinking about this time as both a crisis AND an opportunity opens up many possibilities a little more. 

Click here to watch the video of  Moyers' interview with Parker Palmer or read  the transcript.

Part 1: Sources of Innovation: If You're a Hammer, Everything Looks Like A Nail

This article begins the first in a multi-part series about uncovering and utilizing the Sources of Innovation in businesses, non-profit and other institutions. Because this work is based on social systems it provides insight into how we can lead change in times of great upheaval or chaos for individuals and organizations. When I talk about innovation I'm thinking beyond the common idea of creating new goods and services. It makes practical sense that organizations who produce break-through products and services and overcome difficult obstacles also have to become more innovative in the way they work internally and how they partner and serve customers. To paraphrase Albert Einstein: Problems cannot be solved with the same thinking that created them. Have you ever wondered why?

Some dilemmas seem quite straight forward and others are more complicated, but what makes them so? Study after study shows that 90% of all formal plans do not reach their expected outcomes. Is there something wrong with the way we plan? Or are the difficulties somewhere else?

To understand why this happens, it's help to understand the complexity of the issue you are working with. I use a model called, The Stacey Agreement-Certainty Matrix. This model helps us understand an anticipated change on a continuum of complexity rather than as a fixed phenomena. At the intersection of the two axes you'll see "close to certainty" and "close to agreement." I like to think of certainty and agreement as two forces that create a field in which change can occur -- the matrix represents a sort of "force field" for examining the forces of complexity for the change you are anticipating.

Those changes that are close to certainty and agreement as thought of as "simple." Simple change, in this instance, is not meant to infer that the proposed change project is undemanding; rather, it means the the process of achieving the change is fairly linear and straight-forward. For a change to be considered "simple" there must be strong agreement among stakeholders on:

• What the needed change is
• The underlying, issues, resources and competencies needed resolve them

AND a good deal of certainty that:

• The processes and methods proposed are likely to be available and successful at achieving the desired change.

A good test for simple change is one in which the number of variables are limited and the issues are likely ones with which you and your organization have had a lot of experience and a successful track record. Any challenges that engages you in new territories would likely not be considered simple. Many organizations approach these types of simple changes successfully using traditional management methods and tools designed to focus your attention on producing outcomes. Such tools tend to be effective at managing tactics such as MBOs, gantt charts and the like.

The further you move out on either axis, the more complicated your change becomes. The more complex an anticipated change becomes, the less effectiveness you will find in using management tools aimed at improving tactics and processes. While those traditional tools are still needed to accomplish all changes, they do not provide the kind of organizational lift needed to consider possible options for complex and chaotic change situations. For those situations you must learn to tap the sources of innovation.

Coming Up: We'll take a look at the things that contribute to complexity.

-- Sources of Innovation is based on work developed in collaboration with my colleague and friend Dee Endelman. For more information on workshops or speaking engagements send inquiries to info@northshoregroup.net.

(c)2009, Lucy E Garrick. All rights reserved. Written permission is required prior to reproduction.

Acknowledgements: Ralph Stacey, Professor of Management, Director of the Complexity and Management Centre at the University of Hertforshire, UK.