Chaordic Leadership

Dee Hock, founder of the Visa Corporation has written a delightful and powerful article that describes “Chaordic Leadership”. (Hock, 2000) Central to the concept is the need to focus on the self, and self-awareness as a leader. Hock defines “chaord” as any self-organising, self governing, adaptive, nonlinear, complex organism, organisation, community or system, whether physical, biological or social, the behaviour of which harmoniously blends characteristics of both chaos and order.

The first and paramount responsibility of anyone who purports to lead is to manage self: one’s own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts. It is a complex, unending, incredibly difficult, oft-shunned task. We spend little time and rarely excel at management of self precisely because it is so much more difficult than prescribing and controlling the behaviour of others.
However, without self-awareness no-one is fit for authority no matter how much they acquire, for the more authority they acquire the more dangerous they become. It is the self that should occupy 50 percent of our time and the best of our ability. And when we do that, the ethical, moral and spiritual elements of leadership are inescapable.

“It is not making better people of others that leadership is about. In today’s world effective leadership is chaordic. It’s about making a better person of self. Income, power and position have nothing to do with that. In fact, they often interfere with it.” (Hock, 2000)

Chaos—Order—Control can be seen as different states of being and experiencing. We tend to feel safest in the state of order, or for some people, in control. Being out of control is scary if we are looking for predictability. If we have a mechanistic view on organisations, our tendency will be to stay within the realms of order and control, where things are predictable and stable—and where we produce status quo or “more of the same”—which in some cases is exactly what is needed.

Diagram 3: The Chaordic Path
(from Art of Hosting Workbook 2009)

The world and times we live in are, however, neither predictable nor stable and call for more flexibility as “more of the same” solutions are not meeting the challenges. If we are looking for innovative, new solutions we will find them in a place between chaos and order—the chaordic path.

The chaordic path is actually the story of our natural world—form arises out of nonlinear, complex, diverse systems. “At the edge of chaos” is where life innovates, where things are not hard wired, but are flexible enough for new connections and solutions to occur. New levels of order become possible out of chaos.

The art is to stay in the fine balance between chaos and order. Straying too far to either side is counterproductive. On the far side of chaos is chamos or destructive chaos where everything disintegrates and dies. On the far side of order is stifling control—where there is no movement which eventually means death. When we move toward either of these extremes, the result is apathy or rebellion—the very opposite of chaordic confidence. Staying on the chaordic path is where the balance is and where life thrives.

Article: “Talk Deeply, Be Happy?”

Hosting conversations that matter is one of the social technologies that we use within our Social Innovation practices. Below is an extract from an article published in The New York Times about how important conversations that matter really are!

March 17, 2010, 2:34 pm
Talk Deeply, Be Happy?
By RONI CARYN RABIN

Would you be happier if you spent more time discussing the state of the world and the meaning of life — and less time talking about the weather?
It may sound counterintuitive, but people who spend more of their day having deep discussions and less time engaging in small talk seem to be happier, said Matthias Mehl, a psychologist at the University of Arizona who published a study on the subject.
“We found this so interesting, because it could have gone the other way — it could have been, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’ — as long as you surf on the shallow level of life you’re happy, and if you go into the existential depths you’ll be unhappy,” Dr. Mehl said.
But, he proposed, substantive conversation seemed to hold the key to happiness for two main reasons: both because human beings are driven to find and create meaning in their lives, and because we are social animals who want and need to connect with other people.
“By engaging in meaningful conversations, we manage to impose meaning on an otherwise pretty chaotic world,” Dr. Mehl said. “And interpersonally, as you find this meaning, you bond with your interactive partner, and we know that interpersonal connection and integration is a core fundamental foundation of happiness.”

View full article: Talk Deeply, Be Happy?

Constructivist Evaluation

Success Works adopts a Constructivist approach to evaluation and to its other social policy work.
Constructivism is a way of understanding the world that is based on the belief that “truth” is not an objectively knowable thing but is individually and collectively constructed by the people who experience it . ₁ As constructivist evaluators we assume that there are many different ways of interpreting or understanding the intent and impact of a policy or program and that to understand a policy or program the evaluator must gather together those understandings from a diverse range of sources. For a constructivist evaluator the truth of the situation is what the people who experience it describe.
Constructivism is a research paradigm that suits a complex world. We start from an understanding that our world, and the programs and policies that exist within it, is made up of a series of complex adaptive systems in which each individual participant and each individual process is in a state of constant action and reaction to each other, so that its overall behaviour and direction is unpredictable. From complex adaptive systems, emergence is the production of new and more effective ways of working that are greater than the sum of the parts. To discover the emergent properties of a system, the evaluator needs to see the overall structure and understand what has been achieved at an overall systems level. Success Works uses a systems analysis and meta-evaluation₂ approaches for this purpose.
As constructivist evaluators we do not assume that we know what the content or impact of a program or policy will be. We listen closely to how it is described by those in a position to know or understand the program or policy. We look for common themes in these constructions and these become the findings in relation to the evaluation.
In constructivist evaluation qualitative research approaches (interviews, focus groups, workshops) are always used and our questions allow the participants to convey their understanding of the program, policy or initiative. Questions are broad and open-ended so that participants can convey their understanding and their meaning of the situation being investigated. We recognise that our backgrounds and age, gender and cultural perspectives will shape our understanding of what we hear, see and feel in our evaluations. We use team based approaches and diverse staff teams to the extent possible to overcome these biases. We also acknowledge that they exist.
We use project/program logic as a key tool in the development of our evaluation frameworks. This is a constructivist approach which seeks to determine the project/program ‘theory’ or ‘hypothesis’ based on the knowledge and experiences of those responsible for the project/program. The “truth” of the logic model is measured through the evaluation based largely on the knowledge and experiences of those involved or in receipt of the project or program.
Findings from our evaluation interviews are presented in terms of patterns and themes. We look for common themes in the interviews and focus groups we conduct. The process of triangulating findings is a critical process when analysing data within a constructivist paradigm, as it enables ‘shared truths’ to be identified. Success Works recognises that, for many evaluations, it is appropriate to consider relevant quantitative data (e.g. survey data, administrative data sets) as another ‘axis’ in the triangulation process; that is, the quantitative data represents a particular perspective on a set of issues. Conceptualising quantitative data in this way allows for a true ‘mixed methods’ approach to evaluation, with an integrated analysis based around critical issues and themes, rather than the research methods themselves. In addition to its role within the triangulation process, quantitative data is also an important source of information for determining the scale and scope of a particular program or policy.

₁ ^{The other major approach to evaluation is positivism or post positivism. These approaches start from an understanding that truth is objectively knowable (positivism) or able to be approximated (post-positivism).}
₂ ^{Meta-evaluation is the evaluation of a number of related programs or policies and identifying findings at a systems level.}

Working with Hard to Reach Groups

As evaluators in social policy areas, Success Works often finds it has to seek out people who are traditionally considered to be ‘hard to reach’ in order to gain their opinions or experiences of a service, program or policy.

Traditionally the ‘hard to reach’ groups have been defined as: people who are homeless; people who use drugs or alcohol; offenders; Indigenous people; culturally or linguistically diverse people; people with mental health issues; people with cognitive impairments; people with disabilities; young people; older people; children etc.

However, in Success Works’ experience, ‘hard to reach’ can also include professional such as general practitioners or lawyers; people with full-time jobs and people who are not members of community organisations.

In thinking about ‘hard to reach’ groups we have also realised that there are two distinct sub-categories who require different strategies: people who are harder to find and people who are harder to engage. Some groups fit into both categories.

Cultural Competence and Cultural Safety

Success Works has been privileged to undertake a number of projects with Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.  In these projects and generally in our day to day work we subscribe to the concept of Cultural Safety.

Cultural Safety is ensuring that we, as consultants, understand and respect the different cultural understanding of the people we are working with and ensure that there is ‘no assault, challenge or denial of cultural identity’(1)  in our work.  More generally, cultural safety is a worldview that recognises the need to overcome cultural biases in our services and institutions in order to ensure that all individuals and communities have equal rights and equitable access to processes and services which are relevant to them.

Cultural safety starts from the standpoint of Cultural Competence.  Cultural competence is about recognising the cultural biases that all of us possess and taking steps to ensure that these biases are clearly acknowledged and that, to the extent possible, they do not get in the way of our practice.  Cultural competence allows one to understand that the way in which we experience and understand the world is only one way in which the world can be experienced and understood.

Culturally competent organisations are ones which:

• Demonstrate an understanding of their own dominant culture, including its implicit biases and assumptions
• Show a positive commitment towards the inclusion of individuals and communities from different cultural backgrounds
• Have knowledge of different cultural practices and cultural experiences and the influence of these on individual and group worldviews
• Are skilled and effective in cross cultural communication.

Success Works uses the following continuum to show the relationship between cultural awareness at the lowest level (the first step to cultural safety) and cultural safety at the other end.  Cultural awareness and cultural competence are both within the control of an organisation.  Cultural safety represents the experience of those who work in, access or use our services:

(1) Robyn Williams (nd) Cultural Safety: What does it mean for our work practice?

http//www.ruralhealth.utas.edu.au/inidigenous-health/Revised CulturalSafetyPaper-pha.pdf

The Success Works Guide to Project Logic

Project Logic as a key process in all of our evaluations. Sometimes Project Logic is also useful for strategic planning or in order to build understanding and consensus around a program or initiative. Project Logic unpacks the logic underpinning the program or project that is being evaluated – not the evaluation itself. The Project Logic identifies ‘what they were thinking when they designed this program or initiative’. In evaluation, the reason for developing a Project Logic is to be clear about the activities, outputs and expected outcomes of the program, particularly the short term outcomes. It is not  possible to evaluate a program based on its long term outcomes (as they are too far away and there are too many other factors that will impede their achievement). Nevertheless, the Project Logic depicts the logical flow from short to medium to long term outcomes. Short term outcomes should be possible to investigate as part of the evaluation. Once identified, the outputs and short term outcomes become the foundation for the evaluation questions. This guide describes each of the components of a Project Logic as we use them at Success

Success Works Guide to Project Logic