The future does indeed lie in Guilds - networked Guilds.

It is crucial to move from "Guild as Organisation" to "Guild as Framework for "Self Organisation". Guilds as protocols, and even Guilds as Domains..

Back we go to the enterprise model again ie the "legal and financial structure".

Sorry, but everything leads to the way that people interact with each other economically.

Get that right and everything else follows.

Michael,

Your convictions are wonderful. How would you propose changing the public idea of the words Servant Leadership, especially among those it deeply offends? To those it offends it represents the upper class oppressing the lower class by doing for them, rather than working with them as in self-determination.

I've seen both "servant" and "service" in this conversation. Are they interchangeable?

Would it be possible for someone Julie knows on the "offended" side of this to talk directly with Michael. It somehow feels way off for me to have one of "us" representing one of "them." I know that's not what's intended, and I still feel we ought to strive for direct communication.

It's less about talking with one person. It's a mindset thing that has come up in surprizing places, mostly in minority organizing work. In particular, the women who most impacted me (she passed away a couple of years back) actually asked me who was I to offer to help her and her network! She meant this in a kind way, to wake me up, that she didn't want my help. A year later when I volunteered along side her and the organizers they really appreciated me.

The conflict is in how others view the semantics of "helping another".

The Appreciative Inquiry movement (they don't use the words Servant Leadership) -- and maybe using the words Service Leadership is different (clearly I read it as Servant -- so this is my fault)... works hard to promote the image of working with... in other words, instead of going in and building a community a well they inquire about what the community is passionate about and what would make life better to suupport that passion. When the community says we need a well. They ask, how would you build one? If appropriate they might share a story about how another community built one or make a connection. They do not build them the well. Although, they might dig the hole alongside them.

If this is what Service Leadership means, I can support this. It's interesting that I read the word wrong, not just here but also at our website. Being of service (as in support) has a better taste than being a servant.

I think part of the confusion may be that Michael has used both words. And, my question remains. Hearing about the objections to the language second hand makes it really difficult to work through anything. Of course it's not about one person, but if one person actually holding that point of view were to be directly connected with someone not yet seeing that point of view, progress can happen. I don't think we can effectively move forward without a very clear understanding of the objection.

As for how you describe helping and how we work with people, I think you know that we very much agree. That's what EFN is all about.

The phrase I am putting forward here is "Service" Leadership. I dont think there is any general public sentiment against this phrasing. Does the phrase "Service-Learning" call to mind similar problems?

I am very aware of a what it would be like to be on the receiving end of an expression of "Noblesse Oblige" ... a partician sense that stands above. This can be rejected in any situtation where a person purports to step in for the other and doesnt truly meet and respect the other, ready to work with that other. This attitude is naturally repulsive to any who are self respecting (or with even a hint of self-respect). This has nothing to do with the words and everything to do with the attitude. Let anyone we work with judge us by our work and the spirit in which we engage in our work and with others.

Service and Servant in this context differ only slightly, in emphasis. The latter may evoke something else if that something else is not disassociated in context of a second term like "Leadership"

In each case we aim to serve others, to be of service. Do not think one implies stooping... neither in this case imply anything of the sort.

Julie Caldwell said:

It's less about talking with one person. It's a mindset thing that has come up in surprizing places, mostly in minority organizing work. In particular, the women who most impacted me (she passed away a couple of years back) actually asked me who was I to offer to help her and her network! She meant this in a kind way, to wake me up, that she didn't want my help. A year later when I volunteered along side her and the organizers they really appreciated me.

I think in this example we would need to hear considerably more. People in any group who may view the help offered from an outsider with some hesitation or suspicion have plenty of experience and cultural memory to justify that pause. For Us By Us, We Ourselves Alone are states of defiance as groups rebuild capacity and confidence. There are many occasions where outsiders have come in and ultimately proven themselves self-serving. There are likewise many who purport to want to help and may be well meaning, and wind up unable to overcome their own prejudices and narrow views. If we are in fact "outsiders" to any group we wish to work with, we have a lot to prove up, to gain any level of trust.

The last time the objection came up, was in a public organizing training that included about 40 people from different neiborhoods (in Arizona).

We were asked to brainstorm qualities assocated with community organizers. A white man said Servant Leadership. The African American women in the room went up in smoke and were very animated about the sentiments I expressed above. The man and others who held Michael's view argued that the proposed meaning was a different context. A debate that was never resolved but took up over a half hour of our training time!

I really have no idea. Perhaps we could ask my friend Taj who works primarily with African American and Latino organizers what he thinks. And, perhaps we could hold an on-line discussion about this in an approprite place.

I think the discussion could have merrit if facilited well. Maybe Taj and Michael would be open to working together on something like this? And, at the right time.

I work with people of diverse backgrounds extensively, we often encounter the related term: service learning. I have never heard objection to that term nor to the term service leadership.

I would discuss with any reasonable parties, but I am not interested in a discussion that proceeds along lines of "devil's advocate" or merely for sake of making the argument.

Happy to hear from Taj and others.

http://www.greenleaf.org/leaders hip/servant-leadership/What-is-S ervant-Leadership.html was pointed out to me by Lars a couple years ago.

The best leaders serve, do they not? Servant, in this instance, is not the same as slave. We are not making anyone subservient to anyone else. To me, it's all about partnership. If I tell someone I am their humble servant, I am by no means subjugating myself to the will of another. Just that I am there to offer support and nurturance.

Michael is using very precise language, actually. And people need to stop playing games with how this is construed. Not speaking to anyone here in this discussion. I am speaking generally about people who have an agenda and are inclined to be offended to score points. But having an agenda and scoring points detracts from communal trust. Personally, if I were the one being jumped on for using terms service, servant and leadership, I'd feel hurt and offended that people didn't seem to know me or trust me better. It's time for people to set aside agendas and consider who is saying what. Boils down to trusting who is the one using a certain phrase. Either you trust someone or you don't. Either you feel the individual has integrity and is honorable or you don't. To call Michael into question in this way is appalling and shocking. That's essentially what is being done here.

The women that I mentioned, the one who passed away... she challaged me on these points after my telling her that I was on a fellow with Youth Service America -- one of the largest service learning organizations in the country.

My intention here was to share what a I have experienced from a section of society that doesn't appreciate or is more sensitive to this language. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael or trusting Michael.

It was a profound moment in my life when I met this woman. She had quite an influence on me and is considered a great leader. Over 500 people attended her funeral, including my contact at the Casey Foundation. I wrote about the experience (somewhere). Perhaps it will surface one day.

Michael said:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.

What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.

What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)

What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.

What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us."

I love your focus on 'What is good'! It shifts our focus from 'Who is good', servants or service-providers or leaders.

'What is good' is by definition, result-oriented. The result may be a CHANGE or CHANGES that are better than the event/s or condition/s it replaces. The result may also be 'NO CHANGE' where any change will be worse than that the event/s and/or condition/s it replaces.

'Who is good', and 'leadership', on the other hand, are both person-oriented. Persons may be Servants, Service Providers or Leaders, because they are the locii of social energy toward bringing about or sustaining 'What is good'.

In the development of the network or of networks, we can either focus on 'What is good', or on 'Who is good'; i.e., we may be either be result-oriented or person-oriented.

I suggest we might have more of 'What is good', i.e, better results, if we are more result-oriented than person-oriented.

There must be both nodes and links in a network. The issue is, what are the nodes and what are the links.

I suggest we stop thinking of persons as nodes and of relationships among them as links.

Instead, I suggest we design networks as constellations of needed results (events or conditions) as nodes, and of persons (servants, service-providers and leaders) only as result-supporting links necessary to bring about the desired results.

This model of network might bring about more of 'What is good' because it keeps our focus is on effecting the result.

If we get the results, i.e., 'What are good' right, we can more easily attract the persons, i.e., 'Who are good' that are best capable, resourced and motivated to make them happen.

If on the other hand we keep focusing on 'Who is good', we might continue to find it more difficult to make 'What is good' happen.

After all, centripetal networks might be more effective than centrifugal ones.

Ravi -- I like your chain of thinking here.

"people need to stop playing games with how this is construed. Not speaking to anyone here in this discussion. I am speaking generally about people who have an agenda and are inclined to be offended to score points. But having an agenda and scoring points detracts from communal trust. Personally, if I were the one being jumped on for using terms service, servant and leadership, I'd feel hurt and offended that people didn't seem to know me or trust me better. It's time for people to set aside agendas and consider who is saying what. Boils down to trusting who is the one using a certain phrase. Either you trust someone or you don't. Either you feel the individual has integrity and is honorable or you don't."

Lack of trust is an example of the kind of problems that arise in person-oriented networks, as opposed to result-oriented networks.

In result-oriented networks, the focus is on the result, not on the persons. Persons in a result-oriented network are merely constellations of capabilities, resources and motivation toward the result. They are more likely to regard themselves as mere supporting links to the node-result, rather than as nodes in their own right.

"instead of going in and building a community a well they inquire about what the community is passionate about and what would make life better to suupport that passion. When the community says we need a well. They ask, how would you build one?"

An example of the 'results oriented' and 'persons-oriented' tension.

Please explain what you mean by 'results oriented' and 'persons-oriented' tension?

"a proposed Vision of a Concentric Commons ...

"It describes a model and uses language of a "Service-Leadership Collective" to describe the Guild idea we were exploring among EFN."

How about 'Needed-Results-Accomplishing-Collectives'?

This is indeed a very clumsy descriptor. But for all its clumsiness, it shifts focus from 'persons' to 'results'.

It implies that we make conditions and resources (infrastructure) available - to enable support-groups of people with capabilities, resources, knowledge and motivation - to cluster spontaneously toward accomplishing a specific 'needed-result'; then to dissolve spontaneously as well, so that they become immediately available toward forming another support-around another yet unfulfilled 'needed-result'; and so on...

"Please explain what you mean by 'results oriented' and 'persons-oriented' tension?"

'results-oriented' = integrating with the local knowledge, capabilities, resources and motivations to ensure that the well happens in a "YOU got it" way that will make it sustainable with local ownership.

'persons-oriented' = Some servants, service providers or service leaders going in and building the well with a 'WE-did-it' mentality.

One way to distinguish the distinction between 'results-oriented' and 'persons-oriented' as a principle is to remember that beneficiaries GET RESULTS, and persons DO SERVICE. The focus in the former is on WHAT IS GOT as the result, and the focus of the latter is on WHO ARE THE PERSONS who are doing.

I'm not going to drop people from this, even if we are focusing on the work rather than the person. But yes, service is intended to move us towards we, and and towards more and more inclusive we... the "concentric" (or nested) aspect of this is to bring to light that as we move towards more inclusive we, we respect the needs of subsets.

Another point.... it doesn't surprise me that persons who may be well respected or well loved may have very loaded associations around particular terms... this is a sign that some more healing is required. Shifting language to avoid stepping on eggshells delays the healing we need.

Again, our determination should be to regain the higher values in our language even when some aspects of our history have debased them. This is not to deny that history, far from it. Our failings, our falling down should not be hidden away ... we're human and we should show to other humans that these are part of the process and not the end of the world and not cause to impose a schism.

Gift economy, open guild, service leadership.

"I'm not going to drop people from this, even if we are focusing on the work rather than the person."

No one is suggesting that people should be dropped from this. Neither shift, the shift of focus from persons to results, nor the shift of characterizing persons as nodes to persons as links in the network - requires that people be dropped

Indeed, people cannot be dropped, because 'results' cannot be accomplished without persons. The shift that is being suggested here is from networks that are designed around persons, to networks that centered around desired results.

Networks focused on desired results increase the likelihood that the network is effective and cohezive, because it provides the persons who comprise then networks with common personality-neutral aims to cooperate on, and criteria to decide with, and also provide the persons with the cohezing satisfaction of accomplishment.

In networks focused on results, lines of concentricity and nesting are determined by capabilities, knowledge, resources and motivations vis a vis the common result.

On the other hand, networks focused on persons increase the likelihood that the network is self-centered and engenders competition among the persons who comprise the network. The lines of concentricities and nesting are determined by by roles and hierarchies, as in servant or service roles, and leadership hierarchies.

Perhaps the most useful distinction between the two modes of network design might be their respective energy mode - the difference between centripetal and centrifugal dynamics.

Networks based on desired results are more likely arouse centripetal dynamics of results-oriented cooperation, wheras networks based on persons are more likely to arouse centrifugal dynamics of personality based competition.

The networks articulated here are about the work, and the needs: Guilds & Fields & All.... (with an understanding of persons having needs also)

"service is intended to move us towards we"

Service is never in a vacuum. Service is always focused toward a desired result, an outcome that would not occur without the service.

As indicated in the immediately preceding post, result-oriented service is better at moving us toward WE than person-oriented service that focuses more on the personalities and politics among the persons than on the result to be accomplished by the persons.

"our determination should be to regain the higher values in our language"

By use of the language "regain", it is suggested that our language once possessed "higher values". When and where can we find such language usage?

This is not to say that language cannot contribute to our having higher values. It certainly can.

Language is the sensory medium with which we share and transfer the abstract concepts with which we think and know. So we must first configure our conceptual structures to be more consistent with the results we need, and language will follow appropriately.

The new language presented here - of result-oriented networks vs person-oriented - or regarding results as nodes and persons as links - are both grounded on functional differences that can have real centripetal or centrifugal consequences for the network.