[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6WW1GGjbk]
An interesting counterpoint to yesterdays self interest post.
Helping others pursue their self interest maybe the best way to pursue your own…
Just another WordPress site
by admin
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6WW1GGjbk]
An interesting counterpoint to yesterdays self interest post.
Helping others pursue their self interest maybe the best way to pursue your own…
by admin
One of the mantras of Big Society is that we all need to find time to do more, to give more, to help others more.
Now we can moan about this being poorly timed, or a fig leaf for cuts or whatever. But this misses the real point.
Which is that, in my book, it completely misunderstands the nature of community, why we need it and how it helps. It seems to go against the grain of human nature and millenia of evolutionary biology. Because for most of us, most of the time what motivates us to act is our own self interest. How we make things better for ourselves and our loved ones.
Most communities don’t develop as expressions of human kindness and generosity. They don’t build around some desire to ‘place make’. Or around shared public statements of values, intent and belief. Congregations maybe. And cults. But not real, diverse, vibrant communities. There are plenty of ‘place making consultancies’ that tell us otherwise, and politicians who really value compliance over powerful communities. But real communities (as opposed to planners confections) develop as a social response to a multiplicity of self-interests being negotiated.
Real communities develop because they help their members to live the kind of lives that they want to lead. They are a human evolutionary response to attaining a competitive edge. To help us survive and then with good fortune, thrive. Community helps members to explore their potential and develop their lives as they would wish.
So the starting point for the process of community building is not finding more time to help others (laudable though this is) or philanthropy or some demonstration of social responsibility. It is a thorough understanding of self interest; of the kind of life you wish to lead and the potential that you wish to develop. As this becomes clear so to will those with whom you have to make common cause, with whom you have to co-operate and perhaps compete.
And as you start to understand that your self interest can only be met in relationship with others, and they understand the same then the development of vibrant and real community, as opposed to some Orwellian fiction that ‘shapes character to that chosen by the electorate’.
Which is why I advocate, as the starting point for community development, not community organisers, but community coaches, who help people to clarify their own self interest and to build their power. Which they nearly always do by building their networks and relationships. And once we have a critical mass of people pursuing their self interest with power and compassion through constructive engagement and association, lo and behold, we have a community with oomph, with enterprise. We have ‘Big Society’.
Simples.
by admin
One of the things that some people find hard about my person centred and responsive approach to developing ‘Communities with Ooomph’ is the emphasis that I place, initially at least, on working with individuals to help them clarify and pursue their self interest and to build the power that they need to pursue it effectively. Actually there are three things that ruffle feathers in there:
In Support for Working with Individuals
It is nigh on impossible for most people to talk honestly and openly about what is really happening in their lives, what they really need to work on, in a group setting. It is just too painful, and the risks to confidentiality are just too great. And when we start working with groups to explore what they collectively want, we usually end up discussing a ‘lowest common denominator’ project. Something that everyone agrees is a good thing to do, but that will not directly address the specific inhibitors of progress for any of them. So we end up planting a piece of waste land or campaigning for a children’s playground, getting the graffiti cleaned up. Now these are good, worthwhile projects, and I am not saying that they don’t have a place. They help build relationships, common cause and improve skills. But to what end? Unless individuals are helped to really explore and understand their self interest and to act on it, many of these projects simply leave communities treading water with people moving from one community project to the next with little or no progress.
In Support of Self Interest
For us to make common cause, I must be clear on my self interest. So must you. We can agree to work on an interesting project without this clarity, but if we are to really collaborate with commitment, vigour, creativity and enterprise then it must be in both our self interests if there is to be a reasonable chance of significant purposeful progress. Otherwise our collaboration may be partial and weak.
So why the resistance to really exploring self interest? I think because it is confused with selfishness and individualism. Self interest is neither of these things. It is about a proper and effective negotiation of ‘self’ amongst others (interest is from the latin ‘inter este’ which means ‘to be amongst’, so I am reliably informed). So the pursuit of self interest is the pursuit of ‘self’ negotiated amongst others. It is about developing identity in the community.
Exploring self interest, and understanding it, is not easy work, but it is worthwhile. Self interest is a powerful source of Ooomph.
Self interest is easily misunderstood leading to poor decision making. Take as an example the relationship between self interest, reciprocity and generosity.
Reciprocity is the act of giving only if there is a reasonable expectation of some reward in exchange. Generosity is the act of giving with no immediate expectation of return. But which is most likely to be in my self interest?
An initial glance would suggest that reciprocity would be best. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. But for reciprocal relationships to work we have to find an exchange partner who has something that we want and who wants something that we can give. And finding such relationships can be hard. This is why we invented money to ensure that reciprocal arrangements could always be made. Which is fine, as long as you have money, or people with money want what you can offer. Reciprocity is the language of transaction.
Generosity on the other hand is the act of giving when we are able, without expectation of return. We may be giving time, money, advice, support. Opportunities for generosity are plentiful. If we live in a community where individuals choose to be generous, rather than reciprocal, in their giving it is likely that much more will be both given and received by each member. Help will be more free flowing in the community. Generosity, giving with no expectation of return, is actually more in the self interest of each community member than reciprocity. This is just one aspect of what I mean by fully understanding self interest and how it works in community. Generosity is a better tactic for each of us in the proper negotiation of our self interest.
In Support of Power
There is a lot of talk in Big Society circles of ‘pushing power down’ to communities. Of giving them power. As if power is something that can be gift wrapped and handed over. Authority may be given. Even responsibility. But power? That has to be grown from within, surely. It is strange that policy makers seem to see no irony in their endeavours.
Power is the ability to get things done.
It is correlated with the ability to organise people, money and other resources in pursuit of a goal. Power itself, exercised wisely and with compassion is a good thing. It should be nurtured and grown. Yet many of us are taught that to seek power, to be power hungry are unbecoming, almost pathological behaviours. Which is perhaps why so many good people are disinterested in the pursuit of power.
Once individuals are clear on their self interest and start to think about the power to pursue it they nearly always have to make common cause with others. They have to associate and cooperate.
What emerges will be, to paraphrase Mr Cameron, a community with oomph.
So if you want to be a part of one of these start working with individuals, their power and self interest. Soon enough you will find yourself working with associations and communities with real power.
by admin
“What we did establish is that the carrots offered were far less effective than the sticks employed.”
Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts – talking about the ‘limited effect’ of Pathways to Work pilots
Sticks and carrots have a long and noble tradition in the management of donkeys. However even with donkeys there are times when the ‘bribe and punish’ approach to change management fails:
In these circumstances we may choose to resort to the stick. But this too will not work if:
But I think the real issue here is not about the limitations of sticks and carrots in the management of donkeys and people.
It is about the complete and utter failure to understand the nature of human motivation. Motivation is that which energises, directs and sustains a person’s efforts. Sustains efforts. Sticks and carrots applied to move a donkey from one (expensive) field to another (less expensive field) do NOTHING to sustain efforts. In fact it is likely to achieve the opposite. The donkey returns to its passive state until more carrots and sticks appear on the scene. And the state wants more enterprising communities?
But the major problem is not treating people like donkeys, and further dulling their enterprising souls. It is that the state believes that this is the most effective, fair and just way of changing behaviour. That this is such a common default setting when trying to manipulate the behaviours and choices of its citizens.
And we wonder why ‘community engagement’ is so difficult. When you have beaten and bribed your donkeys into submission don’t expect them to engage with you, without the use of ever more sticks and carrots.
Perhaps instead of resorting to a coercive approach to change, we might try instead a coaching approach?
Helping people to recognise their long term self interest and how it may be pursued. Helping them to develop the power they need to make progress in their lives. Helping them to recognise that it is possible and that they don’t need to be pushed around by a bureaucratic system of sticks and carrots. That THEY have choices and agency in their own lives. Vegetable wielding bureaucrats do not have to be the architects of their future.
And what if someone decides that their long-term self interest is served by staying exactly where they are?
Well, we could just leave them alone and put our time, energy and investment into those that want to explore pastures new. Why should the squeaky wheel get all the grease?
Because perhaps people are more like sheep than donkeys. When they see some of the flock moving forward others are sure to follow.
Aren’t they?
by admin
I have written before about the potential of representing enterprise (E) as a mathematical equation, and offered this as a starter for 10:
Enterprise = Power x Self Interest
This week I had a wonderful conversation with Mike Love – who runs Leeds based Together for Peace to explore some of his reservations about my work on community based enterprise and to help me understand some of his perspectives on community as the building block rather than individuals. Mike is a deep thinker about philosophy, theology and social change and conversations with him are always a delight
We discussed the work of Adam Kahane – especially Power and Love – A Theory and Practice of Social Change . Kahane suggests that we need to learn to move forward in a rhythm in which power and love are exercised alternately.
This harks back to some ideas that Martin Luther King helped to articulate:
Power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political and economic change…
There is nothing wrong with power if power is used correctly. You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites — polar opposites — so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love….
Now, we’ve got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.
So in the equation I have described ‘self interest’ – the role of self properly negotiated amongst others – can be seen as the exercise of love. Love for self – and love for others.
So perhaps we could re-write the equation as
Enterprise = Power x Love
Love, in this case, for a better future for self and others – and power the ability to move towards it.
Good enterprise takes very seriously both concepts of love and power and seeks to use them in tandem to create a better world.
If we took this seriously our enterprise education programmes would focus on love at least as much as on power (the organisation of money and people to achieve purpose). And our programme sand schemes would look very different.
More thinking to be done I suspect….