David Castro's book Genership 1.0:
Beyond Leadership Toward Liberating the Creative Soul offers some
thoughts on leadership that can be valuable to new social ventures in
particular. Bad assumptions, the quest for salvation and barriers to
effective group thinking could all undermine a social venture.
Assumptions in Social Venture
Planning:
New social ventures should proceed on
sound assumptions. This statement should sound familiar and obvious.
Putting an idea into practice— by testing assumptions and rejecting
the bad ones—does not always happen. This fact is evident in how
individuals in organizations plan and solve problems.
Castro reminds us that the past might
not be a reliable guide for the present. He points out that past
experiences often don't translate because the current social
environment is not like the past social environment. This is only a
problem when social entrepreneurs forget that what worked for their
heroes and mentors thirty years ago may no longer be applicable.
Assuming that lessons learned in the
past are still useful is one thing, but not the only thing. Other
assumptions about technology, human relations and economics might no
longer apply. Indeed assumptions about the way to structure a new
organization or program might not apply. That's not to say most
learning from the past needs to be ignored; just revisit anything
critical to the new enterprise.
Looking for Salvation:
Many times a group with a big challenge
will look outside for some guru or champion who can fix things. This
is a real recipe for problems according to Castro's analysis of
leadership fallacies. Wise social entrepreneurs will focus on
resources that are already available to the group: ideas, creativity
and specialized knowledge.
A management guru, strategy consultant
or big donor will not save the day either. Or, at least the wise
entrepreneur would not want to depend on that. Social venture groups
need to save themselves instead of looking for a nonprofit savior.
Thinking at the Right Level:
The level of thinking that group
members are at can be a serious barrier to effective thinking. Castro
writes about four levels of thinking that might exist in an
organization.
Sheep do not think much—about
thinking or anything. Sheep just do things reflexively and therefore
have little desire to create anything new and useful or to come up
with better ways to solve problems. Sheep-like thinking in a social
venture leads to nonproductive behavior. Social ventures are not
likely to germinate from group thinking at this level.
Groupthink is the second level
of thinking in a group. Having everyone “on the same page” is
important, but it runs the risk of prompting everyone to go along
with ideas that are not necessarily the best ideas. Real discussion
about challenges and opportunities may not happen at this level of
thinking.
The next step up
in effective thinking comes when group members start to debate
things. At this level of thinking, people begin to question ideas and
opinions and defend their own ideas about what the group should do.
This level of thinking allows room for some innovation and learning,
but real progress might still beg a higher level of group thinking.
A
high-functioning group will have members who prefer to engage in
dialogue,
a mutual exploration of a subject. Dialogue leaves room for some
disagreement and argument, but the group members are committed to
working together and “figuring things out” in whatever form that
activity might take. This is the state of affairs the founders of a
social venture should aim for.
Leadership Challenges Have
Solutions:
Any effort to start a new program,
movement or charity will be full of challenges with which effective
leadership or collaboration will be difficult. Ineffective thinking
just makes things more difficult. Future posts will explore effective
thinking in social ventures in more detail. Castro's ideas on
effective thinking—and the barriers to it—can help prompt more
honest exploration of a path toward dynamic and successful social
ventures.
Comments
Post a Comment