Felicia M. Sullivan, Ph.D.

What are the takeaways and future directions from this workshop?  It is abundantly clear that structure, coordination, and facilitation make the workshop run.  A group of strangers, with some minimal connections.  I should make sure to draw a network diagram of the workshop participant relationships soon.    All of the participants have strong process skills and are open to the activity.  So even for folks, like myself who favor structure, having an open mindset is good.

Peter, Kurt and Atsushi indicated at the dinner last night that the autobiographical statements are key to the creation of connection amongst the participants.  How can this be brought into the work?  Can I use this technique in my interviews for my dissertation?

I am also thinking back to the scenario exercise.  Did we come to conflictual stereotypes because that is how folks experience academic institutions?  Or is that how many institutions are?  Are there new ways to create organizational and institutional structures that use tension and disagreement productively? Organizations that resist dehumanizing others, that seek connection, and work towards dialogue.

There is a deeper transformation possible here.  This I think is what Kennan is talking about in her work.  Yet, I wonder how open would others be to the use of these techniques in their daily work?   How would even the 119 be if we did a simple thing like a “check-in”?   I am thinking that I really miss Eric.

So how will these dynamics play out in Portugual.  The group knows each other better.  Will that be a help or a hinderance?  How will they experience these sorts of activities?

In terms of emerging themes, the first that comes to mind is the balance between individual action and autonomy and group demands and control.  How do we preserve the core of what allows individuals to act and how do spaces / organizations / endeavors enhance and support individual motivation.  At the same time, how do we ensure that collective needs and goods get produced?

The other theme that has emerged is the idea of boundaries.  Where do we construct boundaries?  Can we create boundaries within boundaries to allow for multiple purposes and uses and still remain open.  Here Alex’s story of his grandfather’s land reminded me of the 119 and it ability to constantly reconfigure.  How mutable are boundaries?  When should the boundaries expand and when should they contract? How do we define and mark the boundaries?  These boundaries can also work to define who is included and who is excluded from the space as well.

Trust also emerged and with that I think the idea of reciprocity is important.  By being open do we trust others enough to co-opt or override the space.  The “tragedy of the commons” comes to mind here.  Are participants and those we engage able to understand and share our values.  Here I am reminded of Kennan’s challenge with her new staffer that doesn’t understand the value of the relationships her organization has built.  How do we create, evolve and pass down a culture of norms and practices that ensure our spaces are valued and maintained in the way in which they have been envisioned.  At the same time, is there enough flexibility to grow, change and adapt as needed?

Authority and power, especially of centralized entities has come up a lot.  Are there ways to bring decision-making to its lowest levels?  How do we create spaces where all feel valued and have a voice?  At the same time where does collective accountability come in?  How much are we willing to give up individual liberty for the collective good?  Do we trust too much in individual responsibility?  Are there gentle ways to encourage responsibility for individual and group decisions and needs?

Finally, elizaBeth’s story circle exercise brought up the issue of feedback and how do we manage and deal with feedback into our systems?  How do we ensure that negative or detrimental feedback is not amplified and positive feedback is?  At the same time, how do we constructively use negative feedback to improve and adapt.  This then seems to be more about creating and maintaining a mindset of constructive criticism.

I just read a few bits from Margaret Wheatley’s book on leadership and the new science.  In particular, chapter 5 starts to talk about self-organizing systems.  The idea of moving from a concept of closed systems that tend towards entropy (2^nd law of thermodynamics) towards open systems that exchange entropy with the environment is of interest.  Moving from a concept of decay and deterioration where equilibrium is fought for to one of energy and growth where disequilibrium is more appropriate.  Also the idea of looking at system dynamics rather than system structures.  The use of positive feedback loops as necessary for growth, despite what may initial feel discomforting and strange.  Adaptability and reorganization are other concepts here.

When I apply these concepts to the 119, there is a good deal of resonance here.  I start to wonder though are we currently in a process of becoming rigid rather than adaptable.  Like the crisis of bureaucratization in the Grenier Management Curve, how can we sustain a constant state of adaptability, fluidity, disequilibrium and positive feedback?  Wheatley talks about the need to maintain a strong identity as critical to these self-organizing processes.

In my brief conversation with Kennan Kalleris Salinero, how do continue to deal with tension in organizations especially for those who find disequilibrium confusing, fearful, and strange.  She started to talk about the idea of “holding the question.”  I should make sure to follow back up with her about this idea or seek out new ideas related to this concept.  I also need to continue to read through Wheately’s book to find additional thought points and reflection triggers.  I definitely think that Walter would find this book of interest.  I should get him a copy.

Looking forward to the NewSSC workshop I should think about how these concepts might work.  So is accountability within a self-organizing system really more about communication and positive feed back?  For example, if the gallery needs to create or ramp up new revenue streams (i.e. grants, sponsorships), is it a matter of calling the alarm and solving the issue collectively and then finding the necessary human resources to make it happen.  What if those sounding the alarm, don’t have the energy or time to follow through?  How do they engage others with equal passion?  Or, is the challenge to raise enough funds to make it a person’s “job”?  Or perhaps the idea is to bring the financial issues much more sharply into focus for people.  Make the work and effort Walter and Maryann put into the running of the gallery visible.

I wonder if I should ask Walter to write a detailed description of all of the things he does and ditto for Maryann.  Or perhaps we should do that with each really engaged person.  What are the tasks? What do they like doing?  What don’t they like doing?  How many hours?  What would their ideal effort look like?  Then perhaps we can put that into some sort of visual model.  How do you make visible the work that is invisible?  Perhaps then folks can become more aware of the need to release certain aspects of the work.

What I want to take up in tomorrow’s writing is read more from Wheatlely, see how today goes and then continue to write on how self-organizing systems can tackle work that is hard, difficult, long-term, necessary, and perhaps lacks a champion who can see it through.