The Four Waves

“Energy moves in waves. Waves move in patterns. Patterns move in rhythms. A human being is just that energy, waves, patterns, rhythms. Nothing more. Nothing less. A dance.”

-- Gabrielle Roth

Introduction                           

The SIX Wayfinder Movement No. 2 - ‘Ensembling’ presented itself to us with such a force of nature, quite unlike the gentle unfolding of Movement No. 1. Over the course of 35 days, we experienced dynamism and motion within and around all of our X activities, yet the Dine Around+ Closed Ensembles had a unique quality to them. Their purpose was to reflect back the topics we heard in the first movement and bring together a select group of individuals from different parts of the world to share their approaches and actions around these topics going forwards. We hoped that this effort would continue to drive the sector: create an impetus for further conversations, relationships and learnings, possibly even forge new avenues for collaboration. 

At least, that was our intended goal. It was hard to foresee how these Closed Ensembles would actually be inhabited as space for the participants to enter into and use according to what they felt they needed to bring. In each conversation, participants showed a generosity of presence and vulnerability that created the conditions for deep and meaningful witness, for grounding the social innovation movement on the inside, and for amplifying the tensions and flows ‘out there’ in ways that could be grasped and shaped in these urgent times.

Lots was in motion in and around these calls, but more than motion-as-flow, it oftentimes felt like people were weary and needing a place to come after wrestling their daily struggles, complex and opposing forces, the commitment to what really matters (which remains an ever shifting goal post). Where there was a clear sense of place in these dialogues, there was also the recurring theme of the liminal, of the invisible, of the work that occurs behind the scenes and on the ground. Where there was a feeling of weight, there was also a feeling of weightlessness, as new events kept unravelling and individuals kept adapting. Where there were many time zones connecting at any one point and in the virtual realm, many people spoke to the tensions of being rooted in space (countries, communities, homes, workplaces).

We held seven sessions in total, on Living and Working with Integrity, the How Matters (Demonstrating Value in the Midst of a Pandemic), the Changing Role of Public Servants (Making the Unusual More Usual) and Making this Moment Count (How to Reinforce the Efforts of Civil Society in Asia). Each session deserves attention (as individual waves and patterns), and yet we still wish to give energy to the abstraction for a better sense of - to maintain the metaphor - the ocean.

Changing Role of Public Servants

Civil service is fast changing. Traditionally, public servants have been desk based, hidden from view, fielding complaints and creating policy frameworks that seem detached from local communities and their lived experiences. Through the changing of generations and the nature of social issues and crises today, civil servants are moving away from reactive roles and thinking about their work in entirely different ways.

Many public service innovators are thinking creatively, connecting stakeholders, asking critical questions, seeking out peers outside of their immediate sector or context. But it is no easy task ahead and there is a long way to go; it may feel like a struggle to create the right kind of framework that encourages unusual activities and approaches to become more usual. But by exchanging questions, ideas and next steps, and learning from other unusual suspects in public service innovation, we can find full energy and commitment for the road ahead.

It is an understatement to describe the situations of public servants as ‘stretched’. “All this change has been so exhausting; full of potential but needs delicate nuance.” Like being under the ocean, they felt suspended; required to act quickly without having much direction, “flow - trying to move forward without being swept up.” They spoke about giving themselves permission to explore, not to know everything outright, “through the urgency of the situation, you have to be quite vulnerable about not knowing what you’re doing… giving up being the expert.” But of course, their jobs are in service to the public and not knowing has real life consequences so the pressure was on, “it takes many years to build trust with humans and only a few minutes to lose it.”

But while public servants were under the ocean, many serious issues were rising to the surface: “Something is coming but we’re not clear what it is.” The need for innovation and more radical conversation within government was clearer than ever but participants acknowledged there was a “crisis of the narrative of innovation within government… hard to get off the page and into practice.” Some described being “part of a loving attitude to innovation…” Listening first, understanding the problem, investing in relationships, being quick to “embed and lead, scale or abandon,” and so it became easier to “be imaginative about different alternatives… to do things differently because of the urgency [because we had to].”

This mirrored an attitude of reflection and change necessary both within government and the public realm. Using lego bricks, one participant shared a story about different models being built to represent civic halls in various countries - some as a high-walled and protected citadel, some as open, public space. The stories we tell about these institutions both reflect and change how they behave, they “show the art of the possible.”

Place matters both more and less than ever, but questions were asked about what can spark innovation at local levels. There was encouragement to use a design mindset but also to look past the “first prototype as the design” and instead use it to “guide the flow.” The conversations ended as if participants were coming up for air, carrying a sense of emerging out of a dark time, “looking beyond this whilst acknowledging we are in it; living amidst COVID-19” - moving towards the sunlight pooled at the surface of the water - with a stronger evidence base, new tools and psychological safety around innovation.

The How Matters: How to demonstrate value and build trust in the midst of a crisis?

There is a growing feeling amongst both donors and civil society organisations that the way we measure impact is only seeing “part of the moon”. There are often many diffuse, emergent and deeply networked activities happening on the ground that show strong, positive signs of change. Moreover, with the rise of social movements and informal, local action based groups tipping into critical mass, there is a growing recognition for long-term relationship and trust building.

But this is not without its challenges: trust is significantly harder to maintain and foster online than in-person programmes; reaching individuals and groups in new and unknown places feels urgent and important (especially in contexts of declining trust), but relationships take time to build and despite a general agreement that networks and invisible infrastructure is important and vital to social innovation, the ‘how’ is harder to explain than the ‘what’’ (and perhaps as a consequence) “nobody wants to fund it”. 

In these sessions, most of the participants were either rapid response funders or first delivery civil society organisations who could see and feel the shock waves through the system. They were already champions of this approach - long term, deep, intersectional, and ecosystem-wide; working under the knowledge that “you need to build it before you need it.” They were advocates for this approach amongst peers too, exploring “what would good look like within this context... Good is not extractive, accumulating wealth, then giving it away… [we need] changes in [our] own foundations and advocacy work - making these changes structural and systemic, including within government agencies.” 

But when everything still feels uncertain, too much change too fast can be counterproductive. As the shock wave continues to ripple like the baseline through the air, one participant asked, “what’s the dance we need to do here?” Increasing autonomy and flexibility, shifting responsibility and even decision making authority still comes with risk and burden, safety and security concerns, to both grantee and funder. So the “hands off” approach didn’t always feel right - at a time of shock, the feeling of “being together despite everything” was still important. “Checking in rather than checking up on,” worked well but it wasn’t always obvious if they were being perceived as overstepping or impatient. 

Reducing the need to report so as not to overburden also reduced the body of evidence funders had at their disposal which meant it became hard to “identify whether you are improving and moving forwards”. This shifted the approach of several participants towards listening more and going “where the energy is, [letting] go of your agenda.” This changed how some participants started to view the landscape of civil society, opening up new ways to partner and new entities to partner with. This required greater transparency on all sides and in large part was a “positive shock to the system”.

Moving relationship building, engagement and coordination online was hard, but in the context of already strong and trusting relationship dynamics, wasn’t a major hurdle. Security and digital access were major issues for many groups, as was the loss of “frankness and free flowing dialogue” in virtual spaces. Nevertheless feedback channels were often set up with surprising ingenuity and employing strong moderators was a good workaround. Plus it was “easier to get two hours in the agenda and bring people together… people needed peer spaces most of all.” New mechanisms were set up for peer evaluation amidst a growing realisation that “we don’t do nearly enough of this informal learning and sharing across organisations.” Not all shocks to the system are bad, after all.

 Living and Working with Integrity

Values are not just pledges, public statements, or content for the wall and the website. They are ‘lived out’ through the decisions we take, the way we navigate uncertainty and make difficult choices. Our values guide us in design and delivery, in how we show up to conversations, in what questions we ask and where we look for answers, and in what we feel the need to justify, defend, or interrogate further.

Our values are our ‘north stars’, decision making tools and standards to which we must hold ourselves and others to account. But too often, the rhetoric, actions and impact of powerful individuals and institutions are not in line. This creates feelings of cynicism, frustration and resentment which, if left unaddressed, become serious blockers to meaningful progress. Working well with those we must also hold to account causes unwanted confrontations; truly influencing values-aligned work is no easy path.

“If we know we are not on the right path, if we've seen the systems that are doubling down against disruptive efforts... we must come closer together. We must become aware of the reality and have the integrity to come to terms with it. We must force hands on specific issues, start questioning early and challenge ourselves, our own communities, each other - and to take a resolute stand even when the edges of the moral compass are making you bleed".

Integrity was described in different ways by participants, “the grammar and poetry around social impact”, “uprightness” and “right sized patience.” While some had clear examples of what giving integrity to the work looked like, others admitted, “sometimes I don’t even know what integrity is” and struggled to know the difference between gut and bias in making decisions based on integrity. Some called their efforts to be “active and influential in change… either completely mad or completely brilliant [and] time will tell.”

Participants were going through a “crazy range of emotions” at the time of these sessions. Rage, toxic work cultures, declining trust, and exhaustion were backdrops: “I’m not interested in small transformations, but I still have anxiety and I still need soothing.” These conversations were deeply personal orientations around values and ways of being in the world. They were reminding themselves almost daily how to “Stay open. Say it out loud. Write it down, Make space. Tune in. Lean in. Be angry. Be still. Find grace.” Yet while grand gestures play a role in signalling virtue, there were in reality a million “little (very possible) compromises which push us far away from what we are doing,” so participants were fighting back by having the conversation they were afraid of having or resisting being rushed into making decisions that weren’t right. 

Giving integrity to the work was about disrupting repeated patterns in our economic and social systems, a “recalibration of the baseline”: “economics as if people and the planet mattered”; rebalancing the value of people’s lived experience alongside people’s learned experience; using wisdom councils; co-production which embedded relational repair across generations and communities; creating space for people to speak for themselves; looking at power and underlying causes in systemic issues. From making decisions about where funding comes from to new working arrangements, building inclusive and accessible practices to addressing unconscious bias, blindspots and “white comfort”. 

Living and working with integrity is an ongoing struggle, a path of discomfort, but as one participant beautifully reflected, “culture only really becomes real when you start to experience it.” So in order to live and work with integrity, it is crucial to find a calm sense of personal power and contemplation despite (or within) chaos and uncertainty. Then, as another participant summarised, "using that to shape action, to do what we've never done, to own from an integrity standpoint the steps we need to take," to join forces not just towards solutions, but towards liberation.

Making this Moment Count: How to reinforce the efforts of civil society in Asia?

As the need grows for urgent delivery around response and recovery in the pandemic, civil society actors have yet again proved to be effective mechanisms. We have heard from players across Asia that, “we are at our brightest moment right now”, with philanthropic, public and private bodies finding new and unexplored ways to work together, to listen to one another, to organising, coordinate resources and influence agendas for the common good.

But these agendas have always been at the core of civil society. Now that the sector has the ears and eyes of those in power, it is crucial to find out what tangible actions can be taken to support this sector to truly succeed. Across Asia, the general sense is that whilst different experiments and opportunities are being explored, the feedback loops risk becoming stuck in siloes and activities in many parts of the region still struggle to find the trust and support from others in the ecosystem. Is there applicable knowledge to be gained from different local contexts? How can we not forget the important role that civil society plays or else waste this valuable moment?

When asked, “what feels possible now that didn’t feel possible before about working in civil society in Asia?”, many answers referred to the fact that “now digitalisation is very possible - a lot of private conversations are made possible; it saves money and time, scheduling is faster” and “digital literacy has boomed… it is easier to mobilise things online because now you have more people who feel comfortable online…” Indeed, when the pandemic hit, digital connection was how people could work with each other, and for those who had adopted flexible working arrangements before COVID-19, “it even felt natural to stay at home!”

But the downside is that “there are so many things happening online, so much information going around - sometimes we all feel overwhelmed.” The pandemic has challenged what participants (everyone, really) have taken for granted, forcing an openness around change, increased flexibility and a positive and proactive attitude. Many players in civil society across Asia felt like they had no choice to collaborate and show leadership, “there was no time for frameworks, terms of reference, guidelines… Communities became innovative about their own solution - leadership just happened… because of basic needs needing to be met.”

It felt like “people are no longer relying on institutions,” so unsurprisingly, the organisations and groups that have been the most nimble, adapted and remained relevant “have almost without exception been the grassroots organisations”. We’ve seen traditional festivities, like the water lantern festival, incorporating digital participation, crowdfunding campaigns boasting a higher success rate than in previous years, even new games that allow people to participate in protest marches: “The battlefield is not physical, it is online…” but because many things are moving so fast and traditions are beginning to look different, traditional actors like older organisations and governmental institutions, are struggling to change their mindsets and attitudes but as a result may “feel even less connected in digital times.” 

Power dynamics between individuals within organisations and across generations are however changing. The work of civil society in Asia has been “playing a more nurturing and supportive role in enabling the ecosystem to thrive…Today I really feel like sharing each of our stories and each of our contexts is how you feel connected.” One participant beautifully described what “making this moment counts” looks like in civil society across Asia, “as a soft, spring breeze: it brings change and it’s not so strong that it’s scary or people get hurt, but it lifts up all the little birds and insects and enables them to fly…”