Diversity: Considering the Roots of Civil Rights

As we prepare for our first two deep dives in January in Portland, I am continuing to delve into Civil Rights in my own way. This morning a Facebook friend passed me a video set to Nina Simone's 1964 song, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood.


The series of photos included in the video reminded me of the Little Rock Nine. I live in Northern Arkansas. Just 80 miles from here, in 1957, nine African American children were enrolled in Little Rock Central High School. The students had initially been blocked by the Governor, but this was over-ridden by President Eisenhower.


On the first day of school, the Governer called the Arkansas State Guard to form a blockade to prevent the students from entering and to support the segregationist protestors. Two weeks later the children entered the school for the first time, under the watchful eye of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army. In fact, Eisenhower actually federalized the Arkansas State Guard in order to take them out of the Governor's command.

The nine children were then subject to a year of physical and verbal abuse. They were spat upon, beaten up, and one even had acid thrown into her eyes.

I sit here now deeply ashamed. Not ashamed to be white, and not ashamed to be an Arkie. In this moment I feel deeply ashamed of being a human. I do not understand what madness drives any human to these ends. By what madness has it ever been okay to terrorize children?

Diversity: Circling the Lake Together

Last week I flew to Portland to meet the project team for the Civil Rights & Diversity Systems Mapping project. The project team includes Laurie Thorpe, the Executive Officer for Independent Resources (a Forest Service Enterprise Team) and Heidi Bigler Cole, who holds PhD in Social Sciences. We held a three hour meeting and invited employees from the region to meet the project team and join us in framing the project. There were probably 25 people in total.

During the session we shared a definition of systems thinking and together explored why it might be valuable to take a systems approach to understanding the Civil Rights program in the Pacific Northwest Region of the US Forest Service.

In my last blog post I compared exploring the way that a system pervades our subconscious mind as going on a deep dive. To further the metaphor, last week's brief session was about becoming acquainted with my fellow divers. Our small project team will be as a stone dropped into the center of the lake with a design and intention to go deeper into the collective subconscious and perhaps even brush the unconscious expression of diversity, or lack thereof, in the region.

Laurie, Heidi, and I will meet weekly and form the core container - the stone which is to be dropped in the lake. The first ripple circle beyond the point where the stone splashes into the water will be our guidance. This circle includes the Civil Rights Director, a Dialogos consultant, and a Diversity consultant, Audrey Peterman. The work itself consists of convening a number of focus groups - circles of people who'll be invited to the lake and coaxed to go for a swim.

It will be up to each individual whether they dive in or splash around in the shallow edges of the lake. Even if an individual chooses to simply watch from the shore she will discover that the surface of the water is changing and the reflections which are mirrored back will gently raise questions for the observer.

Today I'm feeling ready and would love to jump right in to the water. But I recognize that we need a few more weeks to plan several dives. We will let a number of people know where we plan to go. We will attempt to pre-sense just what might be lurking down there. We will design methods and schedule focus groups and discover more fellow swimmers.

Diversity: An Invitation to Dive Deep

I have recently been invited to apply my systems thinking and mapping skills to the area of Civil Rights and Diversity. The Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) of the US Forest Service has a new civil rights director. She has been involved in the application of systems thinking to the exploration of the agency's safety culture. That work, lead by Dialogos, has touched many employees in a very significant way. As a result, systems thinking and mapping is gaining in noteriety in the agency.

My role, which is only just beginning, will be to sit in circle, hold deep conversations, quietly notice the patterns and dynamics, and then draw a map of the complexity.

In preparation for our very first meeting, which is next week, the director asked us to ponder what the project means to us. This was a very difficult question to answer. Perhaps because a core aspect of my role is to be present while groups of people co-create meaning and understanding, and I can't possibly anticipate what meaning I will participate in creating.

I feel as if I'm arriving at a beautiful and serene lake. In my approach I can see the brilliant blue surface reflecting the light of the sun. I have no idea how deep the water is or what lies beneath the surface. I only know that in order to be safe I must tread gently. As I prepare for this deep dive, of which I will dedicate one week per month for the next six months, I review what I have learned about myself and diversity thus far. I scan my herstory for clues as to what the exploration might reveal.

My scan reveals to me a tenderness, a vulnerable place within my core. There is only one thing of which I am certain: this exploration will expose me to aspects of my thinking which are subconscious or perhaps even unconscious. How do I know that? Because I too was socialized into a system of disparity and oppression. The simple act of growing up in a small town in Oklahoma has exposed me to generations of misinformation, fear, and even hatred. Within the boundaries of my awareness I have been thoughtful and even an activist. But in order to stretch the boundaries of awareness I must dive into this lake.

On more than one occassion I have observed the appearance of a thought in my mind which is ugly and shameful. I'm grateful to have even noticed. When this happens it gives me pause and I explore what lies beneath the thought. In most cases I realize that the thought is a judgement with which I am not actually in agreement in the present moment. So how is it that I have thoughts with which I don't agree?

The way I explain this to myself is that a great deal of my thinking was programmed in as I participated in society. I have seen a black man, for example, and had the thought "Be careful." Then paused and challenged the thought and saw it as ridiculous. Why be any more careful around a man simply because of his skin tone? It has nothing to do with the man before me. It has everything to do with the messages which saturate the world in which I live. It is the voice of my college roommate, a jewish girl from Philadelphia, who cautioned me against getting gas on Broward Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale one night because every patron was African American. It is the voice of my great Aunt who hissed obscenities. It is the voice of some ancient ancestor who perhaps felt he had to compete with people of color in order to have enough food for his family.

As I circle the lake and climb over the boulders which represent that which I have already learned about diversity I can't help but wonder what lurks beneath the surface. What thoughts are yet so unconscious that I've never glimpsed them? I set the intention to be gentle with myself and my ancestors, I draw in a deep breath, and I slide my left food along the sun baked boulder and into the cool water.

Transforming the National Recreation Program

I'm in Salt Lake City attending a meeting on Sustainable Recreation in the US Forest Service. A small group of members of the Recreation program at the national, regional, and forest levels of the organization have crafted a National Recreation Strategy to replace an outdated strategy (I think the last strategy was crafted in 1988). The small group has worked for 2 years and is very excited to share the work with a larger group.

There's much passion and energy for this strategy because it's centered on principles of Sustainability and Community Engagement through Recreation and Tourism (CERT). There are a number of specific goals and objectives, but to say it in a nutshell... It's all about the Forest Service engaging with communities to have meaningful dialogue around how together to create balanced and long term health for people, profits, and the planet.

I've been providing some consultation and facilitation to the smaller group and today was the first day of a very complex meeting in which we shared the National Recreation Strategy, Sustainable Recreation, and CERT with a wide group of employees from around the country. We had about 20 people in the room, about 10 people on the telephone, and another 20 people on a video conference. It was trying and complex to mix the media, but absolutely necessary for a sustainability conversation to include low carbon methods for connecting.

I feel the day was a resounding success. We wrapped up the phone and video portion about 1.5 hours before the end of the day so that those of us who were present in the room (here in Salt Lake City) could process everything and begin to wrap our heads around things like...

1. What does sustainable recreation look like?
2. How might our lives be different when we've fully embraced the new National Recreation Strategy?
3. How are we going to share this experience with our leaders and our employees when we get home?
4. How can we foster transformation rather than paying lip service to a plan which is quickly shelved?

I'm ever so grateful to have not been the facilitator of the meeting. Lyn Wiltzes (sp?) from Seattle was the facilitator and did a remarkable job.

I'm feeling very jazzed. I feel like I'm in the right place at the right time and part of something BIG. Something with Purpose and Meaning. I feel this frequently at Forest Service meetings, which is probably why I fall in love with the Forest Service all over again every time I meet new employees or see a new and magnificent landscape. I'm so grateful to be a part of this organization and I'm grateful to have had all the amazing experiences I've had the past 9 years.

Hopefully I'll have time and energy to capture my reactions to day 2 of the meeting. I have the feeling that of all the things in which I've participated, this one is worth capturing for posterity.

The Importance of Contracting Gracefully

I often find myself advocating a natural systems perspective for organizational development. I frequenly am heard saying that "effective organizations are flexible and organic". I just recently had an "ah ha" moment around this:

In organizations, expansion implies success and contraction implies failure. To my systems thinking mind, expansion and contraction are just opposite forces or directions and are neither good nor bad. Only our experience of a this shift in movement is good or bad.

In order for an organization to truly be flexible and organic it must be capable to both expand and contract in a graceful and nimble way. Scaling up to serve an increase in demand is mathematically no different than scaling down in times of decreased demand. Why should scaling up feel like success to the people involved while scaling down feels like failure?

An organization is not just a math and physics equation, and contraction is not just movement in the opposite direction of expansion. The numbers of positions, for example, represent people who are concerned with paying mortgages and putting children through college. How then, can the organization become graceful in contraction?

I certainly don't have all the answers for this. This post is about exploring the topic in hopes for taking some of the sting out of the experience of contraction, both for indviduals and the organizaton.

Let's look at an example from the Forest Service. The Forest Service Enterprise Program is a group of small intraprises, or internal businesses which serve agency units via a signed work order agreement. Enterprise units don't receive appropriated funds in the annual agency budget, but rather sell goods and services to traditional agency units in order to cover all their costs.

The health of the ~17 Enterprise units is bound together in the agency's accounting system. If an Enterprise unit does not cover its costs and accrues a deficit then the team may be disbanded. The employees of the disbanded unit are placed in other positions, or sometimes exit the agency altogether. One core strength of the Enterprise Program is its flexibility to help a National Forest, for example, scale up for a particular project and scale back down when the project is over. Within the culture of the Enterprise Program, expanding one's Enterprise unit by increasing the number of employees and increasing the revenue is a mark of success.

However, if a unit is unable to cover its expenses (for any number of reasons), then a deficit accrues, the unit is a candidate for being disbanded by the Enterprise Steering Committee, and the unit's employees are at jeopardy of loosing their positions.

In our culture, this disbandment is interpreted as a failure. The leader of the unit has invested much time and energy in attempting to create a successful venture. It is personally dramatic to realize that the venture is not sustainable. There is also a personal sense of failure for the indivudual employees, especially if they were engaged in working hard to "turn it around" for a number of months before the disbandment. (I have first hand experience with this, I'll write about it in a separate post). It is all quite painful.

But what if there were another context, another connotation for disbandment of an Enterprise? What if Enterprises with deficits were responsible for coming forward and recommending that they be disbanded, rather than living in fear of a heavy hand coming down on them? What if struggling Enterprises were seen as courageous and heroic for choosing their own disbandment? One success of Enterprise is that it is a choice-based organization. Individuals choose to start units, why shouldn't they choose to end them?

It should be seen as courageous because of the risk and uncertainty involved in volunteering to have your box erased from the org chart. It should be heroic because a struggling unit which drags on and on is only increasing the deficit which is actually a burden on the entire program due to the interconnections in the accounting system.

Could being viewed as courageous and heroic take some of the sting out of the experience for the individuals? I believe it would. That was my own experience. Would shifting our cultural connotation from "failure" to "heroism" facilitate a more graceful contraction? Afterall, if an organization is going to be flexible and organic, they must exhale as effectively as then inhale.

How Exactly Does One Collaborate With Government?

Obama has declared that Government will be Transparent, Collaborative, and Participative. But exactly how we do that remains to emerge. It seem like I'm not the only one who is experiencing the new administration as a force field with a gravity which is pulling me into formation...

Mike Parker, a disabled veteran in rural Indiana, called me at work last week. He'd found me on the web because of an article which I wrote about the history of the Forest Service Enterprise Program. Mike Parker has an idea about turning woodchips into an energy source and creating jobs in his county, where some factories have recently shut down. Mike Parker wants to be part of the solution. He wants to collaborate and participate, but he doesn't know how to "play the game".

I have a soft spot in my heart for people who feel passionate and driven and want to contribute to solutions, so I'm doing what I can to find someone in the agency to talk with Mike about his idea and how to carry it forward. I know that the agency's portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA - the economic stimulus bill) is meant to be used for three main things: 1) create jobs, 2) reduce hazardous fuels (to prevent wildfires), and 3) explore woody biomass as an alternate energy source. So Mike and the Forest Service seem like a good fit, and our new President wants people like Mike to be able to participate.

Here's the frustrating part. Our government is a huge, complex, and unwieldly system which moves very slowly. In order for a citizen to interact with us in an effective way they must possess an extreme amount of patience and some could argue a higher education. I personally think that government is one of many systems which are undergoing major turbulence right now because of its own ineffectiveness, but that's another post altogether.

My team is now getting involved in creating communications products for internal use about the agency's role in economic stimulus. I'm supposted to bend my noodle toward supporting Forest Service employees in understanding our new roles and how to be successful. I'm not exactly tasked with communicating with the public. But tell that to Mike Parker, or to the lady at the coffee shop, or to my neighbors who know I work for the government. Our 35,000 employees are the face and voice of the agency. There's not just a few controllable entry points to pre-packaged and manageable information about the agency's role in Economic Recovery. Any one who wears a green uniform to a grocery store has just become the spokes person for the entire government.

We must tackle our social media learning curve ASAP in order to create containers for all of this stimulating dialogue. We also must support employees in having very basic answers for all their neighbors questions. We are a "can do" organization, we'll find a way to be successful. I just worry that some of us will die trying (stress is one of the top health concerns in the nation).