Change for the Audacious: a doer’s guide

The 240-page book, Change for the Audacious: a doers’ guide by Steve Waddell, was published in 2016. This book explores how we must, and can do much better at addressing issues such as: climate change, food security, health, education, environmental degradation, peace-building, water, equity, corruption, and wealth creation. This book is for people working on these types of issues, with the belief that we can create a future that is not just “sustainable”, but also flourishing. This perspective means that the challenge is not just one of simple change, but of transformation – radical change in the way we perceive our world, create relationships and organize our societies. This is the implication of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals and other global efforts, and also innumerable efforts locally, nationally and regionally.

Audacious_ChangeThis book approaches these challenges as large systems change issues: issues requiring engagement of many, many people and organizations often globally; issues requiring deep innovation with shifts in mindsets and power structures; and issues that require capacity to work with complexity. Large systems change is presented as a new field of practice and knowledge; the book is not about a “method” or particular “approach”; rather it provides an overview of frameworks, methods and approaches to develop capacity to use the appropriate ones in particular contexts.

After introducing concepts of transformation and complexity, the book presents five case studies of large systems change. These cases and others are referenced throughout the remainder of the book to present large systems change strategy, organizing structures, steps in developing the necessary collective action, tools, and personal guidance for change practitioners.

About Steve Waddell & NetworkingAction
Responding to the 21st century’s enormous global challenges and realizing its unsurpassed opportunities require new ways of acting and organizing. NetworkingAction is my personal vehicle to support organizational, network, and societal change and development, through consultation, education, research, and personal leadership. In particular, I focus upon intersectoral (business-government-civil society) and inter-organizational collaboration to produce innovation, enhance impact, and build new capacity. These initiatives may be local, national and/or global. The topics are varied, including water, forestry, youth, finance, economic development, and peace.

Resource Link: http://networkingaction.net/product/a-truly-path-breaking-work/

This resource was submitted by Steve Waddell, the Principal at NetworkingAction via the Add-a-Resource form.

The Black Sash Model of Community Based Monitoring (CBM)

Author: 
Community-based monitoring (hereafter referred to as CBM) allows civil society to gather and analyse information from government service users’ points of view. It recognises that citizens are active holders of fundamental rights and not merely passive users of public services. As a result, CBM provides strong evidence to take back...

Assessment of the factors that contribute to the collaboration in “Asthmapolis” in Louisville, Kentucky

Author: 
Asthmapolis is a company whose purpose is to improve asthma management for patients and healthcare professionals. The company initiated a project with IBM and the city of Louisville to improve people’s health outcomes related to asthma. They accomplished this by using a GPS device attached to asthma inhalers that allowed...

Why Storm Troopers Can’t Shoot

It’s a well-known fact that imperial storm troopers have terrible aim.

While their failure logistically supports the plot of Star Wars – they would be dramatically different stories if all our heroes just died – there are numerous fan theories on the subject. Perhaps the helmets provide poor visibility (possibly due to cut backs after the Empire took over). Perhaps the troopers were ordered not to hit our heroes – after all, we know they were allowed to escape the Death Star in a trap to reveal the rebel base.  Another theory argues that storm troopers miss for the same reason that real, well-trained, combat soldiers do – when it’s a human person standing in front of you, it’s just not that easy to shoot.

But, as I was thinking about it this weekend – as you’re wont on the first day off after a long semester – what if storm troopers have intentionally bad aim? Not that they were ordered to miss or are otherwise consciously choosing to miss – but what if the storm trooper clones are intentionally designed to be poor shots?

Let’s back up a bit.

Before they were the imperial storm troopers of the Galactic Empire, these soldiers were the clone army of the dying Galactic Republic. Replicated from the DNA of legendary bounty hunter Jango Fett, we know – if you’re willing to sit through the prequels – that the clones were genetically modified to reach adulthood faster and to be more subservient and loyal than they would have been otherwise.

In the animated Clone Wars series it is striking just how inhuman the clones are considered. They aren’t treated as people, with independent personalities and intrinsic worth. They are treated as cannon fodder; necessary man power needed to crush the separatists seeking to break from the Republic, but little more human than the droid army they oppose.

This is, in fact, the real the beauty, if you will, of the clone army – unlike ‘real’ lifeforms, they are entirely disposable.

And if you’re building a disposable army, do you want to empower them to overthrow you?

Given the clear power imbalance and injustice faced by the clones, it seems unwise to make them too capable. Far safer it would be to encase them in tough, Mandalorian inspired armor, and send them out as meat shields to take the shots which might otherwise hit a more valued person. In this way, you could breed an army capable of meeting your needs, with little risk of servants’ uprising.

And exactly what needs are the clones fulfilling?

Well, that depends on who you ask, I suppose. The Republic embraced the clones as a ready-made army, conveniently on hand just as numerous worlds declared their independence and plunged the Republic into war. The Republic needed bodies – they needed weapons they could send to fight droid armies, and they needed soldiers whose deaths wouldn’t cause the war fatigue typically associated with such loss. In the Jedi they had powerful generals and leaders, capable of remarkable feats. What they needed was an infantry for these skilled warriors to lead – a disposable army that could counter the opposing disposable army, while the leaders faced off in proper combat.

But, of course, the Jedi aren’t the ones who ordered the creation of the clone army. While the order supposedly came from Jedi Master Sifo-Dyas, given that his death preceded that order, presumably the clone army was the vision of some Sith Lord, whether that be Darth Sidious or the mysterious Supreme Leader Snoke we met in Episode 7.

Breeding clones to be less formidable warriors fits neatly into the Empire’s plans. The clones are durable but generally harmless soldiers. A Jedi would never see a (successful) attack from them coming.

Interestingly, the infamous Order 66 which ultimately caused the clones to turn on their Jedi masters was revealed in Clone Wars to be programmed into their DNA. This makes them the perfect Trojan horse – literally unable to hit things until a genetic order takes control. Once the Jedi are virtually eliminated, the order is lifted and the clones go back to being unable to aim – as we meet them in Episode 4.

Following the fall of the Republic, the Empire began replacing clones with conscripted soldiers, forcing them to undergo rigorous training from an early age. While this may be an indication of the high cost of clone soldiers, it may also be an indication of the inadequacy of the original clones. The Empire, though, may have still have aimed to develop sub-optimal storm troopers through their training program. The Empire, I’m sure, would have no qualms in poorly training a disposable army – and they would certainly be cautious about giving such underlings too much training and power.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Progressive Philanthropy Needs to Spur System Change

On April 19, I delivered a short opening keynote talk at the EDGE Funders Alliance conference in Berkeley, California, on the challenges facing progressive philanthropy in fostering system change.  My remarks were based on a longer essay that I wrote for EDGE Funders, "A Just Transition and Progressive Philanthropy," which is re-published below. 

The weak reforms enacted after the 2008 financial crisis….the ineffectuality of climate change negotiations over the course of twenty-one years….the social polarization and stark wealth and income inequality of our time.  Each represents a deep structural problem that the neoliberal market/state seeks to ignore or only minimally address.  As more Americans come to see that the state is often complicit in these problems, and only a reluctant, ineffectual advocate for change, there is a growing realization that seeking change within the system of electoral politics, Washington policy and the “free market” can only yield only piecemeal results, if that.  There is a growing belief that “the system is rigged.”  People have come to understand that “free trade” treaties, extractivist development, austerity politics and the global finance system chiefly serve an economic elite, not the general good.  As cultural critic Douglas Rushkoff has put it, “I’ve given up on fixingthe economy.  The economy is not broken.  It’s simply unjust.”

Struggle for change within conventional democratic arenas can often be futile, not just because democratic processes are corrupted by money and commercial news media imperatives, but because state bureaucracies and even competitive markets are structurally incapable of addressing many problems.  The disappointing Paris climate change agreement (a modest commitment to carbon reductions after a generation of negotiations) suggests the limits of what The System can deliver.  As distrust in the state grows, a very pertinent question is where political sovereignty and legitimacy will migrate in the future.  Our ineffectual, unresponsive polity may itself be the problem, at least under neoliberal control. 

The failures of The System come at the very time that promising new modes of production, governance and social practice are exploding.  Twenty years after the World Wide Web went public, it has become clear that decentralized, self-organized initiatives on open networks can often out-perform both the market and state – a reality that threatens some core premises of capitalism.[1]  The people developing a new parallel economy – sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity, as in Greece and Spain – are neither politicians, CEOs or credentialed experts.  They are ordinary people acting as householders, makers, hackers, permaculturists, citizen-scientists, cooperativists, community foresters, subsistence collectives, social mutualists and commoners:  a vast grassroots cohort whose generative activities are not really conveyed by the term “citizen” or “consumer.” 

Through network-based cooperation and localized grassroots projects, millions of people around the world are managing all sorts of bottom-up, self-provisioning systems that function independently of conventional markets and state programs (or sometimes in creative hybrids). They are developing new visions of “development” and “progress,” as seen in the buen vivir ethic in Latin America, relocalization movements in the US and Europe, and the FabLabs and makerspaces that are reinventing production for use.

read more

Upcoming IAP2 Trainings from The Participation Company

If you’re looking to build your skills for public engagement, then we encourage you to check out the newly-released calendar of trainings from NCDD member organization, The Participation Company (TPC). TPC offers trainings that earn participants the International Association of Public Participation’s certificate in public participation, and NCDD members are eligible for a $20 per day discount! You can learn more in their announcement below or at TPC’s website here.


IAP2 Training Events in 2016

If you work in communications, public relations, public affairs, planning, public outreach and understanding, community development, advocacy, or lobbying, this training will help you to increase your skills and to be of even greater value to your employer.

This is your chance to join the many thousands of practitioners worldwide who have completed the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) certificate training.

Dates for IAP2’s Foundations in Public Participation (5-Day) certificate program:
PLANNING for Effective Public Participation
(3-Days) and/or *TECHNIQUES for Effective Public Participation (2-Days)

  • June 1-3 – Omaha, NE (3-day Planning)
  • August 11-12 – Omaha, NE (2-day Techniques)
  • August 30-September 1 – Fort Collins, CO (3-day Planning)
  • October 24-28 – Denver, CO (3-day Planning and 2-day Techniques)
  • October 31-November 4 – Anchorage, AK (3-day Planning and 2-day Techniques)
  • November 3-4 – Fort Collins, CO (2-day Techniques)
  • December 5-9 – Salt Lake City, UT (3-day Planning and 2-day Techniques)

Please check their website for updates to the calendar.
*The 3-Day Planning is a prerequisite to TECHNIQUES

Dates for IAP2’s Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation: Moving from Rage to Reason (2-Days)

  • June 15-16 – Chicago, IL (2-day EOP2)
  • July 20-21 – Austin, TX (2-day EOP2)

The Participation Company offers discounted rates to NCDD members. Visit www.theparticipationcompany.com/training for more information and on-line registration.

the most educated Americans are liberal but not egalitarian (2)

On Friday, I argued that the most educated Americans may be the most “liberal,” but liberalism is being defined by a whole set of opinions that cover cultural and international issues as well as economic policies. The most educated Americans are the people with the greatest economic advantages, and they are less economically egalitarian than other people, not more so.

This means that we do not have a “What’s the Matter with Kansas”-style situation, in which the least advantaged have forgotten their own interests, nor a situation in which tenured radicals are turning bourgeois students into socialists. Rather, we have a very standard situation in which the most advantaged people are the least enthusiastic about equality. They just qualify as “liberal” because of opinions on other matters.

Here is an additional graph using 2012 American National Election Study data. The question is “Do you agree strongly that society should make sure everyone has equal opportunity?” I show all the breakdowns for education, race, and ideology that have sufficient samples, in descending order of egalitarianism.
inequality3
The general pattern is that you’re less likely to support equal opportunity if you’re White, college-educated, or conservative. Individuals in all three categories are the least supportive of all. But note than less than half of liberals who are White and have college degrees strongly favor equality of opportunity.

I also looked at the pattern by age, prompted in part by the phenomenon of young White college students who feel the Bern. But it’s important not to confuse 2 million young Sanders voters with their whole generation. Below are the percentages of all Americans–and Americans who hold college degrees–who strongly favor equality of opportunity, by age. The sample sizes for each point are between 38 and 96 (i.e., smallish), so I wouldn’t pay attention to the specific zigs and zags. The overall pattern is that young adults are more enthusiastic about equality than those in their 20s and 30s, but college grads are less so than their contemporaries, and their elders (50+) are more concerned than they are.
inequality4

Dog and Cat Management

Author: 
This Citizens'Jury was asked by the South Australian government to explore what measures could reduce the number of dogs and cats euthanised each year in the state. The government also asked the jury to consider whether de-sexing (neutering) of cats and dogs should be made compulsory in South Australia. De-sexing...