The Global SoL Network
Since Salzburg
(November 2000 — June 2001)
Salzburg, November 2000
One of the outcomes of the Stewards’ meeting in Salzburg was an interim arrangement to assist the GSN in reaching the next stage of evolution, with the minimum structure needed to support the growth of the Network until November 2001. There were seven domains identified at that time: Governance, Events, Finances, Rules of the Game, Generative Learning Space, Regional Spaces and the Website. Each domain was assigned a committee for the transition period. The committee leaders of each of the seven domains comprised the GSN Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee
The Executive Committee members have met via teleconference nearly twice a month since last November and twice in person. From November 2000-June 2001, the committee has focused mainly on the Brazil gathering (September 2-5, 2001), Finances (short and long-term), the Website and Communications, the relationship with Founding SoL, the GSN Value Proposition, the GSN Greenhouse meeting (June 23-24, 2001), and the White Paper. s (The purpose of the white paper was specifically to lay out options for how the Global SoL Network might be organized in the future.)
Two and a half-productive and provocative days were spent face-to-face in March in systemic inquiry. What was learned from this exercise was that considerations of structure were getting in the way of actually paying attention to what it was that wanted to emerge in the field of the work of GSN. The group identified the risk of falling into the trap of dealing centrally with complexity on a high level of detail rather than trusting the quality of innovation, projects and action that would come from those on the periphery (or the different parts of the Network). The committee reflected on different levels of engagement for members within the Network, and was left with a number of core questions, including: What do we want to inspire? What do we want to co-create? What do we want to deliver? How do we come together in action with our colleagues? Where do we go from here?
Meetings Cancelled
With a number of converging issues playing out in the overall picture of the GSN, there was the cancellation of the Brazil gathering (mostly due to the shifting economy) and the GSN Greenhouse meeting (due to being contiguous with the GSN Retreat, June 24-25, and low registration).
Finances
The SoL Global Network is currently projecting a deficit. A financial update through June 30, 2001, will be emailed to you in the near future.
The Governance Committee/White Paper
In late March the GSN Governance Committee met in Horsley, UK, with the outcome of the meeting producing three feasible options for the future of the Global SoL Network. This work is summarized in the working draft of the White Paper, which you should have received via email at the end of June.
The State of the GSN Report
The State of GSN Report was prepared, in part, as a way of apprising our sponsors of the activities of the Network. Thanks to one and all who contributed to this rich and diverse document. You can find it on our web site at http://www.solonline.org by clicking "What's Up," and selecting the "Global SoL Network" public folder. This folder is open to registered users. If you have not yet registered on the site, use the "Register" button on the first log-in screen. Addenda or comments can be made within the State of the GSN discussion. Write Mike Zarin at mzarin@solonline.org , if more assistance is required.
The Retreat
On June 23-24, 2001, in Marblehead, MA, a Global SoL Retreat was held, bringing together GSN Stewards, members of the SoL Council and the SoL staff, and our corporate sponsors. A commitment had been made to those who contributed the original seed money for the GSN that we would look for the right time for them to come together and offer their input into how the future of GSN could continue to evolve. Senior people from most of these companies were able to be present for the retreat. (The full list of participants appears in Appendix 1).
This retreat was framed as one element of a larger learning and design process that has been evolving since the creation of SoL in 1997. The objectives of the retreat were to:
- Explore together what is emerging as a global SoL network with insight into how its emergence can be supported.
- Understand the possibility of the network by identifying issues and projects that may be the arenas for collective inquiry and collaboration in the future.
- Continue the Global SoL Network design work by presenting a set of design options for exploration and continued development.
- Invite and increase corporate participation in the leadership and stewardship of the Global SoL Network.
- Clarify and refine a process for making decisions and moving forward.
This gathering was unmistakably an important milestone in the journey of GSN! The economic sponsors were both personally and professionally committed to the purpose and principles of SoL and began, during this time, to help define the next phase of evolution for GSN.
Out of a discussion of personal and professional relevance came a number of issues that are of deep concern to the sponsors and they saw in this the relevance of the Global SoL Network to multi-national companies. In particular, SoL’s ability to help focus collective awareness and its power in inviting people into conversation, collaborative action, and knowledge building.
A natural agenda of deep issues are emerging in the Global Network. Some of those, which held common interest and energy for the retreat participants, were:
- Attracting talented people and realizing their potential: Developing commitment in a world of "free agents" and "volunteer" talent. Increasingly, talented and educated people have many options in their employment choices. Indeed, the very concept of "employee" may be an Industrial Age notion that is becoming increasingly irrelevant and even counter-productive. Moreover, organizational boundaries have become more ambiguous, as mergers, acquisitions, strategic alliances and diverse forms of partnership continually reconfigure businesses. This makes people’s organizational affiliations also more ambiguous. Against this backdrop of flux anduncertainty rest unchanging personal desires for friendship and identity with meaningful work. How can we rethink the equation for loyal and generative partnership between individual and organization?
- Variety and inclusiveness: Developing and practicing inclusion as a core competence in increasingly multi-cultural and diverse organizations. Issues of diversity have been mostly seen as problems to be solved rather than strategic opportunities. But, those organizations that learn to learn better across cultural, gender, and ethnic boundaries and learn to make differences in how people think and learn an asset rather than a liability will have unique advantages in today’s world. Moreover, if corporations are to be a force for good in the world, they must better reflect the world’s people in their composition. Yet, genuinely embracing inclusiveness is challenging. How can we develop the capacity to confront these issues that most corporations have not yet been willing to talk about?
- The system seeing itself: The challenges for coordination and coherence in social systems, be they global corporations, industries, or still larger systems: Organizations traditionally oscillate between decentralization when business is good and centralization when it is not. On the one hand, autonomy by itself can produce unclarity, waste, unnecessary internal conflicts, confusion and frustration for customers, and the inability to work productively for the common good, both the firm’s and society’s. On the other hand, central control is inevitably limited in diverse, geographically distributed enterprises. Are there alternatives to central control in achieving high levels of coordinated action? What sorts of capabilities, technologies, and infrastructures need to be developed to help people better see how local actions impact extended, interdependent systems that are invisible locally? How do we balance autonomy with health of the whole?
- Redefining growth: Economic growth based on ever increasing material use and discard is inconsistent with a finite world, and finite capacity to dissipate waste. Yet, our business and financial models depend on growth: if a company fails to grow in revenues and profits, it is out of the game and others who embrace growth will take its place. This dilemma may require rethinking how growth can be brought into harmony with the natural environment. Is there a way to reconceive "growth" in a different sense? Is it possible to base healthy economies on continuing increase in value created for the environment rather than on continuing increase in material throughput for economies of scale? What are the implications of such a shift, for businesses, their employees, financial markets, customers, and investors?
- The social divide: The ever-widening gap between those participating in the increasingly interdependent global economy and those not, both among and within different countries. The so-called "digital divide" is one dimension of this. But framing the problem in this manner tends to invoke technological responses, rather than deeper inquiries into the forces behind and consequences of globalization. The anti-globalization movement is growing not because people lack access to the Internet but because they feel a profound sense of dislocation and threat. Moreover, the possibilities for collaborative inquiry appear to be diminishing as fear and distrust grow. What are leading corporations doing today to address these issues, and how are they making it part of their business? What are the ranges of innovations -- in market growth, human resource, and ownership and governances -- which must be considered for the future?
- The role of the corporation: Extending the traditional role of the corporation, especially the global corporation, to be more commensurate with its impact. If national governments are weakening in an era of growing globalization, will global corporations become more exposed? What can be learned from efforts such as The Global Compact about the feasibility and impact of initial moves in this direction? How can global corporations better understand what determines their "license to operate" and their "license to grow"? How can they use their visibility to be a more positive force in a complex world?
The response of the economic sponsors to the proposed options in the White Paper was "none of the above," but rather a mixture of options number two (a network of fractals) and three (a network of members) from the White Paper. A number of possible design criteria emerged, including:
Outcomes and Actions following the Retreat
An outcome of the retreat (because those present wanted "to do something"), was to begin developing a strong global cell of multinational corporations. As a starting point, the groups agreed to create a forum where senior executives and their peers can meet and consider the challenges they are faced with in today’s global business world. An invitation to full global partnership will be sent to the senior executives of the companies represented at the retreat and to a few others. The invitation will invite the executives to join their peers to expand and deepen the dialogue and illuminate some of the issuess which were identified during the retreat.
The initial invitation will be made personally via one-on-one conversations with the target invitees. A September teleconference has been arranged for the Marblehead retreat participants who extended these invitations to talk about the results of their conversations with their senior leaders.
Proceeding on a parallel process, the invitation letter will be shared with the global community, with the hope that fractals will begin to facilitate conversations around the themes/issues that are important to them and their membership and begin to share their experiences with other fractals.
The economic sponsors indicated willingness to invest further in the Global SoL Network, but wanted a new proposal that not only includes a statement of current needs, but a business/financial model which makes a clear statement about how SoL and the SoL Global Network will be a sustainable business venture. Sherry Immediato has taken accountability for producing a draft of this proposal by July 31st.
In the interest of creating one global SoL, the participants inquired into "What was the requisite infrastructure needed to allow connections and conversations to take place amongst the fractals around the world?" In this spirit of collaboration, Sherry Immediato, Acting Managing Director of SoL in Cambridge, MA, is now a member of the GSN Executive Committee.
The SoL Annual Meeting (2001)
The SoL Annual meeting, held in Ogunquit, Maine, from June 25-28, 2001 demonstrated not only a strong sense of community, but the expansiveness of the content and work being done in the SoL community. A number of international friends (including representatives from Australia, Colombia, Finland, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Colombia, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the UK) were at the meeting, underscoring the transition to one Global SoL.
Meeting in Amsterdam (November 16-18, 2001)
With the Brazil gathering and the GSN Greenhouse meeting being cancelled, and in order to link the work of this past year, a meeting is being planned for all the Stewards, Coordinators, and Corporate Partners, November 16-18, at Nyenrode University near Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (Please see the invitation and registration form attached.)
Submitted by:
Vicki Tweiten
(With helpful comments from Alain Gauthier, Sherry Immediato, Frank Schnieder, Mike Zarin and Nick Zeniuk)
Appendix 1. Participants in the Global SoL Retreat — Marblehead, MA June 22-23rd, 2001
Corporate Sponsors for SoL Global Network development:
- John Leggate, Group V.P., I.T., BP Amoco, UK
- Anne Murray Allen, Mgr., Enterprise Int. Mgmt., Hewlett Packard
- John Hofmeister, Human Resource Director, Shell International
- David Marsing, VP and COO, Networking and Communications Group, Intel
- Gary Mayo, Global Director of Environmental Affairs, Visteon
- Joseph Jaworski, President of Generon Consulting
- Nick Zeniuk, SoL Council
- Arie de Geus, Global SoL Steward
- Göran Carstedt, Global SoL Steward,
- Alain Gauthier, Global SoL Steward
- Ursula Versteegen, Global SoL Steward
- Steinar Brenden, Global SoL Steward
- Peter Senge, Co-Chair, SoL
- Sherry Immediato, Co-Chair and Acting Managing Director, SoL
- Vicki Tweiten, Coordinator, Global SoL
- Jean Macdonald, SoL staff, logistics
Global Stewards:
SoL Council and Staff: