1:62) 18-SEP-2003 08:56 Art Kleiner
Whew. I'm behind. But I've run out of time for the moment - - will keep catching up as I can. Regards, A.

John, in the book I’m currently writing (Level 5 Communication), I make the statement that 3-primary drivers identify a company’s DNA.  These being, urgency, velocity and control.  In many respects, I believe control and core groups possess commonality and synergisms between them.  But also as you look within these three, they also tend to control our communication patterns.  In most organizations, urgency and velocity tend to be very direct in focus – “Simon Says…”  As product life cycles shorten, as companies increasingly focus on short term goals, the communication patterns outside the core group tend to be short, brief and to the point.  Some might like to refer to this as “doing the 9 to 5.”  

But the core group is almost like a country club, where there are privileges.  Their conversations are different.  They may be dictatorial to those outside the core, yet inside the core they tend to communicate within channels that I would consider richer, and more meaningful.  One of these channels would be storytelling.  “you won’t believe what just happened…”  I really liked the comment Art made about Enron.  Companies try to make employees feel like they’re part of the core group by providing them stock…  

The last point I would like to make is this.  We have identified 5-key communication barometers, one of these being resonance.  It is my opinion that core groups tend to resonate with each very well – at least most of the time.  Outside of the core group, middle managers might resonate at a different level, people down in the trenches at a different level, sales people a different…  This in turn creates communication chasms wo emerge, which tend to add to organizational stress, etc.  Organizations that resonate as one can move with urgency, velocity and control – all others are in various degrees of out of control.  

Okay, I need to add one more – and it has to do with the philosophy surrounding Emotional Intelligence.  And so I am going to pose this question back to Art.  When a well defined core group is established, how difficult is it for that organization to also possess a high degree of Emotional Intelligence (EI)?

Just some quick thoughts:  

1. Art:  The 9th will work for breakfast and if not, we'll find a time.  

2. Virtual Communities:  The idea that virtual communities always have a core group, so accept it and don't resent it.
I wonder how that fits with Denham's list in Item 1:48?
Can a person who is not part of the core group with a different expertise, who exists in a world that is defined by different boundaries be part of the dna that weaves virutal community that Denham described?

What is the role of values in this and how do the forms of equity that Art outlines in the book interplay with that and sustainability.  

We cannot fix organizations (and this will be the theme of my next WorkEcology newsletter), yet how are we going to form core groups that show that people and liveable wages matter and that part of working cooperatively and collaboratively is to care that your coworkers and cointelligence community members are sustained, thrive and earn?  

If Enron and Polaroid still existed what would it's future form of Core Group look like?  

For a year, I studied the remarkable work of the Pew Fellowship Program.  Over 10 years time, 60 leading practitioners from a cross expert international community (economists, policy makers, legislators, academices, bench scientists) was formed.  The Fellowship program selected innovators and people who formulated knowledge in practice that opened frontiers of possibility scientifically.  The Pew Fellowship reward, provided each of these fellows legitimacy.  In my view, not from an evidential study, all these fellows lacked legitimacy in their immediate geography because they were not part of a core group.  

This phenomena can be parallel to thought about virtual community. The core group of members in a virtual community by nature of a community that is virtual keep the community life by writing, reading and sharing information often without a plan or purpose.  The people who live on the fringe who are not part of this communit are doing the work and thinking in hope to distribute and share their knowledge. Their knowledge has value.  In a virtual community the value is often sharing freely and often the person with action research based and measurable learning, e.g. a Pew Fellow lacks the financial resources to codify research or develop a learning center.  The virtual community wants to charge for use of it hardware and technology and own the wealth of knowledge share for shaping software or other technology?  

In the Pew world core groups live and convene through emergence, friendships and attractors.  This fellowship recently went through a very intense restructuring and a new organization emerged along the way dedicated to creating an environment of examination into the forms of leadership that can serve distributing this knowledge. It still remains to be seen how this will turn out and what forms will emerge.  It is organic.  

One measurement I deeply observe is that core groups die and new groups form.  Friendships change and the organic commitment of individuals weaves into intentional dialogue that is not based on goal driven systems of doing business and more based on learning and respectful appreciation of the diversity of expertise that is available.

This is where I see the discussion of core groups as an Art form, out of sparking and weaving a treasure map of possibility that is responsible in the context of values.  

The clearest form of a healthy family to me is a family who talks about values and then gets together at dinner to examine if they are living these values.  

I will share a qualification here that recently came to me. It's an informal reason why Art is in my core group. He is in my assessment a Family first kind of guy.  About 6 months ago, I observed in my life that the men who supported my success and engaged in work that was meaning ful to me, stopped to plan time with their families.....spoke about what they can and cannot do in the context of their value for their family, speak of their intentional contract with their wives and take real time out to be present (in the spiritual sense with their children).  In further examining this, I discovered something as well in their economic model of sustainability, earning in these economic times was defined by living in the question of in addition to myself, who do I need to be responsible to and therefore what does that mean in terms of organizing my time.  

It is a very subtle difference than talking to people who remain in the swing of the ever evolving layoff scenarios, job protection, etc or people who are starting businesses while other people sacrifice in their families and take up slack while they drive a bus like a stove pipe bringing in the bread.  

So this story is a long way of my saying....what do I believe present consciously that serves core groups? and the what really deepened for me as I spoke with Art and read his book was that real friendship and core group emergence really forms out of shared values and appreciation for a "spoken outloud" form of equity that is not left up to chance.  

As I reread this book and look at the dance that I align my purpose with nourishing sustainability, this becomes the possibility of authoring a dance and playful adventure that can lead to a form of stress that is far more healthy than the deep examination so many do to analyze why it is not working and what has to change.

::observation, the level of intelligence and energy in here is great ::

Finally, in order to play successfully in the Core group one has to truly know that one is entitled to what one wants. One has to know this so deeply that one is willing to do whatever it takes to get what one wants. For Core players, other people are somewhat ethereal as persons.  

I don't know that this is a matter of corruption. Corruption is the result of violating certain rules of engagement, but Core players don't really believe the rules. They use them and abuse them simply as a method to achieve their goals. Viewed externally they may be seen as corrupt, but they don't see themselves that way.

Most people simply don't know they are entitled to anything. There is a huge difference between wanting something and knowing you are entitled to it. If you know you are entitled to respect as a person, for example, then you simply won't tolerate anything else. Losing the job, not getting the raise, looking foolish, those are immaterial if you know you are entitled to respect and aren't getting it.  

Pretending to entitlement, however, can be disastrous.

Second, consultants who ensconce themselves in the Core Group of a client company that way are due for a rude awakening one day… when the CEO wakes up, as if emerging from a dream, and shakes the consultants off like so many particles of sleepy-eye scrim. Otherwise, the client executives risk losing THEIR core group status…

The relationship between Core membership through inheritance and those attributes I mentioned is interesting. Not everyone born to the Core gets to stay there. And often enough those who are quite inept performers remain there.

Four great questions to ask :
( they can be found in The fifth discipline fieldbook )  

How can we distribute power while increasing self-discipline ?  

The "we" here is a complex and very interesting issue,
normally I would believe its the Core Group.  

How can we combine systemic thinking skills with reductionist skills ?  

The simple answer here would be recruiting complementary talent. But since the demands on each one of us calls for both, it gets trickier. Read good books, do the exercises, practice together with people. Its difficult, but not impossible, IMO.  

How can we improve conversation ?  

Through being trusting, authentic and discerning in conversations. We all recognize the energy, feel and look of a great conversation. Sparks fly, ideas get tossed and turned, people feel they really want to contribute to it, and they leave such a conversation feeling inspired,
sometimes leading to lasting changes.  

How can we elicit voluntary followership ?  

Maybe Art really have got close to an honest answer here,
through the actions of a Good Core Group ?

Yes, I've found it to be a double-edged sword.  Sometimes it has empowered me to go where angels fear to tread but it has also too often led me to fall back on old patterns as well as being spooked by ghosts of the past.  I can bore people to death with anecdotes from elsewhere. :-) I'm a good storyteller and it's an asset in my business to have stories to tell of great artists, but when it seems to be all about the achievements of another organization, it palls.  Something I'm working on.  

I was interested in the idea of a corporation in the for profit sector establishing a "noble purpose".  I think that most of us in non-profit and arts management are there because it is important to our self definition to align ourselves with a noble purpose of some sort or another. Personally I can't motivate myself without it.  

While one grows used to meeting a few individuals who work in non-profits and the cultural sector who are driven more by greed or other motives, it is very disillusioning when entire organizations lose focus on whatever noble purpose used to be the rationale for the organization. When the organization seems to exist to raise money to pay people to raise money.  

A number of my peers are leaving to higher paying jobs in the corporate sector, with an attitude of "why not" there's no difference anymore.  In both the US and Canada, loss of competent senior managers in the Arts is a concern to major Foundations. In Canada, the Bronfman Foundation has established a Round Table on Arts Leadership which I have been participating in.

“I haven’t got a brain…only straw.
How can you talk if you haven’t got a brain?
I don’t know…But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking…don’t they?
Yes, I guess you’re right…..”  

The Council on Foundations has been working with some of the leading foundations in US and Canada to reeducate them to value of the work that Art and I individually are engaged in.  Two groups have been convened in the states through thoughtful recruitment of core groups to examine my
passion evaluation and to examine how to empower systems thinking, learning community and generative networking in the non profit sector linked to how foundations give.  

Linda if you would like to read my draft paper, email me.  I'll warn you it has too many citations because I would have been a bad student and my grade would have been knocked down.  I have a few more things on my plate before I go to get a real good edit done of it and move it forward.  

However, the papwer will give you a valuable sense of what is learned in the process of generative dialogue and how that can be linked to structuring a fellow ship program.  

The leaders in fellowship program structure are  

http://www.pewmarine.org/
http://www.leopoldlearning.org/
http://www.switzerfoundation.org/
http://www.ssne.org/  

I studied all of them during school and continue to be in the learning community.  

I am now hoping in some way to link into the evaluation community that is examining how to do what my paper title suggests. The title is Small Miracles: Philanthropy for Social Impact.  It is about how to measure and evaluate and spark the benefit of learning community in what was formerly instituationally driven processes.  

I know of a design now in process in one cultural community that Art and I are a part of that is moving forward with very positive change and impact and that is through this
http://www.shambhala.org/.  The community is being sparked and given permission to speak from many perspectives, even those that are not aligned so learning can be empowered by all and agenda of progress can be authored.  

I believe ultimately that where Art's concepts fit is in staging an opportunity for communities to examine if they wish to author an agenda of learning adn progress.  

There would be no reason to do this in a virtual community or online gathering where the core grou that dominates exists for the purpose of defending what is valued, ---knowledge sharing, technological tools and good conversation.  

Please note, that my term "agenda of progress" is a topic that I am writing about as a tool for core groups and community building.

It feels like it's been going on for weeks!  

Actually, I'm deeply gratified by all the interest and I haven't found it onerous (though I AM falling behind on  my other email).

How can we distribute power while increasing self-discipline ?    

I agree with you that for this question the "we" would have to be the Core Group.... another interesting question is: "Whose self-discipline are we increasing?" The answer to this question is investment -- in the capabilities of the Core Group and the context and capabilities of everyone else.  

How can we combine systemic thinking skills with reductionist skills ?    

I don't have anything to add to your answer.  

How can we improve conversation ?    

Again, nothing to add. Except that conversations between the Core Group and the rest of the organization are often highly ritualized and might benefit from some coaching... on both sides...     

How can we elicit voluntary followership ?    

Again, if the "we" is the Core Group, then there has to be some serious thought to this question: "What are we offering in return?" A good job, in itself, is going to be "worth" a contractual relationship. If more commitment is needed, then the organization and the individual need to come to terms.

I think all organizations can easily lose track of their real long-term purpose. Corporations too. Every corporation has the potential to do something great. It may be making money in a great way, but it's rarely just  making money.

Have you read Harlan Cleveland's "Nobody in Charge"?

That statement says a lot and I think is at the basis of more Core Group, rank and file worker misunderstandings--at least in my sector than anything else.  

In non-profits and the arts the "deal" has always been that workers give many extra hours and a high level of commitment in return for more of a seat at the table in decision-making and more job security than the corporate world. A manager gets a lot of bang for the buck from a committed non-profit sector worker in return for a little consultation and trying a little harder to accommodate, train, move, promote internally.  It's not a huge difference from the corporate world but a significant one.  

A shift has been happening during the past 20 years that has brought in more managers and ideology from the corporate world--in synch with the greater reliance on corporate funding and dwindling of public support. While many good things have come from that cross-fertilization in management, there has been a great culture class with the rank and file workers when a manager with a General Motors mindset takes over. Rank and file workers suddenly feel shut off from decision-making and also suddenly very replaceable.  As a result they become disaffected and work shorter hours, complain more to each other, waste time.  

Management wrongly assumes that the workers are unproductive and replaces them with less skilled, less committed workers.  Everyone loses.  

Now, what I see happening in my sector is another huge ideological shift based on analysis of some high profile failures, particularly in the orchestra world.  I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, as it usually is.  Corporate managers help non-profit sector enterprises do the best job to maximize earned revenue and reduce cost.  However they have to understand the culture to maximize human resources.  They also have to know the product and the production process (which is another story!) A manager at GM wouldn't last long knowing nothing about cars but I've worked for a manager of a major orchestra who couldn't pronounce "Wagner".

The complexities of modern life, and the interconnectedness of everything to everything else, mean that in our communities, our nations, and our world, nobody can possibly know enough to be in general charge of anything important or interesting. This state of affairs is becoming more apparent with each passing year. It may be one reason why, more and more, the "followers" - especially university students and educated adults -- seem so often to come forth with policy judgments while their established "leaders" are still making up their minds.  

The twilight of hierarchy opens up a fast-growing requirement for people who can and will take the lead -- and requires very different attitudes and strategies for those who opt to point the way. In modern societies many organizations still look like pyramids from a distance; but both their internal processes and their external relations feature much less order-giving, much more consultation and consensus.  

#2. Attitudes of leadership There are four simple steps in my argument: Step #1: Nobody's in charge. Therefore (Step #2) everybody has a chance to be partly in charge. But (Step #3) most people will not, for one reason or another, reach for that brass ring. Consequently, (Step #4) those who do will find that they are "leaders."  

Those of us who presume to take the lead in a democracy, where nobody is even supposed to be in charge, seem to need an arsenal of eight attitudes (reading time: one minute) indispensable to the management of complexity:  

First, a lively intellectual curiosity, an interest in everything - because everything really is related to everything else, and therefore to what you're trying to do, whatever it is.  

Second, a genuine interest in what other people think, and why they think that way - which means you have to be at peace with yourself for a start.  

Third, a feeling of special responsibility for envisioning a future that's different from a straight-line projection of the present. Trends are not destiny.  

Fourth, a hunch that most risks are there not to be avoided but to be taken.  

Fifth, a mindset that crises are normal, tensions can be promising, and complexity is fun.  

Sixth, a realization that paranoia and self-pity are reserved for people who don't want to be leaders.  

Seventh, a sense of personal responsibility for the general outcome of your efforts.  

Eighth, a quality I call "unwarranted optimism" - the conviction that there must be some more upbeat outcome than would result from adding up all the available expert advice

What was also surprising is the number of women working in investment banking who were successful and the nature of their personalities:  Risk takers, outspoken, individualistic and none of them dressed in Fidelity Blue! and very individual in their style.  How refreshing.  

This group served the benefit of a shadow core group and the day was very intimate, supportive and reflective. Personal stories were threaded in with charting the journey of success and failure and embracing failure was part of the conversation this group felt important to examine.  

All that aside, ART, your remark about the meeting with Ron Heifetz struck me as key. So often I find when a group dominates an organization or other, or lives in the context of a projected success in the future rather than examination of what needs to be nurtured now, what happens is the mission is clearly forgotten.  

Kip, I really want to come back and read what you wrote more thoroughly.   I viewed Harlan Cleveland as a real sparker of dialogue. While I never met him, I served a nonprofit in CA, where he helped to formulate a context for peace out of dialogue.  I have always appreciated what grew out his thinking in circles peripheral to me that supported my learning, e..g a lot of work that came out of circles from John Gardner and Willis Harmon.  These groups seemed to really invent opportunities out of a mission, vision and purpose to create a new frontier in health, medicine and education.  They are small intiatives that I believe plant seeds for some real possible change.  

Kip, I think what you outlined in Item 1:91 supports all my of what I spoke to above.  To me this is also at the heart of the what it takes to create success in frontiers of early adoption (of major change initiatives).  The process you outline really integrates what is in the heart of people that goes beyond passion for a science and/or a technology. Adopting new technology, science or a new best practices is so much easier, when it not only serves a greater purpose, but it brings people together for a shared mission that is great enough that challenges that result in conflict or misunderstandings become insignificant by comparison to the joy and enthusiasm that weaves from doing something innovative that impacts a frontier that people find rewarding.  

Linda, it is a rare leader I have met that can succeed without some form of legitimacy in the sector they serve.
I am interested to stay in touch with you in terms of learning what grows out of your work with the roundtable funded by the Broffman Foundation.

It is very hands-on, skills based.  At each session, part of the work is identifying needs and interests for the next sessions. The sessions occur periodically through the year. It is not primarily focused on group dynamics.  In fact I think it is pretty much the consensus of the group that was participating last year that they have theory up the wazoo but very little practical help to do their jobs. That may be accurate or not but that is the sentiment.

For years, the smaller your admin budget in relation to your artistic budget the better you were assessed.  So if you paid crappy wages, no benefits, never trained your staff, expected them to travel to conferences on their own dime, pay for their own subscriptions, had cramped offices, obsolete equipment etc., you were rewarded for running a good non-profit!  

Any change in that outlook on behalf of funders is a positive in my books.

The reason I raise this question reflects on a bigger question more relevant to most of us, how functional are most core groups?  And what makes a core group succeed or fail?  

And lastly, how was the Vino?

The quesitons I live with have brought me linked me to the conversations I have about the nonprofit world and more because of how I direct myself to learn. This is how I found about about what is happening in the foundation world.  

It brings me to speak more here about developing equity and return on investment for the various forms of equity that Art outlined in Item 1:28.  

It has been my belief for a very long time that one of the problems in work practice is that our notion of how people contribute to the bottom line is very linear and not supported by learning.  Ultimately we write business plans based on articulating strategies based on success stories rather than a willingness to learn how to adopt learning for a specific mission.  

This fundamentally connects with Core Group Theory and differentiating membership in to core groups that grow out of a mission and commmitment to do something.  

Margaret Meac once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."  

Fundamentally, this is what evokes a pattern of core group behavior in the context of a specific mission.  

However, the question becomes, does the pattern of core group behavior emerge committed to adopting an approach that proved successful before or out of a commitment to learn what can be done now in this moment.  Too many group author future success out of past success without looking at the dynamics of today and taking a photo of the environment of today and learning how to adapt for change.  

Margaret Wheatley recently published an article I do not have reflecting on T.S. Eliot that I cannot find at the Shambhala Sun website.  In the article she announced she use to want to change the world and now she knows she can't.
This sentence to me implies a perspective and orientaiton of doing from the perspective of individual rather than weaving a dialogue in the present with other people where the emergence of thinking translates into actions and steps that are thoughtful and doable.  

In discussion groups we tend to talk in generalize terms about groups of people, like what Rod noted in describing the UN and OPEC.  We label corporate behavior in forms that suggest that eveyrone in the company behaves that way.  WE say this company is socially responsible, this roundtable of people representing these groups is not committed to change and more.  

One of the core groups that ARt discusses in his book is
"the shadow group."  In institutions or sectors of work that are driven by policy, law or templates of behavior where there has been no change in years, many learn that they cannot impact change. So how does change happen?  

I think the dance of this book, is the beauty in that it can provide for people an awareness of how to build dialogue that can lead change.  By working in a protective womb of self-selection where people (not corporations) orgainze a mission that can be imparted and model a new core group behavior that grows lessons learned.  

The original dialogue from the Council of Foundations I described to Linda, grew out of the formation of a learning community and has been slowly simmering like a good soup stock for I think more than 6 years.   It is still not visibl and its having impact.  

The discussions in the international community empowering peace through the We the People Initiative that is now growing on 12 years, got sparked by a group in San Francisco in a living room.  

So I offer this as thought relative to Rod's question in Item 1:101relative to how functional are core groups.  The process of group formation takes years, how they emerge comes through various forms  What the history is of bringing these groups together and if they were self selected, structured or recruited in some form is very interesting t me and I believe buried within this history is an evaluatoin opportunity (that I have trained to perform) that can measure potential and actual metrics in the context of learning community that are very different than a business or sales plan.  

Is anything I say here spark some reflections or thought from others here?

He previously offered copies to people who want to read it.  Can I check in here and see who has got a copy or has now read it. This will influence some of what I can do here to help the dialogue.

I am catching some emerging themes here as I reread  

1 Can a Core Group pattern change?
2.What is a functional versus a dysfunction group?
3.How do I develop in me a perspective from which I can responsibly deal with my own situation when I work with a core group that does not support or serve me?
4. What is a healthy core group?  

While I cannot give people the book, I can provide some materials.  

To me, this seems to be critical to understanding Core groups. It is the agenda of the Core group that determines the direction and methods employed by the organization. Art points out that there need not be any relationship between the Core group's agenda and any public statements made by the company about the company - or even to other members of the company.  

Can a Core group pattern change? Only if the agenda of its members changes, or if some other group can remove them from their positions.  

What is a functional versus a dysfunctional group? Is there any objective standard against which to measure a Core group to determine if it is functional or dysfunctional? Not by the definition, it would seem.  

What is a healthy core group? By definition wouldn't one have to say any Core group that succeeds in achieving its agenda is healthy?

Also we could widen the set the metaphors , besides seeing this through the healthy/unhealthy, functional/dysfunctional lenses, we could also see it through intelligent/inert, and adaptive/reactive.  

A healthy Core Group would IMO be a group of people, who complement each other in such a way as to serve as catalyst for the true evolutionary purpose of the company,
and where the Core Group itself manages to balance expansion with sensible business practice and boundaries.  

IMO, Tavistock offers some clues on the dynamics and issues in Core Groups.  

Let me see if I can briefly capture my thoughts again.  

Kip re: Item 1:106 where you leave us with a question re: Core Group Health and Agenda, this is a key question?  

John: leverages from this thought when he speak to the Core Group being a catalyst for evolutionary work.  

In the book on Dialogue by Bill Isaacs, he talks about the notion of group behavior when it is tacit.  Some knowledge management enthusiasts would refernce this as tacit knowledge.   I wish to distinguish here knowledge from agenda.  

An agenda shapes learning from which we derive knowledge.  Sometimes the evolutionary core groups agenda is not visible to the newcomers, customers or constituents and this is an opportunity for dialogue. I think in this instance it is very difficult for the Core Group to note the kind of conversation and pattern that may require them to shift from conversing in a tacit form to a form of open respect and kindness to welcome in a larger community of adoption.  

I have some stories I do not have time to write here, however, the ingredients of kindness and respect take a very different shape when you facilitate a retreat of people removed from their base of habitual work practices where you can examine the hidden assumptions and emotions that keep their practices as habitual rather than innovative.  

I may come back later to share a story.  I am a bit rushed today preparing to leave for a trip tomorrow and I do not kwow how much time I will be able to spend her from the road.

And, if so, I think I agree, one viable path would be for the core group to report to the board perhaps, in such a way so as to increase their capability of reflective openness, being asked what are you consistently not thinking about, which are the cultural blind spots, what do you glimpse you dont know  

from the book the fifth discipline, p. 279 :
"The key, in my experience, is both making it safe to speak openly and developing the skills to productively challenge one's own and others' thinking."

In my opera company experience I brought to the Human Resources Committee of the Board two organizational charts. One was "How we say our organization is structured for authority and decision making".  The other was "How our organization is actually structured".  

I said that a healthy organization had to say what it does and do what it says, and we weren't doing that.  We could remedy the situation two ways.  We could officially recognize the power that a middle manager (and coterie) had to lead the decision-making of the organization.  We would do this by promoting this individual to the level of senior management.  That way the decisions would be public and accountable to the Board and membership. OR we could short circuit the unofficial Core Group power base.  Either way, it would be an improvement.  

Had the Board made the decision to bring the real power structure in line with the official power structure, I think the same explosions would have occurred but a year or so later.  The effects would have been different but similarly damaging.  A dysfunctional Core Group often wants to influence from behind the scenes and doesn't have the capacity to function in the light of day.  

By contrast in my current organization there is a Core Group that consists of Board leaders and an acknowledged "Advisory Board" that has an official function to help the Board with long range planning and business plans.  These people are drawn from a number of sectors but are leaders in their fields. I know that they really hired me!  They provide the healthy second opinion on a lot of stuff. The creation of the Advisory Board has allowed for an official and recorded input from outside experts.

Linda re: Item 1:110. What a powerful position to be in. To be hired by the consituency of leaders in the field. This is a real statement about how important evaluation tools are for you to organize a perception analysis of what is external to your organization in the context of an environmental scan and to learn how the organization is servign this or how this scan differs from the assumptions and business model  (or mental model that John refers to). It's a great way to do consensus building by providing analysis that can empower membership from the Board and the Advisory Board to dialogue and form a thought leadership that translates learning into strategic action.  

I quite enjoyed it, and the sessions were very productive, however, it always seemed to me that, over time, the participants drifted back into previous patterns.  

One of the assumptions I am hearing (and perhaps my hearing is simply skewed) is that the Core group is motivated to advantage the company. In my own experience, I have found that quite often that is not the case at all.  

If the Core group is simply concerned to advantage itself, no techniques will change that.  

Perhaps it is as important to understand the real agenda of the core group as its membership.  

Re #90: Linda, your story about “managers from GM” coming into “opera non-profits” and alienating employees by being autocratic is – ironic… Because the same is true in large corporations. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the steady companies are more profitable over the long haul IF they can avoid the syndrome of bureaucracy. In other words, if they can find another way, besides fear, to motivate people into commitment, corporations seem to thrive.  

It’s a hard lesson to learn, though, because the non-fear ways of motivating people take nuance, subtlety, and grace. These are the things that the for-profit world could learn from non-profits, instead of the other way around.  

Kip’s excerpt in #91 makes quite the same point. Eloquently. Nor is it alone; the point is made more and more these days, for example by Charles Handy.  

I don’t have anything to add to Lavinia’s #92, or the exchange between Linda and Lavinia (#93-95, #100).  

As for going to Italy (#96-99), it WAS a bummer. In the sense that it made me want to come and live here, with Faith and our three bambini. Short visits can often be very intense. (I’m typing this in the Rome airport, waiting for my plane home to board.) Linda’s comment reminded me of one of my favorite scenario exercises ever, a trip to Sioux Falls, South Dakota… in February. (It was on the future of the nursing profession in South Dakota… fascinating stuff.) It was MUCH easier to get to Rome from New York than to Sioux Falls.