We have a small gift for you, a poster with one of the core concepts of our work featured on it.

Put down your clever, and pick up your ordinary.

Because at your ordinary, you are your most potent, your most powerful.

We spend a lot of time in our lives trying to be clever, to impress other people, to show how smart and quick we are.

We need to stop doing that.

What would happen if you just showed up as you are?

We believe you are most powerful when you do just that. This poster was created to remind you of that.

Enter your email address below to receive a high-resolution file of the poster. You’ll also receive a complimentary subscription to our monthly newsletter.

Print the poster. Hang it up in several places at home and in the office.

Live and work from a place of your deepest strength by picking up your ordinary. Relax, and let go of that clever. Put it down. Breathe. And show up just as you are.

We hope you enjoy the poster! And that putting down your clever will free you.

Conditions for Change and Learning

We worked last week with educators in Hastings, Nebraska, to explore how to reinvent their classrooms to move from a “fixed” to a “growth” mindset. As the group talked about how they could take the work back to their classrooms, I doodled in the back to create this model of the conditions for change and learning (since learning, at its core and at its best, is a change process).

We know that for change to take root, it must be personal, relevant, and believable. I think the same is true of learning: the student must feel that they matter (personal), that what they are learning matters (relevant), and that they can do it (believable). If all those conditions are met, then they will learn, and the change will take root. If not, they won’t, and it won’t.

This model then becomes a way to explore if we have met all those conditions. When I am teaching, for example, how have I shown the students that they matter, that what we are learning matters, and that I believe (know) they can learn it? The same is true of leadership. If I am leading a group of people, do they know they matter, it matters, and it is achievable?

I would love any feedback you have, as this is a work-in-progress, a noodling on the back of a napkin, a thought.

There is nothing wrong with achievement – everyone wants to achieve something in life – but the real question in public education is “achievement of what?” What are we trying to achieve? And, why? We’re learning that test scores are not great indicators or predictors of success yet “achievement” has become synonymous with “test scores.” Really? Our intention is better test scores? Our best intention for our children is preparation for a job in the marketplace?

This is from Neil Postman’s book The End Of Education: “Thomas Jefferson…knew what schools were for – to ensure that citizens would know when and how to protect their liberty. This is a man who produced an essay that could have cost him his life, and that included the words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ It would not have come easily to the mind of such a man, as it does with political leaders today, that the young should be taught to read exclusively for the purpose of increasing their economic productivity.”

Has the bar for public education always been this low? I suspect it has and that’s the challenge. “Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic,” the mantra of a bygone era, rings hollow in an age screaming for complex thinkers. Reducing all learning to a mechanical skill is a notion from an industrial age. If the role of the principal is the equivalent of the manager, the superintendent as CEO of achievement, then imagine what the role of the student must be: chassis on the assembly line; sit still and listen. No wonder 25% of our kids drop out of school before graduating!

What would be the administrator’s role if the intention was to ensure that citizens would know when and how to protect their liberty? What would the administrator’s role be if the intention was to ignite ferocious inquiry? What if we wanted more than another generation of consumers and decided we wanted to support the development of children hungry, capable and unafraid to bring their best to the community and the world?

Whether we are working in education, in business, in nonprofits, or with individuals–this concept of “playing to win” or “playing to learn” is important. It frames how we approach work–and how we approach our lives.

Carse’s view is, fundamentally, a systems view. His introduction of the concept of infinite games, games that have no end in their design, and the fundamental commitment of which is to keep the “game in play,” is at odds with the more traditional view of the world (and of organizations) that sees life as a series of discrete encounters, each to be won, lost, or drawn, with a final scoreboard at the end of the mega-game (life itself) that tells us whether we have won or lost. The generative view of organization, on the other hand, sees organizations as essentially creative systems, whose goal is to enhance and foster creation.

In every encounters, we either play to win (a finite game) or play to learn (an infinite game).

The Circle Project works with people, organizations, and communities to move them from playing to win to playing to learn (keeping the game in play).

We know that to be prepared against surprise is to be trained (finite game). To be prepared for surprise is to be educated (infinite game).

Are we merely training students in our schools? Or are we educating them?

image courtesy of Kim Joris

I’ve been thinking a lot about a book Paul Watzlawick co-wrote several years ago called Change. This is one of the few books I’ve read that required me to map the discussion so I could follow and comprehend it. There are plenty of books written beyond my grasp but this one was important enough to evoke my inner cartographer. The book is built upon two theories:

• Group Theory – concerned with what happens within a group.

• Theory of Logical Types – concerned with what happens between groups or systems.

The relevant distinction for this post, the thing that brought me back to Change, is that Patti and I are currently focusing our work in education and the education system in America is a fantastic study in Group Theory (no real change is possible). Here are the defining characteristics of Group Theory:

a) Grouping is the basic, necessary element of perception (true enough!)
b) Altering the order of members within a group brings change-ability in process but invariance in outcome (rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will not keep the ship from sinking).
c) A member may act without making a difference: Action does not equal change (this is also known as “first order change”).
d) New combinations produce change but the result is still within the group. So nothing really changes.

A system is a living thing and will fight to the death to stay intact even if it is irrelevant, archaic, destructive to its members, and serves as the impediment to its stated purpose. Group Theory is one way a system fights to stay alive! It provides the illusion of change, action for the sake of action: First Order Change. Standardized testing is First Order Change. No Child Left Behind is First Order Change. Tying teacher pay to performance is First Order Change, continuing to treat content as if it could possibly be separate from method is First Order Change, shuffling teachers from site to site is First Order Change, imagining that the purpose of education is to provide a better batch of consumers or workers for a factory floor that no longer exists is First Order Change.

Action does not equal change. Rearranging the order of things within the existing system will continue to bring change-ability in process but invariance in outcome. It will certainly provide the illusion of change for a while, at least until the next election cycle or until the next generation of students dulls their minds enough to survive the system (and learn to say to their kids, “If it was good enough for me, it is good enough for you.”).

I wonder what it will take for us to desire more than “good enough.” The world has changed considerably since 1850 (seriously changed, not rearranged); we continue to swap the furniture in the factory school and wonder why it continues to fail in our new world order. Blaming teachers, blaming anyone in the equation is First Order Change and will take us nowhere.

R. Buckminster Fuller said it best:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

The existing model is already obsolete. Let’s build something new.

It’s a book we recommend to all our clients.

Why?

Because it is far too easy to believe that someone out there, outside of yourself, has the answer for you. They don’t. And continuing to focus on “how” will keep you from really understanding the “why.”

The question, “how?” presupposes that there is a “best practice,” a best way to solve a problem–often without identifying the why: Why are we doing this in this way? Why are we doing it at all?

There is a depth in the question “How do I do this?” that is worth exploring. The question is a defense against the action. It is a leap past the question of purpose, past the question of intentions, and past the drama of responsibility. The question “How?”–more than any other question–looks for the answer outside of us. It is an indirect expression of our doubts. -Peter Block, Stewardship, (p. 234)

As one review noted, “People keep asking ‘How?’ as a defense against living their life. Many standard solutions and improvement efforts keep people paralyzed. Block places the “how to” craze in perspective and teaches individuals, workers, and managers ways to act on what they know. This in turn allows them to reclaim their freedom and capacity to create the kind of world in which they want to live.”

I love Block’s work and have since I stumbled upon his book, The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work. I was working in an unhealthy work environment at the time and The Empowered Manager gave me hope that not all workplaces were like that.

By asking “why” instead of “how,” we give priority to aim over speed. We view our life as a purpose-filled experience “whose intention is more for learning than for achieving and more for relationship than for power, speed, or efficiency.”

Act on what you know. You know enough. Trust your intuition. Create the kind of world in which you want to live–and work.

What? You say you can’t measure success? Here’s what he would say to you: “The question of measurement ceases to serve us when we think that measurement is so essential to being that we only undertake ventures that can be measured.”

Exchange what you know how to do for what means most to you. 

Don’t do only things that can be measured.

Ask why, not how.

image courtesy of Megan Longshore

Mark Vandeneijnde is making a documentary. He’s looking for people and places in the world where heart is present in business. Mark suspects that with the ever increasing pace of change  will come a need for more heart centered business relationships and intentions. Here’s his rough cut of the our interview in Seattle; he caught much of what we believe and why personal story is at the center of The Circle Project. Come into my studio and help Mark look for a heart in business!

(If you can’t see the video above, click here to watch)

Too often we approach life as if it were a complicated problem–something to be solved. We think to ourselves, “If I just create a strategic plan for this, I can solve it.”

Some things in life ARE merely complicated–doing your taxes, learning to speak Arabic, figuring out how to upload a video to YouTube. But many things we try to “solve” are not complicated; they are complex.

This video explores the difference between complicated problems and complexities.

After you watch it, ask yourself these questions:

1. What complexities am I pretending are merely complicated?

2. What would walking toward a complexity look like if I gave up the desire to “solve” it, but simply allowed myself to learn from it and engage with it in a different way?

3. What does giving up the need to control look like for you?

We use this approach in our popular LiveNow and CreateNow telecoaching classes. We’d love to have you join us. New classes begin on September 19th.

image courtesy of Megan Longshore

For the past two years, The Circle Project has been working with educators at ESU-9 in Nebraska to imagine and implement a system of education that actually supports learning, a process of inquiry, as opposed to the content-driven system that leaves all children behind. We know that complex systems are never changed through complex interventions but through the “local simplicities” available when people make simple changes – like the language they use in daily life. Here’s another snapshot of the good work that is percolating in the schools served by ESU -9:

It was our first day with our first 6th grade class and their third day of school. After spending a few minutes learning names and getting to know each other, we began to plot our escape from the classroom to somewhere we could get a little loud. As we considered whether or not the gym was open, I heard one young girl whisper, “outside.” “Outside!!” I exclaimed, and we headed out into the beginning hours of what would soon be a sunny, sticky day.

Once our space was claimed on the small playground, we turned them loose to greet each other with great enthusiasm. When the movement and laughter began to flow more smoothly, we paired up and set out to plan the perfect party. For the first round, every suggestion and idea offered was met with, “Yes, but…” The energy was low, the language was reductive, and the ideas from increasingly exasperated party-planners were mediocre at best.

So we changed the rules and offered a “Yes, and…” in response to each idea presented. Suddenly ideas were flowing again, excitement was building and parties were being planned! We talked for a little while about the impact of the language you use, and what a difference it made to change the way we responded to people and the way people responded to us.

And it was amazing. It always is to see kids light up, play, come alive, and really think.

And as if that weren’t enough, their brilliant and amazing teacher sent us the following message this afternoon:

“I had my first real ‘Yes, and…’ moment today. A student caught a cricket on his desk. I went to get a fly swatter and a paper towel. The kids shouted, ‘No! We like him! Can we keep him as a class pet?’ My reply after a moment of hesitation was ‘Yes, and I have a plastic container for him and let’s find out what he eats.’ They named him Bob and one of the girls took him home this weekend. I hope he makes it to Monday!”

You never know how powerful a learning experience can be until you let yourself have it.

Are you focused on what you can get out of life (or a class, or your work?) or are you focused on what you are bringing to it?

The first equation (What can I get?) puts you into a passive, reactive stance. It reflects a kind of poverty mentality–I am missing something and I’m entering (the room, the relationship, the work, the life) looking for what I’ll get.

Asking “What am I bringing?” to life (to work, etc.) is a subtle shift, but makes you a creator in your day, and not a victim to it.

When people ask “What am I bringing?” they enter into life in a different way. They enter dynamically involved in creating their world as opposed to passively waiting for it to be delivered to them.

Asking “What am I bringing?” puts you in a transformative place.

What are you bringing to your life?