Picasso's War

A 5-for-$15 sale at BetterWorldBooks landed a copy of Picasso's War, by Russell Martin. It tells the story of the village and the painting, from 1937 up through the work's return from exile to Spain in 1981. Among the things I learned was that Dora Marr photographed the painting at various stages. Those images are shown in the slideshow below, and a lot more can be found on an extensive website belonging to David M.Hart.

Those tic marks on the horse? They were added by Marr working along with Picasso, and it's believed to be the only time he ever allowed anyone to work on one of his canvases.

"Third Loop" meets the World Cafe

Subsequent to the discussion with the campus group described in the post below, a committee of energetic and creative people was appointed to plan the event. Although I'll lead the cafe event itself, I figured out very quickly the best thing to do was to give them a few pointers and then get out their way! I am not accustomed to such strong, positive forces in a university setting, and it is a TREAT!!!

They've created an event as well as a video teaser, graphics and a t-shirt design. They've identified themes for framing the event. We'll have 175 students and another 75 staff, parents, faculty and alums. Holy catfish - what a crowd!

The challenge to come: designing the cafe's question.

A Third Loop

With some groups I've been using a planning process taught by the Institute for Cultural Affairs. Known as ToP Strategic Planning, it lends itself to a generative way of thinking. In particular, the sequence for developing purpose, mission and values has so far produced succinct results for my groups without the usual tortuous wordsmithing.

As ICA presents it, it's a sequential process, and that bothered me initially. Although they point out the importance of acting on our values, it seemed that those two pieces needed a stronger connection. There was also a need for "reality" to get in there somewhere. It eventually occurred to me to think of this process as two loops that connected through Reality, and I drew it for myself as shown here.

This process is taught for use in a facilitated engagement. To ICA and others who have presented similar sequences I have always inquired: "I work in a university, and we claim to require data. Where does the data come in here?" There's never been a satisfying answer. Recently I was asked to help a campus group talk through the start of a planning process, and their first and highest concern was how to tackle what appeared to be a an enormously complex situation analysis. In the scripted process they were using, this piece of work was near the middle of the sequence. I scribbled out the ToP methodology for them and asked "What if we looked at our situation first, instead of later?" What emerged in the conversation was a third loop that may well answer my questions about data and other tools for getting at reality.

It seemed to me that we might best start by looking at the situation very broadly, and then "noticing what we notice." By taking stock of emergent issues we spend our time on things that are more likely to be important. In this instance, I recommended a World Cafe that might be quite large to assure that we had the entire system in the room. Knowing that a carefully crafted question would yield a cogent collection of topics, we could drill down as needed. Data-gathering and validation methods could be chosen to suit the issue: focus groups, surveys, Walkabouts just to name a few. The findings could then be synthesized and converged into "the story," an elegant narrative easily told by anyone that accurately describes the situation we're about to work with. Once we can do that, we should have a solid and shared context within which to ascertain our organizational identity.Such a whole system/divergent/convergent process has features worth paying attention to. First of all, it doesn't really care about top-down thinking, and instead allows important issues to emerge on their own. It doesn't respect silos either, and there is little that will be off-limits. It can be a hugely creative experience with persistent dialogue among those doing the data-gathering. Although the book Good to Great is sometimes accused of having done harm because it gets used as a cookbook, the really fascinating story in it is about how they discussed and probed their findings in dialogue with each other in order to develop their conclusions.

A few days after this discussion, I began getting ready for a teleconference about a workshop I'll present in June. For this particular association, we use Russell Ackoff's Idealized Design as a framework for surfacing the many issues that arise in university planning. This third loop that has emerged offers some similarities to "designing the mess" as described by Dr. Ackoff. If we were to find a place to insert a bit of systems thinking into this emergent approach to a situation analysis it just might really become something!

Feeding Our Mental Models

Thanks to Richard Karash I’ve been reading O’Connor and McDermott’s The Art of Systems Thinking. I have to admit that as a novice on the topic I found the first few attempts challenging, but that was before mainlining on systems thinking at the Pegasus Conference. I sat down with it again yesterday and it now reads like a novel!

In their explanation of generative learning, they describe the changes that can take place in our mental models. The change occurs in response to feedback that can only be received through our senses. This might be from messages in our body such as pain, discomfort or general un-ease. It can also be messages from other people’s bodies by way of tones in speech or body language. Unfortunately we each have thresholds in that sensitivity, often a product of our mental models themselves, that cause us to miss the feedback.

In what ways might we improve that sensitivity? I’m thinking a place to start is with a change in the medium. In a post below is a description of using Visual Explorer as a tool for finding a message inside us. We can also learn from our own images as described in Fox and Ganim’s Visual Journaling: Going Deeper than Words. Their process begins with noticing the messages from our bodies, and visualizing what those sensations might look like. I have found that as I work into the depths of their program, images and messages have appeared that were astounding. They seemed to have been imported from somewhere or someone as they just didn’t “fit” my usual lexicon. Among my mental models is one that says when I surprise myself, it’s time to pay attention and learn something.

Such visual work can go even deeper if we use Tsultrim Allione’s Feeding Your Demons. As in Visual Journaling one begins by noticing an internal sensation, and then visualizing it. The next step is to then personalize the image by looking for its living features like eyes, ears, hands a mouth; at that point one of your Demons has appeared. A conversation follows that leads you to offering the Demon what it tells you it needs, and then seeing it transform. Under certain circumstances, an Ally can emerge at the end of this exchange.

Among the reasons I was drawn to the book was a conversation I had with Diana Whitney. I had tossed out that old line about how people resist change, and she issued a pointed rejoinder: “People don’t resist change. They resist any situation in which they’re not getting something they need.” Might we work with our Mental Models as with our Demons: by giving them what they need and allowing the transformation to unfold?

Getting "The Bends" from Young, Sibbett, Kim, Block.......

In November I attended the Pegasus Conference with the intention of learning how to do systems diagrams; things went a bit beyond that. At the end of the week I attended a 2-day workshop presented by Kristina Wile and a couple of her associates, and they showed a cycle of moving from Events, to Patterns to Systemic Structures, and then back through Patterns and then to Events. They illustrated this with a little diagram that was like an upside-down “u.”

I had never seen those steps illustrated like that before. Flip it over, add Mental Models and Vision, and the works of Daniel Kim and others have room to appear. Theory U is easy to connect with, especially as it comes from the same community of practice. Squint at it only a little and the Drexler/Sibbett Team Performance Model peaks back, taking one to Arthur M. Young’s Theory of Process. Buried in Young’s work are references to Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a book loaned to me by a dean and a subject that recently keeps coming up in otherwise unrelated instances. The ICA’s Focused Conversation hangs on this framework nicely, too.

Are these similar but otherwise diverse thoughts and processes, or are they one truth showing through different voices? Lori Arviso-Alvord spoke here in November and I noticed in her presentation many aspects of Navajo spirituality that sounded very much like things I have recently read on Buddhism. I had the good fortune to chat with her afterwards, and she said she, too, had noticed similarities between these very separate worlds. I immediately wondered if these separate worlds were in fact observing the same phenomena.

What might we make of all this, some sort of Unified Field Theory? Einstein passed without ever realizing his hopes for that in his discipline. Is there a unifying visual process that can be built here? Well, there’s already a Group Graphics Keyboard.

My current thinking is that there is other work to be done, and other questions to take up. What does Kenneth Boulding’s The Image add here – the suggestion that the bottom tip of the form is like the keel on a racing yacht? Is Appreciative Inquiry using that bottom as a starting point? Should we take Jeff Conklin's Dialogue Mapping as an indication that sequences cannot stand up to our innate tendencies? What tells us how deep to go, when and under what circumstances – Ron Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers? Or The Center for Creative Leadership’s GOLD Model? Where does the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem-Solving Process fit in? Was Peter Block thinking about the difference between the right and left sides when he wrote The Answer to How Is Yes? Is this a way to get at double-loop learning as explained by Roger Schwarz? If we navigate the entire cycle, what makes it stick, what keeps us from backsliding?

I’m thinking it’s like that story about the two little boys, where one was an optimist and the other a pessimist: there’s a pony in here somewhere!

Peagsaus Day 4 - Emotion and Communality

Anne Murray’s forum was entitled To Understand Performance, Follow the Joy, and she built again on the true nature of the systems we’re studying. Anne noted that organizations are networks of living systems, and she made me remember my dentist Randy Fussell. Randy periodically works with dental students in their clinical, and he’s convinced they are thoroughly knowledgeable about each and every tooth and how it works. The role he assumes in that setting is one of making sure the students understand that there is a human being attached to that tooth. So it is with systems.

What kind of network are you in? Are there power issues? Any hoarding of information? Are people anxious to leave? If mapped, would it look like a wheel and spokes? You’re probably in an Ambition Network.

Or do you see trust and excitement? Is there a generative or even magical atmosphere? Is emotion freely displayed? Is there an emergence of well-being? Would a network map show star patterns? If so, you’re in a Collaborative Network. Think of the high accomplishments in your life: was there a prominent social aspect, and waves of emotion?

How might we move forward in either of these? Ask a few questions. Are you inspired? Where do you feel joy? What are you conserving in your manner of being with others? Are you a mindful and compassionate leader?

And then, try something really revolutionary, something your OD and HR people will not like: stop using the word “change.” Ask instead “What do we need to conserve?”

I was left with a question: what does this tell us about what we should capture in our graphics with groups. There is a saying that content is king, and some of us work as if taking depositions. Is there another layer that - if not represented - we should be showing the way to?The conference closed with Betty Sue Flowers and Peter Senge on Connecting with Meaning to Fuel Our Highest Performance. Human systems start in thought, often in untested assumptions. “Grow or die” for example. These thoughts are evident in our stories, and it is on our stories that our lives depend. Those stories can change shape with changes in perspective; the hero story is different from the victim story which is in turn different from the learning story, even if the players are the same.

We may now be caught between two stories: the one from the Industrial Age, and an emerging story of a universe that is alive, with an irreversible trend toward communality and increasing connectedness. This new story is ecological in form and substance; its actors are creators and its mode is expressive. It is a story becoming aware of itself.

Pegasus Conference - Day 3

Last May I attended SoL's Foundations for Leadership Workshop, and heard Peter Senge make the distinction between the mechanical systems that characterize many management structures, and the human systems that are being discovered and validated by the best and brightest organizations. This conference builds on that by repeatedly showing that if we're interested in the quality of what's being produced, we need to get really interested in the quality of human energy that goes into it through the systems of relationships that support it all.

Tuesday began with Sarah Lawrence-Lightfoot speaking on Respect as an Active Force. Her memory from childhood, "I'm going to school - will anyone know who I am?" became a guiding theme in the work she's done in studying relationships. Of the 6 dimensions of respect, she highlighted curiosity as evidenced in the work of photograher Daiud Bey, an element that invites connection, unmasked experience and reciprocity. Of the eight lessons she has learned about respect, dissonance was the most surprising. She pointed out that it should not be avoided as it illuminates, and that there is value in disturbing the inertia by saying the unexpected.

A team working with Harvard Medical Associates told how Culture Eats Strategy, citing data that showed how performance problems can be coupled with a compliance model that is especially strong in medicine, and how an overwhemingly disrespectful environment makes matters even worse. They had an anbelievable quantity of content that they actually completed coherently in their presentation, but one piece stood out for me: The Heirarchy of Joining a Team begins with "What do I get?" So often we tell others or are told ourselves to set this aside and think of the greater whole, but systems thinking challenges that duality. We can't take care of ourselves with out taking care of the whole, and we can't take care of the whole without taking care of ourselves. It's not an either-or situation.

Skip Griffin and David Marsing conducted a daunting forum on Inspiring Coherence in Communities by Shifting the Way We Come Together. We speak our social worlds into existence. What we believe is what we can do. Wanting change is very different from wanting life, and there's never nothing going on.

The day ended with Atul Gawande presenting Better: Lessons from Medicine on Performance under Conditions of Extreme Complexity. As the B-17 was originally condemned as "too much airplane," are we now in a situation where there is more medicine than we can handle safely? Why do we fail? One of two reasons: because of what we don't know, or because of what we don't do with what we do know. Complexity in medicine and saving lives demands increasing attention on the latter, and that can take the form of three commitments: to measure ourselves, to seek ingenuity and to "give it a try" - asking ourselves if we can make that change. Complexity - sneaky when it's growing - can be managed through organization, and organization is not a resource-dependent approach; the data shows it.