More information on “It’s Nice That“.

I realised that although I had a sense that there is something like a red thread that runs through our facilitation and change work, I constantly tried to avoid spelling it out in explicit and clear manner. What ensued was a debate, whether it was an “approach” in the first place – or rather a method, a style, a worldview, a set of principles? But since our handbook is in the making, I no longer had a choice. Or rather a good invitation to get to terms with it. I gave it a try. Read on here:

The Approach of IngeniousPeoplesKnowledge

My initial answer to the question of how transformative momentum is sustained was the following: momentum cannot be sustained through internal or even less external interventions, but rather sustains itself if the platforms for collective conversations are present and accessible to all within the organisation at all times, i.e. if the organizational culture is one of learning in which knowledge sharing and change management strategies become second nature and all members/employees learn and practice this way of thinking and engaging with each other. So training in such methodologies could be a very useful way of making an organisation ‘fit’ for ongoing transformation in a complex and rapidly changing world.

I attended a Peter Block Community Building event last week that has inspired me greatly and also raised a new question: What if the transformation of large numbers of individuals within a system (i.e. its members being trained in various knowledge sharing and change management methodologies) does not lead to an organisational culture that is conducive to ongoing transformation? How and when does momentum last?

And I might just have found an answer to these questions in the form of further questions.  How do you create a sense of community amongst a group of people? How do you connect them to a common task/bigger purpose? Because only when people feel that they belong to a community will they also care about this community that they belong to and that belongs to them (Peter Block). So people care about what they create (Margaret Wheatley), but they carry on caring about what they create because they belong to a community that at the same time belongs to them (and that they carry on creating). So when and how do such transforming communities emerge…?

Catherine Widrig Jenkins

Well, maybe we – once more – have been on the wrong track. Watch this – and think again…

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

“I vow never to attend another poorly facilitated, talking heads, not enough interaction, powerpoint heavy workshop or conference ever again.”
Say YES to Bar Camps, Open Space, and Unconferences!
Your time is too valuable to be spent fighting with WiFi access so that you can check your email in a hotel in some exotic location while your life is clicked away, one powerpoint slide at a time.”

This has turned out to become an excellent excuse if I get asked to facilitate one of those poor quality conferences. I can now say to potential clients that come up with bad workshop instructions: “I’d love to facilitate your event, but I can’t since I cannot break this vow I have taken. So can we think about something different?”

Now at this stage our partners are often a bit surprised with what we come up. They were “courageous” in asking for something different and thus leaving their comfort zone, but when they see an agenda, which has so little resemblance with what seems to be an orderly, respectable (speak: conventional) meeting agenda, they often get cold feet. They then often ask us: “Don’t you think this is a bit risky? You know we must make sure we meet our goals and get to concrete feasible outcomes at the end of the workshop”.

Well, what risk are we talking about? Yes, we’re convinced it is very risky: there is the risk to have finally sufficient time to exchange and discuss real issues; the risk that participants genuinely engage; the risk that we meet the interest of the audience; after all: there is a huge risk that we achieve the objectives of the workshop and come to concrete results over which participants have ownership! There is the risk that we avoid death by PowerPoint, that we miss out on talk shops. In short: the risk that we do well! Honestly: how many conventional workshops have you seen that did not fulfil your expectations, that missed the real points, that did not have enough time to discuss and share, that failed to come up with concrete outcomes; in short: that missed the goal?

So then what is the real risk? That we are doing better? Maybe the bigger risk is not to be courageous, not to change but to stay with the conventional. If you want to risk to do well, then it might be worth going the other way!

The conference built on many of the methods and approaches that we promote. To get a brief overview over some of the methods used, watch this brief video:

A dear colleague of mine, Allison Hewlitt, who used to work with Bellanet and IDRC, once said: “I never facilitate other people’s events”. What she wanted to say, is, that it is very difficult and thankless to take over the facilitation task of an event at a late stage – when many of the decisions on format, structure and so forth have already been taken. Why? 80% of the success of an event lies in the preparation (because once the event starts, the ball is rolling, just like in a marble run). With regard to outcome and impact of an event, the most crucial part of the preparation work is designing and structuring the overall event. So the main task of the facilitator lies more in the work accomplished before the facilitation task during the actual starts – or to put it differently, the most important part of the job of a facilitator is to facilitate the lead phase to the event.

The main challenge of this design work is to define the expected outcome/ impact of the event – we’re talking not just about output! People who come to us often are very clear about what they want to see at the end of the event: people have heard about this and that topic, they have shared their ideas and knowledge, they have drafted a plan or strategy, … But that’s not our main concern! We then ask them: what do you want to see happening in the six months after the workshop, that will lead you to the conclusion that the workshop was worth all the time and effort? What criteria will you use at that stage to judge the workshop and our contribution to it? Because once we as facilitators know the answer to that question, it is then our task to design an event and outputs that best lead to that impact. However, usually when we ask this question, people on the phone get very silent – telling us that this is a good question – and ask us to give them a few days to figure it out…

Measuring for accountability examines “what”, the products, the “things” and assumes that knowledge is a package that can be counted. Measuring for learning makes sense of the “how”, the process rather than the product, and the relations between things. Measuring is not a bad thing in and of itself, the problem emerges when measurement is used for the wrong things. Measuring is good at accounting for what we have done against what we planned and thus should be used for gauging input and outputs. However, one cannot attribute impact to input because of the complexity and therefore measuring impact is almost impossible. Measuring for accountability does not appreciate what is of greatest value and in a knowledge management environment this is likely to be a catalytic conversation or a new idea for innovation.

Within the scientific domain, “measurement reduces and standardises. In order to make sense of complex systems and processes, measurement first uses models and frameworks to reduce them to manageable segments” (Taylor, J. and Soal, S. (2003) Measurement in development practice. CRDA: South Africa, p.4). This is contrary to I-P-K’s approach which encourages complexity by inviting it into one room.

Measurement for learning can be used to improve development practice by creating a picture of what we want to achieve and once the activity is complete by taking time to reflect on why it did not go as planned or why it did not turn out as intended. This reflection and learning should be incorporated into future planning to improve practice. If this does not happen, there is no behaviour change and the project continues as it has been. This cannot for work for any development initiative. Measuring for learning can help ensure that the changes you make to your practice will make you a more effective organisation.

(Text by Margaret Jack, I-P-K)

Yet, there is another way, but it demands that the organisation really commits to the process and is ready to change structures and processes, but in particular values and power relations; that it dedicates some considerable resources in terms of time, energy, staff and finances – initially it is a true investment into the future. I have never ever seen some real quick fixes and quick returns that were worth the effort – but I have seen long-term changes, that have been truly rich. This means clearly that KM/S will only bear fruit after several years of consistent and convincing practice – I believe there is not one single case that proves otherwise.

Today, after all these years, I am convinced, that KM/S can have value if it involves systemic change, that includes the whole system, where all the staff is fundamental part not only in the execution, but already in the co-creation of the way forward. At its core, KM/S is a change of attitude, and that can’t be imposed to people, nor can you “sell” it to them. Consultation and seeking buy-in is not enough, it leads to inefficiency, lacking impact, lacking sustainability, disappointment. Therefore, I would choose a highly participatory, transformative process, involving all the staff to already create a strategy – not just consulting them on their needs and ideas. With some effort, such processes can be conducted very efficiently and in relatively short time, but they request the consent of the top-management to go some unconventional roads and to trust their staff. Best of all this way starts of by practicing what KM/S preaches. There is nothing more convincing than starting KM/S in a truly lived KM/S way.

KM/S must serve the purpose of empowering people in their workplace, in creating space and freedom to discover what matters to them and how they can engage, connect and build meaningful relationships to share and improve. It is about working with the whole system, to explore it together with people and understand how to improve it. There is not much value in constructing, tightly manage, control and monitor – these approaches from the “control & command paradigm” are inefficient and with little effect and impact, and much to often even detrimental, demotivating and disengaging. Just as an illustration: today we are rapidly moving away from the idea of “good/ best practices” when dealing with complex systems or situations. They are an attempt to control and standardise processes, remnants of the old, but outdated understanding of how we can achieve efficiency and effectiveness. Today we dismiss this kind of thinking, because we have learnt, that the underlying assumptions are fundamentally wrong. Knowledge is not a “thing”, which we can “capture” and transfer from one place or person to another (a “knowledge product” is an oxymoron, a paradox itself), but it is rather a process in constant transformation. If we want to have meaningful impact, we must find ways to respect this and do justice to the complex nature of our work.

After many years of practice I don’t see much value in trying to convince people. The way is to start living and applying certain practices and through alternative ways of working evoke the curiosity, desire and vision of people to go for more. In some of the most convincing cases, staff was even not really aware that they did practice a KM/S way of working, however they did notice that things changed – and they liked it. That is for me a truly promising way to go.