From goodwill to doing good
Stoke, Leicester, London, Belfast: great people are meeting and committing to action but how do we get to the next stage?
Significant change tends to happen gradually. So often we only spot trends when drawn to a comparison over a longer time frame; for example, when something occurs which reminds us of an earlier event. So it was last night when I attended a splendid gathering of RSA Fellows in Belfast, some of whom had made the effort to travel across the border from the Republic.
Less than two years ago a speech invitation in Newcastle, County Down offered an opportunity to speak to Irish Fellows. It was a more informal gathering than last night and with less notice and organisation. Yet I was struck by several comparisons.
At the earlier event there was only a handful of Fellows and a polite, rather than enthusiastic, response to my urgings to be more active. Also, I had felt my encouragement was undermined by a lack of inspiring examples of mobilisation drawn from other parts of the Fellowship. Last night 25 people came together with different backgrounds and interests but, so it seemed, a shared enthusiasm for the RSA to make a greater impact in Ireland. And this time I was able to offer lots of inspiring examples of Fellow activities, from the civic days in Stoke and Leicester to FRSA networks on social enterprise and corporate responsibility, not to mention the growing list of Catalyst winners.
But in case this sounds like an exercise in organisational self-congratulation (something to which I know I am prone), as I flew home this morning my mind turned to the hard question of how engagement and enthusiasm can be channelled into positive action.
Experience tells me that constructive initiatives made to last rarely emerge from large group discussions. Instead it takes a small number of people who work intensively to develop an idea before bringing it back to the larger group in search of feedback and support. When they work most effectively, these smaller groups are bound by mutual respect and affection and shared enthusiasm (this is particularly vital for voluntary activities in which people naturally want to enjoy themselves) as welll as complementary skills, experience and resources.
My analysis of how first stage gatherings turn into second stage action suggests bad news and good. The former is that however much goodwill exists, it is hard to force these smaller groups into being. They tend to emerge spontaneously as people warm to each other and a spark of intent travels between them. The latter is that by simply gathering people together we increase the chances of these creative interactions occurring.
But what makes the most fertile territory for small group emergence? The processes I have seen applied most often tend either to be too random or too structured. So last night, for example, each person described their reasons for being at the event and it was easy to spot potential synergies. But the format didn’t create enough of an opportunity to start to turn shared interests into mutual commitments. This will rely on follow up and as we all know the enthusiasm we feel in a group can quickly evaporate when we are back as individuals in our busy lives.
In contrast, events which involve post it notes and break out groups often seem to me to end up over-directing people, channelling their interest prematurely and encouraging them to make plans before they have established the interpersonal dynamic on which the viability of those plans depend.
Think how often you have experienced what happens when these respective processes fail; in the first the meeting was great but it didn’t really get anywhere, in the second we all agreed to take something forward but virtually no one followed through.
As Fellowship engagement continues to grow there are more and more events like last night (by the way, I do think RSA Ireland is going to take off) and I am really keen to find a more effective way of making the kinds of connections which lead to creative small groups. As I say, this involves not just identifying shared interests but also complementary attributes and human affinity. So the processes need to combine sharing information (about people’s interests, skills and resources) with an opportunity for people to engage in the kind of interaction which gives strong clues about the likelihood of effective team working.
Does anyone out there have any proven methods I could try out next time?
Comments
7 Comments on From goodwill to doing good
-
Martin Gilbraith on
Wed, 19th Oct 2011 5:26 pm
-
andy bradley on
Thu, 20th Oct 2011 9:29 am
-
Edward Harkins FRSA on
Thu, 20th Oct 2011 5:15 pm
-
Julian Dobson on
Thu, 20th Oct 2011 9:47 pm
-
Robert Burns on
Fri, 21st Oct 2011 5:49 am
-
Daniel V on
Mon, 24th Oct 2011 2:10 pm
-
Matthew Taylor on
Mon, 24th Oct 2011 4:44 pm
Hi Matthew, “Does anyone out there have any proven methods I could try out next time?” Yes indeed, ICA’s own Technology of Participation (ToP) methods and many others – but I would argue that it is how any method is applied (and over time rather than in a single event) that really makes the difference to outcomes. IAF’s Facilitation Competencies give a fuller picture, including methods but also much more – http://www.iaf-world.org/index/Certification/CompetenciesforCertification.aspx
Hello Mathew
Thanks for this blog which invites reflection for me on the ‘implementation gap’ which is a feature of well intentioned heartfelt gatherings outside of organisational structures.
My own experience in mobilising groups to commit and follow through is that a focus on habits has been helpful and that reliable structures are liberating.
The habits we practice in our lives and our work (sounds a bit cultish but isn’t!)..
Hospitality – a ‘place that let’s you know you matter’
Giving and receiving of undivided attention
Asking ‘transformational questions’ (questions that shift what you think and feel is possible)
Appreciation
We call these the ‘thinking differently’ habits and they seem to be working in enabling small groups to remain cohesive and to make good on their commitments. The habits are inspired in part by the work of Nancy Kline whose passion is for creating environments in which people can do their ‘best thinking’
Happy to share more if interested.
Andy
Matthew, I’m involved with a group of Fellows who are at this time in the earliest throes of assessing the scope for developing a specific thematic grouping. I am therefore very interested in what you have posted here.
I have considerable experience in having delivered the Open Fora programme for SURF (Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum) over the last decade. That’s not exactly the same context as small emergent group scenarios, but I will be seeking to carry over some of the success drivers from that experience into what we Fellows may be seeking to do. But, just a couple of things I would chuck in for now.
One is the need to manage the creative tension between the driving forces of the committed, achieving founders – and what the ‘others’ who come later,and who are ‘out there’ in the rest of the world most need from you and what they can best offer you. In the case of SURF, a positive developmental aspect was the need to comply with periodic evaluations and independent evaluators commissioned by the fora programme external funders. The demonstrable programme successes, evidenced by the independent evaluators, gave much life and substance to the programme deliverers.
The evaluations also, however, required that we all assimilated and acted upon the messages from the other participants and users in the fora programme. Evaluation need not be a cumbersome, expensive or energy draining activity. It can be ‘quick and dirty’ and effectively acted upon, so long as the values of transparency, honesty and competence are respected and practiced.
The one other compelling point I would add for now is the need to identify, respect and then exploit the very best of what each member of the group can offer. Sounds easy and ‘blinding obvious’ – but it carries with it the art and discreet discipline of maybe having to say to ‘Jimmy’ that his enthusiasm for the admin stuff is appreciated, but he is rubbish at it! Or saying to ‘Jenny’ that her self-belief in her leadership skills are maybe not actually all that good after all? And there is the sometimes trying need to ‘just go along with’ an individual member’s maddening idiosyncracities because of the other greater value they bring to the group!
… and, of course, that’s all without the other aspect you touch on; that of the transfer of knowledge and capacity to other groups.
I wouldn’t presume to add any special knowledge to that already shared here – just one observation. My experience is that people mobilise around what they want to mobilise around, not what they feel they ought to do or even what they would like to do. Urgency, agency and energy can’t be fabricated, cajoled or forced into existence. Your recent trip to Todmorden, Matthew, springs to mind…
I agree with Julian, but would add …..
We constantly subjected to attempts at social progamming by the media, marketing, etc. and have become numb to explicit atttempts of the kind you are engaged in Matthew.
Regrettably, what has stuck are the most negative elements.
The only times we hear about actual families in the media they are either:
1) organised criminal gangs, or otherwise anti-social/delinquent;
2) caught up in a hopeless situation and have to deal with inevitable failure at the hands of forces beyond their control.
Similarly for ‘communities’.
Groups have a bad press.
What has emerged is a society where group membership is viewed (at best) with suspicion.
The authorities don’t like them because they see them as subversive and individuals don’t like them because they tend to intrude on the ‘me’ bubble.
The only time this does not apply is where a group functions as a passive recepticle for issues and problems that formal authority and private individuals don’t want to deal with.
Getting past this (if it can be done) is the work of generations.
At my work we’ve found the most innovative ideas come from pairs. Being a pair creates an environment for more abstract ideas to be aired and played with. We’ve found that groups, even quite small ones, can create a new social dynamic where participants are much less likely to risk sharing more abstract ideas. Hope this helps. Daniel
Great comments, folks. Thanks to Edward, Andy and Martin for their ideas. I agree Robert about the prevailing social pessimism; that’s why it is so sad when enthusiasm (which, as you say, Julian comes from unpredictable moments of mobilisation) is dissipated by poor process or unclear thinking. This is something we are going to carry on working away at and I will no doubt return to again. So do keep in touch with other thoughts.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.