Could Brownell Night Go Federal? (What JT could learn from JB)

Trudeau graciously thanked Harper, and promised to work with the Conservative Party in the future.

"Conservatives are not our enemies, they are our neighbours," he said.

Lots of talk lately about Trudeau's commitment to make half of his reduced Cabinet women.  Why that's a good thing is clear to many and, over the coming years, will make sense to most: the things that define us shape our world view, our priorities, our challenges and our opportunities.

The more policy-makers can reflect the general population, the closer we will get to policies that work towards everyone's best interests.

Diversity is strength.  The task of leadership is empowering all these different people, perspectives, sectors and systems to be more than the sum of their parts.  A big piece of that is knowing how to listen, make connections, nurture relationships - the stuff of community building.

This the challenge Justin Trudeau has taken on.

It's a challenge my old boss Jim Brownell and I are familiar with, though on a much smaller scale.

Anyone who worked for the Ontario Liberal Party or its MPPs during Jim's time at Queen's Park will remember him fondly.  Jim was a dedicated constituency guy, a strong advocate for rural Ontario and all things history and heritage.  He was also a great mentor and the kind of boss most people dream of having; a retired teacher, Jim had mastered the art of balancing direction, guidance and space to help his staff become the best public servants they could be.

Jim's legacy is written all over Ontario (some examples can be found here) but what political staff remember him for the most is the community incubator he started - Brownell Night.

On the surface, Brownell Night was a simple concept - once a month, Jim would host a gathering at the Duke of York, a pub not far from the Legislature.  Political staff and friends would come together, have a few drinks, tell a few stories, meet some new faces.

Of course what Brownell Night did was something much more profound.  

There aren't a lot of opportunities for political staff - especially staff for a governing party - to connect beyond the transactional level.  You may attend some meetings, you may attending some briefings, regional caucus roundups and maybe even a training or two, but on the whole there's no real opportunity (or incentive) to build relationships.

Without relationships, you don't have community.  Community is a breeding ground for opportunity, for idea sharing, problem identification and solution-building.

Community is what creates a whole that is more than a sum of its parts - that turns diversity into strength.  Put plainly, community-animating is the number one function of leadership, and is what Justin Trudeau has set out to do.

I didn't realize it at the time, but what we did - what Jim nurtured - was community animation.  

Now that I'm literally writing the book on community animation for CSI Regent Park, I find myself reflecting on the genius of Brownell Night and Jim's unique gift for bringing diverse groups of folk - people from his community, staff at Queen's Park, sector stakeholders, even public servants - together in celebration of the things we have in common.  

As Jim liked to say, no deals were ever struck at Brownell Night - that wasn't the point.  Instead, friendships were formed, ideas were explored and new opportunities emerged.  It still tickles me pink that an introduction I made at Brownell Night led to a marriage (the couple just celebrated eight years together - man, how time flies!)

One thing I always hoped to do with Brownell Night but never quite achieved was to make it more multi-partisan.  I felt then as I do now - that if political staff who were often nudged into viewing their counterparts from other parties as foes could hang out over drinks, chat issues and really get to know each other, we could change the "blood sport" nature of politics into something more collegial.

We never got to the point where Brownell Night was as open as I wanted it to be; if Jim had stayed for one more term or if another MPP had taken up the mantle (believe me, we tried really hard to make that happen), I know we could have gotten there.  

As it stood, I did get to know a couple of amazing folk from the other side of the political spectrum, in particular Megan Boyle and Beth Corbett).  It's no surprise that we disagreed on a lot of issues. 

What shouldn't have been surprising but was - the underlying intent of our positions often turned out to be the same.

Not only did I get to meet and know some amazing people, those two Conservative operatives challenged me and opened me to new perspectives.  I would never have had that opportunity if I'd only looked at them as foes.

To quote another Trudeau: "We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence."

Without community, diversity is opposition.  Community is the pot in which different ingredients become a stew of possibility.  Leadership, of course, is what brings it all together.

That's what politics should be and can be - committed public servants, elected representatives and political staff hacking issues and finding the best solutions.

It's totally doable, too.  Jim Brownell proved that.

As the Conservatives and NDP seek to find their footing in our new political reality, there's some consideration being given to Trudeau's sunny ways and what lessons can be learned from his approach.

Trudeau and his team have a long-standing commitment to do politics differently, too, with a clear emphasis on looking at the other parties as neighbours rather than opponents.

There are many ways Team Trudeau can build the bridges of community with their peers, if that's something they mean to follow through on.  

A monthly gathering of political staff from all parties would be a great one.

I bet if he were asked nicely, Jim Brownell would even help out.  He's just that kind of guy.

A community builder.  A leader.  A teacher.

Remind you of anyone?

#CCETakeover Day 6: CSI and the Spirit of Change

There is something within us, not necessarily from outside us, which compels the building of Gobekli Tepe and places like it. That "something" is not simply accounted for by the usual explanations which seek to explain, or, too often, explain away, people's attachment to religious expression.

If you've come along for the whole #CCETakeover ride, you'll probably have noticed some consistent themes: 

- the desire to contribute more to society; 

- the search for community; 

- the emergence of a movement that is, depending on your point of view, either disrupting the status quo or in timely fashion trying to steer our civilization through a tectonic shift of cultural change.

Our journey began with the idea of DECAs as value-adding community animators, but as a counterpoint the reality that many people both members and DECAs alike have gravitated towards CSI looking for community. They are living through self-defined "periods of transition" and have come together because they feel that CSI is a place they can belong in, be part of.

This bears repeating - they're not coming to CSI looking for profit, a new market, or to get an in with a growing organization. They're not coming (at least not primarily) for the basics of space and desks and administrative assistance. These are all things that can be found elsewhere.

Entrepreneurs, Not-For-Profits, even corporations and public servants are migrating to CSI in search of something deeper than the material - something that isn't so easy to find in their normal lives and spaces of engagement.

They come to CSI looking to find themselves. They come to belong. They come to be part of something greater than themselves.

Pause on that for a second.

In Marxism, religion is labelled as the opiate of the masses - something that oppressive rulers use to keep lower classes in line. The implication in this is that the community existed first, and that religion was essentially a con created by elites that allowed them to rise to the top and ensure the common folk carried the labour burden.

Archaeological sites like Gobekli Tepe paint a different picture. They suggest that religion may have come first and became a focal point around which community could form, like the stone in the soup.

Now, think about political parties, or comic-cons, or festivals like Burning Man. What are these except places where people go to discover, share, create and belong? An individual or group of individuals, motivated by the urge to see something in the world that they feel is lacking, or find an avenue for expressing something they feel can't be expressed in their normal lives create a space for new kinds of activity to occur. They may be seen as outliers as first, but others recognize something is happening that they want to be part of. That's how any movement begins.  

Think about User Generated Content as a concept - the idea of people creating their own tweets, sharing their own ideas, investing in costumes or solutions that someone else will benefit from. Is it really a clever scheme by corporate/partisan interests to get people to do their heavy lifting for them, or is it a natural human inclination these organizations are simply harnessing, like hydro-electric power?

If it is a human instinct, it's about more than aggregating in communities - it's about personal empowerment within that community. Like DECAs who design better processes or members who plant the seeds of a community garden.

Functionalism looks at religion as sort of a manifesto for society; a standardization of values to allow for smooth societal operation, flow. We know there's a lot more to society than symmetry, though, because the world is a complex system that is constantly in flux; society also needs to be in flux, which means standardization is actually long-term detrimental to the well-being of society.

It's the core principle of Darwinism; that which survives isn't the toughest/most stubborn and inflexible, but rather that which is best able to adapt to its environment. It just so happens that consensus is growing at all levels of society and around the world that we are in the first blush of a tectonic soci-economic shift.

Besides, the implication of functionalism is that the community existed first and that religion is the thing that evolves to allow societies to function cohesively.  

If that's the sum of what religion has to offer - in essence, rules - why has religion consistently been a catalyst for the creation of entirely value-add art?

Visit any continent, inhabit any society - the material culture of humanity is illuminated with value-added art, architecture and music created for the glory of (insert deity here). Throughout history, people have been inspired to create art and add value to their community because of religious fervour. It's not the only motive (love is another one), but it's a consistent one.

I'm sure by now you can see where we're headed.

There is evidence to support the notion that some form of religious instinct serves as a centre of gravity that pulls people together - call it the spirit of community. While organized religion (much like organized politics) can lean towards an insistence on rigid hierarchies, rituals and codes of surface societal conduct, the raw spirit of religion has been known to inspire people to create, experiment - be innovative. That, and of course, to be pro-social.

It used to be the case that religious institutions did the lion's share of charitable/social service activity.
 
As our society has expanded and older religious/social models have faced challenges in adapting to our shifting societal consciousness, we've seen a diversification of charitable/public service providers and solutions offered.

Less people make weekly visits to partake in religious services. Less people identify themselves as being part of one religion or another. Heck, less and less people believe in the concept of a divinity, period.

At the same time, there are a massive number of charitable organizations, not-for-profits, community groups and corporate social responsibility initiatives out there all seeking to do what used to be the purview of the church and, to some extent, the state.

In fact, there are so many funders, service providers, etc. out there now that we lack a comprehensive system to keep up with all of them. Our current model of service provision, including government, is plagued by duplication, gaps and overlaps. Humans do silos well, but systems - that's a work that has progressed in iterative fits and spurts throughout history.

The past two days of #CCETakeover have explored some of the work being done right now to facilitate this transition from silos to systems through open government and open data initiatives. Even media organizations like the Toronto Star are getting in on the game, asking #howmightwe provide access to our resources so as to empower others with them?

If wade into the conversations being had at forums ranging from Open Data Day to the Toronto Global Forum to countless chats in coffee shops across the land, there's growing buzz around the concept that all of this is leading somewhere, that there is a common ground in the middle of activity that we just need to discover.

Over the course of #CCETakeover, we've also looked at innovative programs like Techsdale and Community Solutions Labs that aim to empower traditionally marginalized people so that they can be equal partners at the social table.  Projects like these empower individuals within target communities. And they start by creating shared spaces and cultures that nurture belonging.

Initiatives like these aren't about service provision, capitalizing on an untapped market - in fact, the revenue-generation model is often the last bit of business to be tackled.  The key motivation isn't to reel people (and their pocketbooks) in, it's about growing strong communities.


Which leads us back to CSI.

What is CSI?  Is it a co-working space?  Is it an incubator?  Is it a unique environment that places coffee-making higher up on the to-do list than turning on the printer?  It's all of that, but from its inception, CSI has aimed to be something more.

"It's a place where I think you belong", Adil Dhalla has described it, perhaps prophetically.

CSI's membership continues to grow.  Its events attract more and more people, each one looking to find something - and each one ultimately finding both a community to belong in and an encouraged opportunity to be and do more within and beyond it.  It's not just the grassroots/Not-For-Profit community that has become a pillar of the CSI community - For-Profit entrepreneurs, corporations and even government is starting to put down roots in the centre.

My favourite examples of this are the weekly salad club which happens at each location and the community potluck with which CSI Regent Park is helping to animate not only their members, the broader neighbourhood around them.

The format of these events is pretty simple - CSI provides the pot (physical space) and a stone (the event), then inspires others to bring their own ingredients into the mix.  With a bit of intentional animation, what results is not only a meal as rich as its members, but a dynamic community of engagement.

CSI members are, by and large, change-makers.  They are part of a community that believes in community.  Members reflect the Grasssroots, For Profit and, increasingly, government agencies, partners and even public servants like Diana Thai.  The same holds true for those who are becoming part of the broader CSI community through events, programs and projects.

Wherever they have arrived from, these change-makers, virtuous schemers and community animators have three things in common:

- the desire to contribute more to society; 

- the search for community; 

- the belief that a movement for social change is emerging

These needs and beliefs have driven each one of them to the Centre for social innovation.

I don't think it was intentional.  If anything, the story to date seems to suggest that the catalysts of CSI were simply the first ones to put down a pot, toss in a stone and issue an invitation.

As things often happen, CSI just ended up being conceived and executed at the right point in time when an unnamed community of people were individually looking for an aspirational community to belong to that didn't seem to exist anywhere else.

Part by design, part by luck, but to a large extent simply because there is a need, CSI has come to represent the spirit of change that defines the age we live in.  Increasingly, CSI also embodies the spirit of community that people are seeking.

That's why it is becoming a centre of gravity for the change-making movement of our time.

Is the Centre for Social Innovation a modern-day Gobekli Tepe? If so, what are the broader implications of that?

I have no answers to share with you - only perspective.

After all, this takeover is a ride we're all taking together, as a community.

And where we go from here - that choice is up to us.

CSI Takeover Day 2: Building Community One Potluck at a Time

"Want to join us and become gardeners of community?"

The man's eyes spoke of a deep frustration, almost a fear - the kind that sets in when hope seems lost, like the cold on a wet winter morning.

"Tell me - what is this place?  What will I find here?"

The man was a first-time visitor to CSI Regent Park.  Without going into too much detail, his personal story was heartbreaking; he had spent most of his life seeking to right social wrongs and fight against inequity, often against a system that punished him for his efforts.  He'd heard from a friend about this special place where things were different, where courageous conversations were encouraged and where change-making was a common bond of fellowship.

This man had come to CSI looking to find something.  It wasn't a career boost or a new model of workspace. It wasn't even the excellent customer service and "getting to yes" attitude for which CSI has become famous.  He had come looking for something far more basic, something far more essential than any of this.

At the edge of hope, the man had come to CSI looking for community.

No pressure, right?

I am a big believer in not setting false expectations; I've seen too many politicians fall as the towers of lofty promises they've built crumble to play that game.  Having said that, I feel pretty confident about the culture that CSI has built (and, as we'll explore tomorrow, others are also nurturing) and what it has to offer individuals and society both.

The gentleman and I had a chat out on the balcony; we discussed his life and his frustrations; we talked about the why behind CSI, the secret sauce that makes the CSI culture one organizations around the world are looking to capture and bring back to their own countries, like Social Innovation Prometheuses.  At the end of it all and after a walk around the building, I left him not with a promise, but with an invitation.

"To really see what CSI is about", I said, "come to salad club.  To see what makes CSI Regent Park a model of how to do big-C community right, come to the Potluck."

No lofty promises, no sneaky sales pitch.  Just an invitation.  I knew, from experience, it was enough.

What's the secret ingredient that makes the CSI Regent Park potluck an event so meaningful, so inclusive and inspiring that I would have faith enough to believe it might provide this man with what his soul clearly craved?

I'll share that with you in a moment - but first, here's how CSI RP Manager Shilbee Kim describes the potluck: 

We believe that a great community is like a potluck - it only works when everyone brings something to the table.

But we all know that potlucks don’t just happen. Someone needs to convene, there needs to be space and probably the most common question we hear is, “what should I bring?” For the last decade, our work in Community Animation has been to convene, create collaborative spaces and find creative ways to surface that last question. In the potluck analogy, asking what you should bring is commonplace, but in the real world we rarely ask. 

Imagine if we did! What would happen if we brought intentionality to connecting the needs and assets of the community?

The Centre for Social Innovation is collaborating with the Daniels Corporation and the Toronto Community Housing on a community building initiative for new, returning, displaced and existing residents of the Regent Park neighbourhood. Our vision is to convene a monthly evening potluck in the CSI space during which we share information about the neighbourhood and facilitate connections through our most popular Community Animation activities. 

The activities intend to surface the names, common interests, needs​ and assets of everyone in the room and are casual, fun and positive. The core objective is to build new connections and reinforce existing ones, ultimately to build social cohesion in the community.

All sounds great - but does it work?  

For me, the answer is a yes, plain and simple.  

This is the only reason I could, in good faith, look my new friend in the eye and encourage him to come and see the fullness of what CSI has to offer.  

I base my answer on personal experience - something I can describe to you, but is best experienced first hand. When you're that confident in what you belong to, it's not about sales - it's simply about extending the invitation to take a seat at the table.

You know what I mean?

But I promised to share with you the secret to community-building that is so deeply sought by people and corporations around the world, but seems so hard to find.

In truth, it's not as mystical as you might think.

Are you ready?

Don't look up.  Don't look down.  Look inwards.

Yes, I'm talking about you.  And you, and you, and that person next to you, and especially my new friend who walked into CSI looking for community.

There is no secret ingredient; there is no spoon.  There is only us, and what we bring to the table, and what we build together - much like a potluck, or an organization, or an ecosystem.  The whole is more than the sum of its parts, but its parts are what allow it to becoming something greater.

The stone in the soup that makes CSI a magical place of collaboration, innovation and change-making is the same seed that's being planted in government agencies by virtuous schemers (more on them tomorrow), in the private and not-for-profit sectors by a growing movement of people who believe that strong, engaged individuals create strong, dynamic societies.

It's not about the thing they bring that no one else can replicate; it's about empowerment.

Think about it for a second; the emphasis on animation.  The Do It Yourself culture.  The space design that fosters happy collisions.  The events, the "bring a penny, share a penny" approach to facilitation.

CSI has been intentionally designed as a place where people can grow into themselves, cross-pollinate with peers and have the resources, encouragement and confidence they need to catalyze great things together.

This is the big difference between the boss who says "follow me" and the leader who says "how might we make this even better together?"

That's what CSI is about.

I look forward to seeing my new friend out for the potluck - maybe not the next one, but I bet the one after that.

Who knows - maybe I'll see you there, too.  I hope I do; that would be awesome.



With special thanks to social gardener Shilbee Kim; she is a constant inspiration and the embodiment of leadership.

Political Kung Fu in #topoli

There's an election on in Toronto - a legendary battle between legendary campaign teams whose spinning skills are the stuff of legend.

At least, that seems to be how the campaign teams feel.  For the average bear on the street, they don't know and don't care.  Chow, Tory, whoever - they're all the same, except Rob Ford.  Ford is the outlier, Dean Moriarty made Mayor - people are transfixed by the car-wreck that is his mayoralty and his life.  His appeal is that he puts the FU into politics, sticking it to the system and the rules in ways many, many citizens wish they could.

Citizens are increasingly apathetic about politics and democracy as a whole - they don't believe in the former and don't believe the latter really exists any more, but don't feel as if there's anything they can do about it.

Like a Kung Fu epic, there are tough-talking warriors fighting with media acrobatics on a hill, occasionally touching down like tornadoes to wreak havoc on the lives and communities of the villagers.  When the credits role, it doesn't really matter if Superman has flattened Metropolis - he's the hero, because he won, and that's what matters.

That's the big secret - political operatives who style themselves as partisan James Bonds don't really connect what they do with the failing of democracy.  They associate themselves, their candidate and/or their cause as holy; they need to win, because only they can save us from the other guy, or from ourselves.

It may good for one's ego, this epic framing of partisan demi-gods battling for the hearts and minds of the mere mortals, but it's not true.

First - a mayoralty race is not epic, nor legendary.  Especially in a city like Toronto with a weak-mayor system; our mayor, whoever it is, may get to set the agenda, but they only have one vote.  This has been Rob Ford's greatest challenge - by acting as a parody of tough political leaders and with a staff that's acted as a parody of manipulative political staff, Ford has been his own worst enemy when it comes to implementing his agenda.

Second - Mayoralty isn't about tough leaders with massively comprehensive plans that can be foisted on equally-elected Councilors.    Toronto's Mayor is supposed to be cheer leader for the city, conduit for ideas and morale officer in times of difficulty.  The Mayor isn't supposed to be a demi-god; they're supposed to be a reflection of us.

This is why Rob Ford continues to appeal to many people in Toronto, especially on the margins of society; they don't feel that City Hall reflects them, understands them or even cares about their issues.  The System, be it the police, service providers or even transit doesn't have their interests at heart, but sees them as a virus that plagues the city and needs to be managed down.

Nobody likes to feel like part of the problem.  People want to be part of the solution, always.

This is why I'm not backing any of the big names on the Mayoralty ballot - I don't believe in their approach, I'm disenfranchised with the politics-as-usual games being played by their teams an have yet to feel that any one of them has real empathy for the people of this City.

They're in competition with each other for power, which is a far cry from being advocates for bringing power to the people.

 

We don't want to be witness to destructive battles between egos - we want to be co-designers of our shared future.  We want to build Toronto together.

 

I don't want a Mayor who seems themselves as the light and the way - I want a leader who understands the value of dialogue, facilitation and building consensus.

Show me leadership that inspires, motivates and reminds us that only we, as a community, can make Toronto better, and you'll have both my vote and my support. 

I know many, many others who feel the same way.

 

The Predatorial Prime Minister

"Stephen is a predator," he told Stone.  "It's whoever is in his sights."

 

Oh come on, political left; don't sound so outraged.

 

And come on, political right; don't sound so indignant. 

 

Of course the Prime Minister is a predator.  There's never been any question that he's a predator.  In fact, his Party has celebrated the fact that Harper is a predator - it's the brand that's led him to win, so much as his wins weren't about the other guys losing.

 

We want Apex Predators for our leaders.  We seek them out and reward their ruthlessness, mistaking it for leadership.  We also look for this quality in an increasingly-competitive work world. 

 

How often if you've heard "you eat what you kill" in reference to closing deals, landing clients and making sales?  That's why.

 

There's a piece of our cognitive hardwiring which is designed to be accepting of and desirous of predatorial leaders; it's almost the psychosocial equivalent to an appendix.  Back in our ancient past, we would have relied on tough, aggressive predators in the pack to bring down prey and fend off threats.  That way the rest of us could do things like learn to harness fire.

 

It's why the aggressive political leaders out there (whatever their political stripe) are all about standing against, puffing their chest and chewing the scenery.  It's also why they will vilify someone as being a threat, be it the lazy poor or the selfish elites. 

It's why bosses like Harper thrive when they have an opponent to bash.

And there are still times where you want leaders like this at the fore, particularly when there are real threats out there.  But there's a difference between the chest-thumping gorilla and the one who's willing to go into the fray and bash heads, risking personal injury in the process.

We may want the functionally-fixed, narrow-focused attack dogs at the front, but the political predators we have now are not what they're selling themselves to be.  When things get really hot, they (Harper in particular) have backed down, time and again.

 

Unlike, say, a Vladimir Putin.  That guy's a real killer and unashamed of it.

 

Part of us is hard-wired to want the tough guy in charge, but we are increasingly recognizing that there is a world of difference between being a bully and being a leader.  You want a bully in your corner when you feel weak and threatened, but we don't want to be constantly on edge or reliant on feudal kings to keep us safe.

 

We want leaders who empower.

 

So yeah, we have a predator for Prime Minister - and lots of other predators in senior ranks throughout government and business.  We might even be needing real tough guys in some roles in the near future.

 

But that's not leadership. 

 

And in as complex, diverse and interwoven a society as we have now, a boss who rests atop of the food chain isn't going to cut it - we need a stone in the soup.