Revisiting ‘Community’

This week i am revisiting the body of work that makes up the Community Builder Certification: it’s the work that grew out of the Community Builder Guidebook, and is now into it’s third iteration. As usual, for the first and second iterations, i tend to cycle through the content quite fast: it’s not unusual to rework 40-60% of the material. Now that i have gone through that process, most of my work is to create an integrated set of illustrations, to make it feel like one ‘whole’ piece.

Today i have been illustrating the introductory module, exploring what ‘The Landscape of Communities’ is, and asking some foundational questions. I had hoped to make greater progress, but i’ve been really focussed on getting the sequence right.

The choreography of this work means that i am sharing research, techniques, and ideas, but in the framework of a Scaffolded Social Learning design, so built around core ‘sense making’ spaces. For example: we visit the question of ‘what is a community’ twice: once as a dialogue between two people, and the second time against a framework, where we can consider categories and roles. So the same question in two different ways: one freeform, and the other structured.

In common with most of the language we use to describe our social world, it’s typically qualitative and subjective, so to explore it through dialogue and reflection is useful, and when coupled with research allows us to calibrate ‘what i think’ against ‘what others think’.

I will spend most of this week on this work: if you are interested in how we use Communities, in learning, for leadership, in change, may i remind you that ‘The Community Builder Guidebook’ is available free as an eBook, here.

Posted in Community | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Learning 2020 – Glossary [Pt 2]

Yesterday i shared the first part of a glossary of learning related ideas, to run alongside the recent Learning Transformation Maps that i have been drawing. These are ideas that are central to a Learning Organisation. In the first part i discussed ‘Learning’, ‘Knowledge’, ‘Design’, ‘Capability’, ‘AI & ML’, ‘Collaboration’ and ‘Learning Science’.

Engagement: is often described as something that we want to take or demand from learners, but in reality is something we must earn, or create opportunity for them to invest. At times we often also confuse ‘engagement’ with ‘agreement’, or even ‘completion’. They are separate things. People may be highly engaged, but not agree, not pass an assessment, or not complete a programme. I can engage in either agreement, or in dissent, and both are equally valid in a ‘sense making’ learning context. There is a relationship between design, and engagement, but it may be more nuanced than we typically believe. Good design can create the space, interaction, and opportunity, for engagement to be invested. What this means for Organisations is that they must build understanding in how engagement is invested, as well as understanding the currencies in which it is traded. People typically equate ‘trust’ with ‘opportunity’, which is a space for engagement.

Co-Creation: is central to social collaborative models of learning, models that take formal knowledge, and layers of socially created knowledge, and synthesise them into new meaning. Co-creation happens in multiple layers: locally, globally, within trusted social relationships, and through formal mechanisms. But at heart, it is a process that we can best understand as a process of loss: the difference between ‘my story’, and ‘our story’ is that part of my truth is typically left out of the shared narrative. That’s not a bad thing, but it is important, because that collected ‘loss’ is a wealth of grounded truth and personal understanding: the very things we seek to access through Social Learning. If we create the right conditions, then the co-creation will happen in a community within which people can have open and honest discussions about how much of themselves they can invest in the new story. If we lack that trust and cohesion, then we will simply share the disposable parts of ourself that lies on the periphery. Truly meaningful co-creation is an emotionally, and socially, risk proposition, and again speaks to the idea that we must earn the conditions for it to happen within. It takes more than pot plants, good coffee, and expensive glass offices.

Culture: is a subject that i barely dare address in one paragraph, but perhaps a simple definition is all that we need. Culture is every conversation we have with someone else, everyday. It is co-created in the moment through our actions towards others. In that sense, culture is not like gravity: it does not just ‘happen to’ us, but rather is generated ‘by us’. So we are all equally to blame, or should take equal credit! Culture is relevant to learning in many ways: culture sets the scene within which we may act, or chose not to act. It frames the dominant narrative of behaviours that surround us, which includes the dominant narratives of consequence, blame, failure, gratitude, kindness, fairness, and trust. Whilst typically described as monolithic, and resistant, it can in fact be highly fluid, held as it is on foundations of action in the moment. Essentially our culture is a dream we repeat everyday, and an aspiration we hold for tomorrow. A learning organisation will not buy a learning culture from a consultant: it will create one through it’s own action. Similarly, leaders will not give us culture as a gift from above, but rather will create the space for us to build it.

Big Data and Analytics: aligns with the entry on AI & ML in some ways. ‘Big Data’ is perhaps a term to describe a book so long that you or i will never read it. Even though we know we would be better off if we had. Technology can now read that book for us, and (hopefully) tease out the meaning from it. The benefits are clear, but so too are the risks. Learning systems truly ‘learn how to learn’, which is another way of saying that they may be biased, depending upon what they have learned before. The design of analytics is a specialist skill, but of little use if not aligned to business needs. Hence, rather like the application of technology into learning, we find that the learning specialists know what they want (but often within an outdated frame), the technologists assume what we need (outside the learning domain), and we all suffer from the result. Organisations that are serious about mining the treasure of Big Data around learning, and more broadly around Organisational effectiveness and productivity, will build expertise in subject, expertise in technology and analytics, and a third area of expertise which is the bridging roles between the two. This speaks of a broader challenge for Organisations: what do they currently do that they should continue to do, what can they learn to do, and what do they need to either buy in, or build, because they cannot learn it.. Balancing those three questions is important.

Posted in Learning | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Learning 2020 – Glossary Of Core Concepts [Pt 1]

I’ve been sharing some eclectic work around ‘Learning Transformation’ over the last few weeks, centred around some core ideas: things we need to start doing, things to leave behind, environmental factors impacting the design and delivery of learning, and so on. Today, i thought it may be worth rewinding to basics, and sharing a brief glossary: these are some (it’s not intended to be definitive!) terms that are central to the idea of a Learning Organisation, and the transformation of learning. You may not agree with my understanding, and that is the point: our ability to develop shared vocabulary, and understanding (which is about more than just repeating the same words) will be central to the teams that delivery transformation.

Learning: is a process of disturbance, sense making (both individual and collective), and reformulation. I recently described it as a process of ‘breaking yourself’, and making a new picture out of the broken pieces. Key elements to consider: we trade in those broken pieces, the picture we make is unique to each of us, but may resemble each other, the process is both internal and individual, whilst also being collective and co-created. Learning is about more than knowledge transfer and retention, although understanding how knowledge ‘works’ will be central both to design, and learning itself. Learning may be increasingly distributed, and pragmatic: less about what you know, more about your ability to find things out, understand validity, share, and change.

Knowledge: is one of those areas where one can rapidly get stuck in quicksand. Within Organisations, we are often concerned primarily with ‘explicit’ knowledge (which can be considered to be what we have codified and accepted), and ‘tacit’ or ‘tribal’ knowledge (which is typically held in social groups, or by individuals, and neither codified, nor universal. Much discussion of ‘knowledge’ related to Organisational learning concerns either getting explicit knowledge transferred, and to stick, or increasingly is about ways we access, validate, and exploit, tacit knowledge.

Social Leadership 100 - knowledge

A useful alternative lens to take is to recognise that some types of knowledge are ‘discovered’, intact, whilst others are created (or co-created) by Organisations or teams. For example: the speed of light has been discovered, our sense of fairness is created. One may take a view that much of what we seek in Organisations is that second type, the ‘created’ type of knowledge. Challenges for Organisations include how they find knowledge, how they validate it, how they hold it, how they view ownership, how they measure transfer and understanding, how they trade in it, how they evolve it, how they learn to forget it at the right time (not the wrong one), how they earn co-creation, and how they capture and codify it in fair ways.

Design: more recently we have seen a diversification in the use of the word ‘design’, moving away from perhaps conversations about ‘learning design’ relating to the technical delivery of content, through to the much broader applications such as ‘experience design’, where we consider the creation of spaces, support structures, diverse ecosystems of interrelated technologies, and creative spaces fo assessment. Perhaps at the highest level, we could consider that shift has been away from utility and infrastructure, more towards holistic narratives, and a focus on the nature, and type, of interaction. For example, with a greater focus on ‘sense making’, we need to consider delivery of both formal content, and tacit content, safe spaces, suitable support, and storytelling channels, as well as ‘story listening’ space, as well as diverse models of formal, and peer moderated, assessment. Perhaps we could say that ‘Design’ is growing up, but possibly stuck in it’s moody teens as Organisations struggle to meaningfully implement the best of e.g. Design Thinking, whilst holding onto too much of the older patters of interaction design, and control of infrastructure.

Capability: is the power, or ability, of a person to do something. Pretty obvious i guess, but a central context within Organisational learning, because we tend, in that space, to have a greater pragmatic focus, and outcome orientation. Or at least we should. Possibly we can view ‘Capability’ as a better term than learning in that sense: we own a ‘capability function’, in that our role is to deliver the foundations or, or potential for, capability. A central concept in this understanding is that this capability comes in two flavours: a capability to do things we know how to do, and the capability to figure out things that we don’t. Or things that have changed. For example: i can teach you to reverse park a car. We both understand the concept, and there are tips and techniques to do this, as well as a very obvious and undisputed measurement of success. You just need the theory, the motivation, the space to practice, with contextual feedback, and perhaps a reward at the end. That’s the easy part. In the context of the Social Age, our Organisational focus is often less on this ‘known’ space, more on the unknown, or at least the rapidly evolving. In that sense, we tend to use ‘capability’ as a proxy for agility, for curiosity, for problem solving, for creativity, and so on. We use it to describe a desired state. Gaining clarity on our personal, and Organisational, view on what ‘capability’ means may be a sound starting point.

AI and ML: ‘artificial intelligence’, and ‘machine learning’ are two separate, but frequently interchanged, concepts, and are gaining great traction by opportunity, more so than strategy. Essentially if a system were ‘artificially intelligent’, it would be smarter than me on a good day, and would exhibit creative, innovative, and even give unknowably brilliant insights. ‘Machine learning’ systems, by contrast, may give the appearance of the same, but typically do so by pattern recognition (at great scale), and an ability to operate outside of the learnt constraints that inhibit our own thinking. A simple way to understand this it to recognise that these systems can deliver results that they cannot explain e.g. they can produce a useful output without the ability to narrate their work. True artificial intelligence is probably decades away, but proxy systems, ones that learn fast, are here today, and early applications typically trawl vast pools of data, and provide insight, or calls to action. This is our key focus for learning: systems that can connect, can provide insight, can assess, can direct. But an effective learning Organisation should rely at least to some degree on strategy more so than simply opportunistic insight. So we need connective roles; people who can source, deploy, challenge, and dissect, capability, and connect up multiple systems and approaches in ways that give us what we know we need, whilst remaining open to opportunistic ways to discover new insight or space of opportunity.

social Leadership 100 - Complex Collaboration

Collaboration: describes the activity of working together to produce an output (e.g. not just thinking about things, but producing assets/plans/outcomes). Collaboration is an activity then, but also a term used to describe output e.g. it’s a collaboratively written document, or the outcome of collaboration. The central and most important aspect to consider is that collaboration is predominantly a social, rather than technical, phenomena, and is also most likely a learned behaviour too. Technology clearly has a role: technologies of social collaboration are ascendant at the moment, but often focus on connection, and space, whilst collaboration may be more about rehearsal, prototyping, insight, and action, all facets of the social aspect. Technology can clearly facilitate and enable collaboration, but without social connection we probably remain within tribal units that we know, which are safe, but that may lack full potential. In my own work i differentiate between ‘collaboration’, and ‘complex collaboration’, the latter of which considers challenges which are themselves poorly understood, and which require connection across boundaries e.g. to work with people you do not know or fully trust yet. Organisations should be considering the technology of collaboration, the recognition and reward of it, but primarily the behaviours, the skills, and the storytelling and listening spaces to gain insight. Also worth recognising that most collaboration probably happens locally, and in opposition to the system, producing workarounds to poorly designed and deaf formal systems.

Learning Science: is a diverse set of disciplines that, together, may be hoped to provide insight into how we learn, and hence provide guidance into how we should design and deliver, support and structure, learning. It is not a magic bullet or set of answers: instead, it is perhaps an insight into the methodology and mechanisms by which we may discover valid insights and plan for action. In modern learning spaces, there is much discussion of learning science, but possibly in much the same way that there is much discussion about being fitter, healthier, and kinder: aspiration not always backed up by action. In very grounded and practical terms, we should deconstruct the notion of ‘learning science’ as the magic pill, and instead focus on central themes: how we know things, how we understand validity, how people learn and practical implications, the risks of reductionism and constructivism, understanding emergence, and the qualitative into quantitative cheat. Plus a ton of other stuff: perhaps consider Learning Science as a beautiful river in which we may pan for gold. We will be spending a lot of time here, so enjoy the scenery, but do not imagine you will get rich quick.

More to follow…

Posted in Learning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Learning Transformation Map – Things to Leave Behind

Over the last couple of weeks i have shared a few pieces around Learning in 2020, with a focus on things that Organisations need to do more or, be experimenting with, or learning how to do. I thought that i would counter that work with a Map that considers things that they should stop doing. As with the earlier maps, this is a fragment of thought: it represents the things on my mind right now, and is not intended as a definitive view. These fragments inform more structured work later.

I’ve very loosely grouped the ideas into four areas: aspects of ‘Structure’ and location, ‘Oversight’ and control, ‘Opportunity’ and access, and ‘Technology’ and communities. As per the other Maps, i will probably redraw this one to be cleaner and clearer fairly fast.

Some key aspects in this one: a general shift away from structure (as defined by the Org experts) to structure as moderated by community of practitioners. Technology diversified, but also differentiated by what you are doing, but with the focus on control and privacy, providing rehearsal and sense making space, not simply utility.

Perhaps Organisations leaving behind the close link of learning to current role, and vertical structure, towards more fluid models of opportunity, portfolio, and curiosity. Coupled with less focus on content, more on community, facilitation, and support.

Posted in Learning | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quiet Leadership: Strength Through Connection

This is my fourth iteration of language around Quiet Leadership, as i find my vocabulary and metaphors to shape this work. It’s an exploration of how individuals act within systems, and the ways that we find strength by making, and supporting, connection.

I am using four elements to create the reflective structure: ‘Humility’, ‘Kindness’, ‘Fairness’ and ‘Grace’. In this version i am aligning it to the lifecycle of the oak tree (i’m using trees as it relates to my broader work around the organisation as an ecosystem, and the ways that biological ecosystems exist in a delicate balance).

Humility is about looking inwards, to consider where we start the journey. Kindness is about how we nourish others. Fairness is about how, as we find power, use it to shelter and shield, or exploit and control, and ‘Grace’ is about the execution of growth, through loss, and the recognition of how we impact others within the system.

Much like the work on ‘Social Leadership – Power and Potential’, which i shared recently, i will use question structures as the foundation for reflection here. I will also structure the programme to include both personal reflection, and group conversations.

I’m enjoying drawing, and exploring, the imagery around this, and am closer to finding my voice with it. Subsequently i will build out the work on the forest of Social Leadership further, but for now i want to carry this work into practice with a group, which i hope to do before Christmas.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Learning Transformation Map #2

I’ve rapidly evolved the Learning Transformation Map i created last month: this time separating out ‘Strategic Imperatives’ from ‘Skills and Techniques’. I should stress that this is still very early stage work, and the differentiation is reasonably rough, and reasonably incomplete. My other caveat is that this is not intended to be a map of the whole landscape: it’s a view of the aspects i consider most significant today.

Probably predictably there are several key areas of focus: emergent technologies (but with a focus on diversified ecosystems and the disruption of trawling and analytic tools), learning science (with concurrent focus on overcoming dogma and unlocking potential), and social collaboration (specifically the evolution of knowledge, mechanisms of ‘sense making’, and an appreciation of how meaning is created – or co-created – at local, tacit, tribal levels – and how we take that to scale. So it’s a bit of an odd fish, ranging from deep tech and deep theory into the rather prosaic questions of deployment at scale, in the context of a global pandemic.

As a side note, i’ve not hand illustrated the lettering, as i normally do, as it’s dense and my handwriting is not up to it! Also this lets me iterate it more easily.

Posted in Learning | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Quiet Leadership: Growth

Does your power promote growth? How often is the effect of our power experienced as space to grow, or as ivy that chokes out the light? Our intention is not enough: it is the action that counts, but we are all held in systems of power that restrict, or direct, our action.

There is only so much sunlight filtering through the forest canopy: when we reach for it ourselves, we block it out for others, but at what cost do we let the light through?

If our roots are held in the ground, then we must reach ever higher to feel the sun. But if our power is held in our communities, we can reach out to the side, we can find collective strength.

Is part of humility that willingness to share the light? To discard power? To set our foundations not upon others, but within and through others. To find success not in our individual power and rank, but in our collective action and pride?

There is a tense relationship between our individual health, and gravitation towards power and safety, and our collective health: the health of the ecosystem cannot thrive through selfish action, or through inaction, nor through aspiration alone. The forest trees will falter if the ecosystem itself is not tended: if the water is polluted, if the air is unclean.

Collective responsibility can easily fall into an interpretation where it is the concern of others, who we will on from the back. But the humble leader is one who is willing to reach out to pay the price: of equity, of fairness, of our collective good.

This piece forms part of an emerging body of work around Quiet Leadership: an exploration of how we lead beyond heroes, through the individual actions of the moment.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

An Organisation of Marketplaces

As part of my #FutureWork series i have been exploring the idea of Organisational Marketplaces: an evolution away from pure allocation and control towards a model of investment and opportunity. In this piece i will explore two manifestations of this, both of which are being explored in Organisations today, and both of which offer a significant evolution of traditional models of experience for employees.

In an Opportunity Marketplace, we see that skills and capabilities are connected up beyond formal domains and existing jobs. We experience opportunities to volunteer skills, but also we see technology deployed to create taxonomies, based on legacy activity, as well as current conversations. Opportunity marketplaces offer a significant opportunity for Organisations to become more Socially Dynamic, because they start to disassociate ’capability’ from ‘role’, hence fracturing a central tenet of legacy design.

In a Learning Marketplace, we see an overall democratisation of learning: so instead of it being organised by formal pathways, it’s instead scaffolded around socially moderated and engaged ones. So more learning is available to more people, and everyone has the opportunity to both learn, and share. The model brings access to the tacit, tribal knowledge that we access through Social Learning approaches.

It’s no surprise that we see the emergence of Marketplaces right now, for two reasons: firstly, the technology is either mature, or widely emergent, and secondly because Organisations are broadly exploring an evolution of the core design principles, to see where they can go in their next iteration (fuelled further by the Pandemic). The adaptation they will be forced to experience will take place with restricted budget, against a backdrop of evolved ecosystem, hence their desire to unlock ‘more from less’, to unlock existing capability in broader and more connected ways.

Over the following articles i will consider some of the factors that will support success, specifically ‘Technology’, ‘Enablement’, and ‘Regulation’.

This work forms part of my #FutureWork series, so is incomplete, fragments of thought around our evolution and adaptation as we move away from known structures, through experiment and prototype, into emergent ones.

Posted in Collaboration, Culture, Leadership, Learning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

#WorkingOutLoud on the Learning Map 2020

This map is a sketch of some of the key areas i’m thinking about in terms of Learning Transformation across 2020: it’s only partly sketched so far, but i thought i would share a brief narrative around some of the areas covered. Today i am sharing the first two areas. This work reflects my own notes and evolving understanding: it is not shared as a coherent and complete body of work.

I’ve loosely organised it around four areas: ‘Design’ considerations, ‘Ecosystem’ factors, ‘Theoretical’ frames, and ‘Environmental’ contexts. These four frames may evolve in the next iteration, but broadly they relate to the following.

DESIGN considerations are the things i see as either emergent areas, or the most active areas, in which Organisations are seeking to transform their learning approach. I have not shared obvious ones that relate to simple utility.

In this space so far i’m considering the need for building capability around interactive virtual session design (in the context of pretty much all events going virtual), as well as some of the techniques and behaviours of successful facilitation and participation. Whilst you could consider some of this as hygiene, there are some emergent areas, such as the use of third party software tools and platforms that significantly impact engagement.

Understanding how we reward or recognise value creation in social collaboration is a particular challenge, which will require most likely a combination of interaction and social validation (what you do and what people say about it).

Techniques around social collaboration will continue to evolve, with the obvious trap being attempts to impose structure or technology on a fundamentally social and discretionary engagement.

More broadly we see ‘utility’ being replaced in favour of ‘experience’ and a great interest in experience design, as well as design thinking and UX design, but there is work to do around what this means in the specific context of the learning organisation, as well as some honest questions to ask ourselves about our organisational capability, and at a very practical level what this means for resourcing, for budget, for volume and workflow planning, and from both a quality assurance perspective (how will we measure), and product lifespan. Probably also work to understand when engagement is generated through design approaches, and when it is a placebo effect of novelty.

In the ECOSYSTEM we may consider how Organisations are starting to adopt emergent, typically AI/ML driven tech that is generating insight, trends, or development needs from analysis of organisational traffic. These emergent technologies are typically reversing the trend of the last ten years: away from monolithic single suppliers towards rapidly diversifying divergent apps that integrate into a holistic capability, sometimes around core infrastructure systems. But this requires new capabilities around understanding, around integration, and around choreography and coherence of the learning experience, not to mention deep knowledge around potential and output to shape further the learning design. In isolation much of this emergent tech with generate data, but no insight or actionable intelligence.

In models of social collaborative learning, we will rapidly have to address ecosystem factors, and build out at least initial models of social interaction, and in my work i am most interested in how we collaborate beyond the tribe, how we interconnect at scale, and through our boundaries of coherence.

There is much talk of metrics, and data led approaches, but our ecosystem often reacts to data rather than planning for it: partly as a result of it being driven by tech, but largely as a result of core capability to understand how we design the information architecture of complex social and collaborative systems, and indeed how we measure learning appreciation rather than simple retention.

I suspect that per this above challenge we will find most existing frameworks to be naively simple, giving us approaches and frameworks that deliver almost no value. They are outdated in mindset, construct, and context.

At potentially the most interesting end of things, we will see new mechanisms of inter-organisational permeability, as the edges of our ecosystems blur. Not only marketplaces and development programmes to trade expertise, but also to share risk. Learning will sit in parallel to this: already we see progressive Organisations adopting what is essentially their own structure of higher education, but also shared graduate models (or evolutions thereof) as a recognition that we do not need (nor can afford) to differentiate on every level. Shared credentialing will follow, but this will highlight a fundamental weakness as organisation persist in believing that they own human capital, rather than earning it.

Posted in Learning | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

#WorkingOutLoud on Quiet Leadership

I’ve spent today easing myself into some work around ‘Quiet Leadership’: it’s an attempt to build a vocabulary around the type of leadership that operates beyond heroes, the behaviours that gently weave the culture of an Organisation, and lay the foundations for broader engagement and good health. This work is not about formal programmes, or purpose led conversations, but rather about the gentle ways in which we lead, through authentic action, that help one other person to find their way. The smallest things we do that impact the communities, tribes, and teams, that surround us.

It’s not about the hero: it’s about the whole ecosystem that surrounds them.

Quiet Leadership’ is a model of Social Leadership that looks on the Organisation as an ecosystem, a forest, and considers how each of our actions either enhance, or degrade, that system.

The forest represents a cycle of renewal, growth, loss, and decay, but a system in balance, if we tend to it well.

A Forest of Social Leaders

Not an idealised view where growth takes place without cost, where action is taken without loss, but rather a view of tensions and feedback, where every action has impact, and our role is less about mitigating that impact, so much as understanding how the varied forces flow. 

I’m centring my work around four aspects of this: humility, kindness, fairness, and grace.

Humility is a judgement upon our actions: but how are we judged, how can we lead with humility, and how do we learn to be more humble (if indeed we should strive to achieve this at all)? This work draws upon my previous guided essay exploring ‘the humble leader’, as well as broader work around social justice, and individual impact.

Kindness is something we all appreciate and understand, but in the context of leadership, what role does it have, and assuming it has one, how is it held and accounted for? What is the cost of kindness, and is it evenly distributed, or held back for those people we like the most? Can we be kind in conflict, and does kindness work in purpose lead, or target led, Organisations? Is kindness a strength, a luxury, or a cost?

Fairness, in a similar vein, is something easy to talk about, but harder to achieve, because to be fair we must be fair in two spaces: to each other, and to the Organisation itself. We are, after all, contracted to both: one with a legal contract, and one with a social one. The ‘Framework for Fairness’ consider this in terms of what we invest, what we aspire to to, the cost we are willing to pay, and the impact of our actions.

Finally, an idea that is new in my own work, but which can best be described as the choreography of leadership, and the sense of flow in our action: how are we experienced as a leader, and can we attain a certain grace in execution?

This work is experimental, and hence my description of gently finding my way with it: i aim to publish and share the evolving work here through the rest of this year, and will take some groups through a prototype experience as well, to consider how this leads into action.

We each clearly recognise that some of these forces, notably kindness and fairness, are central to our perception of an individual or system, but perhaps we do not always have space to consider how our individual action leads to these effects at a cultural level. That is really what i want to create with this work: to explore how, through Quiet Leadership, through gentle action, we can improve our ecosystem, we can help the forest to thrive.

Posted in Leadership, Learning, Social Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment