 A year ago I presented a second version of a cobbled-together methodology
for grappling with complex problems. These are the problems that
traditional analytical methodologies cannot handle, because analytical
approaches require a near-complete understanding of the phenomenon, the
variables that enter into it, and their causality. Complex problems
simply have too many variables to ever be 'knowable' to the extent
required by such methodologies.
My last effort drew together
ideas from a dozen different complexity theorists. I was trying to
accomplish two things that I think previous attempts to define such
methodologies have lacked. The first was to tweak the invitation
process so that the 'crowd' that was attracted to the event was truly
diverse (some such events are too self-congratulatory and suffer from
groupthink). Dave Snowden has even suggested that debate and
disagreement are probably essential to progress in addressing complex
problems.
The second was to ensure that, while the process had to be principally self-managed (or at most loosely
facilitated), the attendees would be sufficiently informed about both
the process (the methodology, and the nature and challenges of complex
problems) and the specific problem they were addressing, that they left
their preconceptions and pre-formed conclusions behind, and came to the
event both knowledgeable and open-minded.
But it has since
occurred to me that these two additional 'ingredients' (diversity and
lack of preconceptions) are to some extent at odds. Let's suppose for
example the complex problem we're tackling is creating natural enterprises
-- finding people to make a sustainable, joyful living with, and
establishing and operating an enterprise with those people. A couple of
weeks ago I presented a model for
what I think is the first and most difficult part of that process:
finding the right people to make a living with. Having put a lot of
thought into it (and having a lot of entrepreneurial success stories
and horror stories to draw on that support it) my propensity would be
to provide this model as pre-reading for a 'creating natural
enterprises' event, to help inform attendees. But what if that model
were to turn off potential attendees who didn't like that model, or who
didn't think finding the right partners was an important part of the
process of creating natural enterprises? Would 'my' event end up being
attended only by people who (perhaps erroneously) agreed with my ideas?
The
great challenge we have in any open, self-managed process is that the
more informed you are about a subject, the more likely you are to have
already formed conclusions about approaches and even answers to the
problems it presents. This is human nature -- we form opinions
quickly and change them slowly and reluctantly, as Lakoff's theory of
frames and worldviews has demonstrated. So we have a choice, in our
invitees to complex problem events, between people who have already
made up their minds what should be done (and will fiercely defend those
views during the event) and those who are open-minded and are likely to
accept the first intelligent view they hear at the event (not
necessarily the most defensible). You've probably seen this dynamic in
meetings and conferences you've attended. And notwithstanding the urgings of Scharmer, Varela et al to practice
teaching ourselves to be open to new ideas, to 'let go' of our
preconceptions and 'let come' new emergent possibilities, this is, I
think, asking most of us to be what we are not.
What has, in my
experience, led to the creation of extraordinary natural enterprises is
a fortunate synchronicity of a group of people with complementary gifts
who love each other (no I do not think 'love' is too strong a word) and
who have learned something new on a subject about which they had no
preconceptions at a time when they had the energy and predisposition
and resources to do something about it. People who love each other are
more willing to be open to new ideas, more willing to 'let go' and 'let
come' and to persevere past the inevitable hurdles in new enterprise
creation and operation.
If I were to organize and invite people
to an event to address the challenges of creating natural enterprises,
my guess is that it would attract roughly the right people -- mostly
people looking to create natural enterprises for themselves, and
therefore engaged and motivated. It would, however, probably include
some annoying people with magic, one-size-fits-all formulas for how to
create natural enterprises that they'd try to force down everyone
else's throat.
The big problem would be that most of the
motivated attendees would come with a lot of burdensome baggage,
including preconceptions that natural enterprises, like other small
enterprises, inevitably require:
- External 'market' financing
- A sales force, and lots of 'marketing'
- A huge amount of work and self-sacrifice
- A tolerance for stress and the high likelihood of failure
- Hiring and 'motivating' employees
- Competition with 'established players' and adversarial relationships with some stakeholders
- Continuous growth
I have tried many times
to smash these myths of entrepreneurship, but as long as business
schools and other entrepreneurs keep repeating and reinforcing these
myths, they will continue to prevail in the minds of most prospective
entrepreneurs (and keep most from even trying to become entrepreneurs).
My great fear is that, if I were to convene an event on creating natural enterprises, it would be hijacked by:
- Believers
in the myths above, who will try to focus the attendees' attention on
how to finance, sell, market, sacrifice, cope with stress, survive,
hire, motivate, compete, defeat and grow, and
- Advocates of one-size-fits-all 'turnkey' solutions (à la eMyth) trying to 'sell' their preconceived solution to the whole group.
If
that were to happen, I think I would probably throw up my hands and
walk out of my 'own' event. And I think there is a substantial
likelihood that it would happen. I think that is the reason so many
people end up developing and trying to sell their own entrepreneurial
formulas (and there are a million of them out there) rather than put up
with the disagreements that collaboration seems destined to bring. I
also think that is the reason that I haven't already held a event on creating natural enterprises.
If I were
to hold one, the complex problem methodology I would propose to use is
shown above right. It is simpler and more iterative than my previous
attempts. The first three steps are pre-event activities, while the
latter four are event activities. Here's how they would work:
- Research the Issue:
Draw together as much information as possible about the issue. Post it
somewhere, ideally using a wiki or some other collaborative format.
Cite sources. Interpretations are permitted, but solutions and
prescriptions, at this stage, are not.
- Articulate the Challenge: Develop
a clear, succinct statement of the problem or challenge, and why it is
such a challenge (i.e. extent, intractable nature, why previous
'solutions' appear to have failed).
- Invite People to Address the Challenge: Send
out an open invitation (Open Space style) designed to attract a
diverse, engaged, reasonably informed and open-minded set of attendees.
Invite people, whether they can attend or not, to contribute to the
collective research developed so far. Ask invitees to study and think
about the research. Also, ask invitees to think about how the challenge
might be parsed (divided up into aspects for the brainstorming
conversations during the event), and to post their thoughts on this to
the collective research repository.
- Parse the Challenge: At
the start of the event, have the group decide (self-managed, Open Space
style) which aspects of the challenge to address in smaller groups.
They may draw on the parsing ideas in the repository, or may not.
- Brainstorm Each Aspect:
Over the next hours or days, have the self-selected groups converse,
brainstorm, and self-document (using mindmaps or similar techniques,
and transcribed stories) their learnings and ideas. Each session should
start with an overview of the pertinent research from the respository,
which should be available to everyone, and linked to from the mindmaps.
- Integrate Learnings: This is a period for each participant to read and think about the mindmaps and stories from all the sessions.
- Decide on Next Steps: Each
participant tells the others, in turn, what they plan to do
next, personally or with others, to use what they learned from the
sessions. Participants may self-organize into groups to pursue some of
these next steps. These next steps could include research towards
another, perhaps more specific, event.
That's it. I've
deliberately made it as flexible as possible, and tried to avoid being
overly prescriptive. The only differences from Open Space are the more
substantive up-front research and the use of specific technologies
(wikis for collaborative research, mindmaps and stories for documenting
conversations). It could be used for a session on global warming, or
world poverty, or creating a health system or an education system that
actually works. It would be iterative, with high-level events leading
to other events on more focused subjects, approaches or aspects of a
problem. The events would probably have to be face-to-face, but there's
no reason they couldn't be broadcast live and recorded, for Internet
viewing.
So for an event on creating natural enterprises,
for example, I would set up a wiki with all the data on
underemployment, entrepreneurial failure rates and the reasons for them
etc., but not including my
Natural Enterprise models -- that would be jumping to solutions. After
articulating the challenge I would send an open invitation to the
event, and open the wiki to others. I might suggest, on the wiki, as
parsing options, a session on finding the right people to make a living
with, and sessions on organic financing, viral marketing, how to
research unmet needs, non-hierarchical organization, and succeeding
without growth. As Open Space requires, whoever shows up would be the
right people. I would not twist arms, nor would I refuse anyone who
wanted to come.
And then the event would occur, and I would be
just one of the participants, equal to all others. My guess is that,
especially since Open Space would be a new process for most of the
participants, it would be as much an experience learning about Open
Space as grappling with the challenge of creating natural enterprises.
I suspect I would be disappointed with what got accomplished, but not
with the process. I expect some important new relationships would be
formed and they would lead to some important new collaborations. I
doubt that a strong consensus on how to create natural enterprises
would emerge, though that might come later. I doubt that anyone would
find others to make a living with at the first event, or decide on a
product or service for a new natural enterprise, but I think it's
possible that future events on each of these two more specific subjects
might well be more fruitful in those regards.
What is holding me
back, I think, is fear of failure. Fear that I won't be able to
convince anyone that the myths of entrepreneurship are just that. Fear
that I'm too far ahead in my thinking, and that no one will come, or
understand. Fear that someone will try to hijack the event to sell
their stale or naive ideas. Fear that people will not like, or not
follow, the process. Fear that people will not be open to new ideas, or
will be too open to new
ideas. And most of all, fear that we no longer have the patience, or
the time, to commit to any process that can actually work, that can
actually make a difference in our beleaguered world.
But I think I will do it anyway. Probably a weekend this summer. Time to stop talking about it and do something. Stay tuned.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
