realisedevelopment.net

Just another WordPress site

Community – The Structure of Belonging by Peter Block

by

Community – The Structure of Belonging – Peter Block

Peter Block has long been a ‘go to’ writer people who think carefully about the process of change and how best to help positive change happen.  For me, he IS the Consultants’ Consultant.  As the author of Flawless Consulting – A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used; The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook:- Understanding Your Expertise; Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest and The Empowered Manager he has a 30 year track record of wisdom and knowledge in how to help managers, leaders and consultants create positive change.  So it was with some excitement that I first read Community –  The Structure of Belonging.

It did not disappoint.

Block distils his practical knowledge of change and describes his experiences in applying it to helping communities tackle fragmentation, conflict and disconnection.  He provides practical guidance on how community can be built, how transformation maybe nurtured and how healthy communities can be built.  But he offers few solutions; just questions and processes that help us to tackle our own problems and pursue our own aspirations.

This is Block at his person centred best.  At its essence he describes how to move from preoccupations with deficiencies, narrow interests and entitlements to possibility, generosity and ‘gifts’ through the art of convening:  bringing the right people to the right conversations to tackle the right questions.  By reframing leadership as the art of convening Block lays down an important challenge that many will choose to ignore.

The book will help anyone who cares about the wellbeing of their community – whether that is an organisation, a neighbourhood, a city or a parish.  However it is neither an easy nor a comfortable read.  As Block says the ‘sole purpose [of the book] is to provide a path toward creating a future very different from what we now have.

So, if you are comfortable with the status quo, steer clear.

A Complete Lack of Ambivalence…about Goldman Sachs

by

Should we be enthusiastic about Goldman Sachs, perhaps the most powerful investment bank in the world, coming into Leeds and helping to train the next generation of Leeds entrepreneurs?

Should we find the idea abhorrent?

Or perhaps we should practice a little ambivalence?

It seem to me we have plenty who are enthusiastic about the idea.  The City Council and Leeds Ahead, who have been instrumental in attracting the Goldman Sachs programme believe it to be a good thing.  And ‘Yorkshire Icon‘ Lord Graham Kirkham, founder of DFS, Conservative Party Funder and one of Yorkshire’s most successful entrepreneurs, has described Goldman Sachs’ support as ‘heaven sent‘.

And it is easy to find those who instinctively reel against the involvement of a major investment bank in such a programme. Never mind one that has been characterised as ‘A Giant Vampire Squid‘

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoUWgI-c9g4&]

As well as generic banker bashing they will cite Goldman Sachs apparently significant influence in the US Government, their alleged involvement in an alleged fraud that led to the RBS losing £545m and several other controversies as reasons why we should consider their role in our city less than ‘heaven sent’.   They may also express concern that one of the partners in the programme, Said Business School, was founded by Wafic Said, friend to the Saudi Royal family, Margaret Thatcher and a key player in helping the UK Govt to win the Al Yamamah Arms deal which has had interesting consequences in the Middle East and for our oil security.

What it seems much harder to find is any ambivalence to the project.

Any sense of a cautious but pragmatic engagement with a strategic partner whose real long term interests in working with 25 of our local businesses, carefully selected for their high growth potential, may not yet be completely clear.  In Goldman Sachs’ own words

‘The Goldman Sachs Foundation works with outstanding organizations to prepare and support the development of the next generation of leaders around the world.  Drawing from the core expertise of Goldman Sachs, our programs in Promoting Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Business Education are designed to give participants practical skills and the broad world view they need to become decision makers and visionaries in the global economy.

Which does not sound entirely like philanthropy to me.  For a bank.  And I wonder what the key elements of the broad world view that they ‘give participants’ really entails.  A sustainable economy?  One where wealth is measured in terms other than cash? Perhaps….Or maybe the core expertise in this piece called the Great American Bubble Machine?

There seems no real understanding that what we may actually have in Goldman Sachs is more of a ‘bedfellow’ than an ‘ally’.   It is this apparent lack of any sense of practical and pragmatic engagement that worries me.

But there are 25 or so successful businesses who are benefiting from the programme, and I have heard lots of good feedback from several independent sources.  And it is keeping much needed revenues rolling into the coffers at Shine so that it can continue its work in the regeneration of the local community.

So perhaps we really shouldn’t worry about whose money we take?

Perhaps it really is ‘All about the economy, stupid’.  And we should not think too deeply about what is really going on.  Just let those who already share the ‘broad world view’ of ‘decision makers and visionaries in the global economy’ get on with it. After all, they have made a pretty good fist of things up to now…

Haven’t they?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2DRm5ES-uA]

There are things about the programme that I really admire.  Let’s forget the chequered history that even investment bankers have in ‘picking winners’.  The programme is aimed at ‘mid-stage’ businesses with the aspiration and potential to grow, and this has been an area that has not received as much attention as it should.  And it resists the false dichotomy between social business and ‘for profit’ which should make for a much more interesting and powerful mix.

And the programme is a pilot that they hope to roll out across the UK.  So perhaps Goldman Sachs really will be instrumental in developing the next generation of business leaders across the country.

Making Successful Cities – the Apeldoorn Video

by

On 6-8 March over a hundred delegates gathered on the 37th floor of the ING building for this year’s edition of the Apeldoorn: British Dutch Dialogue, the main bilateral Conference between the UK and the Netherlands.

I was privileged to be able to contribute…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZUFY4Glzwg]

The Future of Your City…?

by

All the debate about the kind of city we want to be and how we get there is, on one hand, just a lot of hot air, but on the other hand is a series of conversations where people develop and test ideas and possibilities. Meaningful action starts with a conversation – not a plan. Or a vision.

However it really is a tiny minority who are interested in ‘co-designing our city’. The vast majority of us are just trying to get through our own lives, the best way we know how. And while the professional place shapers and planners will continue to do their darndest (more retail opportunities on the way), and try to ‘engage us’ along the way, it is the decisions and actions of the vast majority who have a much more personal interest in Leeds life that will really shape the future of the city.

The development of a city can be supported in 2 broad ways, which are not mutually exclusive.

Firstly we can shape the city to make it attractive to certain groups and types of people. We can build a compelling cultural offer and a good commercial base to attract the wealth creators. This is deficit based development. We do things to attract people who have skills and know how that we do not.  Or we turn ourselves into a theme park and rely on wealth being created elsewhere but spent in ‘our’ economy.

Secondly we can shape the city to make it more attractive and supportive for people that are already here. We can base the development of the city on the development of its people and communities. It is an approach to development that honours who we are, where we have come from, how we can change in order to shape our lives and, as a corollary, the city in pursuit of progress.  It values education and the emergence of identity rather than its imposition.

I have been arguing for many years that in Leeds, as in most UK cities we favour the former approach excessively over the latter. It is placemaking orthodoxy. It involves big ticket ribbon cutting projects, international exchange trips, hob-nobbing with money men and women and the trappings that come with it. It ticks the boxes for the politicians and allows ‘investors’ to have a sporting chance to make a good return. At its best it makes things better for everyone. But it also widens the gaps between the rich and poor.

The second approach involves sitting and listening to people talk about their hopes and fears for the future and slowly building their power to create change. Starting from where they are at, working with what they have got. Forging relationships, shaping projects. No glamour, little money and progress that is organic, potentially transformational and sustainable but that seldom offers the opportunities to cut a big ribbon. At least not quickly.  This is the work of the community coach.

But I hope that the future of Leeds features more of this kind of development – We are all Jim, Cultural Conversations, Progress School, Leeds Salon, Bettakultcha all shaping the present and the future – starting from where we are, working with what we have got.

NB: This piece started of as a comment to a piece by Leeds Salon Organiser Paul Thomas over on the Culture Vulture blog

A Future with Heart…?

by

Yesterday I went to the official opening of HEART – Headingley Enterprise and Arts Centre, an old Primary School, in a vibrant Leeds suburb which has been converted to a high standard by the Headingley Development Trust to provide:

  • 13 meeting rooms of various shapes and sizes
  • Exhibition space which local artists can use to hang their work
  • The Pulse Enterprise Space – shared workspace available on a membership basis
  • A Cafe, run by an independent operator, with 45 indoor covers and outside, off street, seating for 30 more

With, what seems to the untrained eye, excellent green credentials (solar panels, photovoltaic cells, grey water collection etc) the HEART Centre is a great new facility.  And with an eye to keeping costs down, using teams of volunteers wherever possible to run the building (very ‘big society’) and keeping debt as low as possible, the centre, with a lot of hard work, may just pay its way commercially and fulfil its vision – to create a vibrant and welcoming space for a wide range of people to meet, mix, work and play.

Similar in look and feel to both Hillside and Shine, I think there are several reasons why HEART has a chance of succeeding in the pursuit of its vision.

Firstly it is situated in a relatively prosperous part of the city, there are plenty of bright, young, and not so young things, with Mac Books, notebooks and iPads running small businesses who will almost immediately recognise the value of the Pulse Enterprise Space and find the £25 per month entry point both affordable and cost-effective.

It enjoys a wonderful location, with excellent footfall, and provides great spaces which fit well with the expectations and aspirations of many local people.

It really has been a carefully researched labour of love – the culmination of a 5 year project, led by local people, to keep the school in community use.

But perhaps most importantly I think it stands a chance of success because it is the flagship project of an established Development Trust led by local people who generally live in, and share insights into, the community that they exist to serve.  The Trust has developed over several years and those involved have already more than cut their teeth on a number of other projects including the Headingley Farmers Market, a Housing Project, a Community Orchard and even a Pig and Fowl Coop.  So the building is in the hands of a well established group of people committed to Headingley who have shared experiences over a number of years that have developed a real competence in their work.

Some Challenges to Be Met

Doing what pays – rather than doing what is wanted.  On my tour of the centre I was told about a significant demand from local people to have somewhere to practice their art, painting, drawing and so on – a community studio of some type.    However the centre was unable to respond to this demand because it is not commercially viable.  Local people want to develop their passion and skill and come together communally but this desire, at the moment at least cannot be catered for.  Perhaps in future surpluses from commercial activities could be used to cross subsidise such a resource?

We have to understand that financial viability follows on from the development of real craft.  It is not its pre-cursor.  If we could build a community of artists doing outstanding work then the revenues might start to flow.  Building skills and relationships lies at the heart of effective community development.  If we simply provide a home for those who are already economically viable perhaps we are missing a trick?

Displacement – There is a danger that money that gets pulled into the HEART Centre may be money that is pulled away from other local businesses and community groups offering similar services.   Of course competition is a good thing, as long as the playing fields are kept level between the private sector and community groups.  But if community groups are able to leverage volunteers, grants and subsidises not available to the private sector to compete with them then the results will not always be what we might hope.

Further Driving Inequality in the City? – Headingley, although not without the problems that come from a high population density including lots of students and ‘young professionals’, is not a deprived area.  Indeed it is the only part of the ‘Leeds Rim’ not to be amongst the most deprived wards in the country.   So we have a ‘successful community’ learning how to make itself more successful.  Which is to be applauded.

But can we do more to ensure that gaps between the rich and the poor do not further open up in the city?  How do we work successfully in more deprived areas to ensure that they too share in successful economic and social development.  I am not sure that similar buildings in more deprived parts of the city will have the same chance of really making a difference.

Keeping the Doors Open and On Mission

Buildings, especially ones that are open long hours, cost a lot of money.  Centre managers, caretakers, security, insurances, rates, utility bills and servicing debts all add to the overheads.  It is easy for the imperative to generate income to over-ride the social mission of such spaces.  Bills have to be paid.  But sometimes the desire to pay the bills takes the building away from what it was intended to be.  So, instead of being a place for the local community more of it is made available to affluent outsiders.

Hopeful…

But I am hopeful for HEART.  I think it has an excellent chance of doing great work in Headingley.  The host development trust seems well run.  It is embedded in the local community.  It will be hard work, and I suspect not without real scares along the way.  But I have a suspicion that HEART and the Headingley Development Trust will be a part of the Leeds infrastructure for some time to come.  It may be hard to make the managed workspace/meeting room combination work in more deprived areas of the city – but with a bit of tweaking it may be just right for Headingley.