I had the privilege of spending a day with Matt Taylor and a small group of people one evening last week and then all day Saturday. I would rank Matt among perhaps the top half dozen people I have met because of the breadth of his vision, the depth of his humanity, the scope of his knowledge, and the power of his intellect.
His website and links provide fuller details, but I want to highlight what I learnt from him and the process.
Matt is asking the big questions about the way we run the human enterprise, and proposing that we are on the cusp of a transition to a new renaissance. This resonated deeply, as it has been an ongoing theme for me for some time.
He observed that the pace of change is such that even if we are able to fix the problems confronting us – and many good people are working on these – a new set of problems or challenges will have emerged in the intervening period. The combination of overwhelming complexity, combined with the accelerating curve of change (which I explored in my paper on paradox and complexity), and often long feedback loops, require a new level of thinking. This is a problem of complexity and systems. What we ‘fix’ in one part of the system can have unintended consequences in another part of the system. And often it takes a long time for this to be realised, by which time the ’solution’ has become an embedded part of the problem. Cars were a wonderful invention, with many many benefits, but the impact on our urban environment, energy and oil, international trade and relations, could scarcely have been foreseen by Henry Ford. Or could they? This appears to be one of Taylor’s key points: that if you get a sufficient number of stakeholders together, and create an environment which is conducive to learning, it is possible to generate solutions that foster a flourishing society and avoid (or at least minimise) unintended consequences. I think this is where he is going with his concept of Group Genius – a similar idea to the wisdom of crowds (?)
Taylor trained and worked as an architect, and in a succession of careers over more than 50 years has accumulated a set of competencies that he focuses on an overriding question about redesigning our organisations and lives for a completely different future. He has evolved from designing buildings to designing work, and developed a suite of patented tools and products to facilitate and distribute this process.
I am often troubled by evangelists for a cause, who can seem (to me) to lack a broad perspective or appreciation of the complexities of the world. These are those who advocate the need to stop doing what we are doing, and do things a different way, or face often dire (in their view) consequences. Matt helped me appreciate the role these people played in social change, but also pointed out that in addition to the advocate there were other key roles, including the conservator – who upholds and defends the status quo – and the transition manager – who is competent and credible in both the old and new world. This person is able to straddle both worlds. The mission of MG Taylor is to work with these people (Later on I will need to think how this links to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, as I wonder if this person is also a universalising force, having reached a level of maturity where they are comfortable with the paradox and ambiguity, and have the personal leadership to assist people across the divide).
A couple of tools stood out in particular for me.
Firstly the 7 Domains model. This tool enables you (and/or your firm, group, nation, …) to gain a different perspective on your current and future circumstances. We spent some time on a whiteboard using this tool to look at a personal issue we were addressing, to gain a little insight and practice. I spent some time reviewing The Confidere Group, which was enormously helpful. As Matt Taylor pointed out, this tool can be used everywhere, and repeatedly – eg regularly asking “what body of knowledge do we have/require to do this project, launch this business, shift social policy, clean up the river, …?
Secondly, within the Body of Knowledge model is a 10 step learning model. You can read more about it via the link, but the key insight for me was to document what I learnt, distribute that to others, and invite their feedback/contribution in order to generate further learning. When I write it like that it sounds like a statement of the obvious, but it went off like a light in my head. Hence one of the reasons for this blog.
More to come when I have processed and assimilated more of the material.
Let me know what resonates with you in this.
Some interesting ideas in here… The idea of Group Genius is interesting — and goes well beyond wisdom of crowds. Wisdom of Crowds is more about “ordinary” people getting things right en masse, while Group Genius seems to be about creating an environment to allow individual genius to flourish. (On only a slight tangent, check out Urgent Evoke — a game designed to get people playing together — teaching collaborative skills &c to encourage group learning)
I like where you’re going with the “universalising force” thing too — where’s that idea from?
-p
Peter – good observation about Group Genius and the Wisdom of Crowds. Helped me appreciate the distinction.
Kohlberg et al write about (usually) 6 stages of moral development. Beyond space here to go into detail, although i will have to blog on it later. At one stage (usually around teenage years) we hold strongly to certain beleifs which we have decided for ourselves, having accepted/rejected/modified those provided for us in an earlier stage by authority figures like parents and teachers. At this stage we find it difficult to accept alternative perspectives – “I am right, therefore you must be wrong”. At the next stage of development we learn to live with paradox and develop the capability to hold constructive conversations with those who hold alternative views. We become more tolerant and respectful, being very comfortable with our own beliefs, and equally comfortable for you to have yours. You can see this on a global scale as nations (and religions) learn to respect quite different points of view without seeing this as an opposing or threatening force. There is ample evidence of those who are stuck at an earlier level of moral development and want everyone else to be like them.
At a subsequent stage (which fewer people reach) one develops the ability to not only appreciate and live with paradox but through your own life become a force for bringing together disparate people and ideas. This is the universalising concept I spoke about. Nelson Mandela is an oft quoted example of this kind of person.
Someone else may enunciate this better than I, or be able to provide some links to Kohlberg or others from a similar school (Piagett, James Fowler, …)
Anthony’s network is amazing and Matt Taylor is insightful in his observations. It never ceases to amaze me how business today fails to think through the many unintended consequences of the way they structure themselves and incent staff. Organizations today are full of contradiction and short-term thinking, yet those in power cling to hollow cliches of ‘vision’ and ‘leadership’ without truly committing to what it really takes to have a healthy vibrant team of loyal staff and customers.
Thanks for your comment Tony. What can we do to create a healthy vibrant team, consisting of both staff and customers?
I think by the way that you are alerting us to a trend that may not be obvious, and that is a shift to a networked (think of a spider’s web) organisational structure that includes not just those in the firm, but all those in the ‘community’ of the firm. This model recognises that relationships across supply chains, customer groupings, staff, and all stakeholders and the key to running an effective enterprise. The idea of the organisation as community is one consequence of the emerging emotional economy.
Taylor’s key points about bringing key stakeholders together in a conducive environment to learn one can create unique solutions to a flourishing society gives thought to another person I heard give a talk on TED. His name was Cameron Sinclair who started Architecture for Humanity. Cameron was also trained as an architect. His idea to use the internet (website) to bring ideas together from some of the best minds in architecture and engineering to solve housing problems in troubled areas around the globe has had amazing results. It great when you can focus intelligence on solving real issues and create solutions rapidly to the needs of people in crisis. It is with this process we need to learn so we can resolve issues sooner rather than later.
Thanks for this insight Cliff.
For those who are interested, here is a link to Cameron’s site
http://architectureforhumanity.org/
I always feel comforted knowing that with each generation there will be a group of people that retain part of the consciousness and awareness of the previous generation. As a teacher I am concerned by how much the teenagers I come in contact with have become complacent in questioning what is given to them. I think that we all need to become better problem solvers and I believe it is a skill that can be taught. This way we can get more critical thinkers that can challenge social issues that need addressing and can design and change existing systems.
I am optimistic that once a certain wave of old thinkers retire, the next generation of optimism will bring something new. Although maybe it is just my optimistic generation Y thinking….
Another thought… the education system is very rigid and very stuck in it’s current state of syllabus outcomes. Not to mention teachers are incredibly resistant to change because they are only familiar with the world they have created in the classroom. I think they have forgotten how much influence they can have over teaching students to be responsible and independent learners. Not sure whether this is relevant to what you are talking about, but I believe the stage of adolescence is a very vital time when people start to form their ideals about themselves and when they start to realise how powerful they can be or visa versa when they start to feel powerless.
The problems that I face as a young teacher from a different generation is seeing how teachers are so poorly supported by the education system. Most teachers that I have come in contact with have had negative experiences with the Department of Education. They feel under appreciated and depleted of their energy. Teachers need more inspiration and support-they get some of this from a technology point of view but not on a human level. They are treated as a number and so rarely are they acknowledged pr supported for innovative teaching practices. Teachers need a support system which allows them to feel like better human beings so they can impart this onto the students. A teacher’s world is very microcosm to their subject-they need to step outside this zone and realise how much influence they have on people on a day to day level.
That’s my two cents.
I have felt strongly for most of my life that there should be a mandatory class in school that teaches it’s students on how to think. What model of thinking would be taught exactly, I am not sure of, however, engaging people in the process of thinking would be an excellent starting point. School teaches us to to memorise and regurgitate, to be a cog or a wheel inside a system, which is fine, however who is doing the creating of the system in the first place? If we were all inclined to engage in the process of thinking, would ask questions that could better anything we wanted to put our minds too?
Will this serve me? The community group I live in? The working environment? The country? The world? Future generations?
Is there another way to do things? What exactly are we trying to achieve and to what purpose?
Constant enquiry would amount to a wonderful evolution.
Anthony – I ABSOLUTELY believe that the movement of the future is group-related whether you are talking stakeholders involved in creation, group wisdom, collective intelligence being harnessed, group transformation processes, individual development catapulted by group appreciations rather than performance appraisals, social networking, hive theory, communities, etc. The age of the individual is in transition – from the self to the collective – and I think it is exciting and great. The work of change agents will be in the field of designing interventions that bring about connection within groups so that people learn to provide appreciation, feedback, feed-forward, suggestion, critique, new ideas, etc. to one another and in dialogue where each person’s contributions can become lost (a good sign of true dialogue and co-creation). It will also be important to honor and create the space for the individual to go back and reflect, regroup and regain his identity and sense of individuality.