|
1
|
- Leading Efforts
- in Large Systems Change
- November 18, 2004
- Bangkok, Thailand
- JohnGGriffin@msn.com
|
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
- TB Collaboration – looking at the larger “system” within which the PAs
reside.
- Altering the “organizational” landscape,
via new or enhanced partnerships.
- Boundaries being “transcended” are more then political or geographic.
- Complex organizational arrangements that can not be met by a single
organization.
- TB Conservation about making boundaries more permeable.
|
|
6
|
- “The cultural and environmental realities are that many peoples as well
as wildlife, natural resources and ecological zones have always
transcended national boundaries in the region.”
- (SADC, ELMS, 1994,p.3)
|
|
7
|
- “If the existing boundaries – the ways we define and organize our lives
– fail to serve us, then we can change them. By transcending boundaries, steps are
taken to organize differently.
This means a shift to a different reality, a “trans” boundary
reality, in which boundaries are more permeable”
- (Griffin, 2003)
|
|
8
|
- Need – parties should need each other (interdependent, not dependent or
indep.)
- Synergism – amongst parties exists, the whole greater then sum of parts
- Quid pro quo – something to be gained by all parties.
- Power – all parties have some power or control over the situation
|
|
9
|
- Gemsbok NP (Bot.)- KalahariGem NP (SA) informally collaborating since
1948- census.
- Parks operating as one “system” without fencing and free movement of
wildlife.
- Yet limited and constrained b/c informal.
- 1999 Formally Declared – authorized to make joint management decisions
- Management coordinated, certain revenues shared and visitors have
increased freedom of movement.
|
|
10
|
- Need – parties needed each other
- Synergism – the whole was clearly greater then sum of parts
- Quid pro quo – something to be gained by all parties.
- Power – all parties had some power and control in the relationship,
which was formalized in an international agreeement.
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
- Lewin’s theory of change - basic elements of most change theories (1946
and 1951)
- Freeze – “holding on”
- Unfreeze – “letting go”, as shared need and future vision are deemed
desirable. An ending to what used
to be. Critical mass (tipping
point) when initial first steps and growing commitment happen
- Refreeze – new reality (depends on how tightly holding on to “new
reality”), which need systems and structures in place for the change to
“stick”, anchoring the collaborative effort and supporting it from
falling back to the way it was.
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
- Change comes from within. Change
will always come from within the individual, from within the group,
community, and/or from within the organization (system). (shared need)
- Permanent change requires a vision.
Unless we hold a clear and/or compelling picture of what the
change that needs to occur, the initial energy or reason for changing
will fade into the background. (shaping a vision)
- A great learning must occur.
Change is accompanied by a personal insight or a group awareness
that is shared with the larger community. So as to make it a permanent change,
the person or group, needs to share it with others, who will then
support them in the change.
(vision and mobilizing commitment)
- A healing forest must be present.
Any change to be permanent must have the support of the larger
community (involvement/participation of a diverse representation of
stakeholders), sharing with people outside the group as well.
(mobilizing commitment)
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
- Paradoxes of TB Change
- Slow down to speed up
- Start at the top … and start at the bottom
- Be authoritarian about participation
- Direct a non-directive process
- More structure allows more freedom
- Create “people” transformation by focusing on the TB “conservation”
rationale
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
- What initial actions have minimal risk and disruption?
- Where is the “biggest bang for the buck”, where quick (and needed
valuable) wins can be shown?
- How are these practical steps selected?
- What is done to keep those working on the transboundary initiative
focused on these tasks?
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
- Most TB change initiatives grossly underestimate the amount of and
strength of resistance to any change.
- It comes in many forms and guises -- overt, covert, conscious and
unconscious.
- Much of what we label “resistance” is people trying to cope with the transition
from the “Old Way” to the “New Way.”
- Understanding the nature of transitions and resistance is key to
dealing with it effectively.
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
- Important to distinguish
between dysfunctional resistance and functional coping.
- • “Coping” = moving through the stages
- • The problem is that “denial,” “anger,” “bargaining,” etc.
- look a lot like “resistance”
vs. “being good soldiers.”
- • What helps is the opportunity to talk about the change,
- its impacts, reactions,
things gained, things lost -- doing
- “the work” of letting go.
- • At some point, people have to get “unstuck”, let go and
- move on.
- • Change Leaders need to understand “resistance”, have
- techniques and tools for
getting through the change.
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
55
|
- “Forming”, groupings of individuals/organizations begin to recognize
some value of working together but what will look like is still unclear,
testing of each other.
- “Storming”, individuals/organizations become more aware of each other
and express their opinions more openly.
Hence, this stage is often characterized by interpersonal (or
inter-group/organizational) conflict.
- “Norming”, ground rules for how the group will function begin to
emerge. Roles and
responsibilities get clarified and a firmer foundation for collaboration
is forged.
- “Performing”, the group is now capable of effective functioning and is
accomplishing its goals and objectives.
Individuals/organizations which comprise the group are mutually
supportive and have learned to trust and depend on each other.
(Tuckman, 1965)
|
|
56
|
- Claes Jannsen’s (1982) Four Room Apartment – need to go through the room
of Chaos and Confusion to reach renewal
- Part and parcel of the TB change is to bring people into this room of
chaos where they will NOT want to go.
- Leaders in particular will want to hold on to power and control that
they are familiar with.
- Recognize and confront it when it is happening.
- Chaos – does not mean ‘no order what so ever”, but more a sense of being
open to outcome and not attached to outcome.
|
|
57
|
- Key for “change agents” involved in facilitating transboundary
collaboration is to understand that there involvement in the “system”
has an impact as soon as they intervene.
- Need to be aware of the “in” and “out” dynamic of their intervening
actions. When they are “in” the
system, they have a distinct impact on the energy of the system.
- They need to keep in mind what their intentions are and assure that they
are providing mobilization to the “energies” within the transboundary
system and are not drawing attention and energies to themselves and away
from the system.
- Similarly, when they are “out” – they have made their intervention -
this should be clearly communicated in words and in actions so that
there is not a dependency relationship established.
|
|
58
|
- Paper: Organizational Dynamics of TB Collaboration – supporting large
systems change - available via email
- Training at WCC – Room 2 - November 21-22nd
- Change Model - dynamics of transcending boundaries
- Experiential – learn about your own behaviors to change
- Address ways for finding Common Ground
- Integrating Learning for “back-home” situations
- Non-profit: focus on Organizational Development
- Email: JohnGGriffin@msn.com
|
Notes
