Posts Tagged ‘u process’

Recharge your Batteries with the U Process

March 12th, 2010

I’ve been down and out lately, both mentally and physically.  In fact, I spent most of yesterday in bed sleeping.  While the sleep recharged my body, a comment left by Michael Bischoff, a Minneapolis based consultant, has helped recharge my “mental” batteries.

Bishoff’s comment read: 

I just came across your posts about the U Process. I’ve seen many summaries of Theory U. These are some of the best. Thank you for putting them out there!

It’s always nice when someone recognizes your work.  In this case, Bischoff was recognizing a 5-part series Joe Bartmann wrote describing the U Process, a theory of change the Rural Learning Center subscribes to.  Although Joe has moved on to the Sioux Falls Green Project, I felt proud that Bischoff was recognizing ReImagine Rural for offering quality advice. 

Bischoff’s comments also cause me to pause and reflect:  have I been practicing the U Process lately?  It forced me to go back, reread what Joe wrote about a year-and-a-half ago, and reflect on it.

 

Why should I care about the U Process?

In short, the U Process is a change theory that suggests the best way for problem solving is to:  (1) slow down and let go of your old thinking;  (2) deepen your understanding of the problems by listening and learning;  (3) let new ideas emerge from a quietness of your new understanding;  (4) and then jump into action with solutions.  

In some ways, it’s not a very radical theory to embrace; but practicing it is! 

As Joe describes in his opening post in the series, most of us in community development work define our problem and then jump into action.  We say we want to understand our problems more deeply, but in practice, we rush into solving them.  The result is that we end up investing more time and energy into the work of solving the problem than we might have had to if we would have spent more time trying to understand it.  What’s worse is that rushed to solutions often aren’t solutions at all-they do little to solve the real problem.

 

What this meant to me today

As I pause and reflect on my work lately, I realize that my engine has been so revved up by all the work I have to do that I’m not taking the time to deepen my understanding of the issues I’m working on.  In addition to creating shallow thinking, I believe this hectic, get ‘er done attitude is partly to blame for the low energy in my batteries.

If you feel like I have lately, I highly recommend you dig into U Process.  Check out Joe’s 4-part series (I’ve posted the links below) and find other resources describing it on the web.  Then spend some time really digging into the problems you face through this new lens, and let the new ideas emerge. 

I think you’ll find the solutions that emerge are more focused and more approriate — and I bet you’ll have a lot more energy as well.    

The U Process on ReImagine Rural

Tags: , ,
Posted in Community Engagement, Rural | Comments (3)

Why do I write this stuff

September 16th, 2009

 I have to admit that lately I’ve been questioning why I spend so much time writing stuff about rural communities.  After all, couldn’t I make a bigger impact on the rural communities if I spent my daily efforts working in a rural community like I used to? Could I do more if I were an economic development director in a rural community?

But yesterday at the Rural Housing Playbook Conference, Joe Fiala of the On Hand Development Corp. in Miller, SD reminded me that there is value in having blogs where people can dream out-load, and where we can ask questions that seldom get asked.  Questions like “Does your community need a coffee shop?”

 

What Joe told me

I think Joe and I had only meet once before, so I was surprised when Joe came up to me and said that he was both a regular reader of ReImainge Rural and that he occasionally used a blog post to generate conversation with his board members at meetings. 

Instead of uttering, “Seriously?” (which probably showed on my face), I thanked him and asked how he was using it to generate conversation. 

He explained that he occasionally prints off a post, gives it to board members, and asks them to talk about it.  For instance, a while back he gave them a copy of “Does your community need a coffee shop?” and asked them to think about where new residents and younger people in Miller go to socialize and why having such a place would be important.  I was impressed to hear that they were talking about the role coffee shops play in community development work.  It’s the type of stuff most economic development groups don’t think about. 

 

The coffee shop idea didn’t make the cut

Later in the conversation, Joe somewhat sheepishly admitted that they are not actively working to develop a third place in Miller.  I think Joe didn’t wanted to hurt my feelings, but he was honest in saying it did not make their list of projects to work on.

Far from hurting my feelings, I was ecstatic.  Something I had written had caused an economic development group to “reimagine” their work.   They were digging in, conversing, and rethinking what they wanted their community to be like.  To me that’s incredible.  (By the way, that’s the “U Process” at work.)

Admittedly, I think every community needs a coffee shop that serves as a third place. I think they increase the community’s social capital that will in the long run help the community get more things done.  In other words, community members are less likely to waste their time fighting each other over the projects they are working on, resulting in increased productivity. 

But that doesn’t mean that I think Miller’s economic development group should invest their time and energy into making it a reality.  They may have more important stuff to work on, and should be congratulated for just thinking about it.

 

Ok, I am a little disappointed

If anything disappointed me about our conversation, it was that neither Joe or his board have joined in the conversation on ReImagine Rural. 

When we created the tag line “Building a deep conversation about the future of rural” we did so did so because we believe that generating conversations is key to building a brighter future for rural communities. 

Never have we felt that our experiences at the Rural Learning Center provide us with all the answers.  Nor do we believe that others should be “listening” to us.  Rather it’s about raising issues, asking questions, sharing ideas, and rethinking the future.  And that’s where Joe (and you) come in. 

I could tell from our short talk that Joe can contribute to the conversation.  I asked him if he’d consider posting comments about the importance of third places.  I’m hoping that he’ll even write a guest post or two someday about other subjects.  If he does, I’m confident that his contribution will help someone else who is wrestling with similar issues. 

 

It takes time

I know that it takes time to write comments or guest posts for blogs.  And I know that it can take time away from the more immediate projects that everyone is working on.  

In fact, as I reflect on the questions I posed at the top of this post, I think that’s what I’ve been wrestling with.  Is there value in writing about rural community issues as I do on this blog?  Or should I be spending my time “doing” something as I try to help rural communities. 

Only time will bear an answer, but for now, I’m going to keep plugging away.  The one thing that I am sure of, however, is that rural communities across America will benefit from YOU joining the conversation. 

 

Note:  If you want to join the conversation, feel free to send me an e-mail at mike@ruraltransformations.com

 Photo Credit (top right): limaoscarjuliet - Flickr

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Community Development, Economic Development, Housing, Rural, Training and Events | Comments (0)

U Process Part 5: Enacting Change

April 6th, 2009

Part of a series on the U Process. Read the others here.

A while back, I started a series of posts on a change model called the U Process, developed by C. Otto Scharmer. Before picking up where I left off, I want to give you a quick review.

Three Steps in the U Process

U Process is a lens to look at tough problems through-a different, deeper path from problem to true solution. Most rural communities are in the thick of some long, very tough problems, and the U can be a model for designing a better planning process. Mike has written about the ups and downs of planning for change in Miner County, South Dakota using a method like this.

At a basic level, U Process has three verses:

  1. Uncovering the current reality. This is the journey down the left side of the “U,” a practice in suspending our own subconscious judgment long enough to truly listen and observe the whole with new eyes and ears. It’s a deep dive into seeing the tangled mess and roots of our problems by inviting more people and perspectives into the question.
  2. Letting deeper solutions emerge. The bottom of the “U” is where shared purpose emerges as a better solution-if we allow ourselves to let go of seeking, and let answers bubble up. Uncovering this kind of solution is not about making a decision, but about surrendering to an inner knowing about what needs to be done and opening our hearts and will to that challenge.  It’s much like, as we immerse ourselves in the questions of the left side of the U, there are hundreds of fragmented pieces. But then, suddenly, all those pieces come together as one and we see that it is a beautiful vase. The pieces of the whole become one as we dig in.
  3. Enacting a new reality with transformational action. Once we’ve committed to being the change we want to create, we move up the right side of the “U” in a curious, determined manner. It’s this third segment that I’ll pick up on with this post.

Prototyping

When we find ourselves at the bottom of that U, where we’ve had an “Ah-ha!” about the problems we seem stuck in, there are two choices.

  1. The first choice is to accept it and live with it.
  2. The second, is to say, “I will be a host for this change!”

Nothing gets better until you change.  Otto Scharmer describes that ah-ha as something new that wants to be born through us. It really is that kind of feeling sometimes-we’ve all experienced it, I think.

So, assuming you choose to be the change, moving up the right side of the U is mostly about trial and error-failing fast and forward while we experiment with the future as it comes. “Do not put yourself in a box of your past failures,: explains Scharmer, “Reflect on your failure, and get up and keep going.”
This is about just doing it. Not worrying about getting things perfect or planning everything to death. Just find the courage to do something toward making that new reality that you can now see more clearly. Move it forward. Start now. Test it and gather feedback and adjust. Then test it again.

The Doers Know It

This part of the U Process is very familiar to rural communities, especially the “do-ers” in your community who seem to be in the middle of every project or effort. What’s different about the U is having the patience and discipline to travel that path down and through the bottom before tackling things head on. It’s the difference between surface level answers (that often become bigger problems later) and real solutions.

As you continue to practice this, and connect up with others who are interested in the same change, you build a powerful network and community. At some point, the things that seemed odd and unconventional before, suddenly become normal. People begin behaving in ways that serve the whole community. Things get better because the root of the problem is dug out over time. This is a sign that you’ve travelled the U.

Practicing the U is not really learning a process, it’s just recognizing how you’ve already journeyed through the U so often in your life, and applying that wisdom to solving tough problems. When you forget how.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Community Engagement, Rural | Comments (3)

design:SD Rides the U

April 2nd, 2009

In the few short days since coming home from the design:South Dakota team’s charrette in Deuel County, I’ve been contemplating the process and experience. It’s always an exhausting and energizing trip at the same time. I’ve co-lead three d:SD charrettes now, and I’ve always tried to design our time in the community around the U Process.

This year, I think it worked as well as ever, and other team members commented on the magic of sticking with the process. One comment that I particularly loved: “It seemed like we sat there with all this chaos going around and we weren’t getting anything done for so long. We sat there and struggled. Then, all of a sudden, it was like everything came together and we got a bunch of boards done in no time becuase we really knew what we needed to make.”

It’s worth the headache and hassle of sitting in that mess for a while, patiently opening up for the solutions to emerge. And when they do, it’s go time. Beautiful.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Community Development, Rural, Training and Events | Comments (0)

Trust Building - the greatest benefit of the U Process

December 4th, 2008

In a post earlier this week, Joe Bartmann told us that even though using the U Process in creating a community plan takes time and effort, its valuable because the resulting  “aha moments” lead to innovations that otherwise might have been missed.   I agree.  But I’d like to argue an equally important outcome is that the U Process can lead to greater community trust.

This point became clear Tuesday evening when I was in Faulkton, SD with Joe and Lindsey Karlson.  We were there to work with community members on the creation of a Faulk County community development plan. 

Early in the evening Joe explained to the group that he attributes Miner County’s current success to the community’s use of the U Process to develop its plan.  Because we “dug in deep” on issues (the left side of the U), we were able to institute greater change (on the right side).  That may be true, but let me clarify with the following:

Now, not everybody liked the process.  We lost many individuals along the way who felt there were too many meetings and too much talk.  But those of us who stuck with the process got a chance to know people in the community we would otherwise never have met.  And through getting to know each other better, we came to trust each other better.   

Sociologists have labeled the trust that I am talking about as “social capital.”    More importantly, they have recognized that communities with high levels of social capital are more likely to give the community’s “doers” (both people and organizations) permission to work on the community’s behalf. 

That’s no small thing.  Because if the community lacks trust, even the best projects can turn into community battles.   And then nothing changes, and nobody wins. 

 So to me, the beauty of using the U Process to create a community plan is that it helps build trust.  Going through the process may seem to waste time in the short run, but many in the long run, I think it saved both time and money.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Community Development, Leadership, Rural | Comments (2)

U Process Part 4: The Big ‘Ah-Ha!’

December 1st, 2008

This is the fourth post in a series on the U Process (read parts 1, 2 or 3)

So far, I’ve argued that it’s worth taking the time and effort to follow a different path from tough problem to solution. But why? What are we working toward? The answer, to that question and to the tough problem you’re trying to solve, is found at the “bottom of the U.”

The journey through the U begins as we dive into the problem on the left side. We’re here to observe, to learn, to see the whole picture. We Immerse ourselves in the muck and mire, working to see the tangled mess with more clarity.

After really digging into the system we’re trying to change, it’s important to step back and reflect. Get quiet and still, stop doing a bit. This is the bottom of that left side of the U, where we let go of trying to solve the problem, and let the solution come.

Letting Go

Let go…and let come. It’s surely worked for you many times, without you even thinking about it. You’re eyeball-deep in some work, trying to solve some issue. Then you take a break, maybe a little walk or grabbing a snack or throwing some clothes in the washing machine. You give your mind a rest, and suddenly–whammo! It all comes together and the answer you’ve been digging for smacks you in the face. “Ah ha! That’s it!”

You’ve just found the bottom of the U. The example I used happens (usually) by accident, but the theory of the U is based on finding that “Ah-ha” on purpose. That doesn’t mean it works on call, like a schedule or anything. It just means that if you can hone your skills at practicing ‘presence,’ you have a much better shot at finding a truly innovative and trans formative solution.

Presencing

So what is this ‘presencing’ stuff? It’s a word made by combining ‘present’ and ’sensing.’ As in being fully present in the moment, and opening up your senses to the future that is bubbling up right now. You see, there are two sources of learning: from past experiences, or from the future as it emerges. Presencing is about sitting in that space where the two (past and future) collide right now. It’s learning to see our own seeing (remember those mental model prisons?), and then see the whole of our situation, recognizing how everything is interconnected while we learn more and more. And finally, it’s listening from a place of quiet and openness to the stuff that wants to be born.

Presencing is not a journey of the mind, but one of opening your mind, heart and will to see the future solution that is emerging right now, and choose to be a vehicle for it.

I’ll share more thoughts on this Presencing idea in my next U process post, and then fill in the right side of the U: All About Action. In the mean time, please share your thoughts or questions with the Reimagine Rural community by clicking on “Comments” below.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Leadership, Rural | Comments (0)

U Process Part 3: Radical Listening

November 13th, 2008

This is the third post in a series on the U Process (read the first two here and here).

In a couple of previous posts, I began to outline a social change technology called “U Process.” I gave a quick overview of the three movements of the U (deep learning dive, inner knowing, and swift action), and I shared a bit about mental models and the role they play as blinders to new ideas.

If learning to recognize your own mental models and setting them aside is the first step down the left side of the U, then learning how to listen deeply is the second.

Levels of Listening

Listening isn’t quite as simple as just sitting down while someone else is talking to you. We’ve all had a conversation with someone when it feels like they aren’t really there with us, and we’ve all drifted off somewhere else when we were meaning to really listen to someone, right? Below is a concept of four deepening levels of listening outlined by C. Otto Scharmer in his book about the U Process.

Level 1: This is the way, unfortunately, I believe most “listening” takes place. Level one is really not listening at all, it’s reacting from old habits and mental models. It’s when we’re thinking about what we want to say next instead of listening to the other person. Level one is like downloading old ideas and habits of judgment from some database in our heads, reconfirming old opinions and positions.

Level 2: If Level One downloading is really being stuck inside ourselves and our old ideas, the next level is like stepping outside to the edge of yourself, and observing what’s really going on. The difference is being open-minded enough to see new data, see more of the picture. This level isn’t too hard to reach.

Level 3: Taking another step deeper into listening is like observing from within the person you are listening to. It’s opening your heart enough to see through another’s eyes, to see and hear what they see and hear. It’s a major shift in perspective.

Level 4: The fourth, quite radical level of listening that Scharmer proposes is more tricky to explain, and achieve. It’s listening from a different ’source,’ a place where you open your spirit and will to let the future emerge through you. It’s not really about what you hear another person say, but more about trusting the inner knowing that bubbles up inside you from somewhere.

Voices in the Way

So, there are deeper levels of listening that most of us don’t tap into very often. The deeper you go, the more radical the listening is. So why don’t we all listen at level 4?

Our mental models get in the way of hearing or seeing the whole picture, and so do little voices in our heads. The voices I’m referring to aren’t evidence of insanity or anything like that, they are the tricks our mind plays on us sometimes. There are voices of judgment, of cynicism and of fear that become serious obstacles to deep listening.

To get to a place of true listening, we have to create a safe space for it within ourselves. We have to recognize and acknowledge the mental models, the judgment, cynicism and fear that become roadblocks to really listening. And then set them aside and continue the journey. They don’t go away, we just learn to ignore them as much as we can.

Overcoming the roadblocks lets us climb down that ladder of deep, radical listening. Give it a try, and please share your thoughts or experiences in the comments.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Community Development, Leadership, Rural | Comments (0)

U Process Part 2: Those pesky mental models

October 27th, 2008

This is the second post in a series on the U Process (read the first post here).

A big part of practicing the U process as a method to solve tough problems is learning to recognize the “mental models” that impact our every perception. These mental models are like images or preconceived notions we have formed about the world or people or ideas. They just lurk in our subconscious minds most of the time, and step in to influence our decisions and judgments. 

My Example: a calendar

Here’s a personal example. When I was in the second grade in Canistota, SD, Mrs. Cooper taught me to read a calendar. The entire south wall of the classroom was a twelve month calendar, and the months were arranged in three columns, beginning with August in the upper left corner. So, having learned the twelve month calendar by studying that wall, I still today “see” twelve months in that arrangement in my mind’s eye. When someone talks about December, I automatically think of the top of the second column, not the end of the year. Imagine my trouble in Business School when I had to think of the year in terms of quarters–three columns just don’t divide into four parts very easily! 

That’s a silly example, but the point is that I’ve had to recognize that mental model that was influencing the way I “see” a year. And I often have to put it aside, and open my mind to other ways of arranging 12 months in my head. That’s the thing about mental models: it’s not so much about whether they are right or wrong, or even about changing them (which is very hard to do), the trick is to just recognize those blinders that your mind and past experiences are putting in your way. Wide zoom the lens and see more of the whole picture.

 

Mental Models as Blinders

Now imagine all the different experiences and bits and pieces of information in your past that form mental models about people or places or notions. Mental models are blinders to new ideas. They “help” us form pre-conceived judgments and prejudices. They become a prison, and block the way–prevent us from listening from a place of quiet and openness.

That’s why it’s so key, if we want to see the whole of whatever tough problem we intend to solve, that we learn to recognize more and more of the mental models that are blocking the view. Once we “see our own seeing,” as Otto Scharmer often calls it, then we can kind of set those blinders aside one by one and widen our view.

There’s more to come about the U Process in future posts. If you have personal mental model examples, or any thoughts about this post, please share them in the comments.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Community Development, Leadership, Rural | Comments (0)

Regional Collaboration - Part II

October 24th, 2008

In a prior post, I suggested that we have been experiencing regional consolidation of important services (i.e. education, health care, telecommunications, etc.) but that this consolidation has not resulted in true regional collaboration.  Why not?

When you stop to think about, why should we expect communities to collaborate and work together when we have not really learned how to do this effectively in our individual communities.  Most communities operate as a collection of lone ranger, silo activities.  Someone decides we need housing.  Off they go, put some dollars together, buy some land and begin to put together a housing development.  Eventually, they realize we are going to need big bucks from the community (i.e. the city) to put in water, sewer, electrical, etc. 

Guess what, train wreck.  The well intentioned housing advocates should have gotten the city and other players in the game from the git go.  I believe that working to align community organizations can bear very significant positive fruit as we seek to help community’s work smarter.  Some promising community assessment tools are emerging (more on that in the future) that can point us in the right direction. 

Collaboration requires that people & organizations need to work together.

Collaboration requires that people & organizations work together.

The key to aligning our project and community organizational silos is developing a community-wide vision for the future.  What do we want to do collectively?  How do we connect the dots?  What is most important?  Can we prioritize and sequence our projects in order to leverage and maximize our precious and limited resources?  Joe Bartmann’s earlier post about the U-Process offers guidance about how and why communities need to think more deeply and intentionally in this visioning process.  Most importantly, the community vision needs to be owned and held by the community at large and not just a small, well intentioned group that assumes it knows what is best.

If a community does not have its act together, it is very difficult to collaborate with other communities and be able to answer the question, “What can we do together with our neighbors that will help us advance our community’s vision while at the same time strengthening our region?”  Stated another way, communities are not likely to work together if they cannot answer the question, “What’s in it for us?”

Lastly, even if are communites are motivated to work together regionally, it will be difficult to achieve collaboration until we develop new regional structures.  We need an entity (structure) that can capture and articulate a regional perspective.  This group can seek to balance the need for both community and regional advancement.  They can connect the dots.  They can help communities answer the question, “What is in it for us?”

Unhealthy community competition dies hard.  Old, and I mean old, grudges based on athletic competitions and who stole the court house have held us back.  It is time to rise above that.  A vital and viable rural landscape requires both successful regionalization of services and true regional collaboration.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Community Development, Community Engagement, Housing, Leadership, Rural | Comments (0)

Introduction to U Process: a theory of change

October 8th, 2008

Part 1.

At the Rural Learning Center, we talk a lot about, and try our best to practice, a method of change called the ‘U Process.’ U Process is a theory first introduced to the masses a few years ago in a book co-authored by C. Otto Scharmer, Peter Senge, Joseph Jawarski and Betty Sue Flowers, called Presence.

Scharmer, a professor at MIT in Cambridge, Mass., recently released an in-depth manual on the U Process ideas called Theory U. He worked for ten years on the book.

U Process is a point of view, a lens to look at tough problems through. Scharmer also calls it a ‘social technology,’ a method to create results differently. I see it as a way of designing new solutions to old problems we haven’t cracked yet.

Most of us follow what I call the ‘normal path’ from problem to solution. We name the trouble we’re having, then we brainstorm about ways to solve it, and charge forward fast and furious. We choose ‘solutions’ that are the quickest, most efficient, and cheap. We figure so long as we plan carefully, throw some hard work at it and never give up, we’ll make our ideas be real solutions eventually.

The problem is, we still have most of the big problems in rural communities that we’ve been fighting for decades. We keep trying the same things in different ways, and get the same results: more decline of community. It becomes a vicious cycle.


The normal path has merely skimmed the surface of our problems, and we’ve overlooked the true sources of decline and despair. Have you ever tried to lift a rock that seemed to be mostly above the ground, and found that only a small part of the stone was visible? It can be very difficult to lift that mostly hidden rock from the soil. Most of our problems in communities are like that rock–we really have to dig down to get at the whole thing.

We have a very difficult time getting over our mental models of how the world looks and works, and so rely only on the past as our guide (only the tip of that buried rock). For those really tough problems-and most rural communities are having that kind right now-more of the same will not get us to where we want to be. Sometimes the past is the thing that stands in our way.

The U process suggests a different path, one that dives deep before shifting to action. It’s a path that invites breakthrough solutions to be born from a more instinctive source, instead of the old-idea-downloading we’re used to.

The U starts with a different, deeper kind of listening; a dive into the problem. We really dig in-observe, listen, gather data and info, see new perspectives, jump way into the muck and mire of it all. It’s about seeing more and more of the whole interconnected and messy picture of the system we’re trying to change. Call it ‘focused chaos.’

The second phase is about stepping back, letting go of our old habits and ways of seeing the world, and letting those solutions bubble up within us. We need to just get out of the way a bit, or our thinking and old habits keep those great ideas in a prison. Somewhere in this quiet stillness-if we can let ourselves get there-real world-shifting ideas can come. It’s the ‘different source’ I referred to above-where in the middle of the chaotic mess, a new ‘knowing’ emerges from somewhere deep within us. You can’t always think your way to the answer, sometimes you have to feel your way.

Now, with step three, comes the action side of the U: moving back up toward the real solution to our problem. The right side is all about doing-acting swiftly from that inner source of knowing. We throw things out there and test them on the fly. We make mistakes, fast. We learn to perfect our solution by doing. And eventually we change the system.

That’s a first glance at U process:

  1. Slow down and let go of old thinking,
  2. Let breakthrough ideas emerge, and then
  3. Jump into doing.

It’s mostly common sense-if we think about those ‘ah-ha!’ moments in our lives, we can begin to count the little (or big) U process paths we’ve already experienced. Sometimes the whole process takes just an instant, other tiems it goes on and on for months or years or generations.  I’ll lead you deeper into what I’ve learned about this theory in future posts, if you’re interested. If you can’t wait, just check out Otto Scharmer’s Presencing Institute for some free U process goodness.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (1)