The dark side of humanity

This post is one of my comments, in a discussion about Agustina Piedrabuena's excellent Edgeryders mission report on open government.

I really like this quote from George Bernard Shaw: "Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything."

I seek to know what are the thoughts of leaders.

Photo: Marie-France Hirigoyen

These past years, as a personal interest, I documented myself about manipulators. I looked at the work of psychiatrists. Dr Marie-France Hirigoyen, a French psychiatrist specialized in bullying in the work place and harassment, describes the behavior of manipulators with great magnificient details. In what was initially a personal research, I realized that several of these behaviors can be observed among decision makers. While some may accept to change, Hirigoyen underlines that for a category of individuals in particular, there is nothing to do, nothing to expect.

HIRIGOYEN: "A person completely devoid of empathy, devoid of respect for others, that he/she considers as useful objects for their needs of power and authority. He/she needs to crush to exist. His/her victims remain fragile and malleable because of their thirst for love and recognition.

They can not stand to be wrong, do not have open and constructive discussions, they openly flout their victims, they do not hesitate to denigrate. They do it subtly, by allusions, just as destructive, but invisible to the unsuspecting eye.

They are insensitive, without affect. In this way, they do not suffer. If they were aware of their suffering, there could be a start of something for them.

These are individuals facing megalomania as a reference. They set themselves as a standard of good and evil, a standard of truth. They are often credited with a sanctimonious air of superiority and remoteness. Even if they say nothing, others feel at fault. They point to their impeccable moral values ​​that gives a good image of themselves. They denounce human malevolence. They have a total lack of interest and empathy for others, but they want others to be interested in them. They criticize everyone, allow no questioning and no complaint. They point faults in others, as a way to avoid seeing their own faults.

They are often described as bright and attractive people. Once the fish is caught, they just keep hanging to it as they are needed. Others does not exist, others are not seen, others are not heard, others are only useful.

Their critical function is exacerbated, therefore they spend their time criticizing everything and everyone. In this way, they remain in the omnipotence. If the others are not competent, therefore they fell necessarily better than them.

The most important thing is to understand that the manipulator does not change, EVER.

You can never get from him/her any recognition, remorse, regrets, apologies. The only thing you can do is protect yourself."

And Hirigoyen concludes with this: "It does not call into question the notion of humanity, it challenges our ideals. ONE IS FORCED TO ACCEPT THE DARK SIDE OF HUMANITY."

There is a bright side to Humanity. By contributing to creating a model of "luminous man", I am hoping that diversification in leadership models will eventually have those locked in the dark side be eliminated from political circles and governments. I do not want any dark side leaders in an open government environment. Please go away, dark side leaders! Step out!

In my twenties, I had a picture of Yoda above my bed. Star Wars had a really deep effect on me!

Read more about this discussion at Edgeryders.

En quoi consiste Edgeryders?

Voici un billet rédigé spécialement pour le nouveau blogue 'Democratieouverte.org', qui présente Edgeryders à la communauté francophone.

**************************

Que se passe-t-il lorsque quelqu'un a une idée innovante qui contribuerait à rendre le monde meilleur? Cette idée est-elle encouragée? De quelles façons se comportent les gouvernements face aux idées nouvelles? Les personnes qui innovent arrivent-elles à gagner leur vie suffisamment bien? Apparemment, ce n'est pas le cas. Les grands penseurs sont pauvres. Même que toute une génération n'arrive pas à atteindre son plein potentiel.

Le groupe de réflexion Edgeryders tente de déchiffrer en quoi consiste la précarité lors de circonstances inhabituelles. Edgeryders, un projet conjoint du Conseil de l'Europe et de la Commission européenne, est dirigé par la Division pour le développement de la cohésion sociale et alerte précoce du Conseil de l'Europe.

Le paradoxe est que la jeune génération actuelle est probablement plus que jamais créative, généreuse, idéaliste, et collaboratrice. Des jeunes créent leur propre emploi, semblant tout droit sorti de nulle part, avec des projets d'entreprises entièrement nouvelles. Ils vivent en dehors des sentiers battus. Ils vivent et pensent autrement. Ils véhiculent des valeurs différentes. En intégrant ces capacités, cette génération s'affaire à construire le monde dans lequel nous vivrons demain.

Par le biais de «petits paquets de recherche», les participants de Edgeryders sont appelés à réfléchir sur plusieurs grandes problématiques. Avec ce que l'on pourrait qualifier d'approche adaptative, le Conseil de l'Europe se penche sur chacune de ces expériences, qui sont validées grâce à l'évaluation par les pairs, et les utilisera pour proposer à la Commission européenne et à ses États membres une nouvelle stratégie.

Dans un premier temps, COMPRENDRE. Le Conseil de l'Europe cherche à constater que les luttes des jeunes, si difficilement traversées pour arriver à mettre quelque chose sur pied, indiquent qu'il s'agit de préoccupations profondes, et correspondent à ce que ces gens veulent vraiment. Que font ces jeunes dès maintenant pour construire le monde que nous habiterons dans 20 ans? La première partie de l'exercice consiste à repenser les objectifs des politiques publiques.

Dans un second temps, AIDER. Créer des conditions pour que les stratégies - qui exigent présentement beaucoup d'ingéniosité et d'abnégation, et ne sont accessible qu'à une minorité - deviennent viables pour la moyenne des jeunes. Cette partie de l'exercice consiste à repenser la conception des politiques elles-mêmes.

Et troisièmement, S'ABSTENIR. S'il n'est pas possible de leur venir en aide, cesser de mettre des bâtons dans les roues, arrêter de projeter sur ces gens un modèle qui ne leur convient plus.

Dans plusieurs des histoires des participants Edgeryders, nous pouvons entrevoir une trame de fond, «Je suis seul maintenant, mais je ne le serai plus dans l'avenir». Le ton général est grave, parfois même associée à de la tristesse, étant donné que certains ou la plupart vivent dans la précarité, et qu'ils se sentent personnellement responsables de nos transitions. Suffisamment responsables pour être en mesure d'effectuer des changements qui sont parfois douloureux.

La troisième campagne Edgeryders, intitulée "We the people" (http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/campaign/we-people), lancée le 9 janvier 2012, comporte un volet d'analyse portant sur le gouvernement ouvert (la mission "Spotlight: open government" http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/we-people/spotlight-open-government). Plusieurs participants se sont penchés sur les problématiques qui concernent le développement des données ouvertes et du gouvernement ouvert. Les problématiques propres au milieu francophone ont été abordées, mais il y aurait lieu de continuer d'en discuter, d'approfondir et de chercher des solutions, par le biais de ce groupe de réflexion, étant donné que les recommandations seront déposées à 47 États membres, dont plusieurs sont francophones.

Je participe à Edgeryders avec un double chapeau:
- Je fais partie de l'équipe qui pilote ce projet, à titre de Engagement manager. Mon rôle est d'inciter des citoyens à participer, et les guider sur la plate-forme Edgeryders et le déroulement du projet à travers le temps, une fois qu'ils sont inscrits.
- Je fais également partie de la catégorie des «penseurs pauvres». J'ai proposé un projet de gouvernement ouvert, une grande vision de développement qui s'étendait à toute la Francophonie et au-delà. Ce projet a été rejeté. Je me suis fait refuser l'accès à un programme d'emploi pour travailleurs autonomes: un membre de l'Assemblée nationale du gouvernement du Québec a statué, le 1er septembre 2011, contre ma candidature à ce programme: «Il n'y a pas de solution», a-t-il déclaré.

Dans l'espoir que ce genre de réponse cesse de sortir de la bouche des décideurs gouvernementaux, que les idées nouvelles soient mieux accueillies, et que les politiques publiques appuient l'innovation et le développement du gouvernement ouvert, je poursuis mon mandat avec diligence. J'invite la communauté francophone à participer activement à ce groupe de réflexion. Le projet se poursuit jusqu'à la mi-juin 2012.

Pour en savoir plus à propos du projet, vidéo de présentation (avec sous-titres en français)
Adresse de la plate-forme: http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int

Caught in immobility

Comment to Marc Garriga, in one of my Edgeryders mission reports:

It would be the ideal thing to do, to collaborate with authorities who demonstrate willingness to act (ie ‘explicit support’ regarding open government), where there would be no need to push them in the back, or to send them a staggering number of letters to convince them of making the slightest move.

Time passes and nothing happens. Whole years go by. While others around you explore and bloom, you look in the mirror and there is nothing there to see. At some point, you realize that it could probably go on like this for decades: trapped in a kind of protected floating bubble, isolated from information and innovation, in part because of the language barrier. Citizens do not even know what they are missing, because they are kept in the dark. The society of silence extends to traditional media, who talk about everything except what is important.

Sometimes, some citizens get angry and try to protest. 200.000 of them, even 300.000 sign petitions. But petitions are ignored. People know that their actions were in vain. Therefore, they get less and less likely to protest at the next opportunity. Officials continue to do as they are pleased.

I found nothing better to do than run away, in order to continue to do things that I love and hang on to my dreams. Otherwise, I'd be dead inside. At home, that I observe from my distant observatory, everything remains frozen in near immobility. This inaction is recognized and condemned by all. Not a week goes by without a significant take to lament the matter publicly.

What is it we need? We need some form of cataclysm - to act as an adrenaline rush. Because simple rationality seems powerless to provoke the people, to the point that officials could accept such a vague concept as change. While change is synonymous with evolution, with its tendency to move slowly, what is desired by many, including myself, is speed.

"The bond of trust between politicians and citizens is completely broken, and they want change," said MP Bernard Landry. “Citizens want politicians to cease to be "in [their] bubble." (ref)

We need fresh air. We need to change stagnant water. The attraction for individualism is strong, while the solution - you totally understood it Marc - is inexorably toward its opposite, solidarity. However, collective identity has become faulty: it fails to win the greatest number and, therefore, it is unable to unite us in action.

Une vision transculturelle du gouvernement ouvert

Ma vision d'un gouvernement ouvert consiste en un partenariat multilatéral hybride - une intégration transnationale faisant le pont entre la culture et l'identité nationale. Je crois que ceci fournirait une opportunité d'exploration sans précédent des plus instructives de développement du gouvernement ouvert à travers le monde.

Je ne sais pas exactement encore comment s'y prendre pour briser la régulation culturelle (acculturation). Je passe mon temps à me demander comment l'anglosphère et la Francophonie pourraient devenir comme des vases communicants. Je considère que ceci pourrait être possible si la Francophonie était considérée comme «forte», c'est-à-dire s'il y avait égalité entre les deux sphères.

Au cours des cinq dernières années, j'ai fait de mon mieux pour agir en tant que pont vivant entre les anglophones et les francophones. J'ai même édité mon blogue - L'Ère du Temps - dans les deux langues, ce qui n'est même pas le cas de plusieurs institutions gouvernementales. L'osmose m'attire, me fascine. Cela est défini comme le mouvement de molécules de solvants passant à travers une membrane perméable vers une région de concentration plus élevée, visant à égaliser les concentrations de part et d'autre de la membrane. Je souhaiterais appliquer ce système biologique à la sphère du gouvernement ouvert. J'aimerais que l'information à propos du gouvernement ouvert voyage facilement de l'anglais au français (et vers d'autres langues également), et vice versa.

L'acculturation de facto des membres de ma communauté, par l'assimilation à une culture anglophone (supposément) mondiale, et la négation de l'identité culturelle, tout cela me fatigue. Je suis lasse d'avoir à se conformer à cet état des choses. Pendant des années, j'ai eu à négocier activement les limites de la séparation culturelle, l'assimilation et l'exclusion, sur une base quotidienne. Par conséquent, j'aspire à des solutions de fusion, d'inclusion, et ainsi de suite.

Je crois que l'hyperespace transnational devrait être une expression évolutive de différentes cultures et de langues. J'entrevois que si les médias sociaux permettent de nouvelles notions de connectivité, de communication et d'interaction, les médias sociaux produisent et diffusent également par conséquent de nouvelles cultures. Je voudrais étendre cette approche au gouvernement ouvert. Par conséquent, j'ai conçu avec John F Moore de Government in the Lab, le projet Gouvernement ouvert et Francophonie, qui visait la participation d'une majorité d'États francophones (39) et de près de 1000 de leurs villes - c'est-à-dire une masse critique de gouvernements - qui se seraient impliqués dans un partenariat multilatéral hybride.

Je parle souvent de transcendance et de conscience. Je vise à créer ultimement une métamorphose transculturelle, qui transcenderait les mondes et diverses réalités.

Pour en savoir plus à propos de ma vision, consultez mes rapports de mission chez Edgeryders http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/share-your-ryde/mission_case/longing-open-government
et http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/spotlight-open-government/mission_case/towards-open-government-quebec-and-francophonie

A transcultural vision of open governement

My vision of open government is an hybrid partnership ― a transnational integration bridging separate culture and national identities. I believe it would provide an unparalleled instructive and explorative opportunity to develop open government throughout the world.

I do not exactly know yet how to go about breaking cultural regulation (acculturation). I spend my time wondering about how the Anglosphere and Francosphere could become like communicating vessels. It could be achieved if the Francosphere were seen as being "strong", if there was equality between the two spheres.

For the past five years, I did my best to become a living bridge between Anglophones and Francophones. I even edit my blog ― L’Ère du temps ― in 2 languages, which is not even the case of several government institutions. Osmosis attracts me. It is defined as the movement of solvent molecules through a selectively permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, aiming to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides. I would like to apply this biological system to the open government sphere. I would like to see open government information travel from English to French (and other languages), and vice versa.

De-facto acculturation of members of my community, through assimilation to a (supposedly) world culture, and negation of cultural identity, I am tired to have to abide to it. For years, I had to actively negotiate the boundaries of cultural separation, assimilation and exclusion, on a daily basis. Therefore, I long for solutions of fusion, inclusion and so on.

I believe that the transnational hyperspace should be an expression of different and evolving cultures and languages. I see that if social media allows for new notions of connectivity, communication and interaction, social media therefore produces and diffuses new cultures. I would like to extend this to open government. Therefore, I came up with the Open Government and Francophonie project: a majority of Francophone States (39) and nearly 1000 of their cities ― a critical mass of governments ― were to get involved in a multilateral partnership.

I often talk about transcendance and consciousness. I aim at ultimately creating a transcultural metamorphosis, transcending different worlds and realities.

Read more about my vision of open government, my mission reports at Edgeryders http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/share-your-ryde/mission_case/longing-open-government
and http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/spotlight-open-government/mission_case/towards-open-government-quebec-and-francophonie

Hacking: Without words

Hacking is not my thing. I fit the category of the 'non-technical' (open government) advocates. Here, I will not talk about technical stuff, but other things that occur when we face emerging new innovative practices. A non-technical suggestion...

When I read the discussions about this article, I realized there exists differences between practices in this field that are still designated by a single word, because new disciplines have been recently created.

For example, hacking translates as 'piratage informatique' in French. Hacker, translates as 'pirate informatique' or pirate.

This does not mean that the people that use these these words are wrong. Or that they are amateurs. I do not think that we should automatically adopt anglicisms happily, if there is a void of words in one given language.

I believe it simply means that there is a need to invent new words, and add these new words to the dictionary of a language. New words emerge under certain conditions, before they get enshrined in dictionaries.

There are government agencies, whose mission is to define and lead policy regarding formalization of language and terminology. There are agencies whose mission is also to monitor the evolution of the language situation in a given geographical area.

There are two types of new words:
• First type, those derived from a spontaneous oral production, that could be called in vivo.
• Second type, those derived from an artificial production, created deliberately and collectively by committees of experts in all fields of technology, to describe technological innovations.

Regarding the field of hacking, new words would correspond to the second type.

Nowadays, to refer to technical and scientific innovations, terminology commissions formed by areas of expertise (automotive, telecommunications, aeronautics, computers, etc.) in different departments, create new words from scratch for specific terms. These words are somehow helped to be born.

'Experts' identify concepts that correspond to new practices, and propose new terms and their definitions to a general commission of terminology, which, often in partnership with an academy or a community, will validate or invalidate the new proposed words, and will publish them in an official publication.

Communities can play the role of such 'experts', and therefore not only help to define new horizons for the future, but also define new words for several languages.

Of course, I am no expert in the field of hacking. But I saw this: there might be a need to create new words describing this field. This should be brought to the attention of commissions mandated for this mission.

Where are the current challenges to open government?

This post is an answer John F Moore's questions, from Government in the Lab,

'What is the biggest challenge to open government success?
Is open government progressing as you expected?
Where are the current challenges?'

No, open government isn't progressing as much as I would like to. To such an extent that I worry if it isn't just any fad.

There are several factors that hinder the development of this new trend in public management. A couple of months ago, Kieran Harrop, from British Colombia, wrote a post about 'Risk Aversion', being one of the greatest risks. I quite agree with him. 'Risk aversion and fear of the unknown thwarts public institutions from realizing the benefits of open government.' She Kieran's post: http://govinthelab.com/open-government-risk-aversion-one-of-government%E2%80%99s-greatest-risks/

Mark Garriga from Spain speaks of 'integrity' in his Edgeryders mission report, Desde Web Analytics hasta OpenData // From WebAnalytics to OpenData http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/share-your-ryde/mission_case/desde-web-analytics-hasta-opendata-webanalytics-opendata

In order to have more integrity, we need to define new model of leadership based on a new model of 'luminous' Human being. Communities of philosophers, like Michel Filippi from France, can help us to define these new models.

There are still mountains of work to do. Fear is our greatest enemy. Poverty is another (lack of contracts and jobs in this area).

There are people who have visions of open government. There are people who dream of that, and continue to hope that open government will become a main trend of public management. Gather them into collaborative teams, highlight their visions, and create a maximum of leaders. I believe that this is one way to drive change. http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/shine-some-light/mission_case/how-can-we-drive-change

Help each opengov activist to define his/her vision. This is what I can help to do right now, via Edgeryders.

I wish I had clearer answers. But that's all I see for now. Each month, by talking to people from my network and sharing with them about these issues, the path becomes clearer in my mind.

A comprehensive strategy, I do not know if this is too ambitious. We often criticize the lack of vision of political leaders. John, you often talk about 'fearless leaders'. Do these leaders exist? Who are they? Where are they? Someone, somewhere, has to develop a global vision of open government, and share it with the highest spheres of power. Is there an institution to fund these efforts? I believe that as a community, we can succeed in defining visions, and bring all of these visions into a bigger scope, all-encompassing vision.

When I get to see things very clearly in my mind, at this precise point of space and time, the seed of intention gets planted in my soul, and the order for materialization of my thoughts is placed. I do not know how it happens. I just need to believe. This is how the human mind works, through visualisation, intent, and hope. We are creators. Citizens, they should be co-creators with their government. I know it would be a good thing. How to materialize it? I am still looking for answers...

Hesitation

Government projects should not last more than three months, recommended Beth Noveck on March 2nd, 2011, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) of the House of Commons of Canada. "If possible, promote innovations that can be implemented within 90 days or less. Requires organizations to act more quickly discouraged bureaucracy and encourage the creative brainstorming and innovation." (ref http://govinthelab.com/testimony-before-the-standing-committee-on-access-to-information-privacy-and-ethics-of-the-canadian-parliament-2/)

90 days, 100 days, or 120 days, whatever the number of days, I have no objection to play around Beth Noveck's proposal with a rubber band and adjust various project's timeline to situations.

I like Beth Noveck's proposal because she dared to question the slow pace of governments, and she suggested openness and collaboration as a solution to force government leaders and managers to move faster, by removing some of the thick layers of bureaucracy. Moving faster necessarily implies less bureaucracy.

Let's suppose a government project requires more time than 90 days. I would plan it in stages. Steps of 90-100 days, with a pre-established action plan (I like clarity crispy clear action plans, well defined in advance) and published at the beginning of operations, for everyone to see clearly in which direction the government is heading (this allows for re-adjustments, gives room for experimentation to obtain citizen's interventions, leaves a door open to new unexpected ideas to be proposed, and therefore, you end up with improved strategies). I would set up an online dashboard that shows progression of projects made by the team(s) or department(s).

Hesitation, however, it is definitely not included in my model of leadership. "The only limits to our realizations of tomorrow is our doubts and hesitations now." (F.D. Roosevelt)

The role of a leader is to give a vision to an organization: why it has to exist and what improvements it brings to our lives. The leader makes decisions influencing the future of the organization and the decisions have to be consistent with the leader’s vision. I can see that it is difficult to make decisions about something, when the 'something' is not included in the leader's vision.

What happens when there is a lack of open government vision in leaders of a government? Hesitation can be felt at all levels.

By hesitation, I mean that a leader can easily answer the question “I do not know”. But a leader cannot answer “I do not care”. Sometimes leaders do not clearly say “I do not care” (they talk about other topics, and focus on other priorities). However, their lack of words or gestures provide a hint.

Another problem - that can be directly associated with open government implementation delays - arises when managers of a government think that it is impossible for a leader to say “I do not know” or “I made a mistake”. In many instances, an infallibility syndrome leads to paralysis.

Peter Bregman, a strategic advisor to CEOs and their leadership teams, recommends: "People want you to be honest with them, even if you're a leader and honesty means exposing yourself as a little intimidated, or shy, or unsure. That kind of vulnerability doesn't alienate; it attracts. It makes us approachable. It allows people to identify with us, to trust us, and to follow us." (ref. Do people really want you to be honest?)

No matter how complex and confusing situations often look, a leader should be comfortable with uncertainty.

In open government, there is a lot of uncertainty, because it is a new experimental new trend of public management, still in development.

Leaders must learn the fact that situations are tangled, otherwise the groups they lead will be crippled by turmoil. There is always a jumble of needs and responses that must be sorted out. Fear and survival, competition and creativity, etc. They each have a voice, but underneath the jumbled surface, there is one voice: the silent whisper of spirit. Leaders who learn how to listen to this voice chase away hesitation.

Lack of vision, hesitation, and infallibility: they can lead to wasting months and months, and even years of precious time. And during that wasted time ― because I believe that open government and open data can contribute to develop a new sector of the economy, in addition to reducing costs and ensuring a healthy management ―, economic opportunities are missed.

Read more in my Edgeryders mission report, Towards open government in Quebec and Francophonie http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/spotlight-open-government/mission_case/towards-open-government-quebec-and-francophonie

What is a leader?

I continue sharing my thoughts about 'HOW TO DRIVE CHANGE'. Over the Holidays, Michel Fillippi and I discussed at Edgeryders about allowing as many leaders to emerge.

What is a leader? How can I identify a leader? What can help me spot leaders? What can help me improve my leadership skills? What are the new models of leadership?

While I pondered these questions, I received a video from Lolly Daskal. It allowed me to see how she puts into practice that she advocates, a heart based model of leadership. She celebrated the New Year with a blog post and a video highlighting all the members of the Lead from within community. She include me in the video (I'm honored). http://t.co/A8D0WXaW

[You can read all transcripts of Lead from within chats, on Twitter every Tuesday night: http://www.lollydaskal.com/leadfromwithin/]

This reference might be dating a little, but it's good organizational strategies for new leadership: Cufaude, J. B. (2001). Telling a new leadership story. Association Management.

Also, Joseph Kennedy’s 2010 article, Empowering Future Organizational Leaders for the 21st Century highlighted Mark Popovich‘s High Performance Structures, which encourages organisations to set aside bureaucracies and embrace flexibility and innovation at all levels. Kennedy, J. W. (2010). Empowering future organizational leaders for the 21st century. The International Business & Economics Research Journal.

According to there references, leaders are...

- CHAOS EMBRACERS. Most humans are conditioned for order, control and predictability. This blinds many from the truth: chaos is healthy, creativity, opportunity. Chaos is life reordering itself. "New" leaders are creators of chaos, just as much as originators of order. They engage the optimists as well as the pessimists. By stirring the pot, leaders stimulate possible breakthroughs in creativity and innovation.

- WOW! INJECTORS. Leaders create or champion projects that add value and make a difference. When people are involved in these types of projects, they feel rejuvenated, personally challenged. They feel they can accomplish something useful, and they believe that their input matters.

- FACILITATORS. Leaders ask the obvious and even the un-askable questions. They clarify roles of each teammate, responsibilities, and expectations. They provide closure around decisions. Facilitator are skilled at helping everyone in a group express their leadership qualities. They help things go smoothly without imposing their own ideas upon everyone else. Negotiators are skilled facilitators. These are leaders committed to serve others as servant-leaders and stewards. They adhere to a number of basic qualities, like democracy, responsibility, cooperation, honesty. Facilitators challenge thinking. They help a group create lists of important points. They summarize the issues from time to time. They share ideas when they can help meeting progress. They raise quesions to bring out different viewpoints. They guide discussions, but do not lead them.

- PARTNERS AND COLLABORATORS. Effective partnership and collaboration requires a set of skills that differ from those traditionnally sought for leadership positions. Partners and collaborators are strong listeners, communication conduits, boundary breakers, possibly thinkers, and honest negociators.

- TALENT SCOUT AND DEVELOPER. These leaders expect a return on talent. These are alpha scouts who lead the pack. It is the woman or man who people want to work for, and they see an association with this person as pre-path to better opportunities. Over time, as the scout methods evolve from turning over rocks looking for talent, talented resources begin to gravitate with him/her.

- FUTURISTS. They regularly scan the environment for trends on the immediate and long-term horizons. Leaders are aware that trends might have strong implications for the organization and its members. They understand that the future is something they can contribute to shape as active participants. They utilize the idea that beings help to create their own realities (based on quantum physics theories).

- CLARITY CREATORS. They are vigilant communicators. They send messages that help bring clarity and order.

- VALUE CHAMPIONS. Values help build a common focus and set of norms. Leaders help anchor individual and community efforts in the organization's core values and function. They focus to ensure the organization knows itself as well as possible.

- PASSIONATE PLAYERS. The Persian poet Rumi wrote, “the longing is the answer”. Leaders that are passionate about their roles and contributions are as interested as learning about the passions that others possess as their own. They effectively match others passions for projects and put them in appropriate leadership positions. "When anything comes from the heart - any energy, any action - it comes with a passion that is unstoppable." (Anita Roddick, Body Shop founder)

- STORYTELLERS. Stories and metaphors enhance individual retention and learning. Storytelling is an important element for leaders hoping to create new realities, when they relate their experience to current challenges. A storyteller might reflect on an experience during an earlier stage of his/her career. Effective stories include drama: an incident that challenged ethics for instance, something that explains a need to make tough choices (usually without perfect information, or the complete alignement), etc.

I am sure there are many other skills and qualities that leaders might want to develop. I set my mind to continue to explore.

How can we drive change?

A few days ago, Johh F Moore, from Government in the Lab, asked me this question: “HOW CAN WE DRIVE CHANGE?“.

(That's a big question, John!)

Interestingly, at the same time, I was having a discussion at Edgeryders with the French experimental philosopher Michel Fillippi. He answered more or less the same thing I told John, but he used different words, he used philosopher’s words.

My answer to John --- an intuition --- was to highlight people (for instance, Edgeryders participants), and have them emerge as leaders.

Michel Fillippi's answer is to have the most numerous leaders emerge, and he explained why.

Here is what Michel Filippi told me, via the following Edgeryders status, http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/statuses/552):

(My translation) “We should seek for various possibilities, different leaderships. Why? The first reason behind (this method) is because it’s systemic. Every leader is to create a world, a system (as defined in the General Systems Theory). A system grows and becomes more unstable. Any system involves a becoming. Several competing systems allow individuals to engage in various futures and this prevents a system to seek its maximum state, therefore, prevents it to reach a maximum instability. Individuals must be taught not to seek unique solutions, not to aim to a state of perfection. We should also know that all creation, any system design, generates violence because a state of energy is being released, or the convening of power to make it work. Nothing is done in calmness, quietness. Therefore, (efforts should focus on) having the most numerous leaders emerge, while preventing one leader in particular from becoming dominant. (When in a process) of structuring, (it is preferable) to avoid convergence and develop even opposed themes. I think – as I have faith in philosophy -, that the debate on "Which people? Which kills, abilities, and so on?" "How the Real in which humans exist?", "What worlds are better?" What does everybody hate?" "What is a civilization?","What does 'being civilized' mean? ","For what, for whom, for what world are we willing to suffer, to die ", these are classics philosophical questions, but they are worth to be re-asked, and be explored again.“

Michel Fillippi continues:

“Yesterday, I visited an exhibition about Buckminster Fuller. There, I read a sentence in which I recognized myself, and I also recognized in it one of these blockages that you mentioned, Lyne, regarding the model. As the model is not externalized, it is not yet perceived as (being in the process) of building, therefore, the (implementing of) change is difficult. We must come to understand that our opinions, beliefs, desires, and perhaps even wishes that we consider to be the most real - a truth that comes from the core of being, the substance of our bodies, our essence itself -, are only constructions that we have absorbed without criticism, without us knowing it could become otherwise.

As for convergence, is a problem in innovation design. A trend of engineers and administrators is to converge as quickly as possible. It is a cognitive model that has been "swallowed" as truth, and indisputable as a procedure based on algorithms, mathematical. However, (it is better) at all costs, to converge as late as possible. Specifically, a design method such as C-K designed at by The School of Mines of Paris (Hatchuel), fight against convergence by using the mathematical notion of "forcing".”

In a few days, on January 9th, Edgeryders will launch its third campaign 'We the people'. One of the four missions of this campaign will focus on open government and open data. A discussion on leadership models and open government models will certainly be helpful to many of us. You are invited to participate to the Edgeryders new campaign, and in the meantime, you can also give a hand to John F Moore, by continuing the discussion on "How to drive change". http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/shine-some-light/mission_case/how-can-we-drive-change