Development of the Corporate Intrapreneur - CSR Leadership Lessons from Guatemala

This week we will feature three blogs all with a focus on community development, corporate social responsibility or leadership development – with a particular emphasis on work being done in Guatemala.

While corporate social responsibility initiatives continue to be explored – there is continued emphasis on the finished output, e.g. the marketing campaign, measurement and compliance. What is not evident is the development of internal processes that, at the risk of using a new cliché, embed CSR into the DNA of the organization.

Bill Gates talks of “creative capitalism” – whereby “more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world’s inequities” and companies that embrace this will experience more success than those who seek profit at any “cost”. This former classification of companies focus on social entrepreneurship, or, as James Austin points out, they have working within their ranks , intrapreneurs. These are individuals who are focused on an internal organizational transformation that brings the company to a more aligned and advanced state of CSR and can address the personal instincts of –empathy and generosity, passion and ambition.

The Acacia Group’s focus in the highlands of Guatemala has led us to partner with the fantastic work of Ashoka fellow, Greg van Kirk. Greg operates a series of companies that focus on developing economic capacity within the region by working with locals in developing products for market, or creating an educational network to support the literacy needs of indigenous people. As described on their site, Social Entrepreneur Corps is a social enterprise that leads innovative and dynamic international internship, volunteering, consulting and insight travel programs. While primarily focused on student interns, the partnership with Acacia allows for more mature learners to participate and to have a hands-on learning experience with social entrepreneurship and ongoing leadership development. Another example of his entrepreneurial approach is his work with the Scojo foundation (renamed Vision Spring), where his assistance with the development of eye glass sales in Guatemala was highlighted in the NBC Nightly News (Click here for video). Here, instead of just handing out donated glasses, the Vision Spring works with local budding entrepreneurs who wish to move to independence by establishing business and management skills – and do so by selling the glasses for a low cost to those who need them.

So, what can budding leaders who are interested in CSR learn from Greg, and his social entrepreneurs in Guatemala? They can learn how to be emerging intrapreneurs – they can, in the words of Austin learn to show the following traits.

“CS Intrapreneurs have the following characteristics – they are internal champions, continuously advocating for the integration of social and business value as a central tenet for the company. They are good communicators, particularly articulate about the rationale and importance of the transformation….They are creators of innovative solutions: new resource configurations, actions and relationships…They are catalysts for change, who inspire and create synergies in the work of others. They are coordinators, able to effectively reach across internal and external boundaries, mobilizing and aligning interests. They are contributors – team players who enable other groups. Finally, they are shrewd calculators; cognizant of the realities of the corporate environment, they are cost-conscious and mindful of the bottom line.”

Greg van Kirk is all of these things and provides those who wish to learn the opportunity to develop their own intrapreneurial skill set leading to robust and internalized CSR strategies.

Have you seen or experienced the embedding of a social entrepreneurship mindset into an organization’s CSR strategy? Or, within an individual? - Who are your examples of leaders who understand that people and planet come first – and profits can follow?

Why We Should Stop Running to Help Developing Nations....and Start Paying Attention

This is the third and final blog in a series that examines the concept  of bias as it relates to CSR, leadership and cultural intervention.  The core business elements of The Acacia Group, Socially Responsible Leadership Experiences 

“Deep in every liberal sensibility is a profound sense that in a world of moral uncertainty one idea is sacred, one belief cannot be compromised: the rich should help the poor, and the form of this help should be aid…[and yet]…across the globe the recipients of this aid are worse off: much worse off. Aid has helped make the poor poorer, and growth slower.” Dambisa Moyo, in "Dead Aid"
 
Over the past 5 decades, developed countries have poured over a trillion dollars (US) into developing countries. Yet for many observers there is little evidence of the sustainable improvements in the lives of the world’s poor that would be expected from this level of investment. Something does not seem to be working. Books are written, suggestions made, studies conducted, debates held, and international commitments made. So why is there this ongoing deep disconnect between the desire of people and countries to help others from making a sustainable and positive difference?

Stories and myths abound of well intentioned individuals and organizations that follow the well trod path to developing communities and countries wanting to make a difference and only making problems. And yet there are successes. From my own experiences and readings on the topic I am increasingly curious about the emergence of what appear to be approaches that seem to break from our cultural beliefs regarding development and aid. I am curious about a need for a shift in our thinking:

From "We are experts" To "I have something to learn from you" - North American culture values experts and specialists. We are well educated and we believe that our knowledge is true – therefore if we bring our knowledge to a developing community or country their circumstances will improve. This is a belief that leaves little room in our thinking to hear and perceive the knowledge of the people we are coming to help.


From "We can bring in a solution from elsewhere and it will work here" To "Your circumstances are unique and need to be understood before a solution can be created" – Modernism has led us to believe that processes and structures can be transferred from one context to another and that they will `fit’. Years of organizational experience should be telling us that this is rarely the experience.

From "We can talk about your needs without you in the conversation" To 'You are the most important participants in the conversation" - In the Foreword to the book Dead Aid, the contributor Niall Ferguson makes an important observation – “…it has long seemed to me problematic, and even a little embarrassing, that so much of the public debate about Africa’s economic problems should be conducted by non-African white men.” Effective conversations happen when all the people involved come into the conversation and are prepared to listen and be changed by the conversation. It is in conversation where we chose to be open to new possibilities, especially when all perspectives are present
.
From "There is one right way" To 'There are multiple and contradictory ways to the outcomes desired" – It is uncomfortable for us to live with the ambiguity of multiple and contradictory solutions and we have a socialized preference to reject ambiguity and to move to quickly to action. We want people and governments to move quickly and to make decisions correctly, and we have low tolerance for error.
Fortunately there are personal mastery competencies that we can foster that will help us shift our thinking:


Humility – a belief that there are things that I don’t know and I want to learn from you.
Curiosity – a willingness to be open to other perspectives and to examining my own deeply held beliefs.
Unhelpfulness – as Peter Block identifies in Community : The structure of belonging,  - don’t be helpful. Being helpful and giving advice are really ways to control others. In community we want to substitute curiosity for advice.
Embrace Ambiguity – Acknowledgment of the liberating concept of  "I don’t know what I don’t know and things will emerge as we learn together".

Looking for some ideas on how to shift your thinking on international aid? Check out Community Enterprise Solutions and Changemakers. Or, share some of your own thoughts as to how we can move beyond our bias’ and neo-colonial attitudes and behaviors.

Living in a Change of Ages, Rather an Age of Change

This is the second in a series of blogs identifying how personal or corporate bias plays out in the world of CSR, Community Development and Leadership Development – the three core areas of The Acacia Group – Socially Responsible Leadership Experiences

I wonder how many of us cut our leadership teeth on expressions like, “Don’t bring me your problems, bring me your solutions” and “it’s all about execution”. The days of riding in on your white horse with the one right answer are really over. Not only are horses in short supply but so is the one right answer... A friend of mine suggests that we are not so much living in an age of change but rather a change of ages. We are moving culturally from the modern era which was characterized by the machine metaphor...think industrialization, rationality, and science, to the post modern era, think imagination, intuition, and systems thinking.

This tectonic shift has a huge impact on leadership and learning and it is little wonder that people often feel isolated, alone, and confused. If your thinking leads you to believe that the wisdom of the group is greater than the wisdom of the one, if you believe that leadership styles may need to shift with shifting contexts, and if you imagine that there are multiple right answers (less either/or and more both/and) than you are more likely a post modern leader. The good news is that this is the way of the future...yes you’re getting it, less like the Wizard of Oz and more like Dorothy. The future belongs to the wayfarer, the pilgrim, the journeyman. The one willing to begin the voyage without all the right answers.
While many of us have started down the path to becoming a post modern leader few of us would actually say that we practice as post modern leaders. This makes sense as much of our experience and many of our role models have been firmly rooted in the modern tradition. Michael Fullan, a renowned Canadian leadership scholar, suggests that “the two greatest failures of leaders are indecisiveness in times of urgent need for action and dead certainty that they are right in times of complexity.”

So how do we get better at challenging our own thinking while simultaneously taking action? I believe it is through the discipline of reflective practice. Reflective practice is a term first used by Donald Schon in his book, “The Reflective Practitioner”. To be reflective means to be aware of our own filters for seeing the world, to be aware of our assumptions, to take an inquiring stance toward our own effectiveness and to view all of life as an opportunity to learn. The reflective leader is learning to see in the moment everything they would see if they were able to step out of that moment and reflect.

Complex times call for complexity of mind. The post modern era requires leaders who can manage an increase in the occurrence and speed of change, who can handle greater levels of ambiguity and uncertainty and who can see the strength of diverse perspectives. It calls for reflection AND action. William Bergquist, an internationally-known coach, consultant, trainer and educator defines post modern leadership as leadership that is”...effectively exerted and influential if applied at the right time, in the right place, in the right manner, and with regard to the right problem or goal.” It does not require a white horse.


This Blog is written by Christine Bonney, a Managing Partner at the Acacia Group, responsible for leadership development and coaching

Perspective is Everything

It is inevitable that we are biased by our experiences, passions and interests. This week we will write a series of Blogs identifying how that plays out in the world of CSR, Community Development and Leadership Development – the three core areas of The Acacia Group.

Let’s start with this little exercise…go on, humor me. Look at the ceiling, now with your right arm – draw a circle in the air – your arm must move in a clockwise direction. Now….while your arm is moving, slowly lower it and keep making circles until your hand is below your knees. Your arm is now moving in a counter clockwise direction. You would have bet a lot of money that your arm was moving clockwise…this was your truth. I think it was an article in Fast Company years ago that stated…”We all fall in love with the things we think are true”. This simple act illustrates the value of perspective – your hand does not change direction of course...your view does. First you look at it from below and then from above. Same movement – different view.

How Bias Plays Out with CSR

First of all, let’s be clear the bias from a company exists…it is bound to. Fritz Redl a prominent psycho-educator commented on the “value system that oozes from our pores”. Our speech, our manner of dress, our offices, are all manifestations of our respective value systems, and by default you will judge those who are different from you in some way and vice versa. So, understanding this when speaking to an NGO that you wish to do business with is a key factor for success. Let’s list some fundamental, but sometimes overlooked, aspects of establishing the connection between

1. Understand that your need is not their need

Just because you have the desire and the resources to contribute does not mean that you understand how to create the biggest impact. Showing up to a program with a pre-conceived solution to an ill informed notion of a problem is a sure way to create a gap between the NGO, the end beneficiaries and your own organization. Such an approach can breed hostility and resentment and can sabotage a potentially positive relationship. So…..

2. Understand that the time lines are different

Business thinking has to be adjustable, responsive and at times quick to respond to environmental events. Programs that focus on the environment and social change require a great deal of time and commitment to create the change. – Be aware of your time horizon and how that meshes with the needs of the organization you are wishing to work with. If you are looking for a quick win, declare that, but also understand that effective CSR is about strategic alignment of all programs and is not just about a dose of reputation management or good PR. NGO’s are more likely to engage with you and take you seriously if you can illustrate a longer term commitment of ideas and resources. So….

3. Be Prepared to Invest in Relationships

Increasingly post-modern organizations are wising up to the idea that business is better through the development of relationships. The time commitment allows you to actually create chemistry with your prospective NGO or community partner and allows them to get to know you too. (It also allows them to rid themselves of their biases of you). So…

4. Be Clear

CSR is still a business proposition, (yes, it may make you feel good) but the need for clarity of roles and outcomes is fundamentally important. The NGO or community probably does not want to be part of an unhealthy dependency on the work that is being discussed, and you should not end up being responsible for the success or failure of that particular NGO. In sum, make the implicit-explicit.

Perhaps the biggest bias of all is that organizations wishing to grow their CSR presence may perceive that they are the driver in the relationship. New CSR is shifting this however, and in reality the for-profit corporation may need alignment with anl NGO more than the NGO does. The power imbalance is disappearing and organizations seeking to jump on the CSR bandwagon would do well to check their ego and biases at the door.

The Problem We Refuse to See

On Saturday morning I went off to attend a movie at a local film festival. I knew the movie I was choosing to see would be disturbing as the subject was the sexual exploitation of children. Despite knowing that, I was unprepared for the visceral response I would have. Playground literally knocked the wind out of me. Director, Libby Spears has created a subtly nuanced film that balances unpalatable truths with the voices of children. My expectation was that I would see disturbing images of children in Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia, so I was surprised when Spears’ journey with the film led her back to North America. It is impossible to watch this film and to continue to believe that this problem is in the brothels of the developing world. Playground is the story of the North American underbelly.

But for me, as a parent, the most chilling statement was, “If you think this isn’t happening in your neighbourhood, you are simply choosing not to see it.” Even a little research into human trafficking in Canada reveals that the R.C.M.P. estimates that 800 foreign women are bought into the Canadian sex trade each year by human traffickers. Another 2,200 newcomers to Canada are smuggled into the United States from Canada for work in brothels, sweatshops, domestic jobs and construction work. It is widely believed that only 1 in 10 victims in trafficking report to the police, so the numbers are likely much larger

According to the US State Dept. “Canada is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labour. Canadian women and girls, many of whom are aboriginal, are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation...Canada has no national strategy for finding traffickers, no national plan for identifying and helping victims and little understanding of who the victims are.”

Both Playground and my cursory look at Canada`s involvement in sex trafficking have made me aware that the problem is monumental. The US Justice department claims that the world`s commercial sexual exploitation of children is the fastest growing form of organized crime. In the second decade of the 21st century the prostitution of children worldwide will net more than the sale of illegal drugs.

Playground raises questions that are extremely difficult to answer:
• How do we educate the public on crimes that can’t be shown?
• How do we change our systems so that the young and vulnerable are protected and not criminalized?
• How do we come to terms culturally with the ways in which we sexualize children?

The data that shows that Canadians are complicit in some of this activity reminds me of the diffusion of responsibility and the Kitty Genovese incident in New York – everybody thought someone else would do something. Is that the case here? I am left wondering how does one person make a difference...?


Written by Christine Bonney - Christine is a Managing Partner at The Acacia Group - Socially Responsible Leadership Experiences

Is All CSR Golden? - Appraising the Value of What's Important

The buzz of the Olympics is still being discussed as Canadians relish in the all important hockey gold, and play armchair detective wondering what has happened to Sidney Crosby’s missing stick. The world has noted that Canada has embraced a new pride in nationalism, and the London Olympic organizing committee is apparently trying to figure out how to mimic the tremendous tightness of community celebrations that occurred in downtown Vancouver. On the heels of such success, the federal government has agreed to continue funding for the controversial (for some) Own the Podium program and an article in the Globe and Mail indicates that a business consortium named B2Ten has agreed to raise an “audacious amount of money” to ensure that more Canadian athletes taste success on the world stage.

Does corporate contribution to athletes training amount to CSR? And, if it does, is this as valuable as other endeavors of CSR that may focus on housing, education and health care?

B2Ten is a consortium of corporations that according to J.D. Miller the Montreal businessman who helped found the program, wants to do “something really meaningful”. More meaningful one supposes, than the $3 million allocated to 25 athletes. Those athletes who comprised just 9% of Team Canada, had at the time of print of the Globe article earned 40% of the national medal total.
To be clear, Own the Podium is a shared venture between the federal and provincial governments and nine corporate sponsors and allocated $110 million to 100 athletes. With this kind of complexity and bulk comes bureaucracy. With B2Ten however– they can select athletes based on applications and apply just the right amount of support in the right place at the right time. With these picks the return on investment is more calculated and the chance of success if a bit higher – leading to good brand recognition and cache for the sponsoring organization.

The payoff from a community perspective is that young people are inspired to achieve, to believe that they too may be destined for greatness and on a behavioral basis this can translate into more active teens with the commensurate decrease in health problems related to inactivity. Additionally, a sense of connection to the community can theoretically decrease incidences of property crime – all good stuff as any sense of community pride has offshoots to a more civil society.
So, here’s the question. Is there something inherently less valuable in making money off of temporary Olympic glory with all the sexy PR and national fervor associated with it, versus investing in the longer term commitments of health and social programs? Or, should we embrace all socially responsible activities as valid and good?

I think the answer lies in the fact that organizations can and should use CSR as a competitive advantage and differentiator. There is ample “good work” to be done, the method of drawing in customers, increasing market share and the like is equally varied. We can argue that $3m can be spent in a more effective way, but ultimately it is up to the company to determine what is of value to them. CSR activities should not be homogenous but should reflect the values and biases (and market segment) of the organizations that bring resources to the table. The value is in the eyes of the beholder.

Cleaning Up After the Elephant

While some organizations are embracing new and exciting ways of engaging in CSR, others are still are using it as an “after the fact” intervention. A conversation with an oil exec from Calgary illustrates this. While interested in the potential for good that CSR can create, he reported that for his company the CSR department was only used after the elephant had left the room…and the room now needed cleaning.

First of all, to be clear, this is not social responsibility. This is reputation management and misses the mark of the basic assumptions of doing the right thing. I would be surprised if this approach can be sustained for much longer. Consumer interest demands greater transparency, news stories of CSR are on the increase and ultimately these collective activities will start to impact shareholder opinion and investment.

CSR is about looking into the business environment now and the future…and understanding how to create leverage by engaging with public interests and contributing to solutions in advance of problems. For larger organizations this is no easy task as they look up down the value chain and understand that they are susceptible throughout and therefore must be vigilant and deliberate in their intentions. This task is made easier by the embedding of CSR into the strategy to go forward, it is not a communications device, and it is more than a extension of the HR portfolio.

The challenge is to effectively weave the CSR strategy into the corporate DNA and to intertwine the performance and metrics of this practice with the larger or broader goals of the organization. This kind of approach supports the embedding of CSR into the longer term strategic plan of the organization and then reporting out on progress and adjusting accordingly.

Are companies getting this? Are there companies in the energy sector that are showing new and novel ways to engage and add value to the communities in which they do business? Finally, and this may be a discussion for another day, even if the energy sector (fossil fuel based) is trying to clean up its act….and does some good, can it ever stop itself from being an elephant?

The Convenience of CSR

A good friend of mine once said about being an employer…” We don’t support people only when it is convenient for us to do so”.  I have used this statement repeatedly in numerous contexts since it was introduced to me many years ago. And, I hope I have practiced it.

Responsibility and Relationship

In my mind it goes to the center of the connection between the concepts of relationship and responsibility. Let’s separate these two for a moment. Within the context of corporate social responsibility I have heard responsibility described as the moral commitment to do what is expected.  This is fine starting place and many companies would do well just to meet this standard. My concern is that this kind of standard is less a ceiling for high achievement but rather a floor of minimal expectations – essentially compliance to societal norms or industrial regulations.  If however, we add the concept of relationship, that is, something that matters, does this start to elevate the behavior associated with responsibility to something that is of a higher measure?

A blog by Aman Singh questions the role of CSR officers within large corporations.  She argues that while the role is still being established the immaturity of it means that officers from elsewhere within the organization are being shoehorned into the positions because of their talent shown elsewhere, not because of some understanding  or even passion for CSR objectives and outcomes.  This approach is in danger of supporting an activity because “it is convenient to do so”.

Aman goes on to state “In a knee jerk reaction, we are instituting them (the uninformed CSR officer) as our green spokespersons but not demanding that they embed sustainability in the company’s long term strategy and all operations. Until regulation and stakeholders support us, achieving corporate social responsibility remains an elusive goal, titles notwithstanding.”

So…what if we found a way to bring in the second element in the connection?...the relationship? What if we found a way to not only discover the long term strategic touchpoints between traditional corporate strategy and long term CSR, but we did so by actually embedding the emerging leaders within CSR programs and services(relationships that matter) and then used those actual activities as levers for understanding themselves, their roles and responsibilities within their company, the communities in which they do business and ultimately leadership itself.

From a corporate perspective would this be inconvenient?  Probably, yet it would demonstrate a  pivotal shift from CSR as an adjunctive program to one of true strategic differentiation and long term commitment

CSR or Corporate Sustainability

An interesting article appeared on the Wall Street Journal community discussion area a few days ago, it’s worth checking out – the title “Good Intentions – Corporations Reconsider CSR” was the latest in a shift away from the terminology of CSR to Corporate Sustainability or CS.
It is interesting to see the face of CSR change from a predominantly externally focused perspective (society) to an internal one (corporate sustainability). The systemic focus of CSR or CS obviously shows a dependency whereby the health of one entity is largely if not entirely dependent upon the health of the other. The shift however is pivotal in that the increased focus on a CS perspective compels the organization to examine their approach to society, the environment and the bottom line from a truly strategic perspective rather than an add on that is secondary to day to day operations.
Progressive organizations woke up a long time ago to the fact that the HR department and its various subsets of talent management, succession management, retention and recruitment should not be the poor cousins at the executive table but are key contributors to the success of both short and long term strategy. Will we start to see the Chief Responsibility/Sustainability Officer join the exec table as valued member contributing to strategy?
So, Coke has listed CSR as the second most powerful driver of employee engagement after leadership. What would happen if hands on exposure to CSR initiatives were a pre-requisite for promotions within the leadership ranks? Perhaps then CSR would truly influence the internal machinery of the executive suite.
If someone is looking for such a beast, I happen to know of an innovative new company……
Submitted by Dave Harrhy

Can Disaster Relief Contribute to a Longer Term CSR Focus

As the relief efforts continue to build for the disaster in Haiti, we can be impressed by the response of corporations as they respond with contributions of goods and money(Coca Cola – provides water and $1m, (www.thecoca-colacompany.com/.../viewpoints_haiti_earthquake_relief_efforts.html ) Safeway over $100,000 from Canada to the Red Cross (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2010/15/c9018.html) and services. This response is outstanding example of how corporations can utilize their resources to contribute to the greater good.
As with any disaster, personal or private, the best responses from the community should happen in a timely fashion with assistance, comfort and supplies. Yet it is when the immediate danger has passed, when the trauma has just started to settle in, when the long term losses become so real, that those who have survived really need the support. Haiti will take years to rebuild and countless resources of time and finances – so two questions emerge. 1. Is it the role of corporations to continue to provide resources for this disaster? ; and 2. How does a corporation make its efforts in Haiti, or in any CSR endeavor truly sustainable?
Time has shown that during times of disaster and war there can be advancements made in science and health care…maybe the same can be said of our compassion? A recent Globe and Mail workplace poll of readers indicated that 51% of their companies were noted as contributing to the relief efforts in Haiti. Does that mean that those who are not contributing are not “good” companies? Are those who are contributing “better”? Are they doing so in a way that reflects their core competence? Are they doing so in a way that allows their contributions to be sustainable – both in terms of the needs to be met as well as their ability as a company to meet those needs? There is nothing wrong with giving something back via the contribution to relief efforts – these efforts speak to the notion of a “global community” – but in order to make a lasting change in the lives of Haitians and arguably the lives of employees or stakeholders – which companies are stepping up to be industry leaders or even world leaders and creating a sustainable and long-term commitment to Haiti? Contributions to disaster relief are to be encouraged, “give what you can” is a well worn and useful mantra. Given the resources of corporations however, the challenge resides in their ability to choose whether or not they can and should craft a responsible solution so that Haitians and the corporation can prosper over the long-term. To do so elevates the practice of CSR to be both a compassionate and strategic objective.

Jamaica Life and Debt

Last night our local Amnesty International chapter showed the movie Life and Debt, a documentary about Jamaica's experience with the IMF and the World Bank. I found this movie to be excellent in its portrayal of the relationship between a developing country and the IMF - including the outcomes and, hopefully, unintended consequences that result. The approach taken in the documentary is to contrast the experience of tourists who arrive in a beautiful Caribbean destination resort and the lives of the people whose country is indebted to the IMF. What appears to be a systematic dismantling of the local economy, by the terms imposed by the international community, perpetuates a cycle of debt and poverty. Unfortunately it would appear that the interests of American and multinational corporations reign while the hopes, dreams, and prosperity of individuals, families and communities are disposable.
Is there not enough that has been learned following decades of failed policy that the time has arrived for new approaches can be considered. In the world of organizations and quality there is a truism - the definition of insanity is trying the same things while expecting different results. Different results need new thinking - thinking that is grounded in whole system approaches and community. I am sure that when people who have been working to examine alternative ways of viewing system level problems are brought together with people who are skilled in facilitating whole system processes along with decision makers who truly want to break the poverty cycle - new thinking can emerge that is a win win win.
Please - we owe it to the people in our world who are trapped in circumstances beyond their ability to influence to try.

Learning Together

Here at The Acacia Group we are committed to learning. On a regular basis we gather together and delve into a topic, usually an article or web site, to see what we can co-learn together. We find this to be a generative learning experience – the topic may not be directly related to the core social responsibility and leadership development work of The Acacia Group; however as we explore the topic we often find new ways to view the work that we are doing and the world that we are interacting with. It also helps that we genuinely like and respect each other and that we all enjoy a fine glass of wine and good food.
We find that our conversations are rich. What catches one persons attention may have been missed by the others –and the meaning that one person applies to a concept can be completely different then the next person’s.
Some of our topics have included the Characteristics of the Best Workplaces in Canada, Coaching across Cultures, Managing with the Brain in Mind, Wisdom in Three Acts, and The Tale of Three Organizations.
One of my favorite conversations ended up being about `Why would you choose an Acacia Group Socially Responsible Leadership Experience? Our answers: to gain intelligence and wisdom… a desire to do good… to be a part of creating what is still to come… to go into the lion’s den… for the growth and challenge… to experience community… to become connected to more… to breathe life in to the phrase Global Community… to be different than I am right now… to replace surface conversations about corporate culture with conversations that have depth and meaning… to learn about more than just one right answer… to frame my world differently… to find the most innocent thing that makes the biggest difference…

A corporate perspective on why CSR is important

It would appear that CSR continues to be a corporate imperative that is recognized by senior leaders and corporations. This short video provides a brief overview of why one leading organization believes CSR is worth the investment. In this video the impact of having a CSR strategy on staff engagement is highlighted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKn93VViUc

What is Leadership Coaching?

Leadership Development happens in many ways...training, on the job learning, mentoring and increasingly, through a personalized style of learning called executive or leadership coaching. Coaching is a tool that helps leaders develop and hone their ability to learn. It is about meta-learning or learning about our own ability to learn.
Learning refers to the concerted activity that increases the capacity and willingness of individuals, teams, organizations, and communities to acquire and productively apply new knowledge and skills. The ability to learn increases our capacity as individuals to grow and mature and to adapt successfully to change. Learning empowers individuals and organizations to make wise choices about the world around them, to solve problems, and to innovate. It is this kind of learning that is a sustainable, lifelong, renewable process for people, for organizations, and for the communities they serve.
Coaching for leadership development focuses on the discipline of personal mastery. Peter Senge, renowned author, educator, and speaker on learning defines personal mastery as” ...continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience and of seeing reality objectively.” Coaching is a systematic, effective methodology to increase personal mastery, awareness, and performance in leaders. Coaching explicitly supports the learners to help them understand their own learning style and to observe and reflect on what they are learning. Coaching is a collaborative, results-oriented process that engages the learner in identifying their own learning gaps and in finding systematic solutions to address them.
People are primarily engaged in the process of making meaning of the world around them. This effort to understand or make sense of the world is extremely useful. It enables us to understand the past, make sense of the present and, to a degree, predict the future. As we mature, we adopt certain filters, or ways of seeing the world. These ways of making sense or making meaning are useful in some circumstances and potentially limiting in others. Coaching helps to highlight the ways in which we filter information and actively encourages us to incorporate new and diverse perspectives. Coaching helps a leader to consciously nurture meaningful experiences and as a result take meaningful action.
Learning about our own learning requires the active collaboration of both the coach and the leader. The coach’s role is to listen deeply, to encourage, to inquire and to empower leaders to reach their fullest level of capability. The leader’s role is to bring all of their experience and knowledge to the relationship, to be open, and to be willing to make change through deliberate and planned action. Coaching is a powerful tool for people who want to take their leadership to another level...

Do we Need Leaders who Focus on Engagement rather then Vision setting?

In preparation for some upcoming work, I am revisiting my favorite sites for literature and other resources on facilitation and the art of conversation. This has led me through a number of sites and postings that discuss dialogue, conversation, engagement, and whole system processes as approaches to changing the conversation and the way that we make meaning so that we can be open to new possibilities for the future. Many of these articles reflect the belief that the intractable problems of today cannot be solved by the same frameworks that caused these problems in the first place.
In my journey, I happily stumbled upon a document by Peter Block - a well known organizational theorist. In this article (Civic Engagement and Conversation - http://www.peterblock.com/assets/Civic.pdf ) the author states that we need to "...shift our thinking of leadership. The dominant belief system is that the task of leadership is to set a vision, enroll others in it, and hold people accountable through measurements and reward. The shift is to believe that the task of leadership is to produce engagement. To engage groups of people in a way that creates accountability, which is to care for the well being of the whole, and commitment, which is to make and fulfill a promise without expectation of return."
It seems to me that this is a substantial change in how we think about leadership as our society/ culture today is not fond of personal accountability and commitment (we do like these concepts for others though). While the article presents a stirring perspective on engagement and provides many ideas on some tools for engaging, I am left wondering how this shift in viewing leadership would shift our perceptions of the core competencies for a leader who chooses to lead from the place of engagement. My thoughts are that listening (deep listening), being open to what unfolds through the conversations, personal accountability and commitment, deep curiosity, and a rare ability to stay open to what may emerge would be some of the competencies. In fact this seems to be a good fit with Theory U (Uncovering the Blind Spot of Leadership by C. Otto Scharmer) as he writes on the importance of a leaders ability to operate from the future possibility that emerges. It sounds generative and hopeful for those of us who are ready to shift and scary for anyone that has been mentored and is comfortable in an authoritative and command style of leadership.
I am curious to hear from others as they reflect on their assumptions, practices and hopes for their own leadership and the leadership of others.

Complex Challenges and the need to Transform our Thinking

As I read different materials for work that I am engaged in, I am often struck by how the different ideas complement one another. A friend of mine recently sent me some material from a book (Community Conversations by Paul Born). In an introductory paragraph, the author names a challenge: the issues facing communities and those at risk are complex - and yet the system yields simplistic solutions. In a textbook for executive coaches ( Ed. Fitzgerald and Garvey Berger, 2002 Executive Coaching Practices & Perspectives) an overview is given of Robert Kegan's adult development model and summarizes its essence as follows: "Kegan distinguishes between informational learning, which is new knowledge added to the current from of one's mind, and transformational learning, or learning that changes the very form of one's mind, making it more spacious, more complex, and more able to deal with multiple demands and with uncertainty...transformation occurs when we develop the ability to step back and reflect on something that used to be hidden or taken for granted and make decision about it....transformative learning happens when someone changes "not just they way he behaves, not just the way he feels, but the way he knows - not just what he knows but the way he knows". "
My conclusion is that transformational learning will prepare our minds for the complex challenges we are facing. To address the complex challenges that exist in our world, in our communities, and in our organizations, I need to be open to transformative learning experiences. The question then becomes how do each of us do this - find and engage in transformative learning experiences. The imperative certainly seems to be present!

Employee Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility

The following is an excerpt from this weekend's Globe and Mail (October 31, 2009, The business section, page B18).
...More than half of Canadians would be willing to accept a pay cut or a lesser job title in order to work for an organization with a sound corporate reputation a poll by staffing company Kelly Services has found. A company’s ethical behavior was cited as an important factor in deciding where to work by 97% of the 7,000 surveyed (!), with 53% saying they would take a pay cut to work for an employer with a reputation for caring about employees and the community. And 91% per cent said they would consider an employer’s efforts to reduce global warming when choosing a career. The percentages were nearly identical in all age groups. The findings indicate that “employees take pride not only in what they do while at work but in what they do while at work, but in what their organization stands for and how it is perceived by the entire community”, says Kelly vice-president and Canadian managing director Karin French.
It appears to be increasingly critical for an organization to examine it's business practices and the alignment with corporate social responsibility in order to be attractive to employees. Success in this area, we believe, is linked to the development of the organizations leaders.
What is your experience - does your organization retain you because of their corporate social responsiblity?