Changing change

22Oct11

When I applied for the Bush Fellowship, I spent a portion of my application speaking to my frustration about traditional models of problem solving and their lack of efficacy in getting to the root of our toughest challenges. I’m not sure we know even know how to define problems, let alone solve them. I’m unconvinced that the way we go about trying to solve tough problems will really achieve the long lasting results we need.

We are a results minded, action oriented, problem solving type of people who find a significant amount of identity from solving problems. First we identify a need, then search for solutions, establish goals, bring others on board, implement, then when it doesn’t work, start again from the beginning. The essence of these steps is the belief that the way to make a difference in the world is to define problem and needs and then recommend actions to solve those needs.

We limit our effectiveness by putting out a defined destination (vision) and then assume it can be reached in a linear path from where we are today.

And while this approach does actually work for many things, rarely does it work well in human systems or when the desire is to create something new. Problem solving can make things better, but it doesn’t change the nature of the things.

If we really want to see positive change in our communities we will have to move away from our traditional models, and instead shift the entire umbrella under which problem solving, investment and social and community action now takes place.

Peter Block in his book, Community, says this, “The challenge for community building is this: While visions, plans and committed top leadership are important, even essential, no clear vision, nor detailed plan, nor committed group leaders have the power to bring this image of the future into existence without the continued engagement and involvement of citizens. In most instances, citizen engagement ends when the plan is in place. The implementation is put into the hands of the professionals. In concept, the master plan provides some parameters for development and the use of space, but in real life it is usually a call to let the arguing begin. For all its utility, it rarely builds interdependence or strengthens the social fabric of a place.”

To me, one of the missing ingredients to successful community building is the inclusion and authentic engagement of the residents in a community. To shift the paradigm that Block speaks to above, we will need to discover and create the means for engaging residents in ways that bring new possibility into being. More and more, I am convinced that what gives the most power to communal possibility is the imagination and authorship of the residents inside of a community.

Real change is an organic and relational process that starts from the bottom up, not the top down. With this in mind, the role of leaders then is not to be an authority from on high, but instead leaders must be focus on creating structures and experiences that bring residents together to identify and solve their own issues.

In our traditional model of problem solving scale and speed are king as we work hard to push fast to a preordained destination (vision) sacrificing along the way the connections, relationships and engagement between people. We must choose depth over speed and relationships over scale, recognizing that real communal transformation is almost always, local, customized, unfolding and emergent.

We will also have to adjust our traditional notions of what constitutes action. Defining a vision, crafting a strategy and handing out a to-do list to individual actors is a too narrow view of action. We must define action more broadly.

Again, Peter Block in his book Community, asks these important questions as we think about what is or is not action.

Would a meeting be worthwhile if we simply strengthened our relationship?

Would a meeting be worthwhile if we learned something new?

Suppose in a meeting we simply stated our requests of each other and what we were willing to offer each other. Would that justify our time together?

Or, in the gathering, what if we only discussed the gifts we wanted to bring to bear on the concern that brought us tog ether. Would that be an outcome we value?

Saying yes to these questions significantly widens the spectrum for which we can undertake our traditional problem solving techniques.

All of this is not an argument against the need for us to solve problems in our community, but comes from my sense that what we need right now is a larger shift in the context of how this work happens in community more broadly.

To say it the most cheesy way I can imagine, I’m wondering if what I’m really talking about here is an analysis that says, “we need to change the way we make change”.

Filed under: Neeraj   |  Leave a Comment