When you think about it, stories are not just nice thing we use to keep ourselves amused (around the campfire). Stories are what we use to understand the universe, and our place within it. And without them, we simply couldn’t do it.
In a sense, it had been Nathan Buckley’s intense craving for success that was almost his undoing. He wanted the grail too badly and couldn’t contain his zeal. This year, Buckley finally let go - and let the Magpies take flight.
While it won’t appeal to everyone, I found this a fascinating read. I’ve recently been re-reading Otto Scharmer’s book ‘Theory U’ and thinking a lot about the notion of letting go and letting come. This is a good example.
Improvisation is founded on two principles that feature prominently in the Buddhist perspective: Impermanence and interdependence. The fact of groundlessness and constant change is a given in improv. Eternal instability: that is our playing field. The improviser practices her art on her feet with others. We learn that we aren’t in this alone. We need and depend upon our fellow improvisers. Only stand-up comics go it alone. Improvisers look to their fellows for help, inspiration, ideas and fuel. Improv training is a form of meditation in action.
A great blog post by Patricia Madson. I love her musings on this topic. And I find her reflections on the principles that guide an improviser — what she calls “the Five A’s of Improv” — to be so useful.
I’m reading Meg Wheatley’s Who Do We Choose To Be?: Facing Reality, Claiming Leadership, Restoring Sanity, and this quote resonates strongly. We aren’t intent on changing the world; we simply try to work in ways that honor people and evoke our best human qualities. It nicely sums up my own work philosophy. I don’t have grandiose aims to change the entire world. And I’ve never felt the need to make a “d… Continue reading →
So the more we try to control, the more people will self-organise against our control and the less control we have. A paradox for leadership. The more a solution is imposed onto a system the more that system will self-organise against that solution.
What is the way through this paradox? The answer lies in another feature of complex adaptive systems – “a system will only accept a solution it is part of creating”. The solution is to use some sort of participatory process that allows the collective intelligence of the system to create its own solution.
This is bang on. It’s one of the most succinct, yet practical explanations of working with complexity I’ve read.
In simpler terms, imposing change on people increases anxiety and resistance. People own what they help create, so invite them to participate in creating solutions.