Generative Governance: Typology of Governance Frames based on Theory U

by Elmer S. Soriano

How does one develop tools to guide Mayors through the different "structures of attention" all the way to generative governance, going beyond project management? The image above is an example of a Mayor's dashboard that was adopted in 600 municipalities. Using this one-page Mayor's Dashboard as reference, regular coaching/advising sessions were delivered to the Mayor, tracking the evolution of the ecosystem by color-coding the cells red, yellow, and green.

This dashboard serves as a decision-support tool that synthesized three types of knowledge; a) political; b) local; c) scientific/modeller's knowledge into a one-page interface. (Clark et al, 2010 click here)

First, let's dissect a Mayor's executive/governance interventions based on Scharmer's Structures of Attention. The video cases emphasize a particular Structure of Attention, but may reflect multiple structures of attention.  

Table 1: Mayor's Intervention based on Mindset and Structure of Attention (adapted from Scharmer)

Structure of Attention	Mindset of Mayor	Role of Mayor	Case
Governance 1 Downloading habits of thought	downloading projects based on what I think you need	determining priority projects and allocating funds based on Mayor's personal worldview	White elephant projects
Governance 2 Factual, object-focused	evidence-based downloading of projects with limited dialogue or consultation; Technical Assistance (TA)	analyzing data and then aligning priority projects and allocating funds	Bulacan Social Research (click here)
Governance 3 Empathic Listening	reflecting upon how rules can be changed to make the ecosystem work better for you	dialogues with stakeholders to gain deeper understanding of complex interdependencies and counterproductive rules	Kauswagan (click here for video)
Governance 4 Generative Listening	creating spaces and cultivating conversations so that many stakeholders co-own and co-create solutions	creates spaces for dialogue and co-creation; creates social labs, leadership labs, and/or governance labs	Naga People Empowerment (click here for video)

Table 2: Structures of Attention by Scharmer

Sources:

https://www.presencing.com/sites/default/files/page-files/Theory_U_Exec_Summary.pdf

http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/08/05/heapol.czr054.full.pdf+html

http://neldax.yolasite.com/resources/01-%20Introduction%20to%20MLGP.pdf

https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=600

Nodal Leadership and the Bishop's Gambit: Strategic Influence for Young Leaders

by Elmer S Soriano

How can a skilled but younger leader influence political outcomes in disproportionate ways, without threatening her superiors? 

Many young and intelligent leaders find themselves in this position. They are smart enough to diagnose the adaptive challenges facing their organization. They are connected well enough within social systems to shape outcomes, through betweeness centrality, able to shape the signals that are communicated through the network, and they have just enough informal authority to engage actors who matter through conversations. 

Nodal governance defined by Burris et al as "a variety of actors operating within social systems interact along networks to govern the systems they inhabit" shall be used as the conceptual peg for this article.

Imagine a mid-twenties technical staff with a masters degree working at UNICEF. She's assigned to various technical working groups across multiple projects, reports to and is trusted by top influentials in the country office, and is able to see and hear many signals that don't reach her bosses.

She wants to influence outcomes and sees some ripeness and resonance of some issues, but the different leaders in her network don't see her ideas as the priority. She's doesn't have enough formal authority to make things happen.

Questions this person may ask in order to define her strategy:
1. What is my preferred reality? How would I like this system to look like after six months, one year, or three years?

2. What networks of associated ideas will need to ripen and be considered valid in order for the scenario in no.1 to happen? Which decision-makers influence no.1, and who influence these decision-makers?

3. Map the social relations and ideas within the network. Click here for example.

4. Diagnose the disposition of 3-5 key influentials in the social network. 

5. Deploy Boundary Spanning Leadership in cycles of four weeks.

6. Close triangles to increase validity of ideas.

7. If there is emerging consensus behind a certain point or concept, point that out to your boss or another senior officer with convening powers, and allow that person convene a meeting or have a one-on-one conversation to swing a decision to advance no.1. 

If not, go back to no.2.

8. If No.1 has been achieved, close this advocacy project and identify the next preferred reality.


Sources:
Information and Contact-Making in Policy Networks: A Model with Evidence from the U.S. Health Policy Domain http://www.hks.harvard.edu/davidlazer/files/papers/carpenter_esterling_lazer_information_contactmaking_us-health-policy.pdf

Nodal Governance SCOTT BURRIS, PETER DRAHOS AND CLIFFORD SHEARING
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/phrhcs/salzburg/Nodal_Governance_Article.pdf

Boundary-spanning Leadership
http://www.ccl.org/Leadership/pdf/research/BoundarySpanningLeadership.pdf

Leadership and Network Weaving

by Elmer S. Soriano

It's not what you know, but who you know.

That's an old saying, but it takes on fresh validation from field of Social Network Analysis. The concept of betweeness centrality explains how a few nodes can be extremely influential when they are the gateway to other networks that would otherwise be poorly connected.

For example, the Wise City concept discusses how universities can exercise place-based leadership by deploying the massive intellectual resources to solve social problems of their host cities or countries.

The Bridging Leadership program in the Philippines creates links between devolved municipalities and the national Department of Health. The Communications for Communicators Schools forges multiple connections between the Johns Hopkins University, Asian Institute of Management, and various field-based practitioners to deploy health promotion campaigns.

Plastrick and Taylor (2006) offer these definitions to help network leaders navigate through  the various functions of network leadership.  

Organizer	Establishes purpose and value propositions of the network. Establishes first links to nodes for the network. Attracts initial resources for the network.
Funder	Provides initial resources for organizing the network, supporting development of connections, alignment, production, and coordination for the network. May play role of initial organizer of network.
Weaver	Works to increase connections among nodes, both the number of links and the bandwidth quality of links. Also may focus on growing the network by connecting to new nodes.
Facilitator	Helps network members to establish collective value proposition and negotiate collective actions plans for production.
Coordinator	Helps nodes to undertake collective action for production, by ensuring flow of necessary information and other resources, development and implementation of agreements among nodes.
Coach	Advises organizers, weavers, facilitators, and coordinators about how best to perform their roles in building networks.
Steward	Informally helps to build the network, but as a member of the network, not as a formal position-role within the network.

Holley developed a Network Weaver Checklist which gives one a quick overview of the function of a network weaver.


Sources:
Plastrick and Taylor (2006) NET GAINS: A Handbook for Network Builders Seeking Social Change http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/plastrick.pdf

"GoldenGate01". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GoldenGate01.JPG#mediaviewer/File:GoldenGate01.JPG

Nodal Governance: Unleashing the Potential of Global Citizenship

by Elmer S. Soriano

Is it possible to have governance without government? 

The idea of public leadership untethered from the bureaucracy has a lot of potential especially in contexts where government has been crippled by disaster, and where government is not trusted under normal circumstances.

Imagine a set of a few million professionals: doctors, nurses, engineers, managers, realtors, etc. collectively organizing themselves to get work done for a certain cause. That is exactly what happened when Supertyphoon Yolanda struck in 2013.

The thought of massive destruction and death aroused powerful feelings of kinship among Filipinos abroad. The Supertyphoon was a powerful frame that allowed individuals to recognize needs far bigger than any mayor could handle alone, and it was from within this mindset that old boundaries blurred and individuals acted beyond the confines of their job descriptions and stepped up to work collectively to rebuild devastated communities. 

The article #YolandaPH (Haiyan): Filipinos worldwide heed call to action by Rappler lists dozens of organizations mobilizing thousands of individuals just days after Haiyan struck.

The term "nodal governance" has been used by Burris et al as "a variety of actors operating within social systems interact along networks to govern the systems they inhabit."

"...that any collectivity can be understood to be an ‘outcome-generating system’ (‘OGS’) whose workings are generally too complex to be fully understood. Inhabitants develop forms of governance as a strategic adaptation to complexity. Our theory posits that governance in such systems is substantially constituted in nodes — institutions with a set of technologies, mentalities and resources — that mobilize the knowledge and capacity of members to manage the course of events. Nodes are normally but not essentially points on networks, but networks are a prime means through which nodes exert influence.

Source: http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/phrhcs/salzburg/Nodal_Governance_Article.pdf

The movie Fire in the Blood describes an OGS in the context of global HIV work. It shows how networks adapt and how complex dependencies emerge as nodal leaders and nodal governance is generated.