IGNITER

As time goes on I increasingly consider clothing first and foremost about function and comfort. For me this means jeans as my primary leg wear and then anything that doesn’t need ironing for my tops. And for footwear it’s either my Crocs or Blundstones for sheer practicality. For some client work though, I still feel the need to at least put on a ‘dress-shirt’ and some other pants.  On rare occasion – like the social finance forum – I’ll break-out a suit. 

Every time I do this though it really makes me wonder.  What’s the point?  As long as clothing is clean and not carrying offensive statements, then what’s the big deal.  That said, I still feel the need to conform to what I think is expected of me by those that I am representing or dealing with. 

Going forward I’m going to start asking clients about dress codes before I engage.  It’s a conversation worth having I think as it will either 1) gain me ‘permission’ to wear whatever I want, and/or 2) challenge the client into thinking what is important about what someone wears.  I have a feeling that may open up other conversations as to what we think is the value we see people bringing to the task at hand.  I wonder if the task really requires me to look a certain way, if it’s really a task I want to take on?

I’m curious to hear what others think about this now-a-days… particularly in scenarios where the task is working on systems level change.  Leave a comment or email me at michael at igniter dot com.

Blogged with Flock

I’ve long know a lot about the coffee industry and had heard snippets of what’s going on in cotton too… but this sure is a wakeup call.

So now with intellectual models for aligning a venture around a purposeful response to a deep calling, and for designing a viable organizational system it begs the question – now what?

Investment. Investment of capital… intellectual, social, and financial.

In ideal clean slate this might look something like this:

1. identify a calling
2. gather a group of diverse though leaders and community members to explore/deepen the calling
3. conduct an ‘externalities analysis’
4. reconvene a modified group to:
• uncover a responsive purpose
• concieve of a theory of change
• and anchor it with a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.
5. conduct an ‘internalities analysis’
6. design the viable system
7. reconvene a modified group to:
• craft strategic directions
• establish near-term action plans

Of course this cannot be a rigidly linear/sequential process but rather is an iterative co-creative one. It is also a continual process of capital investment: intellectual, social, and financial… done in an integrated co-creative style. And that’s what I’m working on now.

The second fulcrum in transformative venturing is the way in which the venture is organized/organizes itself. I’ve recently been introduced into something that has come closest to describing what it means to build a successful organization. And it’s not about outcomes or results – those are simply that, outcomes – it’s about the way in which it’s done.

(Stafford Beer‘s) Viable Systems Model, or VSM is a model of the organisational structure of any viable or autonomous system. A viable system is any system organised in such a way as to meet the demands of surviving in the changing environment. One of the prime features of systems that survive is that they are adaptable. The VSM expresses a model for a viable system, which is an abstracted cybernetic description that is applicable to any organisation that is a viable system and capable of autonomy.

I also have the good fortune of being able to apply this model on a deeply transformative initiative with someone who has intimately been involved with application of the viable systems model for a couple of decades. The deeper I get into it the more it rings true — which shouldn’t be surprising considering it is ‘simply’ based on looking at how all life organizes itself in viable systems. Next time you’re faced with some organizational challenges or considering building a venture to tackle something deeply important, do everyone a favour and spend some time with this model and/or people who understand it.

Next post – venturing forward.

Over the years I’ve been collecting management theories and practices that I found useful in venturing and found myself starting to organize them into a map. That map started painting a picture that has now become the Venture Vortex model.

It’s primary strength is in providing a platform to organize thinking around the process of building a venture and I am using it both as a design and a diagnostic tool.

Broken into 4 primary regions: internalities; externalities, core ideology and the vortex itself, the arrows and chevrons show of sequencing of rational thought in the design process. Of course, no venture is static but rather an ever evolving mix of people and activity amidst a shifting environment. The model seeks to acknowledge the foundational element of any venture as the core ideology itself which is connected to the key people through values and the calling through purpose.

The core ideology in fact is the fulcrum around which everything pivots. It is the ulitmate basis against which any planning or activity can be checked for congruence. In fact, the organization can only do what it’s true purpose and values will allow — which also means we can’t ‘make-it-up’… as the actual purpose and values will always express themselves.

Uncovering the true core ideology then is a critically important task if we are to most effeciently build an organization to serve it. Doing so is about deep questioning of the personal intentions of the key stakeholders and the calling that is bringing them together. Finding the answers is often thought of as having statements that look a certain way. My experience though has been more about it being a felt experience. There is no right answer or right structure but the feeling is undeniable when it arises.

From that point moving up the venture vortex is a process of increasing rationalization within shortening time horizons up until the highest level which is the realm of near-term planning activities. The challenge in this, particularly for ventures working on systems-depth shifts or consciousness change is conducting the planning process in a manner consistent with the ideology itself. Conventional approaches often reflect the systems that the ventures seek to change. Now that’s not to say conventional approaches are not at all applicable but rather must be managed and applied from a grounded values perspective.

The most effective model I’ve encountered in business system design is Stafford Beer‘s Viable System model which is essentially the application of systems science to organizations. For strategic and action planning I’ve found nothing that comes close the power of a truly co-creative approach with a broad mix of participants — another thing that fits well with systems science — but more on that in another post.