Why We Need More Co-ops, Credit Unions, and Worker-owned Companies

I guess it’s because I’ve always rooted for the underdog, but right or wrong, I have always been drawn to the quality of life side of the community ledger rather that the economic side.

Regardless, I’ve accepted the reality that the majority of people believe money and jobs are more important than community building so I’m always trying to expand my knowledge and understanding of economic development.

So, to make a long story short, I’ve somehow ended up being part of a crowdsourcing team that is helping to develop a new course at Graceland University in Iowa called Leadership for a New Economy.

One of the resources shared as part of that curriculum is a YouTube video by Gar Alperovitz.

To be honest, I’ve never heard of Alperovitz but a quick google search reveals he is a Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland and founder of the Democracy Collaborative (http://www.community-wealth.org/).

In the video he shared startling research indicating that in the United States, 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 160 million or 60 percent of the population. 

And, while I’ve never thought of it that way, he also explained that democracy is at risk if we don’t transform this concentrated wealth by challenging assumptions and finding other ways to organize the production, distribution, and ownership of wealth.

By way of example, he suggested that we need to question why tax dollars were used to bail out GM, Ford, and the big banks but the resulting benefits stayed with big business as opposed to the public.

Occupy Wall Street and Idle No More are movements that have responded to this recognition that the old system or model is dying and new solutions are needed.

Alperovitz suggests that these solutions need to be about taking back our power and promoting community wealth as opposed to corporate wealth.

However, what was most affirming for me was that Alperovitz’s examples of democratic forms of sharing capital aligned with what my colleagues and I are seeing and supporting in a number of communities.

For example, he discussed the importance of coops and credit unions that stress one person, one vote, and therefore ownership of the wealth.

He cites the key role of non-profits that are citizen-led and the growth of social enterprise.

He also points out that the number of worker-owned companies is growing. In the US, 10,000 companies now employ 10 million workers.

While I don’t profess to have expertise as an economist, its seems to me that Alperovitz is suggesting that economic activity needs to reflect the social aspirations of the community—not just help improve the bottom line of a corporation.

The idea of a cooperative, community based, grassroots up economy makes a lot of sense because ultimately it means that to succeed, business needs to be as much about how it serves its community as it is about profit and loss statements.

Why We Should Care About Global Issues

I am, and have for years, been a passionate advocate of communities and grassroots leadership. The flip side of that has meant that, like a lot of other people, I’ve had a tendency to ignore a lot of what’s been happening at the global level.

While that used to be somewhat acceptable, today, as Bob Dylan would sing it, “the times they are a changin”.

The constantly changing nature of our hyper-connected world means we are all increasingly susceptible to be being impacted by global issues. It will be especially important for us to pay attention because it is becoming more and more apparent that global risks don’t respect national or community borders.

According to this year’s recently released Global Risk Report prepared by the World Economic Forum, there’s a lot we should be worried about.

The report analyzes 50 global risks, based on a survey of over 1000 experts from industry, government, academia, and the community sector who were asked to review 50 global risks.

This year the findings verify the number one risk as being what we already know — severe economic disparity. In others words the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

This is followed by unsustainable government debt or what the report terms as “chronic fiscal imbalances”.

After such extreme weather such as Hurricane Sandy we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the third highest risk raised by respondents was that of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Water supply crises and mismanagement of our world’s aging population followed in fourth and fifth place. 

This year’s findings also illustrate that the world is more at risk because global leaders are focused on chronic economic challenges rather than tackling environmental issues.

These survey results are also telling in that they reflect significant changes since 2007 when the risk factors were less focused on the economy. That year the most frequently cited risks were a breakdown of our information infrastructure, chronic disease in developed countries, oil prices, China, and an asset price collapse.

The editor of the report, Lee Howell, also expressed concern and was quoted at its launch as saying, “There is a feeling that we are not making progress. We are not seeing the state leadership necessary to tackle these risks.”

The report also includes a chapter on “X Factors” that looks beyond the 50 global risks to five emerging potential “game-changers” that warrant more research.

While these X Factors sound like something out of a Hollywood movie, they include (1) runaway climate change suggesting that the Earth’s atmosphere may be heading rapidly into an inhospitable state; (2) significant cognitive enhancement (akin to doping in sports this would give our brains an advantage thereby creating new ethical dilemmas in our daily work and perhaps even with combat troops); (3) technology that could be used to manipulate the climate (and be used unilaterally by an individual; (4) covering the costs associated with living longer (the medical and palliative care costs of prolonging life); and (5) the discovery of alien life (having profound psychological implications for human belief systems).

The experts suggest we can respond to these global risks by addressing both economic and environmental issues, using social media to create a culture of responsibility and healthy skepticism, and to keep everyone healthy by encouraging the development of new antibiotics as well as aligning incentives to prevent their overuse.

Ultimately all of these findings suggest the need for both grassroots and grasstops collaboration to build resilience to global risks. While there is work being done at the national or grasstops level to respond to these, it also means every community must invest in developing and nurturing the leadership and resiliency to address global risks at the grassroots level.

A Woman of Dysfunction?

I recently had the opportunity to deliver leadership training at a provincial conference. Geared to the presidents and vice presidents of their local chapters, I liked and appreciated this particular organization’s emphasis on identifying emerging leaders and supporting them to develop and grow.

As a result of this priority, they encouraged a young and somewhat nervous vice-president to hone her ability to speak in front of a crowd by having her introduce me.

With my bio in hand and a rueful smile, she proceeded to read a bit about my background.

Among my credentials is an award of which I am particularly proud — a YWCA Woman of Distinction in Training and Education.

Unfortunately when she got to that part of the bio, she was overcome by nerves and it somehow came out of her mouth as a “Woman of Dysfunction”.

Everyone thought that was hilarious but to her credit, she joined the ensuing laughter.

As for me, it calmed the butterflies and allowed me to claim the title.  Somehow the idea of being a woman of dysfunction reduced the pressure I always feel in delivering training.

While I know there are some who really enjoy being in front of a crowd, I’m definitely not one of them.  However, it does seem that, like a lot of other things in life, the more you practice the better you get.

What does it take to be a good trainer?

It is critical to be clear about what you know and what you don’t know. One time I agreed to do a workshop on a subject I knew little about simply to help out the conference organizer. Definitely not a good call on my part and something I have never repeated because a good trainer needs to be knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to take it beyond theory by providing analogies and real life examples.  I sometimes describe my role as a trainer as being about curating, condensing, and simplifying.

Personally, I always begin with articulating the outcomes of the session. Being clear about what participants will walk away with at the end of the training, helps clarify what will be delivered. It is also essential for directing the design of the session content.

Humour and stories are also essential in keeping one’s audience alert, listening, and learning.

Another key for being a successful trainer is being ready to start and stop punctually. It takes some practice but a good trainer will always end on time even if it sometimes means adjusting material on the fly.  I recently had to shave 15 minutes off a one hour presentation because the conference organizers were late getting started.

Flexibility is also critical as a good trainer needs to be able to adapt her delivery to accommodate different learning styles as well as provide examples and materials that will be relevant to each particular audience. Sometimes flexibility is also needed just to accommodate last minute hitches that arise. At one workshop, I had to do half my presentation without technology because organizers were trying to film at the same time and somehow managed to shut everything down. I had my speaking notes with me so just carried on until things were up and running again. 

Ultimately though, good training is about engaging one’s audience.  Rather than having participants simply sit and listen, they need to be engaged in the training.  As a trainer, one can ask questions, have participants provide examples, role play, or break into small group discussions or activities. It’s also important to leave time and space and encourage participants to ask questions.

In the end though, my guess is that what will keep me from being a woman of dysfunction is being authentic. I have learned that audiences in general seem to be really good at sniffing out someone who cares.  When they know you’re real and that you care, trust and credibility will follow.

Public Participation in Budgets?

Our systems are breaking down.

This is especially evident when it comes to public spending.

As the government financial year-end of March 31st approaches, there is often a flurry of activity as employees scurry to spend everything within their budgets to avoid having to return the dollars to their central treasury and risk being criticized for inaccurate estimates, or, in a worst case scenario, having next year’s allocations reduced.

Additionally, elected officials and staff are faced with growing demands and budget woes leading to painful cuts in public services and infrastructure that too often impact our most vulnerable.

As the scenario is played out, community members are typically excluded from the decision-making.

Of course, it’s not fair to blame elected officials and those who work for government. I work with many who are stellar people.

Unfortunately, they are too often trapped in bad systems.

The good news is that a new system for government spending is gradually making its way from its roots in South America to communities across North America.

It’s called Participatory Budgeting or PB.

What is PB? PB is an alternative and more democratic way to manage public money.

Originating in 1989 in the Brazilian City of Porto Alegre for their municipal budget, there are now over 1,500 participatory budgets around the world. Most are for local government budgets, but counties, towns, housing authorities, schools, universities, and other institutions are using PB to ensure ordinary people have a real say; to promote more transparency, accountability, and more effective decisions that address the greatest needs; and to encourage and engage more citizens to work alongside government in seeking and implementing innovative solutions.

In Porto Alegre, as many as 50,000 people have participated each year to decide as much as 20% of the city budget. Since 1989, PB has spread to over 1,500 cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, PB has been used in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, Chicago, and New York City.

PB usually starts as a pilot project with a small budget of “discretionary funds” — meaning money that is at the discretion of officials or staff and not set aside for fixed or essential expenses.

While this is often a small part of the overall budget, it is a big part of the funds that are available and up for debate each year. Some communities are also using PB to allocate funding provided by foundations, community organizations, and fundraising efforts.

According to the PB website each experience is different, but typically follows a similar basic process.

Residents generate values and priorities, brainstorm spending ideas, volunteer delegates develop proposals based on these ideas, residents vote on proposals, and the government implements the top projects.

While seemingly simple to implement on a pilot basis, PB will require leadership support from both the grasstops and grassroots of our communities.

As with a lot of change, the shifts in power will make many people nervous. As a result, it will have to be viewed as helping elected officials and senior staff to do their job better.

Creating a new system in democracy is never easy. It will require extensive planning to design a sound process of communication, outreach, and the solid facilitation that will generate community buy-in.

Perhaps the best idea is to simply think of it as a pilot project. Somehow that seems to make it clear that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying something new.

There Will be Chaos

Planning for the future never used to be so complicated.

Whether you were planning to improve your personal life, an organization, business, or even an entire community, it was simply a matter of figuring out where you currently were, where you wanted to go, and then developing action steps to address the gap in between.

Today, we live in far more complex and fast changing times.

As my future-focused colleague Rick Smyre put it in a recent conversation, today it is more a case of needing to prepare for a world that doesn’t yet exist.

I think the late management guru Peter Drucker got it right when he once said, “Trying to predict the future is like driving down a country road at night with no lights on while looking out the back window.”

The analogy of looking out the back window is especially relevant because we are entering a new era  often trying to plan with ideas, leadership, and institutions that are better suited for an old world.

Instead, we need to embrace the idea that new times call for new thinking.

Smyre believes there are five major shifts that need to be made if we are ensure our planning is more adaptive in nature.

The first is the need to shift from hierarchies to networks. While traditional hierarchies worked for the industrial age, we instead need to invest in building the relationships, networks, and webs that will ensure we have the capacity to adapt quickly.

We also need to understand that very little is fixed these days.  Pretty much everything is dynamic so we need to build tolerance and acceptance of constant movement and change. And yes, there will be chaos.            
           
Very little will be predictable, everything is instead emerging.

Embracing that we live in a time of turmoil will mean that rather than planning for change that reforms we need to pursue change that transforms. In other words it can’t just be about modifying, improving, or making things more efficient and effective. Instead, it needs to be about change that redefines and turns things upside down.

Lastly, instead of our more typical linear thinking, we will always need to be much more systemic and holistic in our approach.

So where do we begin?

Whether we are planning for ourselves, our family, an organization, business, or community, values are going to be a critical filter for decision making and priority setting. Take the time to have conversations about what is important and the beliefs and ideals that are shared.

While it’s unlikely any of us really wants to struggle, it is important too that we embrace the chaos and act in a spirit of hope.

While chaos often leads to being risk-adverse, as we plan we need to be willing to examine situations carefully, take risks, embrace creativity, and contribute enough effort. Of course, we may also have to back off, change, or stop doing some things as well.

In the end, it means we are all need to embrace being lifelong learners and explorers who are comfortable with asking questions and not always having the answers.

Ode to Those Who Annoy

She was definitely a detail-oriented person.

As follow up to training I had delivered for her organization she asked if I’d like to debrief the session. Always keen to learn and grow, I of course said yes.

After telling me she thought it was a great training session and she had learned a lot, the feedback also included her identifying a few minor typos, suggesting I make the graphics more diversified (quite valid given changing demographics), and adding some missing commas.

Whereas a number of years ago I might have found that kind of feedback to be a tad annoying, I instead found it to be very helpful and was most appreciative as I am the kind of person who, while good with the big picture, has always struggled with the details.

It seems I’ve learned to value those who think differently and are able to apply a set of optics different from my own.

I first learned that lesson a number of years ago when I worked for a municipality and hired my first staff person. In addition to meeting the qualifications, I liked the young woman and our interactions felt quite comfortable.

Turns out I was comfortable because she was a lot like me. Unfortunately, that meant she was also weak in all the areas I was weak—including those pesky details—and made me crazy. 

Consequently, she inadvertently taught me not to hire people I like, but rather to hire those who annoy me. 

On many levels that does make sense. After all, we tend to like people who are similar to us.  Unfortunately, if we only hire people who are like us, we are going to end up with a team that looks, thinks, and acts alike, with none of the diversity that results in creativity, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.  However, while I have learned that while hiring people who annoy you will ensure diversity, I’ve also learned they must share the same values if the team is going to be successful. For me those values include kindness, respect, a strong work ethic, responsibility, authenticity, etc.

Over the years I’ve also learned that simply hiring a diverse team isn’t enough. Too often, the nature of the work means we end up spending our time on the job with those who are doing the same kind of work and are therefore often more like us. As a result, we need to make sure staff and volunteers who don’t work together directly will still have opportunities to talk to each other.

In my previous jobs, this was done in a number of ways. When I worked for Bell Canada as a customer service representative, I spent a day job shadowing an installer—someone I typically would never get to know.

Team meetings, social opportunities, and even eating lunch together provides opportunities to connect and learn from others who you may typically only interact with on a very indirect basis.

Lastly I learned that once a diverse team is in place and they’ve gotten to know and trust one another, it is important to have them work on assignments or projects together. For instance, to design a training module, I once contracted a crazy, out of the box thinker with another woman who was more traditional in her approach. The end result was brilliant in that it was fun and creative while accomplishing the intended outcomes.

In the end, what it perhaps comes down to is that our businesses and organizations will all be richer and deliver more meaningful results, if each of us learns to suspend judgment and welcome the respective strengths and gifts each of us brings.

5 Strategies for Being a Better Boss in 2013

I can’t believe the number of people I’ve talked to recently who are desperately unhappy in their jobs.

With rare exception, the core cause of their complaints is their boss.

While I realize not everyone is a boss, most everyone has a boss. As a result, I thought I’d share my list of five strategies for being a better boss in 2013.

First of all, in the event you haven’t noticed, the workplace is changing. A good boss knows the future is about collaboration and meshwork.

To collaborate, you have to get over the idea that your position of authority gives you power.

Real power comes as the restful of trusted relationships, a sense of community, and collective effort.  Encourage suggestions and ideas from your team and, rather than micro-manage them, make the outcomes clear, empower them to deliver, and get out of their way. 

Secondly, as the boss you need to remove your focus from your to-do list — which typically is about managing day to day operations — and invest at least one hour a day in preparing for a rapidly changing and often uncertain future. Continually revisit your vision, values, mission, and direction; watch for trends and issues; and think about what’s working and what isn’t, what you’ve learned, and what’s needed to be more successful. Even more importantly, openly share and encourage others to share information and knowledge. 

Next, let go of the idea of putting employees in boxes on the organization chart. Instead of adhering to specific roles and responsibilities, tap the talents and passions of each employee and allow their responsibilities to evolve and fluctuate. While this is more challenging if you work in a union environment, you may only be talking about a small percentage of an employee’s typical work. Also know that happy employees aren’t usually the ones who file grievances.

Every boss also needs to think in a new way about evaluating the performance of their employees.  Like many others, I used to dread my annual performance review (that is if I happened to be working for a boss who actually did them). Instead, wouldn’t you think it would be much more effective to provide immediate and ongoing feedback?  Part of that will be sharing credit and recognizing and celebrating the achievements of others. 

Lastly, if you want to be a good boss, one of the most important things you can do is be brave. That means less firefighting — or doing less reacting and instead being more proactive.  

It seems we too often expend significant resources on dealing with symptoms and not enough on tackling the often messy and complex underlying root causes of the issues and challenges.  A good boss understands that it’s not about what you’re doing but why you’re doing it.

Will any of this be easy?  Not likely. But, if you think about change as a locomotive coming at you, can stand still and get flattened, or you can jump on and starting driving that train.