Dear colleagues,
Some of you have seen our announcements of the Governance Lab in June. We are happy to report that the lab attracted 40+ academics and practitioners who engaged in generative conversations about governance, ownership, and leadership for a better world in June 25 - July 2 2015.
Based on this social lab experience we have identified 17 main design challenges for our AAT PDW in Vancouver (we also had interesting, auxiliary questions related to the process). PDW participants will vote for their favorite design challenge and then will use Design Thinking for Scholars methodology to address one or more that have the most votes. PDW participants will be given access to the Governance Lab outcomes and contacted with its attendees to enhance the research/practice collaboration beyond the AoM Meeting.
Below we present the list of potential design challenges. If some of these questions appeal to you and/or you are interested in building collaborative relationships across academia and practice, please consider joining us in Vancouver:
Program Session #: 526 | Submission: 15534 | Sponsor(s): (AAT)
Scheduled: Sunday, Aug 9 2015 8:15AM - 11:15AM at Fairmont Waterfront Hotel in Waterfront Ballroom A
Should you have any questions, please contact us at the coordinates below. We wholeheartedly hope to see you in Vancouver!
Sincerely,
Dr. Krzysztof Dembek
University of Melbourne Asia Pacific Social Impact Centre
Level 5, 161 Barry Street Parkville 3010 VIC Australia
krzysztof.dembek@unimelb.edu.au
+61.3.903.55158
Fyodor Ovchinnikov
Institute for Evolutionary Leadership
2323 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612
f.ovchinnikov@evoleadinstitute.com
+1.510.910.5829
P.S. Potential Design Challenges:
1. How might we uncover key gaps in governance that could help promote sustainability within organizations?
2. How might we assess impact of leadership models that shift focus from organizational success to well-being of larger systems on financial performance and effectiveness of an organization?
3. How might we help organizations transition to more open forms of governance through cultural and institutional change?
4. How might we help parts of non-profit systems work with each other to capitalize of the similar intentions of individual members and stakeholders?
5. How might we help organization members overcome conditioning by past experiences and education that prevent them from realizing their potential even when organizations move to self-management?
6. How might we improve governance by organization members so that inner and outer development capitalizes on interdependent and synergistic behaviors?
7. How might we truly engage our stakeholders in rigorous governance research?
8. How might we use the strategy of engaged research meet organization members governance needs as compared to what they are doing by default?
9. How might we better define an enterprise governance framework compatible with natural and social science?
10. How might we enable workers in self-managed companies better operate from an enhanced awareness of self, as well as, of their immediate and broader work environment?
11. How might we create models of governance that foster self-management providing opportunities for people to utilize their potential?
12. How might we promote and support cross-generational conversations around difficult topics and across different lenses to improve participatory governance?
13. How might we better understand governance in the context of organizations where the exchange of value is not dependent on currency but open to other kinds of value (time, attention, etc.)?
14. How might we assess effectiveness of radically decentralized organizations such as communities of practice, communities of purpose, and open value networks I making positive social impact in comparison with nonprofits, cooperatives, and benefit corporations?
15. How might we help organizations better design governance models that are fit for their purpose? (e.g., You can take a highly structured approach defining specific roles, etc., or you can play with various formal (like holacracy & sociocracy) or informal approaches to creating flexible governance structure.)
16. How might we design governance experiences in such a way that relatedness, accountability, and commitment are every moment available, experienced, and demonstrated?
17. How might we better understand how framing effects outcome, moving away from cause and effect framing, to establish a basis for more effective governance?
Auxiliary (Process-Related) Questions
1. How might we use online conversation, with good facilitation, to quickly lead participants to a more systemic understanding of an issue?
2. How might we help students connect a topic to their own experiences and then learn from the perspectives of others, raising new questions and priming them for learning to think systemically?
3. How might we help users add a process design to layer on top of online tools so that the tools support complexity, without it feeling like there are a lot of "rules?"
4. How might we engage with one another in chat channels?
5. How might we keep participants engaged, establishing and maintaining trust amongst members and facilitating meaningful discussions?
6. How might we better enable technology to contribute more to initiating research that really matters and create an impact on solving complex global problems?
7. How might we encourage really good work that is theoretically sound (no panaceas or flaky speculations), empirically sound (where appropriate) and delightfully accessible to readers who may want to use that knowledge?
8. How might we address the need in management and entrepreneurship for great translational research (translating research outcomes into actionable practice)?