Decision-making and Governance in CHE NL

Decision-making and Governance in CHE NL The Story So Far (May 12, 2006) Context So here we are at a very interesting point in the evolution of the Center for Human Emergence in the Netherlands. We have been through an extensive Chaordic design process and are now at the point of creating structures, decision-making “processes” and governance models that build on that design and feel adequate to the task that lies before us. This piece is written to help clarify my thinking for myself on this challenge, to update people within CHE NL on where we are so far, to stimulate those outside CHE NL who are interested in Integral organisational development, and to invite feedback so that we may continue to learn and evolve. It is written in emergent style, and is my first person perspective on the story so far. When I use “we”, I am referring to the Board (currently consisting of myself, Marianne de Jager and Anne-Marie Voorhoeve). Framing the way we think about the organisation is key to our development here. We are trying to create an organisation that is continually learning and evolving, as that is how the Universe is organised, and we want to align ourselves as much as possible with Universal principles so that we may best be of service to the whole. That means that we need to go beyond traditional thinking whereby you announce an organisational structure with people in different posts, and that’s it until a yearly review. The structures and processes and functions need to be in continuous flow with the Universal directionality, with continual reflection on whether they are helping us to achieve our Purpose, in-line with our Principles, to deliver our Product for the world. Should we feel a mis-alignment between our processes and the Purpose / Principles, then there are two possible conclusions: firstly, that our Purpose and Principles are still valid in which case we need to adapt our structures and processes to realign, or secondly that in the reality of the interface between us and the world, as we design our processes and structures to serve our actions, we realise that our Purpose and Principles need reworking. So it is a continual dance through the Chaordic design flow. Where we are at now A couple of days ago, three of us sat together as the current Board, to get very practical about structures and functions. How did the three of us come to be the Board members? (And a footnote here – we had been using the term “Provisional Board” to show that it wasn’t final yet, and then I realised that actually in an evolutionary organisation the polarity “Provisional” and “Final” dissolves, as nothing is ever final, and everything is always provisional, based on the need that is sensed in the moment and the quality of fitness that is present. So the reality is that we are the Board in this moment, and that that may remain so for a while, or may evolve depending on what goes on in us as individuals, in the collective organisation and in the world around us. What is essential in this is that you have the processes in place to be picking up feedback from inside ourselves, from inside the organisation and from outside the organisation, and to therefore be making as informed decisions as possible about what will best serve the whole.) So I am energetically the Founder of the CHE in the Netherlands, and hold the seed energy and vision connected to CHE Global. I have gathered people around me with whom I feel “vertical solidarity” (i.e. we resonate on the same levels of development) and “horizontal solidarity” (i.e. between us we have the capabilities to be able to fulfil the functions that need fulfilling to serve the needs of the whole). Marianne de Jager has been part of the core from the beginning – in fact, our connection at the EnlightenNext Centre around the question of what Andrew Cohen’s teachings could mean for the business world predates the CHE NL, and lead to the experiment with the Evolutionary Leadership Action Network (ELAN) and idea for a major conference with Andrew and Don Beck – both of which were key steps on the way to the formation of the CHE. Marianne’s commitment, clarity and passion, as well as her experience of living this perspective in IBM for all those years, has made her an obvious partner to me at the core of the CHE. Anne-Marie Voorhoeve I met more recently, as the Klaar om te Wenden event concept was emerging and we needed someone to take a serious lead in that if it was ever going to get off the ground and succeed. I didn’t know much at all about Anne-Marie’s background but had an intuitive sense that if anyone was going to be able to lead this, then it was her. I was also impressed by the seriousness with which she took the decision to step into the task. Marianne knew her from other contexts, and her recommendation, together with that of Yolanda Dol who was also on the Board at that time and whose insights into who fits best have always impressed me, left me with no doubts. I was immediately struck by the speed, clarity and professionalism with which she started working. After that event, as we looked to see who might be able to play a key role in the CHE organisation, she was an obvious choice. We see Anne-Marie as playing the role of Executive Director in the organisation, who co-ordinates the everyday running of the organisation. It would require a good amount of time to do it properly, so we’d like to find income to pay her for that work. So the three of us sat together, looked through the Chaordic design document produced with the Organisational Development and Leadership constellation, and based on that went to work identifying key functions and potential people to go with those functions. The structural design is based on the thinking in Spiral Dynamics, around three core templates : the X-Template is where all the activities happen that interface directly with the world around us, the Core Product of the CHE in action; the Y-Template includes all of the support systems that enable the X-Template activities to happen; and the Z-Template is the overview body that helps to keep the whole aligned, and senses the broader flows around the organisation. From wherever you are in the organisation it should feel like you are supported by the Y and Z templates. (For the graphics of what this looks like, see this post on http://community.klaaromtewenden.nu - under Discussions). A critical question in all of this is how to have the appropriate people in the right functions. For this you are after vertical solidarity (i.e. with appropriately strong values systems to fit the function) and horizontal solidarity (i.e. capacities). In traditional organisational HR work, capacities are emphasised but Value Systems (eg Spiral) are not even recognised. That vertical element immediately introduces some interesting evolutionary tension into the whole story, as it means that someone has to make that judgement call on who is vertically fit for what. In our case, it started with me as the Founder doing that, and has now expanded to a conversation within the Board. We are taking responsibility for those judgement calls. The way it has worked in practice is a combination of intuitive feeling that someone is right for something (does it give us energy to imagine that person in that function?, and, by the way, if not, is that more to do with some interference in ourselves or are we picking up a clear signal?), and checking out their competencies as we have experienced them so far and to the best of our knowledge. The next step is to have an honest conversation with those people to see if their passion aligns, and if the competence is indeed present. So no job descriptions, recruitment procedures, “democratic” elections – which I imagine is going to be tricky for some people to accept. The thing is that so far this way of organising has served us well. We are using senses that transcend the cognitive combined with a system of checking with each other that our vision is clear and unpolluted. Core to this is the web of conversations, and I believe this concept and practice is the best way to ensure best-fit in functions in the organisation. I have seen too many well-intentioned organisations fall apart dramatically because they have developed a set of processes to ensure fair selection procedures (actually out of fear for corruption and to try and protect the integrity of the procedure), only to find that someone or some people have been able to use those procedures to get themselves into positions where they do not fit – generally to further their own ego-driven self-interest. But because they have used the established democratic procedures, no-one can do anything about it. Generating procedures out of fear to try and protect something will always cast a dark shadow. Acting out of trust that the right people will show up at the right time to carry out the functions that need doing, combined with skilful insight (not naively), is in my opinion far more likely to create the kind of organisation we need to really make an impact on the very serious issues we are facing in the world today. So each person in the organisation needs to be embedded in a web of conversation that helps to keep each of us aligned with the higher Purpose. And now comes a serious crunch. In order for this concept to work there needs to be a critical mass of people in this web of conversation who are able to act beyond their ego (sense of separate self) for the good of the whole. If we can hold that space and have our conversations from there, then decisions around fitness and functionality will flow with ease. The moment there is ego-interference, it will be a struggle. Key also to the success of this is making sure that as many people as possible are engaged in this very conversation about how decisions are made. It is a new way of working, and rubs up against many of our old preconceptions about how things should be done, so is likely to create some confusion and resistance. Learning space for those conversations to happen in is essential. The learning will be on all sides. At the same time, final decisions will rest with the Board. We as the Board are also of course experimenting, and need to maintain our curiosity and alertness for insights that can help us to best serve the whole. Should any individual have feedback about a certain appointment or process, the space needs to be there for that person to be taken seriously and responded to authentically. We enter such a conversation with complete openness and curiosity, looking for learning, and if it is there, act on it. At the same time, it could well be that the Board (or whoever is the appropriate decision-making body at that level) does not feel that the feedback needs acting on, and so be it. That will be a test of all our attachment to our own ideas! Are we truly in it for the whole, or are we more interested in our own idea being adopted? So that’s the story so far. It is the first time I have stopped to become more conscious of it all, which is an important step in itself for me. Sharing this enables us all to be more conscious of what is unfolding, to make the implicit explicit (which is the nature of the evolving universe!), and to learn from our experiments. On we spiral. With love, Peter May 12, 2006