OK last post about Steve Jobs, I promise. But something else in Steve Jobs’ biography struck me. Even after Apple became the dominant player in the market, Jobs continued to see himself, and his company, as the underdog, having to defend itself against the dominant players. It was as if everything in his world was still Microsoft and he, and his company, were the rebels. He carried this with him, even when it ceased to be true.

In one of his last battles before his death, Jobs fought to keep apps off of the iPad that he deemed in any way pornographic, obscene, or defamatory. He was very serious about it, and in fact, banned some political ads that were too raunchy, a gay travel guide that showed too much skin, and some mainstream German newspapers that had topless photos. (more…)

In the movie Bulworth, Warren Beatty plays Senator Jay Billington Bulworth a “suicidally disillusioned liberal politician who puts a contract out on himself and takes the opportunity to be bluntly honest with his voters.” It’s a great movie. And an even greater premise – that a politician doesn’t take on the problems of his constituents, but puts them back onthe people as problems of their own making.

It’s the primary season and next year is an election year, and I’m already dreading the prospect of sitting through two more years of hearing that our problems are the fault of Big Government. Doesn’t anyone else see that as a contradiction? Am I alone in thinking this creates the very problem people are criticizing,  making government responsible for the problems of big government? (more…)

I’m in Toronto this week doing a bit of training. With the Anima Leadership Institute, I’m offering a two-day training on Deep Democracy II: From Conflict and Collaboration. And on Monday, I’ll be speaking at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering’s Summer Leadership Institute on Tools and Techniques for High performance, Cross-Disciplinary Teams.

The case for collaboration doesn’t need to be made. It’s obvious that everything that needs to get done in an organization gets done through people working together. And to solve the pressing problems of today, we need cross-discipline collaboration. Complex problems stem from multiple causes, involve numerous stakeholders, and concern knowledge from across several disciplines. (more…)

I’m here in Denver at the 2011 Worldwork Conference – 260 people from all over the world, learning about the planet and its vast problems, and also learning how to facilitate and resolve conflict. Today I’m part of the facilitation team. Sitting here over my coffee, getting ready for the day, I’m reminded of my post, “Leading Under Fire,”  which I originally called Game Day. I’m reposting it here, and I think I’ll also give it a re-read, reminding myself of all my good points, as I get ready for the day. Enjoy!

Read the full post here.

Bob Sutton, in his blog post 12 Things Good Bosses Believe, emphasizes how the power of a role inevitably creates blind spots. Number 1 on his list:

I have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it’s like to work for me

And he concludes with Number 12:

Because I wield power over others, I am at great risk of acting like an insensitive jerk — and not realizing it.

I like how he says it and shows it so bluntly: power corrupts.

But it is not the power of the role alone. It is the fit between the power of the person and the power of the role. Think of it like clothing. The role or position is a piece of clothing, but the body who wears it has a lot to do with how it fits, to stretch an analogy just a bit. (more…)

Atul Gawande, in an article for The New Yorker, writing about the soaring cost of health care, looks at the role dying and the terminally ill play in those costs:

Twenty-five per cent of all Medicare spending is for the five per cent of patients who are in their final year of life, and most of that money goes for care in their last couple of months which is of little apparent benefit. … In the past few decades, medical science has rendered obsolete centuries of experience, tradition, and language about our mortality, and created a new difficulty for mankind: how to die.Technology sustains our organs until we are well past the point of awareness and coherence.

Death is the enemy. Though it’s not just death in the literal sense. Admitting defeat can be hard, and refusing to give up can cost us dearly. Whether the President or Congress continues to escalate a war in the hopes of finally turning it around, or someone stays in a troubled relationship in the hopes that things might just get better, it’s not easy to raise the white flag. (more…)

In the wake of the recent G20 in Toronto, my friend Annahid and I were talking about the state of social change movements today. Annahid has been on the front lines of social change her whole life, and is founder and senior partner of Anima Leadership Institute in Toronto, which offers leadership programs for individuals, teams and organizations in support of transformative change, so she’s got a pretty good perspective on the movement. She was disheartened by what she saw as the same old divisive rhetoric, and the tendency to “battle might with right.” In an email exchange, she wrote, “the complexity of our current environments and systems means that no one individual or group can possibly have all the answers required. Our strategies and solutions instead must innovate in their ability to integrate different perspectives and knowledge.”

Annahid is hosting a series of talks on Animating Social Change, and asked me to speak about Deep Democracy. What social change innovation does Deep Democracy offer, she asked? Not so easy to say as I first thought, I discovered. Is it the creative techniques for working with conflict? The teleological view of disturbance and conflict? The embrace of non-consensual experiences? The way it views marginalization as both an inner and outer process? All yes, but something else, something’s missing. Then it occurred to me, Deep Democracy is not just an innovation, but a disruptive innovation. Clayton M. Christensen, in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, differentiated between sustaining and disruptive innovations. He describes disruptive innovations as ones that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect. Deep Democracy is disruptive because it puts individual development back in the center of the conversation on systemic change. The split between inner and outer, personal and political is radically revisioned in Deep Democracy. Here’s how I see Deep Democracy’s disruptive innovation: (more…)

Last March I posted The Reading Roundup. I got a lot of comments and suggestions from readers, and so I’d like to make this a regular feature, perhaps once a quarter, provided I’ve actually read enough.

So, here is a list of some books I’ve enjoyed since the last Roundup, though a few which I forgot to include in the last list. As I did with the first Round Up, I’m including here where and how I came across the book. And, still, all non-fiction. Not sure what that means. Except that there’s an awful lot of good non-fiction out there. (more…)

As I’ve written about before, solving the problems of bullying depends on the society’s tolerance for abusive interaction. My good friend and colleague, Dawn Menken, psychotherapist and conflict resolution educator, wrote this thoughtful piece for the Oregonian last week. She raises many thought-provoking questions, and asks us to look at how we define bullying. Until we look closely at our tolerance for certain behaviors, we won’t make headway into the problem of bullying.

Cultural tolerance is one part of the problem of bullying. But another is learning how to have healthy and productive conflict. There really is such a thing as a “good fight.” In fact, diversity of opinion, incompatibility of worldviews, and clashes of representational systems increase intelligence. Barbara Strauch, author of The Secret Life of the Grown-Up Brain said in a recent interview in the New York Times:

One of the most intriguing findings [about maintaining healthy brain functioning] is that if you talk to people who disagree with you, that helps your brain wake up and refine your arguments and shake up the cognitive egg, which is what you want to do.

In a move which I find hard not to characterize as deliberately antagonistic, Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard and City Auditor LaVonne Griffin-Valade are pushing for a vote this week on a resolution to strengthen the citizen police oversight board while Police Chief Rosie Sizer is out of town. This would be the first major overhaul of the citizen review board since 2001. After only 5 days of public process, minus the Chief’s input, Leonard and Griffin-Valade are demanding an immediate vote. Leonard characterized a request to delay the hearing until more public input and the Chief’s return from her overseas trip as a strategy of delay under the guise of ‘public process’ [which will] defer to those who will go to any length to resist transparency at the Portland Police Bureau.” http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/03/randy_leonard_portland_auditor.html

An empowered citizen police review board is vital. But due process works in both directions. The Police Chief’s complete participation in the process will only serve to strengthen the review board. Chief Sizer has gone to great lengths to make the force more accountable and transparent, from revising the training of Police Officers in the use of force to instituting processes to review racial profiling. Under her tenure deadly incidents have decreased 40%. There’s no doubt more work needs to be done, but I can’t help viewing this through my lens of conflict resolution facilitator. Leonard’s escalatory style, while it may serve to push through a resolution, will not ultimately provide the City of Portland with what it needs most: a better relationship between members of the Police force and the city of Portland.