I like this, “Leadership of a movement is distributed and agile, as individuals become more deeply engaged and bring others into the fold.” - It is fluid leadership - each individual contributing in unique unfettered way, but towards same direction -the ideal.
Thank you for this article, Hildy. You might be really intrigued by the concept of Teal Organizations, coined by Frederic Laloux in his book Reinventing Organizations. He posits that Teal Organizations are the next evolution in organizational “structure” – where organizations are self-managed, living entities oriented toward realizing their evolutionary purpose. He uses network behavior as his guiding metaphor – organizations will become more like networks - but I think it could easily be replaced with movements. In other words, he has imagined and has examples of organizations that are intentionally trying to behave more like movements. Slides 4 & 5 in this presentation capture the essence of the shift he discusses in the book: http://www.slideshare.net/Jormason/reinventing-organizations-hrbc2015
I’m keen on that, “Leadership of the movement will be distributed along with agile, seeing that individuals are more seriously employed along with provide other folks into your retract. ” - It really is smooth authority - every individual adding to throughout distinctive unfettered way, yet in direction of identical route -the excellent.
We need strong organizations and institutions who have missions to make important change on issues over time. Movements are about something larger than the self, both in an org and individual context and often reflect a certain period of time. In the latter everyone sacrifices for and contributes to the greater good. The very reason organizations (for or nonprofit) exist is because we cannot do things alone as individuals. Sure, there is a tension sometimes when building organizations as they begin to create a life of their own and become interested in their own sustainability. It’s important to not create new ones when they aren’t needed and rather, build on the incredible ones already doing the work.
I know many orgs who function extraordinarily well in both contexts and as a funder it is our job to promote and incentivize collaboration and contribution, not redundancies and competition for credit (which often leads to funding). Another reason we wtill have these tremendous problems cited in the article, are because they are extraordinarily hard to address and the resources are outsized - against those working to ameliorate/address them. Nonprofits are nickel and dimed and asked to do a thousand things under unrealistic timeframes and limited funding, and not given resources to address issues opportunistically and build their infrastructure in a coherent manner.
Hildy, in the past few months I’ve found myself looking at CauseLabs as “not a company so much as part of a larger movement.” Your article succinctly affirmed that and is making me think about how we live into that deep belief further.
As Freya mentions, Laloux’s book as well as the larger integral systems and spiral dynamics movement (there it is again) are great analyses of what organizations who adopt a movement oriented approach might look and feel like. Especially as you discuss leadership, I found myself affirmed in that my role as CEO has shifted from decision maker to role and vision facilitator, holder of the space, and modeler of self management practices.
As my organization takes small but bold steps away from traditional activities and towards the attributes you have described as movement-like, we continue to be delighted and amazed at the benefits we are experiencing. The resources are indeed there, in our community, in forms we just didn’t recognize before. And, with values squarely at the centre of our governance and decision-making, my leadership role is shifting in positive and inspiring ways. Appreciate these insights Hildy, and all you are doing to spread this worthwhile approach to the important work we’re doing.
Hildy, thanks for posting. I really like the chart and how you lay -out the differences. From my ABCD perspective I really like the focus on abundance and the roles of everyone, not just the professionals. My blog about collective impact and community engagement and co-production https://www.livingcities.org/blog/818-the-four-key-components-for-effective-collective-impact-part-i It is a good lesson for us all. Thank you.
Hildy,
Your article is one of those that should become a seminal piece on organizational development. It invites a truly transformational way to reframe how we are working in organizations.
Reading the article was like coming home again. My first trainings were in community organizing, for example, in learning about Myles Horton (the Highlander Folk School) and Saul Alinsky about how to organize social movements. Those visions and values were completely in accordance with my nature, from having lived with Native Americans for many years. So, for example, I spent 1,000s of hours over several years in developing a Free Management Library to “raise the tide to raise the boats” for all of us, and the values in that came very naturally to me. I designed free and low-cost peer-based methods in which people could work together to help themselves, rather than having to rely on others. I’ve stressed what I call an “organic” approach to strategic planning, where many people take ongoing actions towards a long-term vision, rather than only the traditional top-down, linear, mechanistic way of planning.
I’ve noticed recently that organizations are inadvertently evolving to features of movements, e.g., focusing more on values, self-organizing, agile leadership, decentralized operations, etc. I wonder if new non-profits try to start out as movements, but as you point out, the traditional ways of working with organizations insidiously intervene, and eventually the organization becomes an end in itself.
Thank you!
Reading through the comments here is such a rich learning, in and of itself. Thank you all for that.
The organization I co-founded - Creating the Future - is in the process of completely restructuring itself to be more movement-like. It is what prompted me to write this piece, and what prompts me to think deeply about conditions for success for organizations who see themselves as participating in a movement. Our board and fellows are all gobbling up these comments, and so I hope you guys will keep them coming. Deep gratitude to all of you. Hildy
Excellent article, Hildy and extremely thought provoking to visually see the similarities and differences between a movement and an organization. Appreciate the thoughts!
Great food for thought, Hildy! It reminds me of a quote from Simon Sinek (Start With Why), “Changing the world takes more than everything any one person knows, but not more than we know together. So let’s work together.”
Hildy, thought provoking article. It opens new avenues for funders to think about why they are making their funding decisions and how that may impact their grant making practices.
This resonates with me a lot, Hildy. I’ve been encouraging many of my clients to think more like activists—movement builders is probably a much better term—in their fundraising communications. That subtle shift in mindset is powerful, and it is proving to inspire more donors in my little corner of the world. Thanks for this!
Jim: I also think it is just as important to consider what this mindset shift can mean in the business world. If businesses were to see themselves as participating in a movement towards a vision bigger than just themselves, what would that make possible - for their business, for their customers, for the world?
When considering the success of movements, think critically about the success of “Occupy Wall Street”, or maybe “Idle No More.” Ill-defined, amorphous social movements, lacking in leadership and accountability mechanisms, tend to wither and die. Utopian notions are sexy, granted, but hardly sustainable…
I agree that critical thinking is required, and I’m reminded of many of the concepts put forth in The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom. Leaderless doesn’t have to mean “lacking”, and the thinking behind organizations being more “movement-like” has, in my experience, tended to strengthen sustainability as it taps into an entirely different base of support and investment aimed at the vision. More eggs, more baskets.
I like the perception of social change as a movement. I feel that a large part of change is due to the amount of behavioral research that has accumulated, shared and practiced that makes such the difference in everyday lives. I see this being trickled down from parents as they rear their children differently than their parents did. I like how you have broken out the definitions of your vision.
Similar to what Steven Biko had to say about real change in South Africa. He argued that organizations could be co-opted, infiltrated or outright banned, and that a movement was necessary to achieve freedom in South Africa. The result was the Soweto Uprising, a true uprising of the people to overcome apartheid, that many people said was the beginning of the end of the regime. See articles from the early 70s by “Frank Talk.”
No one has commented on your article for a while, Hildy, but (I guess I am a bit Socratic) I think an important discussion is never over. Unlike the other comments, tho, to quote The Beatles, “I think I disagree.”
Not about your observations. About your prescriptions. Having worked in the NGO field for more than 30 years, I can heartily and sadly agree with your dismissal of organizationally-lead social change. Organizations address symptoms, not causes (double entendre intended).
But all of your prescriptions about “movements” follow the same form: top-down. The gun-control ‘movement’ that has just arisen in the USA is not being driven by “values”; it is being driven by action. It is a movement, even if it only lasts as long as it takes to change gun laws (the nature of movements is to dissipate after they reach their goal(s). What you also ignore is that we need both movements and organizations. The Soweto Uprising did not bring down apartheid (I worked in ‘the movement’ 10 years later, and it took another 10 to get Nelson Mandela released and the regime to change).
Yes NGO’s should get more mission-focused, and develop more agile and flexible leadership. But that’s not news for any of us working in them. As NGO’s get more professional, and businesses embrace more social-goals, the convergence of these two streams has had, and will have, a huge impact on how social and political change happens.
But forget what Steven Biko said, just look at the fact that he existed. It is the Steven Biko’s of the world that start movements. So do classrooms of kids in Florida, and the parents that support them, who created March for Our Lives. Movements by definition don’t follow a definition. The more you try to codify them, the more you end up with a shoe looking for a foot.
Missions begin with, often, just one person, who dares to speak out. If we are lucky, they are also a leader, or quickly learn to be one.
COMMENTS
BY Atanu Chaudhuri
ON July 28, 2015 03:20 PM
I like this, “Leadership of a movement is distributed and agile, as individuals become more deeply engaged and bring others into the fold.” - It is fluid leadership - each individual contributing in unique unfettered way, but towards same direction -the ideal.
BY Freya Bradford
ON July 29, 2015 09:48 AM
Thank you for this article, Hildy. You might be really intrigued by the concept of Teal Organizations, coined by Frederic Laloux in his book Reinventing Organizations. He posits that Teal Organizations are the next evolution in organizational “structure” – where organizations are self-managed, living entities oriented toward realizing their evolutionary purpose. He uses network behavior as his guiding metaphor – organizations will become more like networks - but I think it could easily be replaced with movements. In other words, he has imagined and has examples of organizations that are intentionally trying to behave more like movements. Slides 4 & 5 in this presentation capture the essence of the shift he discusses in the book: http://www.slideshare.net/Jormason/reinventing-organizations-hrbc2015
BY Toan Nguyen
ON July 29, 2015 05:49 PM
I’m keen on that, “Leadership of the movement will be distributed along with agile, seeing that individuals are more seriously employed along with provide other folks into your retract. ” - It really is smooth authority - every individual adding to throughout distinctive unfettered way, yet in direction of identical route -the excellent.
BY Stacy Lee
ON July 31, 2015 07:11 PM
We need strong organizations and institutions who have missions to make important change on issues over time. Movements are about something larger than the self, both in an org and individual context and often reflect a certain period of time. In the latter everyone sacrifices for and contributes to the greater good. The very reason organizations (for or nonprofit) exist is because we cannot do things alone as individuals. Sure, there is a tension sometimes when building organizations as they begin to create a life of their own and become interested in their own sustainability. It’s important to not create new ones when they aren’t needed and rather, build on the incredible ones already doing the work.
I know many orgs who function extraordinarily well in both contexts and as a funder it is our job to promote and incentivize collaboration and contribution, not redundancies and competition for credit (which often leads to funding). Another reason we wtill have these tremendous problems cited in the article, are because they are extraordinarily hard to address and the resources are outsized - against those working to ameliorate/address them. Nonprofits are nickel and dimed and asked to do a thousand things under unrealistic timeframes and limited funding, and not given resources to address issues opportunistically and build their infrastructure in a coherent manner.
BY T.J. Cook
ON August 1, 2015 06:18 AM
Hildy, in the past few months I’ve found myself looking at CauseLabs as “not a company so much as part of a larger movement.” Your article succinctly affirmed that and is making me think about how we live into that deep belief further.
As Freya mentions, Laloux’s book as well as the larger integral systems and spiral dynamics movement (there it is again) are great analyses of what organizations who adopt a movement oriented approach might look and feel like. Especially as you discuss leadership, I found myself affirmed in that my role as CEO has shifted from decision maker to role and vision facilitator, holder of the space, and modeler of self management practices.
BY Ann Larson
ON August 3, 2015 07:07 AM
I think you have been very fortunate in the movements you have known.
BY Karen Smith
ON August 6, 2015 06:51 PM
As my organization takes small but bold steps away from traditional activities and towards the attributes you have described as movement-like, we continue to be delighted and amazed at the benefits we are experiencing. The resources are indeed there, in our community, in forms we just didn’t recognize before. And, with values squarely at the centre of our governance and decision-making, my leadership role is shifting in positive and inspiring ways. Appreciate these insights Hildy, and all you are doing to spread this worthwhile approach to the important work we’re doing.
BY ali
ON August 7, 2015 07:44 AM
thanks a lot for this article
BY Dan Duncan
ON August 8, 2015 09:16 AM
Hildy, thanks for posting. I really like the chart and how you lay -out the differences. From my ABCD perspective I really like the focus on abundance and the roles of everyone, not just the professionals. My blog about collective impact and community engagement and co-production https://www.livingcities.org/blog/818-the-four-key-components-for-effective-collective-impact-part-i It is a good lesson for us all. Thank you.
BY Carter McNamara
ON August 10, 2015 02:33 PM
Hildy,
Your article is one of those that should become a seminal piece on organizational development. It invites a truly transformational way to reframe how we are working in organizations.
Reading the article was like coming home again. My first trainings were in community organizing, for example, in learning about Myles Horton (the Highlander Folk School) and Saul Alinsky about how to organize social movements. Those visions and values were completely in accordance with my nature, from having lived with Native Americans for many years. So, for example, I spent 1,000s of hours over several years in developing a Free Management Library to “raise the tide to raise the boats” for all of us, and the values in that came very naturally to me. I designed free and low-cost peer-based methods in which people could work together to help themselves, rather than having to rely on others. I’ve stressed what I call an “organic” approach to strategic planning, where many people take ongoing actions towards a long-term vision, rather than only the traditional top-down, linear, mechanistic way of planning.
I’ve noticed recently that organizations are inadvertently evolving to features of movements, e.g., focusing more on values, self-organizing, agile leadership, decentralized operations, etc. I wonder if new non-profits try to start out as movements, but as you point out, the traditional ways of working with organizations insidiously intervene, and eventually the organization becomes an end in itself.
Thank you!
BY Hildy Gottlieb, Creating the Future
ON August 10, 2015 03:28 PM
Reading through the comments here is such a rich learning, in and of itself. Thank you all for that.
The organization I co-founded - Creating the Future - is in the process of completely restructuring itself to be more movement-like. It is what prompted me to write this piece, and what prompts me to think deeply about conditions for success for organizations who see themselves as participating in a movement. Our board and fellows are all gobbling up these comments, and so I hope you guys will keep them coming. Deep gratitude to all of you. Hildy
BY Esther Hughes
ON August 12, 2015 08:07 AM
Excellent article, Hildy and extremely thought provoking to visually see the similarities and differences between a movement and an organization. Appreciate the thoughts!
BY Mari Lane Gewecke
ON August 12, 2015 08:17 AM
Great food for thought, Hildy! It reminds me of a quote from Simon Sinek (Start With Why), “Changing the world takes more than everything any one person knows, but not more than we know together. So let’s work together.”
BY Ken Ristine
ON August 12, 2015 08:32 AM
Hildy, thought provoking article. It opens new avenues for funders to think about why they are making their funding decisions and how that may impact their grant making practices.
BY Richelle Morgan
ON August 12, 2015 11:45 AM
This resonates with me a lot, Hildy. I’ve been encouraging many of my clients to think more like activists—movement builders is probably a much better term—in their fundraising communications. That subtle shift in mindset is powerful, and it is proving to inspire more donors in my little corner of the world. Thanks for this!
BY Jim
ON August 12, 2015 02:04 PM
I think it’s appropriate to talk about the “non-profit industrial complex”.
BY Hildy Gottlieb, Creating the Future
ON August 12, 2015 02:29 PM
Jim: I also think it is just as important to consider what this mindset shift can mean in the business world. If businesses were to see themselves as participating in a movement towards a vision bigger than just themselves, what would that make possible - for their business, for their customers, for the world?
BY Rick Beauchamp
ON August 12, 2015 07:08 PM
When considering the success of movements, think critically about the success of “Occupy Wall Street”, or maybe “Idle No More.” Ill-defined, amorphous social movements, lacking in leadership and accountability mechanisms, tend to wither and die. Utopian notions are sexy, granted, but hardly sustainable…
BY Karen Smith
ON August 13, 2015 09:56 AM
I agree that critical thinking is required, and I’m reminded of many of the concepts put forth in The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom. Leaderless doesn’t have to mean “lacking”, and the thinking behind organizations being more “movement-like” has, in my experience, tended to strengthen sustainability as it taps into an entirely different base of support and investment aimed at the vision. More eggs, more baskets.
BY Teresa Kapphahn
ON September 21, 2015 01:02 PM
I like the perception of social change as a movement. I feel that a large part of change is due to the amount of behavioral research that has accumulated, shared and practiced that makes such the difference in everyday lives. I see this being trickled down from parents as they rear their children differently than their parents did. I like how you have broken out the definitions of your vision.
BY Mary
ON October 1, 2015 12:32 PM
Similar to what Steven Biko had to say about real change in South Africa. He argued that organizations could be co-opted, infiltrated or outright banned, and that a movement was necessary to achieve freedom in South Africa. The result was the Soweto Uprising, a true uprising of the people to overcome apartheid, that many people said was the beginning of the end of the regime. See articles from the early 70s by “Frank Talk.”
BY [withheld on purpose - its a movement]
ON March 27, 2018 12:07 AM
No one has commented on your article for a while, Hildy, but (I guess I am a bit Socratic) I think an important discussion is never over. Unlike the other comments, tho, to quote The Beatles, “I think I disagree.”
Not about your observations. About your prescriptions. Having worked in the NGO field for more than 30 years, I can heartily and sadly agree with your dismissal of organizationally-lead social change. Organizations address symptoms, not causes (double entendre intended).
But all of your prescriptions about “movements” follow the same form: top-down. The gun-control ‘movement’ that has just arisen in the USA is not being driven by “values”; it is being driven by action. It is a movement, even if it only lasts as long as it takes to change gun laws (the nature of movements is to dissipate after they reach their goal(s). What you also ignore is that we need both movements and organizations. The Soweto Uprising did not bring down apartheid (I worked in ‘the movement’ 10 years later, and it took another 10 to get Nelson Mandela released and the regime to change).
Yes NGO’s should get more mission-focused, and develop more agile and flexible leadership. But that’s not news for any of us working in them. As NGO’s get more professional, and businesses embrace more social-goals, the convergence of these two streams has had, and will have, a huge impact on how social and political change happens.
But forget what Steven Biko said, just look at the fact that he existed. It is the Steven Biko’s of the world that start movements. So do classrooms of kids in Florida, and the parents that support them, who created March for Our Lives. Movements by definition don’t follow a definition. The more you try to codify them, the more you end up with a shoe looking for a foot.
Missions begin with, often, just one person, who dares to speak out. If we are lucky, they are also a leader, or quickly learn to be one.
BY [withheld on purpose - its a movement]
ON March 27, 2018 12:13 AM
Sorry, all. That last, wonderful line was supposed to be:
“Movements begin with, often, just one person, who dares to speak out. If we are lucky, they are also a leader, or quickly learn to be one.”
not “Missions begin with…”.
Being both a writer and dyslexic is often a challenge.
Thanks.
BY Ngam Basil Chia
ON June 23, 2021 06:37 PM
This is a wonderful piece and it’s really gonna go a long way to help young conflict and gender studies students.