The trouble with the 1%

There are lots of wealthy people who are being negatively impacted by the consolidation of wealth and the evisceration of the middle class around the globe. Their enterprises serve the citizens much like the democracies governing their countries should.  When their customers (a.k.a. stakeholders) are under or unemployed, nobody wins. Likewise for insufficient education, health care and social services among their constituencies.

Thus I define the 1%, targeted by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, as not merely the most wealthy, but as the most immune to the negative effects of their increasing wealth. If I interviewed them, I would expect to find they have no concept of a middle class, only of "rich and poor" or "winners and losers". They would have no framework for getting the message from the protesters others than "a bunch of sore losers" or "whiners getting the liberal media's attention". I expect they would be extremely focused on making money with money, preventing losses through taxation and revising regulations to increase their wealth. They would assume it's fair game to buy lobbyists and politicians who will help solve problematic losses of wealth spawned by the government protecting the citizens, commonwealth and public interest. They cannot comprehend having negative impacts on the democracy when everyone continues to be entitled to vote.

If the 1% entered into therapy in order to become essential members of a 100%, they would likely learn much about themselves:

1. Their range of emotional responses is poised toward thrill seeking in material pursuits and coldness in relationships
2. They lack empathy for others and cannot comprehend other's pain, setbacks and lack of access as opportunities to help out
3. Their autobiographical narrative is boring and lacking in rich details, hindsights and characterizations of growth
4. They do not adapt easily or respond flexibly to challenges to their status quo which serves them as fortified comfort zones
5. They have no interests which could provide alternatives to making more money, only in creating more proof of material success 
6. Their "left brains" are functioning autonomously, productively and prodigiously
7. Their "right brains" have been taken offline, rather than being integrated with their left brains and observed by their prefrontal cortexes
8. They react to challenges by taking them very literally, showing no ability to utilize metaphors or reframe facts with varied viewpoints
9. They have not begun to fall in love with meaning, having gotten stuck in being extremely objective and factual
10. They chose careers in banking, finance, law, math, statistics or corporate leadership because those their shortcomings would go unnoticed in those fields

All this suggests to me that the Occupy Wall Street movement is falling on the deaf ears of the 1% and the politicians whom have been bought by campaign contributions and/or lobbyists baiting their collusion. The protesters are "preaching to the choir" who already get the message and validate the objections to current trends. The stalemate will persist until their right brains function equally well and eliminate all ten items on this list.

Who are the 99%?

With the increasing number of cities experiencing occupations (#ows), I've been pondering who are the 99% that perceive a 1% unlike themselves. Here's how that 99%/1% split makes sense to me so far.

How many are feeling the effects of foreclosures occurring in their neighborhoods, housing markets, school districts and public spaces? 99%?
How many are driven to insist on foreclosures in lieu of mortgage refinancing or rent-to-own interventions, as if there is no pain to be felt? 1%?

How many medical professionals and insured patients are impacted by the millions of uninsured/underinsured along with the soaring costs of health care services? 99%
How many have no choice but to raise prices, decline coverage and allow health care to deteriorate while profitability gets protected? 1%?

How many parents, siblings, friends and employers are feeling the pain of recent graduates with staggering college loans and little or no income to pay them off. 99%?
How many see the benefits of raising the cost of tuition, textbooks, campus services and college loans to better save their financial interests? 1%?

How many retirees, and those nearing retirement, are feeling betrayed, abandoned and jeopardized by the enduring decline in their investments or pensions? 99%?
How many are profiting from Wall Street's comeback and are feeling no pain from staggering losses? 1%?

How many public employees who keep us safe and educated are seeing cutbacks, furloughs and layoffs which leave us in danger of increased crime, fires and ignorance? 99%?
How many want to privatize all public services to prevent freeloaders from getting something for nothing? 1%?

How many see the massive military expenditures as weakening the country, depleting its infrastructure and hijacking the democracy? 99%?
How many want increased military spending to strengthen our defenses and avoid any sign of weakness on in the international stage? 1%?

How many of the disadvantaged, disabled and displaced are traumatized by the disappearing safety net and support services? 99%
How many are cutting those services, regardless of the human toll, in order to reduce taxes which amount to theft of earned income? 1%?

How many think the political/economic system has become rigged in favor of profitability and polarization? 99%?
How many think the system fairly benefits those who work hard enough to win and lets the losers suffer the consequences of their laziness? 1%?

How many think the democracy has been hijacked by lobbyists and campaign funding sources which override the voice of the citizens? 99%?
How many think the democracy has been adapted to better serve the economic prosperity of corporate titans and shareholders? 1%?

It's no wonder there's no single issue being promoted, no legislation getting drafted and no spokespersons claiming to represent the 99%. Let those with ears to hear listen to this cacophony of pain and diverse pursuits of changes.

Reading the pilot program

When change agents realize that actions speak louder than words, it make sense to let a pilot program speak for itself. Showing how the change gets accomplished and what results follow will be far more convincing than any propaganda about the change in the abstract. It's time to play "show and tell" with demonstrations, test drives and other hands-on experience whenever changes need widespread adoption.

To consider the receiving end of these "shows of changing", it's helpful to return to Chip and Dan Heath's metaphor of the elephant with its small rider on top. The elephant will be reading the change from its own perspective, not that of the rational rider. I suspect our inner elephants look for the following attributes in any pilot program for a looming change:

1. How safe will the participants be during the exposure to embarrassing mistakes and vulnerability to criticism?
2. How balanced is the change effort with preserving what's already working so the baby does not get thrown out with the bathwater?
3. How reliable is the structure for orchestrating the diverse change efforts into a coherent whole?
4. How strong is the container for the participants' misgivings, doubts, hesitation and cynicism toward the proposed change?
5. How much stability will get restored after the upheaval?
6. How useful will the change appear after the commotion dies down and the daily grind deals with the change everyday?
7. How much consideration has been given to not changing or changing more gradually?

These concerns suggest that our inner elephants read any pilot program with a different set of questions than those who are championing the change. If the pilot program answers the elephants' questions, it will get read as a safe path, reliable bridge and protected path to take forward. If the pilot program only answers questions of the small rider on top, the elephants will balk at the change. There will suddenly be tons of motivation to preserve the status quo and avoid the crazies with their inflammatory talk of change.

Lured by the herd

We've all got tons of motivation to follow a herd or two. Our inner elephants feed off others' motivation when they appear to be our own kind. We usually choose our herd out of desperation. On this level of irrational urges, we're afraid of getting isolated, rejected or scapegoated. We cling to the security of safety in numbers regardless of out rational thinking about it.

When our herd changes, we change. We do not want to stick out like a sore thumb, to rock the boat or to attract unnecessary attention within our herd. We may join a herd that attracts attention by being troublemakers, competitors or some kind of warriors. We're okay with getting noticed so long as we're sticking to our own kind.

While we're identified with our herd, we cannot break out on our own. We're sure we lack the self motivation to "follow the beat of a different drummer". We cling to our herd and cannot let go. There's been no change in the fears that drove us to seek out that herd originally. Our inner elephants will defeat any ambition to be different or to make a change that the others are dismissing.

There eventually comes a time in our lives where our inner elephants reject the herd. We may come to some dawning realizations like:

• we're acting powerless in sync with the herd and powerful when we deviate from its dictates
• we're imprisoned by the herd's imposed conformity and liberated by stepping out of line
• we're living in fear when we're lured by the herd and finding our courage when we strike out on our own
• we're afraid of freedom when we stick to our own kind and we're loving freedom when we follow our inner calling

When these kinds of realization take hold, our inner elephants will take a different path. We will discover we have tons of motivation to leave the herd and follow our hearts. We'll find we have unique gifts to give the world that we're uniquely prepared to deliver. We will see how we want to make a questionable difference in our surroundings regardless of the lure to regress to safety in numbers. We will want to challenge our preconceptions, to test our abilities and to discover if we can produce results as we intend. We will make the switch from reacting (to what others think) to creating (what we think is right).

Actions speak louder than words

In their newest book, Switch, Chip and Dan Heath use a wonderful metaphor to explain how we get motivated to change. Imagine a big elephant with a little rider on top and a path the two is following. When we use words to convince people to change, the little rider on top is all ears and the big elephant is not moved by our exhortations. When we show how the change is accomplished and what results occur from the change, the elephant gets it. When others have joined in making this change, the path becomes a herd that the elephant follows naturally.

The little rider on top favors negative thinking about changes, about the elephant and about itself.  It attempts to change by its own willpower, self control and determined thinking. The little rider usually works against the elephant and loses the battle. Trying to resist what the elephant wants only ends up with more of the pachyderm's irrational urges to oppose rationally. The little rider gets nowhere with its negative thinking.

Elephants are easily spooked by the unexpected. Elephants get the urge to change when they get spooked by the status quo. They suddenly anticipate the consequences of making no changes. They became afraid of getting left behind, getting into more trouble or getting stuck in a dead end. Elephants also get moving forward when they see a better solutions for themselves. The change sells itself without a sales pitch because the advantages are obvious, the value is palpable and the results are undeniable.

The little rider on top needs to switch from trying to change a lack of motivation with negative thinking. As Yoda famously said in the first Star Wars film, "there is no trying, only doing and not-doing". When we think about doing change without trying, it makes sense to pursue approaches  I've explored previously here:

• appreciative inquiry
• solving for pattern
• third and fourth order change
• discovery systems
• connected dashboards

When we succeed at changing, we don't get to be in control. As Chip and Dan Heath show us in their latest book, we need to work the elephants and the structure of the path. We stop attributing negative motivations to others and start seeing the big picture. We join a herd that finds tons of motivation to do what is obviously a better way to get better outcomes.

Heralding post print literacy

This week I've been exploring Prezi software and pondering its implications on our uses of words. It appears perfect to me for heralding in post print literacy.

Deploying strategic lenses

Whenever we're thinking about making a change, making an impact or making progress, it's time to look at our challenge through strategic lenses. If we take the situation literally, at face value or superficially, we're likely to function as our own worst enemy. Poor strategic judgment is the result of a failure to see what is hidden, subtle and unstated. Strategic lenses correct that deficiency by questioning our choice of perceptions.

1. Strategic outlook or tactical fixation? When we're seeing our situation strategically, we combine a panoramic overview with focused attention. We get the big picture and the particulars of the detailed situation. We remember the purpose/mission of our intervention while getting down to the task at hand.

----- When we're suffering from tactical fixation, we've lost sight of the mission, big picture and access to alternative maneuvers. We're trapped by our attention to details, fear of getting distracted and obsession with being right about the obvious evidence. We dwell on the details and miss the opportunities to outmaneuver the opposition.

2. Direct or indirect strategy? When we see a process to trust and nurture, we feel we can take an indirect approach. We create demand, hunger, appetite or urges in others. We get them to sell themselves on what we're selling instead of giving them a sales pitch. We let go of making the results happen and allow the desired outcome to come around on its own.

----- When we're oblivious to any trustworthy process, we're left with no alternative but to take a direct approach. We become pushy, persistent and obnoxious to make things happen. We expect to succeed by forcing the issue, overcoming objections and intimidating the opposition.

3. Strategic or literal weakness? When we realize how strengths can backfire, bait attacks or slow down our own maneuvers, we see the benefits of weakness. We sense the wisdom in appearing to be a work in progress than a finished work of art. We suspect we're indulging in overconfidence, hubris and conceited outlooks when we think we're strong, better or invulnerable. We look for the flip-side of each presumed strength for its inherent weakness, failing or shortcoming.

----- When we take our strengths literally, we're afraid of appearing weak. We come on too strong, make enemies of potential allies and overstep our bounds. We don't know when to back off because it's inconceivable how that could be a show of hidden strength rather than an obvious admission of defeat, inferiority or vulnerability.

4. Strategic emptiness or fullness? When we're observant of how our minds function under pressure, we see the wisdom in increasing innocence. We favor our mental resources for questioning the obvious and becoming fascinated with unforeseen possibilities. We challenge our predictions for what always happens, never occurs and cannot come about. We see how to take advantage of others presumptions to play them for the fool.

----- When we're afraid of how our minds sabotage our over-zealous ambitions, we regard innocence as dangerous vulnerability. We favor our mental resources for aggression, conviction and endurance. We become full of ourselves and easily baited by others' shows of weakness, vulnerability and ignorance. We keep up our own confidence at all cost rather than shatter our preconceptions with a reality check.

When we look at a situation through all these strategic lenses, we'll get a very different sense of what to do. We derail our tendency to jump to conclusions. We give ourselves more to reflect upon and consider from several different angles.

Cultivating a global mind

Todd left a insight-packed comment on my most recent posting: Creating valuable experiences. I've broken it up into sections to add to what he wrote last night.

Growing up through the ranks of engineering, I can certainly understand the complexities in making the most of our experiences. Rolling from the left brain toward the right didn't come easy.

To be aware of the challenge of making the change is impressive in itself. There are many professions which set up a difficult transition like you describe. Doctors are groomed to make rational diagnoses and shy away from trusting their intuitive insights. Financial planners are quick to crunch the numbers and slow to expand their horizons into more complex appreciations of changing markets, economic trends and shifting consumer moods. Policy analysts working for legislators can track the emails, graph the constituencies and monitor the budgets, but hesitate to speculate on visionary leadership possibilities and trend setting maneuvers.

Academia, unfortunately, thrives on a linear presentation of information which essentially shuts down the global learners in our heads.

Academia is at it worst in this respect when it relies on a factory model - mass producing graduates with diplomas in hand. The machine graded exams and enormous class sizes reduce the cultivation of unique cognitive processes. The farming of global learners is a labor intensive practice that appears to not be scalable so far. The mentoring I'm doing now is much more effective than the classroom teaching I did for years at getting logical thinking to be balanced with creativity.

Once a neocortex man, I'm transforming myself into a whole brain learner by learning to really focus when the parachute is open.

I think you're right to use the analogy of the parachute here. Left brained reasoning appears fear-based to me. The mind is closed our of apprehension of taking too much time to decide, considering too many options and responding to an excessive proportion of the panorama when we are in mortal danger. Logical reasoning assumes our survival is in jeopardy and processes data accordingly. It also appears that we cannot get creative when we are afraid, panicking, or stressed. We need to get out of survival and into self expression for the higher orders of consciousness to kick in.

Now I break the old bad neuroassociations and use my full capacity to generate new good ones. Through much repitition and practice, I've found reflection to be a constant and never-ending improvement.

Well said! Unlearning is often a prerequisite to deeper learning. When our mind is made up, we cannot take on disturbing contradictions without unmaking our convictions. Acts of creativity call for some destruction of status quo, established explanations and presumed categories to apply to unfamiliar situations.

Are your ready for a networked future?

When you were in school, did you do homework or network? Homework is assigned with a deadline in order to get a grade. Network is generating what needs to be said, done or collaborated upon -- whenever your contacts give you an indication that something is missing.

Can you do your job in isolation or are you being a node? Jobs have job descriptions, accountability metrics and conformity with policy manuals. We can hide behind all that and say "it's not in my job description". Being a node is connected to everyone else. We function as nodes when we get inundated with inputs and give back what makes the most sense upon reflection.

Do you think of "networks" as rumor mills that stab you in the back or as web searches that return what you're looking for? When networks seems as threatening as "a meteor is to a dinosaur" (thanks Harold!) we want to avoid them and deny they exist. When we're benefiting from informal collaborations, colonies, cults and underground exchanges, we welcome them and join in (thanks Aloof!)

When you're feeling pressured, overloaded and under the gun, do you seethe with resentment or give your network a readout of your "system state"? When we think we're individually responsible for outcomes, we over-commit and then over-react to the excessive burden. When the network is responsible for outcomes, we contribute in harmony with all our obligations.

When you're seeking assistance with your situation, do you corner an individual in hopes of intimidating him/her or do you let "everyone" know of your plight? When we fail to see the connectedness of all of us, we may go on a power trip, dish out guilt trips, beg for mercy or bribe others to give into our demands. When we rely on the network to recognize, redistribute and resolve our challenges system wide, we call upon the network first thing.

When you're helping others prepare for our networked future, do you emphasize their dependency on the network or their contributions that helps the network thrive. When we use the network to search, research and shop around, we depend on the network to deliver tangibles to us. When we generate content for the network, we give in a way that gives us back power, confidence, voice, identity and other intangibles.

Ready or not, here it comes :-)

Sorry this is a business

In When change changes your change, Steve Roesler laments being told "this is a business". The comment implies "we're not here to serve you". It frames what happens in people's lives as "unmanageable problems", "excessive cost overruns", "budget problems" or "reduced profits". When people say "this is a business" I hear "this is not a viable network". They're saying "We're still in the 20th century making money, we're not in the 21st century making and feeding connections".

Making a schedule change into a problem is a function of being disconnected from robust interdependencies. Any vast network of resources routinely adapts and assimilates every disturbance to it's equilibrium. When our calendars are online, its network of subscribers knows of changes in our schedules 24/7. When we deliver value both onsite and online, we offer value when we're not around. When we get things done both in meetings and in our minds, we're at work when we're not there. Who can say whether a schedule change is a problem in the context of a functioning network?

Businesses offer lots of excuses to wall themselves off from networks. Corporate propaganda says joining a network:

• loses control of operations, costs and brand name/story
• sends a message that we can be overrun or intimidated by external demands
• leaves a door open to competitive espionage and theft of intellectual property
• makes us more beholden to networked customers and journalists who can change our reputation at a whim
• provides a loudspeaker for internal whistle blowers to broadcast every complaint they've got against us
• hurts the chances of recruiting executive and professional talent with our internal dissensions on display
• erodes our value proposition, unique attributes and market positioning into commoditized similarities

For these reasons and many more, "this is a business" means keeping things linear and confined. There are firewalls and silos to stay inside of. There are lines of authority to conform to and procedures to execute. There are consequences for stepping out of line, going around someone or finding loopholes in the policies. There are scripts for handling phone calls, policies for handling exceptions and rules for procedural compliance.

Networks are the opposite: non-linear and not confined. Networks may function with routers to redirect linear transmissions through a past of least resistance. Networks support search and find processes that come up with unforeseen options. Networks reconfigure themselves to accommodate changes. They do not go on hold because local resources are tied up. They do not overtax a reliable node and fail to spread the challenge system wide. They get things done by letting the network do its thing.

That's very different from the previous century of asking one person (supervisor, client, HR contact) for accommodation which sets up a sequence of problematic consequences. Corporations are limited in their response capability because they seek to curtail chain reactions, domino effects and the viral spread of memes. If businesses functioned like networks of free lance professionals, redundant capabilities or vastly interdependent resources, a change of schedule would be "no problem". So the problem is not with the an individual's personal schedule changes, but with the way we did business before now.

Keeping awareness to a minimum

Those of us who serve processes of changing are "in the awareness business". We may be consultants of enterprises, designers of systems, leaders of communities, counselors of target populations or mentors of individuals. We know that successful change requires expanded awareness. Our own awareness has come at a price and sacrificed some short-term gains. We expect to be valued for increasing the awareness of others with less struggle than we endured.

When a change is long overdue, limited awareness is an impediment to the process of changing. People don't see the effects of their actions and outlooks. They don't admit to feeding the escalating problems or doing more harm than good. They deny how the repercussions of their actions could be really toxic.  Their limited awareness is easily provoked to "shoot the messengers" who deliver a message of expanded awareness. Our constituencies want to keep their awareness to a minimum and defend their blind spot with a vengeance.

When we show up offering expanded awareness, we look like trouble. We say things that threaten and disrupt their complacency. We expect to be appreciated for giving gifts that Steve Roesler characterized yesterday in: Change: Reflection, Discernment, and Wisdom. We're planning to meet on the common ground of doing what it takes to support the process of changing. We're surprised and dismayed when clients and colleagues oppose us being "in the awareness business". We get caught up in stalemates where opposing sides cannot both be right.

Here is the kind of stalemates (me vs them) I get into the most often when peddling expanded awareness:

• This looks good on paper but is actually toxic for the environment, community, future generations or the global economy vs. This is a business success that our performance metrics capture accurately
• This is doing more harm than good to your customers (reputations, marketing efforts, etc) vs. This is an established practice that delivers our value proposition reliably
• This is a show of hubris that leaves the enterprise vulnerable to getting blind sided by unforeseen rivals vs. This is beating our competitive rivals by  showing who's in the dominant position
• This occurred by luck/happenstance/chemistry and cannot be consistently repeated with different people, customers or situations vs. This is a reliable procedure that works every time we execute it properly
• This is a cognitive distortion which feeds into chronic problems vs. This is objective realism of the actual situation

When faced with stalemates like this, we face three obvious choices that I added to the comments on Steve's post:

1. Do we play along with the delusional confidence to maintain credibility with our constituencies?
2. Do we change our tune and become a whistle blower?
3. Do we leave the employer/client with our conscience intact?

All three choices offer costly, negative consequences. As I've pondered these choices since yesterday, I've realized they all provide incentives to find a fourth option. I suspect these three negatives point at a positive alternative we've been exploring as:

• Be the change, follow our transformational urges and lead by example
• Be a free agent that moves into the long tail of social objects where "small is scalable"
• Be a life long learner that approaches this with a sense of wonder and fascination
• Be a reflective practitioner that utilizes every setback to explore hidden dynamics

Technorati tags: change models, organization development

Problems with making change

When we have responsibility for particular people or outcomes, we are likely to have a problem with how things are changing:

• Stagnation, not changing at all, stuck in a bad habit
• Speed of the change, too fast or slow, out of sync with other dynamics
• Adapting to the change, maladjustments, hysterics
• Costly changing, consuming too many resources to make change happen
• Control of change, chaotic deviations, scattered efforts, unforeseen changes
• Repercussions of changing, fall out, side effects, backlash
• Confusion, misinterpretation of the changes, negative spin

When faced with any of these "problems with making change", our reflexive thinking will react to  the face value evidence. We'll suddenly have convictions about how to fix the obvious problems. We'll know what to do and then take action accordingly. We'll think we are "making things occur as planned" or "getting change efforts back on track".

Given these many problems with what's unfolding, we cannot simply allow changes to occur emergently. Letting go appears it could only make the problems worse --according to our reflexive thinking. We have to do something to fix the problem.

Our reflective thinking calls a timeout to reconsider all this. We wonder if we've got a comprehensive picture of what's going on here. We consider how we're being taught a lesson or shown something that's hidden from view. We suspect we're overlooking a crucial dimension of the underlying dynamics, assuming it's irrelevant or ruling it out of our preconceptions.

Reflective thinking wonders where the "problems with making change" come from. It's highly suspect that our reflexive thinking feeds the problem. The way we fix the obvious problems may provoke the opposite to occur. We may even be maintaining the problem to look important and justify our position overseeing the change.

Reflective practicing will reveal a way to vanish the problems with making change. We'll see the obvious problems as solutions to the hidden problems we're causing. We'll make connections between how we're fixing things and how things keep happening for us to fix. We'll get a bigger picture that includes our reflexive thinking in the dynamics of the perpetual problems. We'll see ways to change our mind that suspends our certainty, upgrades our approach and gives the world a better gift.

Technorati tags: change models, problem solving

Framing our constituencies

There are patterns in how we approach changing other people. We come from different places with different assumptions about who gets changed and how change happens. It appears that some patterns work better than others. Some approaches create the resistance they try to overcome. Choosing the way we frame the process of changing can facilitate the transformation of our educational systems, business enterprises and cultural stories.

Pushed vs. pushy: When a constituency appears to be stagnant, the instigators of change become belligerent. Passivity engenders hostility. Obsequiousness is a breeding ground for obnoxiousness. Doormats bring out the bully in those who want changes to happen ASAP. Those wallowing in self pity, powerlessness and victim stories will experience the imposed change effort as disastrous, disruptive and profoundly inconsiderate.

Pushing vs. pushing back: When a constituency appears defiant, the instigators escalate their change efforts. A competition ensues over which side can be the most stubborn, determined and controlling. Tactics erupt to intimidate the opponents, back them into a corner and penalize them for their "lack of cooperation". The struggle for power is self perpetuating with no end in sight. The closed loop learns nothing from the short and long term effects on each side. Whatever is being resisted gets "persisted" with a vengeance.

Pulling vs. pushing: When a constituency appears to voice legitimate concerns and share long-term interests, the instigators let go of making changes happen. They "get off their opponent's case", "out of their face" and "into their corner. They help the others succeed, meet their needs and serve their valuable objectives. Pulling for our constituencies "creates buy-in" to follow our unimposing lead. The followers push for the change while the leader pulls for the new pushers. It's apparent how our serving them comes back around to serve the change process and our shared interests. The set-up is reciprocal. We reap what we sow.

Evolving vs. pulling: When a constituency appears to be continually evolving, the instigators join the party. Both are changing by learning from each other, personal reflecting and significant happenstance. There are times to let the changes unfold and times to help others get their needs met. There are no fears that changing will stop or go off in a useless direction. All reactions, eruptions and agendas are good for the continual process that's evolving. It's all something to learn from, put to use and see from different perspectives.

As you may discern from how I've framed the process of changing, the way we characterize our constituencies may be a fateful decision. We can orchestrate our experience of making changes by how we see others. This suggests that what happens is "all in our minds". "Change our mind and we change our world"; or as Gandhi advised: "Be the change we want to see in the world".

Ego tripping or ego shrinking

Awhile back, Michele Martin wrote a wonderful post: Ego-Blogging, where she reflected on the contrasts between blogging for her ego or for us. Since then, I've been utilizing that distinction in other contexts. This post is a summary of my recent reflections about the limitations of ego tripping and the value of ego shrinking.

Our egos chase after rainbows in search of pots of gold that never satisfy us. This trait has been psychoanalyzed as neurosis or symbolic gratification. We get seduced by the package and dismayed by the real experience inside. This is a reason why we fall for useless educational experiences, the accumulation of countless friends in networking sites and the acquiring of so many things we almost never use. When we shrink our frantic egos and listen to our serene feelings, we find what we're looking for and get satisfied with those finds.

Our egos have high associational barriers. When we're ego-tripping, "it cannot be both", "there's no two ways about it" and "there's one right answer". We're devoted to expertise, objectivity and clear definitions. With shrunken egos, mash-ups work for us. It takes both to make up a winning combination. We free to flow with unstructured, evolving, and chaotic happenstance. We take things as they come and see ways to use what shows up.

Our egos maintain a sense of identity. When we're ego-tripping, we are constantly threatened by people: making us wrong, puncturing our pride, tarnishing our brand or disagreeing with our self-righteous stance. When we shrink our egos, we find a sense of balance, timing and compassion within us. We become clear of fear as our identity is up for grabs and changing from day to day. We cannot be made wrong because we feel like a work in progress. We give up on pride to see others eye-to-eye, in the same boat, and on the same team.

Our egos are devoted to making things happen. On an ego trip, we're pushing the river, opposing natural processes, taking control of situations and insisting on delivering product. With egos shrunk to an appropriate size, we naturally trust the process and allow for emergent outcomes. We see ways to bring about what cannot be forced and accommodate what needs space to realize it's potential.

Switching from ego tripping to ego shrinking occurs naturally as we discover:

• what really satisfies us
• what works when interacting with the rest of us
• what happens when we identify with all of us

White hot spotlights

In follow-up to my post: Transforming other educators, dave lee has insightfully proposed shining a "white hot spotlight" on the need for change--  in his post: getting others to follow.

To deal with these additional two factors, i'll add to tom's "vertical dimension" and "appreciative space" the need for a continued white-hot spotlight on the immediate realities of the workplace's true needs for learning. Finally, those of us who have been in the lead need to exert pressure on senior management to recognize the organic nature of organizational learning and to provide our colleagues with the tools and exemplars that will enable them to drive change from within.

Those of us blogging about the need of change are in the spotlight, see the changes clearly and call attention to all we're seeing. Those I characterized as "in the trenches" don't get it, aren't seeing it and are avoiding the necessary changes.

I wonder if the entrenched educators are in the dark or blinded by the light? Will a spotlight help or bewilder them more? Are they on the brink of changing and in need of convincing prod, or stalwartly determined to go down with the sinking ship? Will it help them to turn up the heat or are they already toast?

Nature is filled with examples where the obsolete organic system falls by the wayside as if it's cooperatively making way for it's replacement. It occurs at the level of cellular replacement, predator/prey interactions and vast landscape transformations. I've previously alluded to these dynamics as composting, winning without a battle, and replacing pioneer species.

There is so much glaring evidence that changes are required, that learning is organic and that enterprises thrive by learning from the changes in their contexts. How can so many entrenched professionals not take the hint, read the signs, or get a clue from their surroundings? Perhaps because they are not meant to catch on. Perhaps those who are changing are emerging with the next formulation and those who are not are getting obsolesced with their devoted structure.

When I proposed adding a vertical dimension to the experience of educators with one degree of freedom, the recipients are already making progress, taking action, moving forward. There are those with no degrees of freedom, stuck in their past, up against a wall of intransigent obstacles. Perhaps the white hot spotlight is meant for those "deer frozen in headlights".

Technorati tags: educational reform, transformational change

Unforeseen possibilities

Roger von Oech recommended The Black Swan to me a couple months back. He's since done a blog post on it when he finished reading the book last month. I finished the book yesterday. This the first of several I'll write on this provocative exploration of improbable occurrences by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

At any point in time there are unforeseen possibilities that have not previously occurred in our history. We can assume they won't happen-- like the well-fed livestock that is fat, dumb and happy about how well their dining experience continues to be. We can otherwise be open to the possibility without being able to foresee it, predict it or explain it. Since we cannot dwell on what the possibility is to foresee, we can only focus on how we are seeing.

We fail to foresee extreme possibilities when we are pursuing a sure thing. We play the game by the book, according to the formula and true to the technique. We allow for small variations that deviate from the accepted norm. We think we are minimizing our risk exposure with our top-down consistency and conformity to a plan. We feel betrayed and alarmed when when we encounter wild swings in the numbers, extremely random variations in events or clear signs of luck defying the calculated odds.

We are more likely to foresee extreme possibilities when we abandon a sure thing. What we are then doing could amount to nothing or something we did not expect. We play by the seat of our pants while learning from the evidence of what happens and minimizing our theorizing. We scout for hidden randomness and risk exposure. We notice where it's possible for network effects, exponential changes and tipping points to kick in. We piece together a way to build slowly, bottom-up from the evidence we accumulate.

Seeing unforeseen possibilities often comes down to our explanations. If we are convergently explaining the same old story, we will rule out the unforeseen. If we are divergently exploring many different stories, we are open to the unpredictable. If our explanations establish precise causality, we will become over confident about how and why things happen. If our explanations explore recursion and indeterminate system effects, we will humbly cope with the limitations of our thinking, methods and data.

Technorati tags: The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb

When will schools change?

All of us blogging about much-needed changes in schooling, educating and learning are in the front seat of a car. We are looking out the windshield (windscreen) and seeing the road ahead. A bend in the road is not an end in the road for us because we see how to make the turn. We foresee the exits before we get to them and take the off ramp before it's too late. Because we see what's coming before it gets here, we function as visionaries, prophets and entrepreneurs for the other passengers.

All of those who are slow to adopt or opposed to changes are in the back seat of the same car. They are short sighted and can only see what's in the rear view mirror. If they turn around, they can look out the rear window. They don't see the bend in the road or the exit until it's too late. The lag effect from not seeing what's coming -- makes them unresponsive, slow to turn and incapable of proactive solutions. Because they keep the car on the straight and narrow road, they function as bureaucrats, factory workers and administrators.

Schools will change when the need to change shows up in the rear view mirror. The economy and culture will already have made the turn and changed direction without the proper education to do so. The know how to invent new models, enterprises and social constructs will not reflect how the innovators were taught, graded or indoctrinated. The change agents will have gotten their education from what works (evidence based), what seems inspired (unconscious guidance) and what makes the most sense at the time (reflective practice).

What road will we be on when the need to change will be obvious to the back seat drivers? Here's what I'm foreseeing:

• The digital economy will become a creative economy where everyone is consciously creating their experiences
• The network infrastructure we call the Internet will be called the SafetyNet as we utilize our world wide connectivity to support anyone who is giving their talents to create safety in the offline world of danger, deprivation and disconnection
• The Wild West experiences of the online world will become synchronistic experiences of an inline world -- where what consistently shows up serves what we need right now

Then all of us that have had so much to say about Web 2.0, eLearning, and School 2.0 will be able to say "I told you so" when schools finally catch on or fizzle out.

Technorati tags: educational reform, transformational change

Comparing old to new media

New media has a spellbinding effect on us. It has no comparison that allows us to be conscious of what does to us. The new media takes effect out of our control. It transforms cultures, institutions and economies effortlessly. Printing presses did this. Railroads, automobiles and airplanes took effect this way. Telegraph, telephones and cell phones invaded the status quo without anyone's permission. Film, television and 3-D games enchant us in disruptive ways too.

While new media have no comparison to make us conscious, they provide a comparison for the old media. We can suddenly see what we were doing to ourselves, the spell we were under and the assumptions we embraced unconsciously. Here's some of the old media we now have a way to compare and become conscious of its effects:

• We now have tools for manipulating digital content that expose the limitations of ink on paper for anyone of actively writing, quoting, linking and tagging text.
• We now have "publish this" buttons in our web site, blog and wiki software that let us see the restricted pipeline of literary agents, acquisition editors, publishing houses, publication page limitations and magazine/book sellers shelf space.
• We now can teleport to gatherings in Second Life and wonder why spend the time, pay for the lodging, and burn the fuel to do F2F in Real Life.
  
• We're learning by experimentation by playing MMORPG's, adopting new technologies and using the latest software - how formal instruction has the effect of controlling choices, disempowering learners and disrespecting self-direction.
• We can compare our pervasive ideal of demonstrating what we learned by "putting it into words" (print literacy) as foregoing the demonstrations of learning by "putting it into action" (game play literacy) and "putting it into pictures" (iconic literacy).
• We can question the sanity of imposed curricula, required content, and factory models of education -- now that they are getting compared to the functioning of free lancers, cultural creatives and collaborative customers.
• We can challenge the use of bloated bureaucracies that dish out diplomas to four year students -- now that we are experiencing continual job changing and life-long learning that set new standards.

The obsolete media will fall by the wayside. Their premises will stop making sense to everyone enchanted by the new media. Their harmful effects will be transparently obvious to everyone. We'll only indulge in those old media for nostalgia, personal amusement and low-functional pursuits.

Technorati tags: McLuhan, media, transitions, transformational change

That growing illiteracy rate

One of the worries about the 50% dropout rate from schools is the growing illiteracy rate. It looks like a bad thing that so many citizens will be functionally illiterate. It seems realistic to anticipate a widening divide between literate and illiterate citizens. Are we headed back to feudalism with an arrogant nobility and under-privileged peasantry? I think not.

There are two kinds of literacy: literal and iconic. Literal literacy can read text, printed words, books. Iconic literacy can read signs, situations, games in play. I suspect our cultures are becoming less literally literate in order to read the world better than ever. The dropouts are preparing for the future while the graduates are preparing to live in the past.

Iconic literacy can read:

• What a situation calls for
• What game is being played out here
• What is missing in a situation that drives things to extremes
• What is the lesson to be learned from what's happening
• What ecologies are keeping themselves fed, reproductive and resilient
• What signs of a change are appearing
• What feedback the system is providing
• What underlying premises drive the chronic behaviors
• What choices and opportunities are overlooked
• What mind is running the show for better or for worse

We cannot learn to read the signs from texts. We have to learn the landscape by immersing ourselves in it. Iconic literacy is discovered by exploring, experimenting and failing.

Technorati tags: illiteracy, dropout rate, ecoliteracy

Ink on skin

When automobiles were first invented, they were called "horseless carriages". They were framed as a variation of the existing technology. Once horse-driven carriages were obsolete, they became an amusement ride in settings that replicate the bygone era. All attempts were abandoned to provide efficient transportation and to compete with other purveyors of horse & buggy services.

When printing ink was invented, it was put on paper. Ink on paper created bound or folded publications. Ink was eventually threatened by toner cartridges. Toner on copier paper could make one copy of an original with much less set-up than the plates on printing presses.

Tape players, VCRs and DVD players then offered viewers several buttons that print publications do not have: Stop, Fast Forward, Pause, Rewind, Eject. This did not bring an end to "ink on paper" because reading the printed word can make all these moves without pushing any buttons. We can always skip ahead, jump around, reread and put down the document. Talk of the "paperless office" was premature.

Then came Web 2.0. Print publications (books, magazines, direct mail, handouts, forms, worksheets) are getting compared to the functionality of our online experiences. Paper usage is getting factored into global warming. Here's some of the reasons "ink on paper" sucks:

• There's no way to select, cut, copy and paste to a clipboard or open document
• There's no search window to find what we just read, vaguely recall or want to find other mentions of
• There's no comment box or ways to annotate the text that the author will see
• There's no zoom button to enlarge the portion we're examining
• There's no way to show what we're reading to someone who happens to be in another place right now
• There are no hyper links to open other windows and connect different ideas in our minds with ease
• There are no animations to watch that illustrate the ideas in the text, add an audio dimension to the experience
• There's no way to tag what we're reading with our own words to come back to this exact spot with the click of a mouse the next time we want to see this
• There's no way to save a printed document without cutting down a tree, burning up some petroleum and releasing some carbon into the atmosphere

So were approaching the time when ink will move from paper to skin. We'll use ink for decoration, instead of information transmission. Mass production of printed pages will be replaced by individual craftsman creating tattoos. The act of using ink will resemble the scribes of the Middle Ages painstakingly copying illuminated manuscripts. Paperless schooling, business and journalism will overtake the low-functionality of ink on paper.

Technorati tags: paperless, paper usage, McLuhan