From the Archives: Let's have a "See What Happens Day!"

"We can't be part of the future if we don't have the stories." Participant in the ISSS conference

Last week during our Backcasting exercise at the ISSS conference, one group suggested a "Let's See What Happens Day" around environmental crisis. 627323-412726-.jpg
Multi-dimensional, many-sided stories unfolded on the sides of story cubes such as this.
Here's the idea: In order to bring to life the reality of global change, a series of simulations throughout the world would take place. Citizens would be made aware that on a certain day, all electricity, gas stations, water, etc. would be cut off. Citizens would have time to prepare and get ready but the simulation would be real. Several should be planned each year. Modern life would come to a halt during each of these simulations. What would happen? What would we learn from these kinds of events?

Learning from the simulation…
In the day-to-day work of organizations, it is difficult to "see," let alone understand, the complexities of the system within which we work. Information flows and feedback loops are fragmented and often subject to time lags so that it becomes very difficult to have any sense of cause-and effect. These effects are magnified in departmentalized organizations as well as those spread out geographically.

A benefit of a robust simulation is that it can model and reveal the 'whole system' in an intense, time-compressed period.

Read More

From the Archives: Good Enough to be True

Originally published by Gail June 12, 2019

One time a participant in one of our DesignShops came up to us after a DesignShop and shared this thought. “My Mom would always say when something good happened, ‘Oh this is too good to be true!’ But now, I have turned that saying around and I will be looking for things ‘Good enough to be true!’

Why is it that we are so willing to accept bad news? What keeps us from believing we are worthy of good news? These questions are vitally important to consider as we go about creating a world that works for all of us… to design our collective well-being by design, not default.

Matt and I in our early days with our MG Taylor Process would develop simulations customized with the clients objectives in mind. These simulations were challenging and often showed the clients where they were vulnerable. By participating in the simulation they were directing their own future. A knowledge worker core team played the role of newspaper. We imposed one rule on them. “When the participants acted negatively about an idea or a headline we published, we would pile it on, adding one negative headline after another. However, when one of the teams would publish a positive response to an article or situation, we would pile on positive headlines. And do you know what? When the participants caught on to the negative/positive headline offerings, they began to really put their heads down and find positive solutions to the situation. They stopped griping, whining. They were eager to contribute, to find good paths forward.

Today, the news seems mostly bad. One crisis after another is reported. One killing after another. One failure after another. Recently, however, I am beginning to see some really positive and action oriented good news. By looking I am discovering that there are thousands of people working hard to solve the problems we have created for ourselves and Earth, this place we call home. WOW! Are we reaching a tipping point where good news can be recognized and honored?

The Tomorrow Maker challenge to design a new operating system for humanity is being well received as are many other bold initiatives. Lets celebrate and act with these projects, make them better, take them further. I would truly like for us as global citizens to recognize that the world we are creating with so much good energy and purpose is intact, Good enough to be true! We can celebrate the old world crumbling, no longer useful as it morphs and transforms into a culture of “Yes, just watch us step up to the challenges and opportunities the future is offering us.”

I believe that together we have choices we do not have as individuals. Its a scary world to be an individual in todays world. But collectively, wow, there is no stopping us and we are good enough to be true. And working together in no way stamps out the fact that we are each unique, unrepeatable with our own contributions to make.

Look for good news. Add to it. Record it; pass it along. Imagine our delight in 2030 to 2040 when we wake up to the fact that we have/are creating a world that works for 100 percent of humanity while restoring Earth, our home planet. We are good enough to be true!

From the Archives: When is an Expert Dangerous?

Originally published June 22, 2011

An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
Niels Bohr 

What role can be most effective for experts in today's world of collective intelligence?  Most conferences and meetings still begin with "experts" talking to the listeners.  The listeners are to be learning "what" and "how" to think about a given subject.  At best, ideas are being perturbed in the listener’s minds, but not made to think differently. At the end of the talks, listeners have a few minutes left to ask questions and make comments. 

When I have suggested to conference and workshop developers that they not begin with keynote speakers, I am told that no one will come if there is not a draw from the experts. This might be true, or at least true for a while longer, but using an expert to attract does not imply that the expert speaks first and shares what he or she knows up front.  In many ways, this does a disservice to the expert because there is little new learning required by this person. They miss out on the chance to learn new ways to think about their subject ... to grow the knowledge base around their expertise, and to have personal insights gained from wider vantage points. 

In developing the ideas around the MG Taylor DesignShop, Matt and I refused to let experts present their findings up front.  And yes, we had many battles around this way of looking at reality.  In one case, a corporation had just spent a million dollars on an expert report on the weaknesses of their organization and how to improve training and assess employees. They insisted that the expert who did the report give his report up front. We said "no". Finally, the organization relented and we designed a process where the findings of this report could be presented on Day 3 of a three-day event, after a group of 100 employees, ranging from CEO to at-the-counter employees, worked on how to strengthen their organization on all levels.  Starting with a broad scan and visioning, participants worked their way through a focus on the vision and how to ensure it in the shortest possible time frame.  By the time we had the million-dollar report, it was clear that the employees knew how to go way beyond the report in what mattered to them. Each wanted to make a bigger difference, to play a more integrated role, to work with others, to have good feedback systems in place, to build integrity and oneness into the learning/doing processes of the organization.  The report expert was blown away and had only praise for the participants and pointed out a few links that could be strengthened. This report played a valid role, but not as it was intended.  Indeed, it helped validate the organizational mind and provided transparent boundaries for systematic change.  The employees had ownership, something impossible to gain from the findings and sharing of a report or any expertise. 

More and more research is revealing that too much agreement up front prevents participants from finding and sharing new, thought-provoking ideas.  The wisdom of crowds reveals "brilliant answers" only when there is lots of diversity and little agreement at the beginning.  With a few simple rules, crowds can quickly share and learn from the bottom up, resulting in fresh insights and more novel ways of solving a sticky problem. (When We're Cowed by the Crowd)

Every time we have won the battle to give the expert a different role than up front, "this-is-how-you-think-about-this-issue", the results have been rich, and in most cases the experts are more pleased with the difference they have been able to play. 

The next time you plan an event, consider changing the game so that the participants have the freedom to think creatively and differently. Let the collective intelligence surface and cohere so that the expert has an opportunity to learn what is already known and can therefore add only the difference that makes a difference.