This is a late review of the Conference for Global Transformation CGT that I attended May 20 – 22 2016. The CGT is a conference of the Wisdom Area of Landmark Worldwide. Landmark Worldwide is a transformative education business that uses an ontological approach. The following are my meager notes.
Landmark Worldwide CEO Harry Rosenberg raised the enquiry (paraphrasing), “In transforming the business of Landmark Worldwide to take the organisation forward , what is the clearing for an organisation as a democratic conversation”.
The CGT provides a State of the World analysis. This requires some measuring of certain characteristics to provide a scorecard. The measurements are taken of: Economic; Social/Political; and Environmental conditions. They have been taken since 2001 which is called the base year and that year all measures were given a score of 1:00. All years since have then been ranked against that. While many measures have improved since 2001, there has been a steady decline in Freedom of the Press, Political rights, civil liberties, and environmental performance while the biggest improvement has been in the under 5 year old mortality. Rather than dwell on the scores, the spokesperson for the State of the World committee talked to the issue of what measures might mean in regard to an ontological view of the world. Some of the enquiries raised include:
- How can we tell we (Landmark Wisdom Area) is making a difference in the world?
- What are the measures that might be impacted by transformation?
- Are we measuring to make the world ‘wrong’, so we can fix it? What if we considered that the world works and it is complete, yet people can still be in expression and make a difference?
- What is the ontological world i.e. what is the being that is the world?
- What world am I interacting? Is it the whole world, with nothing and no-one left behind?
- What do I include in my occurring of the world?
- What do I measure, to count and count it all?
- Is a world that can be seen in unprecedented clarity, a world that counts?
On ‘The Created Self’, presenters raised the possibility of feeling okay and unburdened around what is important to me.
On ‘Leadership as a Natural Expression’, a presentation from the new “Being a Leader” ontological training courses, Jeri Echeverria challenged to inquire how I am as a leader? She pointed to the need for a conversational domain and mastery of that domain, that is opening up a new world, new realms of possibility, new ways of seeing, hearing, perceiving. She encouraged to take risks to get beyond what I have, and for that to transform my relationship with failure.
On ‘Listening to Performance from a place of reflection on your own perspective’, we were encouraged to look at what we recognised as great performance. Offerings included:
- It is technically proficient, even excellent, perfect;
- Attractive, transports the audience, is captivating, moving;
- Bountiful / abundant;
- Interactive, listening, engaging;
- A relationship with beauty, awe, amazement that is distinct from performance.
Looking to an example of great performance in my own life, I am encouraged that reviewing that performance is transformative, giving me courage to step into the next unknown.
Of the inquiry, ‘How does a great performance arise?’ offerings included:
- In inquiry;
- in participation as an interdependent group;
- in listening;
- In visions to goals to choices (strategies);
- in passion
- in promises;
- in preparedness and pursuit;
- in reflection, feedback, measurement
Great performance requires a look at failure i.e what didn’t work. It was suggested that we could fail hard, fail fast, and move on as a way to great performance, an expectation of success rather than winning. Great performance can show up as a crazy quiet in action. ‘Doing’ (being) ourselves, could be great performance.
Of the inquiry, ‘What is the nature of great performance, it was suggested look at characteristicsm essential qualities, and basic or inherent features.
Of the inquiry, ‘What access do you see to great performance, as a comittment that shows up as a) talking about what I’m doing as who can contribute, network, directly, through alignement; and b) a focus on the team and the strategy; and c) reflective inquiry through measurement including what does the team see that needs measurement?
On ‘A Promise to the World’ Monica Aring challenged the conference to ‘wake up’, that we can ‘get off it’ every few minutes i.e get of making it either right or wrong. She indicated that there are traps in language, that a promise is not an identity, rather a way to be in play, to be attentive to looking good or an expert around the promise. A promise requires constant inquiry, and a shift from a me to we economy. It may be that we can be nervous around a promise, rather than just my role is my role.
On a personal inquiry, I asked myself, do I complain that I don’t have what it takes to make a shift in life to a bigger contribution and make it work. Am I often looking around to see what everyone els eis doing? Is there something in being that I say ‘no’ to an easier path. I recognised that I would like to develop a creative enterprise for access / participation across many Australian communities. Can I open up a relationship with abundance to cause this?