Meta-Leadership: Part IV

If we define Meta-Leadership, in part, as the ability to facilitate a change from a "static" environment to a "dynamic" environment, then this partial chart helps illustrate this point (click on the chart for a larger view).

The "reverse engineering" of Long Island: Part One

"Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, electronic component, or software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original."

OK. So I'm not 100% against taking things from "the original" as it relates to the "re-organization" of our governing structures and policies if, after careful examination, they work and are able to adapt to a dynamic view of Long Island as opposed to a static one. We've examined many of these ideas in previous posts.

But in order to create a Long Island for the next 50 to 100 years (technology may actually make that too long a window) we must re-examine everything we do.

As we've previously stated, new study, no matter how comprehensive and worthwhile, will become just another "layer" on the information pile if it is static.

It will be almost impossible to mobilize the public sentiment to achieve large scale positive change because we are not "singing from the same hymnal." The Long Island "hymnal" must be a collaborative creation.

So if we're serious about real change (in whatever form that ultimately takes), then we have to do a comprehensive, thorough analysis of what type of Long Island we want and what is even possible give our inherent physical limitations within a dynamic structure that allows for dynamic real time change and analysis and "meta-collaborative" participation.

With out a shared "Long Island Philosophy" it will be difficult for any Long Islander to trust that the information they are receiving is accurate and trustworthy.

More in Part Two.

Another plan ...

More static planning?

Not that this a bad idea, in fact it may turn out to be very productive.

But the idea of, once again, one group trying to plan an entire region's future strikes me as more of the same. A new report, no matter how professional, divorced from or marginally connected to all the other projects, ideas, organizations etc, won't get the job done.

As one example in hundreds, how will the creators of this report interact with the study being conducted at Dowling regarding a possible 51st state? Aren't both looking at many related issues?

Another example. How will the creators of this report interact with the many planned and operating business incubators/accelerators to determine potential business growth and the type of business growth for the next 50 years or so?

The point is that almost everything on Long Island has some bearing on everything else occurring on Long Island. Changing one thing potentially creates a domino effect.

We must know with reasonable certainty what these outcomes are likely to be or making change will be almost impossible to sell to elected officials, general public and Long Island organizations.

We need dynamic, real time planning. It must be inclusive and collaborative. It can not be mandated, it must contain many options and it must contain productive public input (not complaints or NIMBYism) from a diverse assortment of individuals and groups.

Before you plan, you must know what and who you're planning for. What type of future are you planning for Long Island?

Traditional planning models and techniques may be helpful, but they are not enough to change the course of Long Island history in a meaningful, sustainable manner.

Create a Long Island philosophy. Rethink how everything is done.

Editorial: LI needs new planning blueprint

April 9, 2008

Long Island can't go on like this: choking traffic, little mass transit, lack of affordable housing, threats to open space, unbearable property tax burdens and a sputtering economy - to name a few of our problems. We need a smart plan to recommend specific actions, and we need the commitment of our public officials to carry it out.

The Long Island Regional Planning Board took a first step yesterday toward that kind of plan. It looked westward to New York City, whose PlaNYC is a model of both crunching the numbers and laying out doable recommendations.

The consulting firm that had a lot to do with creating that plan is McKinsey & Co. And Long Island's planning board served notice yesterday that it intends to hire McKinsey to create a blueprint for sustainability here - unless another firm offers a better proposal. Local not-for-profits have offered $500,000 toward the eventual $1.5 million to $2 million cost of the study if McKinsey does it.

To be a success, any plan must have strong action recommendations, plus staunch political backing. A word of warning: One of the 127 initiatives in PlaNYC was congestion pricing, which timid Albany lawmakers have just killed. The lesson is not that we don't need a plan, but that even the best blueprints need courageous politicians. Whatever McKinsey recommends, if the top leaders of the two counties don't fight for the tough changes this study is likely to urge, we'll be stuck in the same sad rut.

Long Island: The 51st State - Part Two

Some have found it amusing that this subject has reappeared. In fact, some have dismissed it out of hand.

But we should look at it as an opportunity to do some real analysis in a dynamic manner.

The folks at Dowling will, I have no doubt, do a thorough and professional job on the analysis, just as Mr. Koppelman and others have done previously.

But what will happen with the results?

Will they sit on a shelf somewhere never to be seen again?

As we have stated previously, there are many good ideas and intelligent folks on Long Island. What is missing is a coordinated approach to the issues.

Dowling should reach out to other universities (Stony Brook comes to mind on the technology end) and create a dynamic, sustainable dialogue about how government operates and how best to provide services among many issues to be addressed.

For example, what would the "perfect" government structure be? Form follows function as they say. What functions do we require on Long Island for the next 100 to 200 years? Can we achieve what is necessary with existing organizations and laws?

Is there something that can take the place of government in providing these services? How do we make the public (who own the government after all) more involved in the governing of Long Island?

The results can not go on a shelf (or even a static web site) or they will become useless.

The process of being or becoming excellent never really takes a break. Our new organization(s) and governing structures must be dynamic, collaborative and perpetual as we've described in many previous posts.

More in part three.

Long Island Best Practices WIKI: Part 2

We've been reading quite a bit of local news recently on how government operates on Long Island and in New York State generally. This is separate and apart from the "meta-issues" involved in the presidential campaign.

Some advocate getting "mad as hell."

It has been my humble experience that getting "mad" does not cause fundamental change. It only makes things worse.

It's easy to be against something. It is much harder to be for something.

So how do we lower the temperature and at the same time inform and engage the public and governmental entities of all types in a substantive dialogue?

Many of the One Long Island proposals are designed to do just that.

But how about we make an attempt at defining some standards of performance for the types of services we currently have and wish to have in the future, then see who is providing those services in the most effective manner. Then use those ideas as a base line for developing our future service structure(s).

Compare "apples to apples" and be honest with yourself and the public.

"Cherry picking" (enough fruit metaphors) issues and pitting one group against another will not solve anything to any one's satisfaction.

No dogma. Take a fresh look at everything. Collaborate and engage the public.

Then we can make some rational and potentially difficult choices together.

More in Part 3.

Collaborative Spheres of Influence: Part One

We've previously posted about organizational autonomy on Long Island (and elsewhere) and the apparent affinity most people have for smaller groups over which they feel they have some influence.

One way to change this is through consolidation, mandated by law or otherwise.

As stated previously, another way to effectuate change is to create an environment where organizations may maintain their autonomy but have the tools to work collaboratively.

The above diagram shows the "organic" nature of the later, wherein the collaborative participants literally come together to "breathe in" or otherwise "absorb" the "nutrients" from other similar or preferably diverse organizations then return to their "spheres" energized with new ideas and methods for improving their performance. This is a continuous process necessary for the health of the entire "organism" (Long Island).

More in part Two.

Friday random thoughts ...

Another way to look at the "One Long Island" project is as a creative enterprise or "ensemble."

Much as a great jazz orchestra or combo creates "individual freedom of expression" within a flexible "structure" of some type, we may look at our project in the same way.

We spoke in previous posts about how creating a dynamic Long Island also creates an "inter-organizational/individual rhythm" that helps to prevent "stagnation" of thought and action on Long Island.

We may have multiple organizations and individuals from different disciplines "playing in the same orchestra" at the same time or in sections or varied subgroups and at times soloing while the group supports their effort. The point is that organizations and individuals must sometimes sublimate their own desires for the success of the "composition."

One Long Island will have many composers and many opportunities for individual creativity in what can become the "Grand Long Island Composition."

This weekend listen to some Charles Mingus, Ornette Coleman, Thelonious Monk, or any great jazz composer and musician and listen to how the parts work together. It's actually good practice for learning to understand any new approach whether musical, verbal or written. The idea's the thing.

As I stated previously, we need people from all disciplines to form a "complete picture" of a new and dynamic Long Island, and learning to think abstractly and about things that you would not normally come into contact with are major components in learning how to create a collaborative environment.

Oh and by the way if you normally do listen to Mingus, Monk etc, try listening to Hank Williams of George Jones or ...

... the point is listen or read or do something (positive) you wouldn't normally do.

Be creative. Think differently. Challenge yourself and those around you in a positive, productive manner. Remove barriers ... I'm starting to sound a little like a motivational speaker at a mandatory seminar ... I'll stop now. You get the idea.

Long Island needs many creative minds and mass collaborative action to be successful.

Monday we get back to some more specific recommendations and yes, sad to say for some of you, additional graphics.

I'm attempting as many different approaches as possible to convey the "One Long Island" series of concepts to as many different folks as I can. Some hit the mark, some do not.

Suggestions are always welcome.

Interesting reading ...

"At a recent Wharton roundtable discussion on leadership and innovation, Wharton management professor Michael Useem, event moderator, initiated discussion by posing a general question: How are leadership and innovation linked? "How exactly do we put those two together? How do we lead in a way that generates innovation?" he asked, describing the synergy as "a kind of high-octane fuel we ought to get as much of as we can."

Read the entire article here (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1569)

Change for the sake of change?

How does "change for the sake of change" affect the long term health of Long Island?

We define "change for the sake of change" as those acts which have as their primary motive the appearance of facilitating a substantive change for the public good. 

The initiators of these acts, whether government officials, members of the media or others, may do so for a variety of reasons. 

Some feel the only way to get any change at all is to get some change, no matter what it is. This is done primarily out of frustration, legitimate or not, as to the pace of the change they feel is important. 

Is the change important for their future or circulation or legitimately important for Long Island's future? Sometimes the legitimate and self-aggrandizement/financial elements suit a common purpose. More often they do not.

The danger in this type of change is that sometimes it causes more damage than the problem it purports to fix. 

The public perceives the minor change which got so much attention and required so much effort as a major change. The natural reaction to a major change is then to call for a "rest period" before any other change may take place.

Ultimately this start and stop routine results in little if any substantive progress and generally causes individuals and organizations to grow further apart.

We must be able to think and act on multiple levels simultaneously.

What we propose in out Long Island Congress and Long Island 3.0 concepts is a "perpetual process" in the best sense of the term. Not a "perpetual process" which doesn't lead to solutions, but the type of "perpetual process" which comes to solutions but makes sure those solutions are constantly "recycled" into the process to ensure their continued viability.

Think, communicate, act. Repeat.

Any knowledge that doesn't lead to new questions quickly dies out: it fails to maintain the temperature required for sustaining life.     Wislawa Szymborska 

Breaking Down Silos

We've posted multiple times about the need to "speak a common language" and to create an a "dynamic interaction of organizations and information" as part of our Long Island 3.0/Long Island Congress leitmotif.

The following (click for entire article) does a good job of explaining the process in a corporate setting which, of course, closely parallels what we hope to achieve on a larger scale here on Long Island. We may have more "moving parts" but the concepts are still valid.

"Using mapped folksonomy to break corporate silos
A problem in getting people in corporate silos to communicate is that they do not speak the same language even when they are talking about the same thing. Mapped folksonomy can bridge the language gap. The trick is to have people participating in the folksonomy label a good number of the same underlying things so you can see how the labels correlate across participants."

Long Island 2.0: Part Three

If we accept the premise that information on Long Island (and the world) will become more and more accessible no matter what types of restrictions are placed upon it, then we must decide how best to "harness" this information for productive purposes.

We can, of course, continue to expose only that information which is advantageous to our point of view or to promote our cause or organization, but that only serves gain short term victories for one issue or another and ultimately to perpetuate the status quo. This is the essence of public policy by "chasing one's tail." It all sounds good in a press release but never really amounts to much.We need a long term strategic approach to problem solving and a commitment to engaging in collaborative efforts. Organizations and individuals must relinquish a portion of their self interest and autonomy for the greater good.

This was the basic premise of the Community Congress in Oyster Bay 2000, and it remains the thrust of the Virtual Community Congress as part of Long Island 2.0.

It is somewhat ironic that the perceived decline in influence of political parties is coinciding with the decline in circulation and influence of traditional media. The thing that traditional media rails against most is the same thing that is contributing to their demise. That is "loss of control." Traditional media fights against the political "machines" which suppress public debate while at the same time they themselves engage in vicious turf wars to be the "primary" source of news and information (influence) in a particular region. Those days may be over as the world of information becomes more "democratic."

Over the next number of posts, we'll explore additional methods for enhancing the sharing of information in a productive manner for the benefit of all Long Islanders. Naive as it may sound, I believe we live in an age where this is now possible and more than that, essential for the promotion of Long Island as an autonomous region within and cooperating with the larger world.We need to create a mechanism for "perpetual process" so that all decisions are made based upon the most current and accurate information available. Even decisions completed must be kept in the "analysis loop" in order to maintain their current viability.

Long Islanders must, as they say "hang together" or "swing alone."

Dynamic Interaction/Types of Intelligence:Part One

I've spoken before about the need to create a "dynamic" flow of information, analysis and public policy creation as opposed to the "static" method most organizations now employ. I've also expressed the opinion that we need to broaden the number of individuals involved in the process and allow for a wide range of ability and talent (multi-disciplinary) in determining public policy for Long Island.

This is just one of many theories on types of intelligence, but I think it simplifies (for the time being) the concept in a way that is immediately understandable.