On a recent zoom meeting with peer consultants we considered places we felt stuck. Some were torn between a choice of professional development opportunities. Others were coping with health issues – theirs or with loved ones – that left them feeling constrained, or were immobilized facing tradeoffs in their business models.
When we value things that are in opposition (ease and growth, or care and autonomy) it’s easy to be paralyzed. Of course, what we experience as individuals is greater in organizations by an order of magnitude. The more voices that are present in a decision-making process the more likely it is that multiple values will be represented. It isn’t that we think any are unimportant, it’s that we disagree on their level of priority (“frugality has its place, but isn’t this an urgent moment to invest?”) Often we run out of steam, leaving us with the status quo.
This dynamic is one reason I find the principles behind consent decision-making so attractive. Consent processes are designed to identify places within everyone’s tolerance, not everyone’s preference. As you can imagine, it’s quicker and easier, but it might lead to lukewarm investment if there wasn’t also a clear process for learning and adjustment. Consent practices create experiments: if spending isn’t making the expected difference, we can scale back. Nervous group members have options besides blocking decisions. They can suggest sound measurements that will allow everyone to see results, and flex accordingly.
As I’ve explored putting these ideas into practice I’ve also understood better the necessary foundations for organizations that want to prioritize ongoing learning. It seems obvious, but is worth highlighting, that they require a clear aim. “Growing Community in Hillville” is too vague – an organization with this kind of mission will need a more detailed understanding of how they’re intending to create change. Detail and clarity is helpful all over – an obvious follow-on is that organizational learning is clearest with small-scale decisions. Large-scale or complex changes (let’s change the program to before school, and add kindergarteners!) creates much more difficulty in determining what led to success or shortfall.
If this triggers memories of tedious funder-driven evaluation requirements, it’s worth returning to that difference of organizations with adult/adult as opposed to parent/child dynamics. When one party mandates and the other obeys there’s little life in it. If you suggested the experiment, helped make the decision, and are invested in the outcome, the activities might be similar but the energy is transformed.
Going back to internal stuck points, I’m thinking that all these lessons are applicable as well. If I am feeling stuck I don’t have to define the problem as all-or-nothing, one or the other. I can clarify my aim – for example, to increase my sense of autonomy, or grow my skills - identify small-scale experiments that feel safe enough to begin for a fixed time period and within other constraints. I can honor my inner caution as well as my inner impatience. I can figure out how to move ahead.
Comentarios