Flexing our
muscles of
discernment

April 25, 2012

It’s been one year and two weeks since Walk Out Walk On was launched into the world.  I just returned home from Denver and Boulder, Colorado, the final two stops on the book tour, and now is a good time to reflect on what I’ve learned over these last twelve months. And here it is:

The United States has lost its sense of subtlety.

Or maybe it was never there to begin with. After all, we’ve always known that when it comes to humor, the Brits have far greater mastery of nuance and irony than we Americans with our screwball and slapstick appetites. But this inclination toward the obvious and unambiguous extends beyond humor. It is part of our daily experience, shaped and amplified by politics and the media. As small differences and distinctions pass through the public lens, they transform into grand polarities, blocking each other out of the light. We find ourselves perpetually choosing sides, picking winners, condemning losers and generally orienting around good-bad, right-wrong, on-off, in-out and anything else we can reduce into simple and opposing parts.

So as I hosted conversations about the distinctions in Walk Out Walk On, I discovered how easy it is for us to relate to these distinctions as polarities. Out with the heroic leader and in with the host! Let’s build resilience and abandon efficiency! Engaging in play is more effective than utilizing power!

But these distinctions aren’t polarities. They aren’t the ingredients of a brand new recipe for running healthy organizations and building resilient communities. The purpose of the distinctions is to shed light on our default behaviors—the ones we can’t see because they’re so deeply ingrained in our culture and environment—and to make visible a broader range of choices that exist on a continuum.

When we move from power to play or from intervention to friendship, we walk out of our identity as experts and walk on to relationships as fellow citizens, neighbors, family members. Choosing to turn our work into play is a radical act—but it doesn’t have to come at the expense of our expertise, our wisdom, our experience. There are even appropriate times to step forward with our most heroic selves—to solve the problem, save the day. Hosting is not the new Next Best Thing.

This is why what matters most is that we develop our muscle of discernment to help us choose our behaviors. The distinctions give us a spectrum of options; our discernment identifies where we should be in any given situation. In the case of Efficiency to Resilience, for example, we might use our muscle of discernment to recognize that when a situation is complex, unpredictable and emergent, we should design for resilience; when it is causal, linear and controllable, maximizing efficiency will work just fine.

Our real work, then, is to ask questions like, “What are the conditions under which I should play the hero? When the host? Which behavior is most called for now—intervention or friendship? Which energy should I bring in—power or play?” And so on.

Choosing sides may feel a lot more comfortable than confronting the never-ending complexity of discernment. But then again, so is being a couch potato. I like to think of this as developing a muscle because it isn’t a one-time act. Flexing our muscle of discernment is something we have to practice over and over again, preparing ourselves to meet each new situation with strength, agility and responsiveness.

Over time, it gets easier. We begin to notice patterns that call forth one kind of behavior or another. Here’s where we can help each other. What are you noticing about the conditions that call forth Heroism or Hosting? Power or Play? Efficiency or ResilienceIntervention or Friendship? Transacting or Gifting? Scaling Up or Scaling Across? Problem or Place?

America broke
the rules of
living systems

February 20, 2012

“Without ethics, politics has no limits. America broke the rules of living systems, and lost its balance. All the oxygen flowed to a smaller and smaller section of the body politic. The history is brief and unquestionable: close to toppling, the society momentarily pulled itself upright, and then became even less ethical, less balanced, more endangered than ever as a lawless financial system came back from death, and like a foolish patient after a heart bypass operation, continued in its old ways.”

I read this last week in an essay by Earl Shorris about America’s latest pathology, published in the December 2011 issue of Harper’s Magazine. For several years now, I’ve been in conversations with people about the nature of our society’s failing systems—be those schools, healthcare, food, energy, economy, and so on. For better or worse, I’ve had a chance to be in rooms where each and every one of these systems that our society depends upon has been criticized, mourned and raged against. We’ve wrestled with what to do. Should we provide hospice to these dying systems—offering palliative care to the terminally ill? (Such as treating obesity and diabetes rather than the industrial food system.) Should we struggle to revive them, perhaps with a transplant or bypass surgery? (Think TARP for our economy or No Child Left Behind and now Race to the Top for our schools.) Or should we move forward, focusing all our energy on creating new life, nurturing a small seed of what might someday become a healthy, mature system? (Heartfelt efforts to create local food systems, renewable energy and zero-waste living practices are growing but still a fraction of the scale needed to sustain our communities.)

I confess I’ve been biased in my thinking toward the latter (here’s a video that expresses that view). Let’s build the new! Pioneer uncharted territory! Focus on what’s possible rather than what’s so! In writing Walk Out Walk On, Meg Wheatley and I shared stories of people who were creating the world they wished for despite all evidence to the contrary—friends in Zimbabwe who doggedly declared abundance in the face of absolute scarcity, friends in Brazil who danced resignation into joy. My heart expands when I recall these experiences of walking out of fear and constraint and walking on to create, imagine, dream and build.

But I also know that breathing life into the new is insufficient.

I spent seven years looking forward, learning from people who are willing to dare to create a healthier, more resilient future. I’ve also spent seven years with my back turned on the diseased patient—one with whom I am so intimate that I don’t even recognize as part of me. And surely the society that we inhabit today lives in us, and we in it.

That raises a question for me about how much we can really support systemic change if we are unable to turn back and face our diseases, bearing witness to pain and suffering in our social body. When our action to change the world is fueled by anger, frustration or rage at the way things are, it risks being reactive, another aggressive response to disease—another bypass surgery. But when we can look at “the way it is” with compassion and grace—and really listen to and notice what’s needed—then perhaps we can find our way to the root source of the illness, to the ethics and values that we yearn to see expressed in our households, neighborhoods and nation.

I’m all for looking ahead to envision a brighter future. But I’m beginning to slow down in my race to fix things, acknowledging a deeper wisdom that is inviting me to let today’s suffering sink into my heart and guide my actions. I am learning that to be still is neither passive nor complacent. It is perhaps the place from which we’ll discover our greatest creativity and capacity to respond to society’s chronic problems.

Social media
seems to be
heating up our pot

January 19, 2012

Last night, ten faces peered back at me from the glow of my computer screen—including my own. This was my first Google+ Hangout experience, and now nine strangers were gazing into my living room (and I into theirs) as we began a dialogue about educators experimenting with walking out and walking on. And who knows how many others peeked in, as lurkers were invited to watch the one-hour dialogue via live stream.

Ten years ago, I would not have invited nine people I had never met into my home at 9 PM on a Wednesday night. A year ago, I would not have “friended” someone I had never met in person. Day by day, my relationship to privacy, intimacy and social boundaries is slowly eroding. Much like the frog in boiling water, I am gradually adapting to the persistent incursions of social media into my daily life—and potentially destroying my brain in the process.

Or at least that’s one way to interpret the relationship between social tools and the mind, according to Nicholas Carr, whose book The Shallows I started reading a few weeks ago. Carr writes about the neuroplasticity of the brain, which describes how areas of our brain expand and contract the more and less we use them. As our culture’s tools shift from printed books to online media, we are becoming more skilled at scanning and skimming a dynamic ecosystem of information then we are at concentrating for long periods of time on just one thing.

I certainly feel that myself—I know how much harder it is these days for me to pay attention to just one book (I tend to read five to seven at a time), listen to just one speaker (the 20-minute TED Talk is about my max capacity) or to remember pretty much anything at all. What I’m not so sure about is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. It’s certainly an emergent thing—that is, we cannot see the potential of this shift in the individual; it only reveals itself in the group. Meg Wheatley has been writing about this for years, explaining how a group is capable of behaviors that are not knowable when you study the individuals (you would never see the potential for building a tower in an individual termite). We live in a world of emergent properties, and right now, social media is generating a vortex of unpredictability. Some parts of our brain are growing and gaining new skills at the expense of other parts. Our relationship to privacy is shifting, as is our relationship to ownership, control, transparency, collective action, governance, ethics, the nation-state, and so on.

I’m not indifferent about these changes. Nor am I Pollyannaish about it all—I do not subscribe to the faith in evolutionary human consciousness that assumes whatever collective brain emerges will be better than the one that came before. Rather, I simply acknowledge that we, as a society, are deep into the journey of walking out of 20th century ways of relating to one another, and walking on to a new paradigm that is impossible to wrap our minds around. Because it is still emerging.

So are we passive in the face of these waves of change? Just along for the social media ride? Perhaps not. In fact, I take great solace in the boiling frog allegory, which turns out, isn’t entirely true. Ultimately, there’s a critical thermal maxima (maximum temperature an animal can bear) before which the frog will do everything in its power to escape, rather than soporifically drift off to death.

Social media certainly seems to be heating things up. What would it look like for us to boldly leap out of our pot?