The Importance of
Training ...
Perspective of
Peter Ryan,
Founder and CEO
of the
Microloan Foundation
By, Peter Burgess, Correspondent , New York
( Microfinance Focus) , March 2nd, 2009
I caught up with Peter Ryan last month in Boston. Peter is the founder and CEO of Micro-Loan Foundation (MLF),
a UK charity that has established a successful growing microfinance organization in Malawi, and now starting to
expand into neighboring countries. Peter was visiting the Boston area to celebrate the first anniversary of the
MicroLoan Foundation USA that is helping to fund the growth of MLF.
Peter Ryan first saw the potential of microfinance when traveling with friends in the Philippines. A small loan got
paid back and did some visible good. In 1997 Peter saw the depth of poverty in Africa during a business visit to
Malawi and recognized that microcredit could be the catalyst for development and poverty reduction that was
not mere charity but truly sustainable. Because Peter had a business background, and had started a number of
businesses, he was aware of some of the critical issues that cause business to fail ... and the MLF program he
designed reduced these risks.
MLF Malawi opened its first office in 2002 in Nkhotakota, a small fishing town that combined the greatest need
with the least provision of microfinance services. The first loans were made in 2002 and by 2003 the MLF had a
staff of five, had made over 600 loans and had a 97% repayment rate. A second office was opened in Dwangwa,
north of the first office in 2004 and more offices added over the next five years so that there are now 15 offices,
with 5 more to be opened this year. In addition MLF is expanding into neighboring countries starting with Zambia.
It will start in other countries in Southern Africa: probably these will be Mozambique, Namibia and Botswana
. The Zambia program will be headed up by the Kenson Chiphaka who was MLF Malawi CEO who built up
the Malawi operation so successfully. The new Malawi CEO will be another Malawian. James Kajama with strong
development and banking credentials.

By some standards the interest rates charged
by MLF in Malawi are high ... maybe around
66% per annum ... but this interest income
makes it possible for MicroLoan to be sustainable
over a long period while having a substantial
microloan portfolio and providing critical
training to its clients.
Because people in the rural areas of Malawi are
poorly educated, the people have little opportunity
for progress. While the lack of money is
one constraining factor, in Malawi, according to
Peter Ryan, there is in addition a big deficit in
education and knowing the basics of business.
This is why MLF is very committed to the idea
of training as an integral part of its program.
Almost all of the MLF loans are made to women
who are starting their own businesses. But before
they may take a loan they must go
through a training course. The women are required
to form into business groups electing a
Chairman, Teasurer and secretary and are
then given a six to eight week crash course on
key aspects of business management. During
the initial stages of the business, they are provided
with constant guidance as their modest
business takes off. This includes support in
practical training for very basic business skills
like cash-flow planning that enables people to
get businesses up and running very quickly.
Within 4 months MLF trainees are running real
businesses and usually have repaid the initial
loan in full.
Many of the businesses are trading businesses,
such as buying fish from the lake (Lake Nyasa),
rice or tomatoes, and selling them in the capital,
Lilongwe, where they earn a profit. Others
are small production or “value adding” businesses,
such as bread or knitted products
which are hand-made and then sold in the local
street markets. Without MLF these people
would have no access to the money needed to
buy the equipment and materials to start these
businesses.
------------------ // ------------------
During the MLF training the potential clients are
given the opportunity to learn something of
what it is that they need to know to be successful.
It is a comprehensive curriculum.
Many businesses start ups fail because of they
do no know or understand the market. Borrowers
starting up a business must know about the
product or service, the competition, the prices,
and all sorts of hidden problems and issues.
People in a poor community need the basics.
They need food, and clothes, and also things
like medicine, fishing lines, firewood, spare
parts, and such. A good business satisfies real
needs and will succeed if it supplies the goods
or service at a low cost. Market research need
not be complicated, but there must be a sound
analysis and application of common sense.
MLF helps to ensure that the potential clients
know how to start the business in accordance
with local custom. In Malawi, setting up a small
business requires consulting with the local chief
or village head man. This may not be written in
the national law and regulation, but it is a customary
requirement and is an important part of
the ‘due dilgence’ that the MLF carries out before
loans are given as it helps ensure high levels
of repayment.
In real estate there are only three things that
matter ... location, location and location. The
same goes for a small business. The place
where the business is set up makes a big difference.
This may not be obvious ... it is part of
the training. Customers must be able to get to
the business easily, and it must be possible for
the business owner to bring the products. Convenience
is a big value in a society where walking
is the norm for most travel!
Growth is not the top priority ... first of all learn
how to have a sustainable small business keeping
costs as low as possible, and grow because
there is demand for the goods and services not
because there is an overly big overhead cost to
be covered! It is much better to have low overhead
and low costs and low prices and a growing business than to have high prices, high
costs and no business.
Basic business know-how and financial discipline
is a cornerstones of MLF training philosophy
and success. Potential borrowers are required
to demonstrate that they can manage
money by saving up a small sum themselves –
10% or 15% of the loan - before receiving their
money.
MLF does not walk away as soon as the loan is
disbursed, rather they stay very much involved.
The business training goes on for six
weeks so that the clients can learn to run
meetings, have elections for their group leadership:
chairperson, secretary, treasurer, etc.,
keep records, bank money, manage their cashflow,
budget for their business and ensure that
they make a profit. Many of these people do
not read or write, and they do not have calculators.
All of this has to be done using talk and
using mental arithmetic.
MLF business start up borrowers meet every
two weeks with their loan officer to review their
business progress, and to make repayments
against their loan. This is a tight schedule and
borrowers find it difficult, but the discipline is
extremely valuable. Critical problems can be
identified quickly and steps taken to solve the
problem with the help of the loan officer. The
role of the loan officer is crucial. The loan officer's
experience can be used to help a struggling
business and do something to correct the
problem. This is a level of engagement that is
costly, but incredibly valuable.
MLF uses a group lending model with business
start up groups of between eight and fifteen
women. The group is collectively responsible
for the repayment of each individual loan. If
one member of a group gets into trouble, the
others have to be prepared to help her out.
This happens, for example, if one member of a
group becomes ill and they cannot operate the
business for a while. In the case of a group
member dying before her loan is repaid the
loan is written off, but where someone is suffering
from an illness other members of the
group take responsibility for carrying her
through the period of the illness.
------------------ // ------------------
MLF provides know-how, start-up capital, and
on-going support but the individual borrowers
design and run the businesses for themselves.
97% of the loans are re-paid in full. But it appears
from what Peter Ryan talks about that
the results are really a whole lot better than
these financial results. Small rather remote
communities that were doing nothing more
than existing ... and declining ... have found
ways to have businesses that satisfy needs and
earn income.
The 3% failure rate results from factors that
are out of MLF control, mostly that the borrower
has died. With life expectancy of only 37
years, mainly because of the high incidence of
HIV/AIDS, it is a sad fact of life that some of
the businesses will fail because the borrower
dies.
MLF Malawi is demonstrating that a very basic
sensible approach to development can be sustainable
and make a big impact. Training is
central to the success of the MLF in Malawi. The
approach does not use rocket science ... just
very advanced common sense.
bumped into this network when at mit yesterday - not at all what I hoped mit and yesuscan microcredit networks would be influenced by
http://www.ignia.com.mx/our-team.php?pag1=pag1_41.html&pag2=pag2_41.html

Investment Team

Álvaro Rodríguez Arregui
Michael Chu
Susie Lee
Mauricio J. Barrera Garza
Alonso Bustamante Guerra
Mariana Rodríguez González de Cossío


The two founding Managing Directors bring over fifty years of combined investment and executive management experience in the United States, Europe, Mexico and across Latin America to IGNIA. Both are leaders in the field of microfinance, having pioneered the creation and distribution of new products to serve the needs of the base of the pyramid populations for decades.
Blog year2008 in october is about ending poverty http://events.takingitglobal.org/20255 so we hope this week's syndication to 100 blogs will exponentialise to tens of thousands of blogs by then, with a little help from friends like you

sustainability club http://sustainabilityclub.com

social business club http://www.socialbusinessclub.net

collaboration cafe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nL_a0K97I

yunus 10000 http://yunus10000.com collaboration coordinators for youth dialogues in that city and between cities together with invitations to action specific to each video good news story - eg if you want microcredit to beat off big banks why not help any school try out micro credit with the world's simplest program small change, big changes - a microloanfoundation franchise

Peers across hemispheres and I are far more interested in ensuring that each of these intercity movements vetoes any uses of 20th c failing system methods that the majority of club coordinators -or where elected an honorary board - vote against, than prescribing revenue models.

OPEN SOURCING THE CLUBS
Obviously we should want coordinators to make a living out of work input whlst at the same time recognising that being a club coordinator is probably worth more than having many a professional qualification - or needs to become so if this world is to be sustainable. Equally where profits are repeatedly generated I assume we can find a way iof agreeing some sliding scale that should be contributed either to your favourite grassroots organsiation in bangladesh or to a small list of other potential grassroots partners of future capitalism which should probably need at least 75 of members refendum to confirm

I am very happy if people will negotiate what other rules they would need to want to participate as well as to clarify where they want diferent contant at the mother webs. The main web system I use costs $35 a year per web so its not difficult to imagine that major cties will also want to set up their own branch web or of course a free blog - either of which we will happily linmk from the top of the mother web.

Obviously some of our constitution needs double checking with for example the 100000 bangladeshi's and other Gandhians who are the main practical exemplar of the values we seek to network worldwide so that the future sustains 7 billion brilliant jobs and goodwill multiplying across all women, children and even men.

We wish to learn from each city's most successful ways of mobilising and cross-cultural celebration, as well as metods for ensuring that any action network actually reaches to those in most desperate need of its service. This is one of the big lessons of bangladeshi experience -reiterated by every micro-system designer in bangladesh we have interviewed - once a networks starts empowering the entrepreneur inside it will never get deeper than the deepest needsholders it begins with. This is a lesson that many global NGOs seem never to have begun to grade.

chris macrae http://worldentrepreneur.net
washington dc inquiries desk usa 301 881 1655 info@worldcitizen.tv
y10000 at facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=22045349892





Gates capitalism
Yunus capitalism



more videos ; more on Grameen stories that inspire your bloggers/editors

My favourite Yunus Book Review @ 1000 Book Club

I may be biassed as I gave away 1000 copies of the new Yunus book http://grameen.tv but this is one of my favourite reader reviews on the entrepreneurial revolution of Socila Business http://grameen.tv/_wsn/page3.html httP://entrepreneurialrevolution.blogspot.com so far -please send in yours .if you want to be connecetd to te friend who wrote this review, please say

REVIEW

==================MUHAMMAD YUNUS BOOK Creating a world without poverty:SOCIAL BUSINESS, FUTURE OF CAPITALISM==================

REVIEWER 1/1000

BEYOND GREENWASHED CSR

I think that Yunus has described a path that goes beyond Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). A system transformation worthy of his invitation to everyone to change Future Capitalism and early adopters such as Bill Gates' Creative Capitalism http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%2Bcapitalism+%2Byunus&btnG=Search+News http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%2Bcapitalism+%2Bgates&btnG=Search http://gatesway.blogspot.com

And he has effectively provided a model that removes any possibility of greenwash – the ever potential weak point of CSR. Others have alluded to these things but I have not seen it painted in such a complete and integral picture as Yunus does.

Yunus traces the link beween small actions that people can take (Social Actions http://yunussocialactiongroup.org http://grameen.tv/_wsn/page2.html ), to a business model free of potential greenwash (social business), all the way through to a vision of the poor being integrally involved in capitalism with his BoP vision. A capitalism where everyone plays a role and everyone is an entrepreneur.. not just the few quirky ones.. it is our natural state to be creative as he shows by his deeds… supporting the most unlikely to develop micro businesses.

If we look at Grameen Danone, it is an incredible story of creativity.. They design a new type of production plant, and keep it local so that the yoghurt is fresh and so that there are none of the international distribution costs. What is more is that the distribution is taken on by women franchisers.. fantastic.. a whole chain of distribution to the last local spot becomes a plethora of micro businesses for women. No where down the line is the charity element. The children get the extra nutrients they are missing in their diet. Danone is not losing any money. It is gaining a long-wished for deep satisfaction.. just see the letter to Yunus from Danone in his book… they are a company changed.

Hi-TRUST MAPPING BEYOND INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Also, your emphasis on the inappropriate auditing of an additive triple bottom line (TBL) is also important. As if any the social aspect of the TBL is at all neglected, there is a compounding effect of value multiplication that is not reflected in an additive model. Any system theorist or mathematucian who talks about virtuous or vicious spirals owes it to the world to adopt the open source maths available for auditing what sustainability exponential up or down is being compounded by an investment's http://www.ned.com/search/?SearchableText=exponential

World's Too Crowded for Zero-sum Economics

In my mind open space is one of 20 system tools that can save us from believing in the fallibility of the world's too crowded, but only one. Using the maths definition I gave of true systems tool - both its invitation before and its project networking after-life depend on openly interfacing other action learning, social entrepreneurial or empowerment economics systems


ECONOMICS TIPPING POINT

the gatesway past a crowded world is to go beyond the zero sum economics that global top down corporations, governments, professions, media , university ... are governed by

most of the people at the top of these barren trees are not going to be the first to help seed value multiplication above zero-sum- that much is clear from 24 years of debating this http://www.normanmacrae.com/netfuture.html


whence plant a solaroof is the gatesway idea to climate because if photosythesis of energy is ever systematically made to work (and heavens knows why it would need more rocket science than carbon sequestration) it will have been built from the grassroots up mediated/flowed by world citizens - so let's just assume that is the most above zero-sum net for climate; what are the most above zero-sum nets in other crisis areas

MICROCREDIT if you certify its maps the way yunus does is good enough ; not only has it taken 100 million out of poverty but it has effectively privatised the Bangladesh stock market to be owned by the poorest people; in so doing it is spinning out concepts in markets from mobiles to nutritional fast foods that any developing country could privatise to ownership of its poorest people

some of prahalad's search for organisational models that are 50 times more market efficient provided you accept a basic service rather than excess variety are good enough as long as their ownership never gets taken over by the global top-down

education where the assistance computers gives frees up teachers and family to mentor and socially network the child's make a difference connections is thanks to Gandhi-Montessori a wave of amazing grace; judging from dad's biograhy, von neumann would have approved such computer use -in fact he would have assumed it would have been the prime computing use

privatization where the public service resources are embedded inside the poorest communities is a BRAC model with amazing value multipliers; it is however the oppositesystem of governing or NGOing over people; it needs Stern-Robinson-Eigen economic referees to blow the transparency whistles . Transparency mapmakers can empower change wherever the world needs to sustain development

search for what knowledge truths are so vital and value multiplying can be freed up under google.org's brilliant enlightening; if only we could organise a no-cost takeover of the BBC by google that would end http://crisismedia.tv http://universityofstars.tv

http://worldeconomist.net http://worldentrepreneur.net http://worldcitizen.tv

chris http://citizenagency.tv us tel 301 881 1655 http://gatesway.blogspot.com
Of course this networking game assumes the world knows -and can simply map - who the worlds' sustainability investor epicentres are

Your votes are welcome. As benchmarks my nominations are (who's yours):
Bill Drayton - can we survey what his 25 most socilally networked gateways need to be
Fazle Abed
Peter Eigen
Yunus
Entrepreneurial Revolution Systems ER alumni of James Wilson
...
let's share a living list by email chris.macrae@yahoo.co.ud

alternative possibilities could include: Nelson Mandela, Peter Eigen, the multipliers of Grajew*Berner-Lee*Schnwab : http://wwwsef.blogspot.com

- please tell me at chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk

Bill Gates - ditto : can we at Club of Seattle and other City survey...?


INTRODUCING

the 3 by 3 format of Gatesway

we also test drive 5 by 5 formats but never 4 by 4's
Billanthropy's investigative journalists for humanity (JfH) are starting to rehearse civil society questions such as : Can you help us log up : A) what investments in MF Gates Foundation makes? what attitudes to MF are expressed by Gates? B) key references to MF's integral impacts in the Gates' primary focus areas of health and education

example A) Source Seattle Times June 20 What will the foundation be like five to 10 years from now? You're building an interesting campus in Seattle

Gates: It's an expertise place, but a lot of the expertise is finding partners. We are broadening some of our definitions of how we help in developing countries — to things like water and microfinance and new crops. ed note : tese 2 weblogs are desperately seeking open co-editors - chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk: these are fascinating -life-critical micro-system gravities of investing in sustainability of nature or of people - but beyond my ken to lead produce for the final decade of Inconvenient Truth Testing

Source Business Week May 2 Gates' 2.2 mn over 3 years to Opportunity International , trans-Africa net of commercial banks for the poor; 5.5 mn to Aga Khan foundation for micrpinsurance in pakistan and tanzania -more detailed tracking at Club of Seattle

Alert Gates & MF http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=%2B%22bill%20gates%22%20%2Bmicrofinance

http://www.microcreditsummit.org/papers/UNFPA_Advocacy_FINAL.pdf
From Microfinance to Macro Change: Integrating Health Education and Microfinance to Empower Women and Reduce Poverty



www.Unitus.com 1.46 mn from Gates as of may06 - excellent reference list to MF bookmarks http://www.unitus.com/sections/poverty/poverty_res_recreading.asp includes this on omidyar: www.omidyar.net/home/ — Omidyar Network is a mission-based investment group committed to fostering individual self empowerment on a global scale. Established in June 2004 by Pierre Omidyar (the founder of E-Bay) and his wife, Pam, the Network is founded on the simple core belief that every individual has the power to make a difference. In September 2005, Omidyar Network granted $2.7 Million to expand our operations in Redmond, Wash. and Bangalore, India.
Unitus doe
s excellent feedback by blog on MFI summits it helps co-host - this for various MFI's in eg first Leadership Summit in Malaysia feb06, http://blog.unitus.com/?p=87 bringing together management teams from MFIs based in India, Mexico, Kenya and the Philippines
Redmond WA based - is Unitus emerging as Gates' research house for MF? announcement of some funding from Gates Foundatiion Redmond, WA–May 22, 2006–Unitus, a creator of innovative solutions to global poverty, announced today that it had received a $1.46 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to identify potential innovations in the efficiency of the microfinance business model. In this three-year project, Unitus will work with four Unitus microfinance institution (MFI) partners in India and Latin America to create substantial improvements in their operational and financial efficiency that can be shared across the industry.

The Gates grant addresses the key challenge facing the microfinance industry: How to accelerate the growth of financial services for the poor. Improving efficiency is crucial to driving the growth necessary to close the gap between the 500 million people who would benefit from access to financial services and the 92 million who have it.

“Unitus has a proven model for partnering with and accelerating the growth of microfinance institutions,” said Unitus President and CEO Geoff Davis. “But despite all the progress we’ve made, millions of poor people still lack access to financial services. This grant from the Gates Foundation will enable us, through our MFI partners, to uncover some of the critical operational and financial hurdles that are hindering scale in this industry.”

Said Sylvia Mathews, President of the Global Development Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: “We’re delighted to collaborate with a recognized innovator such as Unitus on this project. We expect that the microfinance institution partners Unitus will use as the basis for its research will achieve a 10 percent gain in operational efficiency within three years and make other improvements in financial efficiency as a result of this work. This will help the broader industry learn and improve its business model for delivering financial services and allow a much larger percentage of poor people to gain access to those services.”

Footnote:
what can be learnt from the Gates' Biography of Microsoft's Revolutionary Years when it was only just in time to surf/service the web with its software built for personal computers:

Bill's Source - "The Way Ahead":
Change is always less in 3 years and far more than 7 than numbvers men expect (because the most vital future opportunties and risks compounds exponentially)

When a market sector reaches a tipping point such as ours did in the early 1990s: the organsiation will not survive unless the CEO spends more than half his time "not shooting the messenger, but by all means selctively shooting the measurers", so as to systemically prevent What Goleman and other intangibles valuation experts (eg Emotional Intelligence, Human Cpital, Socila Capital, Trust-Flow, Transparency, Sustainability) call preventing CEO's disease - with as much everyday attention as 90-day boxed in accounting is likely to cause it

IT zings not things

The Networked economy zings not things. Obvious huh? Then why do we use 100 year old accounting whose books rule that machines and lifeless gluts of stocks are investments, people are always cots to cut?

Journalist Alan Mitchell picks up the story in the long awaited Bibliography of Valuing the Map that Sustains the World

chapter 2 - for personal use - if in doubt about commons copyright etc kindly mail chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk expliaing where you want to propgate parts or whole of this draft; our criteria are as follows - not to be sued by our publishers; to help citzen organsiations liberate and debates this stimulus may aid; to charge for profit organsiations unless they seek to use this to transform a global sector's future towards sustaining human beings, or other economically abundant goals whose system quality benchmarks including deeply human purpose, trust-flow and transparency compound exponentially

11. The secret of mediocrity


Key points
Embracing Mapping won’t be easy because organisational resistance to real wealth creation is deep and subtle – and largely unacknowledged and unseen. But the consequences of not changing are unacceptable. We can’t put up with more of the same.

Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King: some people have done some extraordinary things in the causes of peace, social justice and the alleviation of human suffering. The Catholic Church, Oxford University: some institutions have exceptional longevity. For these two, a century is just one small part of a stunningly rich history.
Likewise, some companies have stellar performance compared with their peers. If you invested $1 in a fund that tracked the performance of the US stock market as a whole on January 1, 1926, by December 31, 1990 it would have been worth $415. But if you had invested your $1 in a group of eighteen ‘visionary’ companies such as 3M, American Express, Boeing, Citicorp, Ford, IBM and Procter & Gamble, however, you would have made fifteen times more money: $6,356. [1]

More stunningly just one or two companies of the service economy have generated 100 fold returns for investors. They have all systemised the intraprenurial triangles first viewable in the 1982 survey we're all intraprenurial now, The Economist, 1982, Norman Macrae. Companies like South West airlines have achieved this because they multipied 1000 fold value for their 2 other first partners in intrapreneurial revolution: employees and what future, a society located at one extremity of a continent, most wanted an airline to serve so as maximise people's productive and playful connections and collaborations around their lifetime exponentials. If your brand charter is measurable to the deepest human purpose an organisation can serve (what would the world uniquely miss if you ceased to exist tomorrow and who connects that world with the human relationship gravity your trust-flow spiral around) , your compound progress returns abundant wealth to those investors who share your journey for a generation. However, apart from never being financially weak, you do not naviagte by historical quarterly perormances alone, no more than a pilot would ever regard the chief cockpit dial as how much gas has been burnt up in the last 900 miles however important that is to keep a preventative eye on . Indeed, your leaders empower you to recognise that 90 day spreadsheeting is the greatest mathematical mistake you could ever monopolise goverance of a human - as distinguished from a machine-ruled - organisation around. A mistake (forecast back in 1984) as destined to end sustainability of the human race if most global market sectors are value chained by it .Figure 1



Whether it’s individuals, institutions or businesses some always stand out from the crowd. They really are exceptional. Mesmerised as we are by what these outstanding individuals, institutions and businesses achieve, it’s not surprising that we seek to discover the secrets of their success. Probably the majority of business books, for example, take the following form: ‘look at the amazing performance of that business! Let’s try and understand how it got to be so successful. If we can uncover these secrets of success, perhaps we can emulate them’.
Certainly, it’s a valid line of enquiry. But it’s got a problem. The trouble with the exceptional – whether it relates to individuals, institutions or corporations – is that it is … well … exceptional. Which means that by definition, it’s different to ‘average’ or ‘normal’.
So what happens when we look at the unexceptional (which, let’s face it, most of us are! Again, by definition!). Compare the Forbes 100 list of America’s largest companies from its first year of publication in 1917 to 1987, for example. Sixty one of the original 100 had ceased to exist over that seventy year period. Of the remaining 39, only eighteen – including Du Pont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, Kodak and Procter & Gamble – managed to keep their place in the top 100, and only two (General Electric and Kodak) had performed better than the average. Since then, Kodak’s performance has fallen by the wayside. [2]
You can find similar figures for almost any comparison group, over any period of time. Compare the Standard & Poor 500 from 1957 to 1997 for example: only 74 of the original 500 remained, and only twelve of them outperformed the average index. [3] Or how about the thirteen years between 1970 and 1983? In this short period, already one third of the biggest companies in the biggest market in the world, as charted by the Fortune 500, had disappeared from view: acquired, merged or broken up. [4]
Among the survivors, many don’t perform spectacularly well. Of 172 companies appearing on the Fortune 50 largest corporations list between 1955 to 1995, for example, only 5% were able to grow at six per cent above inflation during their reign at the top. The other 95% had periods of rapid growth. But then they stalled. And once that happened, most never recovered. [5]
So, here we are presented with a puzzling paradox. Organisations – some organisations at least – have the potential to sweep the world before them; to earn widespread and enduring admiration; to survive crisis and misfortune; even to change the world. Come to think of it, if you want to achieve anything significant nowadays, you have to do it through some sort of organisation. It’s through organisations – the cooperation of human beings for agreed purposes – that things get done.
Yet, at the same time, we’re face with widespread evidence of sustained failure to fulfil this potential. It’s not only true at the corporate level. It’s also true at the social level. Continued mass starvation, widespread pollution and environmental damage, human rights abuses, the persistence of killer illnesses such as AIDS. With all the riches, technologies, knowledge, skills and resources at the finger tips of modern institutions and corporations you would think that these problems could have been addressed far more effectively than they have so far. But they haven’t. We have the potential. But it hasn’t been unleashed.
Now look at the other end of the telescope, at individuals. How many individuals really achieve their full potential during the working, active lives? And how many end up not really taking their hearts and minds with them when they go to work? Some of the statistics are truly frightening. [1] For example, research by Towers Perrin in 2003 found that only 17% of US employees are ‘highly engaged’ with their work, with 19% being positively disengaged. The figures for Europe are slightly worse: 15% engaged, with 20% ‘completely uninterested in the work they do’. Likewise, a survey of 2.5 million employees by Harris Interactive and FranklinCovey found that only 22% of employees felt motivated and valued, only 15% felt they worked within a safe ‘win-win’ environment, with only 17% believing their work environment was characterised by mutual understanding and creative dialogue. [6]
In other words, at all three levels – of societies and social problems, organisations and individuals – we find evidence of endemic problems and squandered or blocked potential.
Perhaps there is a connection between these three levels [7]. Perhaps what’s causing the problems for individuals is also causing problems (expressed in a different form) for organisations and for society generally. Perhaps, finding a way forward at one level can help has forge ahead at all levels. We believe there is a candidate. It’s the secret of mediocrity and unsustainability. By tackling this ‘uber-cause’, we believe we can make significant progress on all three fronts in a mutually reinforcing, mutually sustaining way. There’s a new virtuous spiral just waiting to be unleashed. So what is this ‘uber-cause’?

Thing-think

The secret of today’s problems and barriers is hidden within the secrets of our past successes: let’s call it ‘thing-think’.

Thing-think is a legacy from the industrial age, when the key secrets of new wealth creation lay in working out how to make the most of the potential of things: new sources of energy, clever bits of machinery, knowing how to turn raw materials into valued finished products.

Thing-thinking has been stupendously successful. Thanks to thing-thinking, billions of people now live at unprecedentedly-high levels of prosperity, comfort and health. Thing-thinking has transformed the world economically, politically and socially. It has made mankind a geological force in its own right. It is literally changing the face of the earth, including its climate. Its influence is all-pervading: because it has worked.

Nevertheless, thing-think has its limits and dangers. It tends to treat people as if they were things – mere appendages of organisational machines. It tends to address human problems as if they are engineering challenges, with clear lines of cause and effect lending themselves to elegant, complete, solutions that can be imposed via command and control methods. It tends to measure only things and thing-attributes. In short, think-think is blind to the human factor. It’s this blindness that lies behind today’s big problems and lost opportunities.

Take a quick look at Figure 1, for example. It lists many of problems that people routinely face in the course of their daily work. The common factor uniting them all is that they all go back to the two defining attributes of every organisation. Relationships between people, and the purposes people pursue in and through these relationships.

You could probably add more to this list. Many of these symptoms have a tendency to crop up together as common organisational syndromes:
a failure to notice or react to how the world around you is changing;
‘the CEO disease’ (where only ‘good news’ is allowed to travel to the top and bad news is kept hidden);

CEO dependency disease is a form of co-dependency. People who always look to leaders to lead them effectively dis-empower themselves. (And authoritarian leaders who live and breath command-and-control create ‘followers’ who never take the initiative – thereby recreating the need for the very command and control methods that created the problem in the first place) [8].
short-termism: forever chasing after short term goals without any underlying sense of direction;
incessant politicking.











Figure 1: Symptoms of organisational diseases

Organisations (and people) like this are extremely frustrating to work for, and with. They’re also extremely common. What about your own organisation, or organisations that you deal with a lot? What proportion of peoples’ time, effort and emotional energy is invested – or squandered – indulging in and dealing with these activities and emotions? Is it 10 per cent? 30 per cent? 50% per cent? Or perhaps even more? In our experience, in many organisations it’s at least 30-50 per cent. Which means that the organisation’s overall performance is reduced by at least 30-50 per cent. [9] The potential for improvement is staggeringly enormous.

And that’s just looking inside organisations. If you look outside you’ll find even more squandered potential: time, effort, money, emotional energy frittered away in pointless conflict and cat-and-mouse games between companies and their suppliers, regulators, pressure groups and customers. Far from generating ‘zing’ in other words, most networks’ real potential is paralysed if not by open conflict then by mutual indifference or crossed purposes.
So here’s the thing. You can go ‘in search of excellence’ if you want to. You can look for a super-clever strategy, a breakthrough innovation, a cutting edge technology that will really help you stand out from the crowed. And yes, these are all wonderful things; meat and drink to icons and superstars. But what about ordinary mortals? What are the things that every organisation can to do to continually improve performance?

Because when push comes to shove, organisations can improve their performance in two ways:
by doing amazing, clever things
by stopping doing stupid things

You have to be special – like Mahatma Gandhi or Oxford University – to do amazing or clever things. But every organisation, and every part of every organisation, has the opportunity to tackle the causes of mediocrity and move along that continuum from Type B to Type A organisation.

Of course, in the end, we need to do both amazing new things and to stop doing stupid things. But often organisations’ brave new ventures and initiatives fail because the stupid things they do end up getting in the way of the clever things they could do. Often the clever things are ‘thing’-things – fancy new bits of technology – and their implementation and operation are messed up by people-things. In fact, often, the really, really hard thing is to stop doing the stupid things you’re already doing.


Hamster-wheel habits

Here’s a suggestion. Most modern organisations are stuck on a closed loop: a series of internally consistent and coherent, mutually reinforcing habits and assumptions, methods and incentives which in turn make certain behaviours and outcomes (both positive and negative) almost inevitable. Like a hamster on the hamster-wheel, it’s possible to spin round this loop endlessly, going ever faster (thereby giving the illusion of progress) – only to find yourself pretty much where you started.











Figure 2: The corporation’s closed loop


A closed loop is the organisation’s (or person’s) default mode. No matter where you are, what you are trying to do, or where you are trying to go, like some vast gravitational field, it sucks you back to the same instinctive attitudes and behaviours. In business today, the closed loop is created and defined by thing-think.

The loop encompasses the organisation’s purposes, its methods, measures and external imperatives.
Stated baldly, they are:
Purpose: to make money/maximise shareholder value
Method: increase efficiency and productivity, improve margins
Measures: financially oriented … ‘what’s the ROI?’
External imperatives: market forces in the form of stock market/share price and earnings pressure
Wherever you enter the loop – whether it’s via the organisation’s purpose, method or measures – your entry point both presupposes and implies the other parts. Everything ‘fits’ so neatly and obviously you are immediately sucked in to its logic.

Closed loops define success in their its own terms. If money making is your purpose and you make money, then you have succeeded regardless of what else you might have done (such as imposed costs on other people, or the environment). That’s why closed loop practitioners often see evidence of success when others look at the same thing and see cause for concern: they are judging the same thing by different criteria.

Closed loops include powerful vested interests who (rightly or wrongly) associate their future prosperity with the continuation of the loop. People within the loop are incentivised and rewarded for perpetuating it, and punished for undermining it. Legacy systems, infrastructure, metrics, language and theories are all based on the loop and designed to perpetuate and extend it. All of which makes it ‘natural’ for those working inside the loop to pursue closed loop purposes in closed loop ways – and to obstruct those who try to do anything different.

Closed loops do have their benefits [10]. Re-examining every assumption and every methodology from scratch all the time is a recipe for continually reinventing the wheel. And closed loops get established because they work. For example, the closed loop created by think-think created the modern company as the consummate productivity machine. It explains the corporation’s resolute focus, ruthless efficiency, endless opportunism and dynamism. It explains its success.

But closed loops also have their drawbacks. If some aspect of reality doesn’t figure within the loop for example, it tends to be ignored. Once you are inside a closed loop, it’s extremely difficult to consider genuine alternatives. While closed loops facilitate learning within the loop, they don’t allow for learning that challenges or takes you beyond the loop itself.


The missing link

We’ve already seen the problem with today’s closed loop. It has a fatal flaw; a major blindspot. It ignores the human factor. It’s extremely good at processes, structures, functions, measures and objectives. But it doesn’t really ‘see’ people (see Figure 3) and it’s this blindness that undermines trust and discourages engagement while creating the perfect breeding ground for organisational diseases.












Figure 3: The other side of the coin

“The human factor? Oh p-lease! Can’t you tell us something new?

“Anybody who’s anybody is talking about the human factor nowadays! Try finding a CEO who doesn’t keep on repeating like a stuck record ‘our people/customers are our most valuable asset’ and who isn’t committed to being socially responsible. Try finding an accountant who is not wrestling with something to do with the valuation of intangible assets. OK. They may not have found all the answers yet. But at least they’ve started looking for them.”

Surely with all its clever people, endless resources, awesome technologies and so on … surely modern corporations are on top of this? It’s not as if managers are unaware of the problems. Indeed, senior managers consistently worry about the need for a more open, innovative culture; to cross departmental silos; to motivate staff; to react to changing circumstances faster; to be willing to go that extra mile, and so on.

Yet, what stands out is not our success but just how persistent, prevalent, pervasive the problems are. In fact, they’re endemic. Somehow, they just grow out of the woodwork even when everyone knows they ‘a bad thing’. Why?

Stephen Covey lays bare the perverse behaviours and mindsets generated by closed loop organisations in a brilliant passage in his book The 8th Habit. Industrial age organisations “absolutely suppress the release of human potential,” he argues [11] because they don’t address the needs or nature of ‘the whole person’, which includes mind, body, heart and spirit. [12] In organisational terms, spirit translates into trust; mind into shared vision and goals; body into organisational alignment; and heart with empowerment – being emotionally connected to the work you are doing.

Because they fail to address ‘the whole person’, closed loop organisations substitute authority and power for trust, rules for shared goals, efficiency for alignment, and control for empowerment. But power, rules, efficiency and control are poor proxies for the real thing: mere ‘prostheses’, in Covey’s words. Precisely because they are poor proxies, they don’t work very well. This means managers have to work ever harder to exert their authority, enforce their rules, improve efficiency and ensure control. And the more they do so, the more they undermine the very trust, shared goals, alignment and empowerment they need to ‘zing’. [13]

But didn’t we just say that for most senior managers ‘people issues’ in their various forms are their biggest headache?

Certainly, most organisations have woken up to the fact the a problem exists. The knowledge management movement has sought to capture, maximise and deploy the knowledge and information assets that reside in staff’s heads and walk out of the office door every night. Brand and customer relationship managers seek to capture the loyalty and affinity of customers. Accountants strive to recognise the financial value of such intangible and reputational assets.

CEOs wrestle with the need to develop a vision and a mission to unite and inspire staff – and to change cultures which resist change. And companies generally feel the need to respond to social pressures: to become more environmentally friendly, to respect human rights, serve local communities and be more ethical. Such pressures are even being expressed in new measurement and management frameworks such as the balanced scorecard, endless talk about leadership, and different approaches to corporate governance.
What we know How we have addressed the problem so far

Intangibles are increasingly important Knowledge management, CRM, brand valuation

Stakeholder relationships matter Vision, mission, culture change

Companies are fallible/mortal Leadership, corporate governance

Financial accounts don’t measure what matters Triple bottom line, balanced scorecard etc

Ethics/values are a part of value Corporate social responsibility







Figure 4: The intangibles learning curve, stage 1

Yet, for the most part, these movements have failed to deliver on their original promise. Indeed, the problems they set out to address seem to remain as embedded as ever. Thus:
Companies realise they need to instil passion and motivation in their staff, only to face a wall of cynicism or indifference . . . because the organisation’s underlying purpose and behaviour has not changed.
The board decides it needs a more customer-centric culture, only for critical customer-relationship building initiatives to be derailed by pressure to improve the year-end figures [14]
The CEO identifies a strategic need to share and use knowledge more effectively, but the resulting program focuses on IT systems rather than the people who use the systems or are affected by them.
A new leader embraces the cause of corporate social responsibility only to be met by external suspicion on the one hand (‘it’s just window-dressing, lipstick to make the gorilla seem more attractive’) and internal management resistance on the other (‘show me the ROI on these investments!’).

Despite tremendous excitement, effort and investment in other words, the net result of much hard work has been little more than ‘initiative fatigue’. Worse, along the way we have created new set of silos, each with their own set of ‘experts’ fighting turf wars for budget and ‘the ear’ of the CEO – and each displaying the same symptoms as the problems they’re supposed to be solving: initiative fatigue, ‘silo-itis’, politics, increased rather than reduced cynicism, and so on. Thus none of these bandwagons are ‘joined up’. What do customer relationship managers have to say to knowledge managers, and vice versa, for example? What has ‘culture change’ got to do with corporate social responsibility? [15] Instead, they each focus on their own speciality, each rolling on in their own separate directions. Indeed, if anything, their net effect has been to raise more questions than answers.



What we know What we don’t know

Intangibles are increasingly important How to measure intangibles and maximize their potential?

Stakeholder relationships matter How to join stakeholders together in a win-win way?

Companies are fallible/mortal How to anticipate and make changes, and avoid mistakes?

Financial accounts don’t measure what matters What’s the alternative?

Ethics/values are a part of value How to combine value and values?







Figure 5: The intangibles learning curve: stage 2 – next questions

Why is this? One possible answer is that we simply haven’t tried hard enough. But there’s another possibility: perhaps these movements are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Perhaps they a reaction to the problem, attempting to address its various manifestations without really addressing the underlying causes. Perhaps the attempt to reverse engineer these ‘people issues’ back into closed loop strategies and priorities has as much chance of succeeding as trying to add yeast to your loaf of bread after you have baked it.

Heroic? Maybe.

Effective? Highly unlikely.


Summary

Organisational mediocrity is not caused by a lack of talent. It’s not caused by a lack of hard work. It’s not caused by failed ‘strategies’. It’s caused by talented people working hard at the wrong things.

This happens when organisational diseases take root. Organisational diseases consume peoples’ time, energy and emotions in unproductive, non-value adding activities. Today, the main cause of organisational disease is closed loop ‘thing-think’.

Being stuck on a closed loop is like being stuck on a hamster wheel with its two sides closed off by mirrors. First, you can’t see outside the loop. So, for example, you can’t see that you’re running very hard to get nowhere fast. The closed loop gives you an illusion of progress.

Second, if and when you stop to look for a way out, the mirrors simply remind you of your existing pre-occupations – the fact that time staring into the mirror means you’ve stopped making the wheel go round. As judged by existing performance indicators (which, of course, reflect the priorities and obsessions of the status quo) your search for an alternative simply undermines your performance.

But is it really that bad? Is our current closed loop really that narrow? To see just how narrow it is, we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

[1] Built to Last, James C. Collins and Jerry L Porras, p4
[2] Discontinuity p7
[3] Discontinuity p8
[4] The Living Company, Arie de Geus, p7
[5] Stall Points, Corporate Strategy Board, 1998, quoted in The Innovator’s Solution, Clayton M Christensen and Michael E Raynor, Harvard Business School Press, 2003
[6] For Towers Perrin data see http://www.towersperrin.com/ press releases. For Harris Interactive data see Stephen Covey, The 8th Habit, Free Press 2004, Appendix 6.
[7] Categories like ‘society’, ‘organisation’ and ‘individual’ needed to be treated carefully: while they are often useful as levels of analysis they’re not always the best levels for appropriate action. The most effective change might come through intermediate levels such as end-to-end supply chain management (i.e. between organisation and society) or teams or business units (i.e. between individual and organisation). That’s why the Mapping process focuses on five levels of analysis: individual, team, organisation, organisation’s partners and social context.
[8] Nowadays, the most common item on any agenda for change is ‘backing from the top’. CEOs are being asked to put their full weight behind virtually every initiative undertaken by the organisation. But even the heftiest CEO has only got so much weight to throw around. So what happens if the buy-in doesn’t happen; If the idea is rejected, or only given lip service? Then everyone is left off the hook. ‘Aw, shucks! If the CEO doesn’t back it, we can’t do it! Which is quite convenient really. Because that means we’re not going to be put to the test. And now we’ve got someone to blame!’
[9] The existence of multiplier or ‘knock-on’ effects means that the effect is even higher. We return to this multiplier effect later.
[10] You could argue that all thinking frameworks have closed-loop attributes. This is one of the observations made by Thomas Kuhn in his research into the nature of scientific paradigms. See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970
[11] Stephen R Covey, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Free Press, 2004 p 15
[12] This coincides with the four dimensional approach to value we use later: representing the rational, emotional, political and spiritual. These are discussion extensively in Brand Manners [details].
[13] See The 8th Habit, p106-113.
[14] When the US retailer Sears tried to introduce a recovery programme during the 1990s, it discovered to its dismay that its employees believed they were paid by the company to ‘protect the assets of the company’ from customers. Where on earth would they get an idea like that from? Reported in Best Face Forward, by Jeffrey F Rayport and Bernard J Jaworski, Harvard Business Review, November 2004.
[15] How to join up the dots so that, for example knowledge management, customer relationship management and corporate social responsibility all worth together ‘in synergy’ rather than competing against each other for management preference is one of the jobs of Mapping. What’s needed is a ‘governance framework’ that helps us put things in perspective, set priorities and align each initiative’s positive input. That is the job of the Map.
a question I wish I had asked Bill Drayton (but will find a way of asking):
do you and other Global Academicians
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3321985461393888643
(Yunus, Eigen, Abed, Grajew and Tapper Marlin)
have an "open sourcing" assistant who is half way between your projects biographer and an external Q&A hotdesk who answers win-win connections questions from other networks and web-logs them up

Someone like Bill accerating several decades of copound progress along his own change the world curve, knows 5 of the macro-system transformers who are on their peak, and has had a direct hand in catalguing over 2000 deep social project franchises (micro in origin but often open sourcing across boundaries) is probably at this moment the person with the equal most humanitarian change connections in the world. It must be enough of a job sustaining tese operationally and multiplying the next big forward moves, thus the value of the Q&A gatesway between Bill of http://www.ashoka.org , http://www.changemakers.net , Http://www.dvd.ashoka.org , and http://www.youthventure.org and other world's most connected people and all their networks we criss-cross through at other levels.

My experience is that world's most humanitarian connecting people are not good at organsiing this except within the alumni networks they have always seen it as their job to serve. I wonder why. Is it because they have always run lean operations that they have wanted to set lean examples around themselves? If so,, by the time they are 25 years uo an expoential chnage the world learning curve, such a belief would be a hugely false economy. In other cases, if the head of a phillanthropy has graduated from a corporate world, I can imagine that collaboration may not have been the extraordinary advantage that it is in a civil society organisation

Conversely, has anyone got an example of someone who is very good at this. Is there anything we can learn about how they organsiation collaboration gatesway , and perjhaps relay on to the Global Academy 6 or any other most conected change the world people you may nominate
so very 20th century -desparately seeking 21
- 22 annual report into the greatest media crisis ever to have hit one generation of mankind

Borovsky Letters Grade 3 of 12

Open letter to founders of http://www.brainjams.org -update July 2006

CH: Please clarify - does your new social media website mean that you are winding down the brainjams identity and the network growth around it?

from my perspective this would be a very generic move - social media is far too crowded a catchpharse with many people decades into debating it
what I had like was the identity that reflected the core connections of your geographivcal epicentre with the worldwide
as drucker and my father scripted : knowledge co-working structures (www ,open space etc) means that very soon
all workers will be brainworkers
all valuable webs and media will be open project/frachise competition JAMS
the number 1 jam web in the universe
http://www.changemakers.net/ is being built by west coast investors around the vision everyone's a changemaker, starting with every kid who's educated from now on ... conceptually all we entrepreneurial revolutionaries and interlocal web-logging clubs of citizens need to do is surround The Gates Foundation's gatesways until they get that
http://gatesways.blogspot.com
http://project30000.blogspot.com/