Laird's Greatest Hits

This coming July I'm coming out… as a webinar presenter!

After 27 years in the saddle as a process consultant, I've developed a soup to nuts series of workshops covering most aspects of cooperative group dynamics. Think of it as the social side of sustainability. This is my current menu (in no particular order):

1. Consensus Headaches: Rx for meeting moments that are a pain for everyone
What's your worst meeting nightmare? Yelling & screaming? Participants breaking down in sobs? Sarcastic jokes? Nobody saying a word? Everyone talking at once? How about having no idea how to make things better? We'll look at all these and more. Participants are invited to bring their own consensus horror stories; I'll provide the wooden stakes (and answers).

2. Membership: questions you should have asked before joining
This workshop will present a set of basic questions that all groups must face in defining who they are and what it means to be a member: how to handle feedback among members, level of engagement in each other's lives, rights and responsibilities, grounds for involuntary loss of member rights, and the process by which someone joins the group and is asked to leave. We'll discuss why it's a potential disaster to delay answering these questions until they come up, and why most groups do it anyway.

3. The Essentials of Dynamic Facilitation: how to get through the agenda and build energy at the same time
Good meeting facilitation can make the difference between pain and gain. We'll look at the basic qualities needed to become a full-service facilitator, the process agreements needed to spread your wings, and how to recognize those magic moments when passion can be harnessed to transform binding into bonding.

4. But Seriously Folks... a close look at the two-edged sword of humor in meetings; how to encourage the good kind, and put a lid on the bad
All jokes are not created equal. With a light touch at the right time, a joke can relieve tension and buoy group energy. However, if it comes with a sarcastic bite, some may be laughing while others are steaming. And a joke at the wrong time may undercut a precious moment of vulnerability. We'll look at how to sort the good, the bad, and the ugly, and options for damage control if you get either of the last two.

5. Conflict: Fight, Flight, or Opportunity?
Does conflict mean your group is sick, or just paying attention? Starting with the premise that conflict is healthy and normal, we'll explore options for unlocking its potential using the whole person—rational, emotional, and intuitive. Rather than talking about "I" statements or being nice, we'll focus on what happens and what can be done when things get hot, concluding with a four-step plan for constructive engagement. Special attention will be given to the advantages of working in a group and in the dynamic moment, facilitated by those not in the stew.

6. Stump the Chumps
Ask our team of crackerjack consensus facilitators (cleverly disguised as Laird & Ma'ikwe) your tough questions about meeting dynamics, and we'll try to come up with brilliant and entertaining responses, showing how you don't have to be stuck (or stay stuck) after all. The format will be Q&A: you bring the Q and we'll supply all the A you can stand.

7. This is Delegated to the Ones I Love: a focused look at what should be done by the group as a whole and what shouldn't
For large groups working with consensus, it is crucial that they learn to delegate effectively (or the meetings will never end). This workshop will break down what work should/must be done in plenary and what can/should be delegated to a committee or manager. We'll lay out the essentials of a clear mandate, and the proper sequence of consideration that will empower committees and managers, yet keep their work in balance with whole group responsibilities. We'll talk about groups whose work is re-done in plenary and runaway committees who do way more than they were asked (bad, bad, bad.)

8. Consensus 101
Making decisions by consensus is an unnatural act. At least it is for people raised in a hierarchic and competitive culture—which is just about everybody. We'll go over the cooperative roots of consensus and explain why it requires unlearning old adversarial responses in order to succeed. We'll go over the essential ingredients of consensus, explain blocking and standing aside, and make the case for why it's the most efficient form of decision making, once you've learned how to do it well. Really.

9. Power Dynamics and Leadership in Cooperative Groups
While meetings are meant to be equally accessible to all members, the reality is they are not. This workshop will examine why power is unbalanced, and what a group can (should?) do to level the playing field. Not everyone is equally comfortable speaking in front of the whole group; not everyone finds rational discourse their strongest suit; not everyone can sit still for a three-hour meeting. We'll distinguish between "power over" and "power with" and discuss what groups can (must?) do to adopt healthy models of cooperative leadership.

10. Overview of the North American Intentional Communities Movement
In the world of intentional communities, there's kaleidoscopic variety. Find out from a community network veteran (who just earned his 40-year pin) what all is out there. I'll identify the major flavors available and how they're similar, yet unique. It's a big world out there, and the good news is that we all have more allies in our efforts to build a better world than we know.

11. Should You Start a Community or Join One?
For some people hungry for community life, this can be a fundamental fork in the road. While starting your own group may look like the clearest pathway to getting what you want, we'll explore the brambles you'll find along the way, and lay out the pros and cons of joining versus starting. There's more here than you might think!

12. Economic Leveraging Through Income Sharing: living the life you want without chasing so many dollars
Very few people choose to live in income-sharing communities. Yet many wish their lives were more economically sustainable. This workshop will explore the incredible economic leveraging available through sharing income. It's not just for families any more! Not only do you have more control over how you spent your time, you can more easily select work in line with your values and—through the miracle of sharing—you won't need nearly as many dollars to achieve a satisfying quality of life.

13. The Limits of Diversity
Almost all cooperative groups aspire to hold diversity as a core value. But how much diversity can you stand? Sure, you allow pets, but what about alligators—who eat small dogs and cats. How about people who can't stand any garlic in community meals or they'll throw up? More tenderly, how many people suffering from mental health challenges can you realistically accommodate? The key here is figuring out how to have a compassionate and authentic conversation about what's possible when you think you're close to the edge. It's work to stretch to include people who are different from each other and not everyone is inspired to stretch the same amount or in the same directions. Let's talk about how to talk about it! If you wait until you're there it may be too late.

14. Navigating the Swamp of Non-monetary Contributions by Members to the Group
This is the single most commonly requested topic I’m asked to help groups figure out—because it’s messy. While there are many ways to handle this well, in this workshop you’ll learn all the questions that need to be addressed, or the ambiguity will bite you in the butt. We’ll explore why groups want members to volunteer in support of the group, how to handle people’s wide variance in their skill and availability to do so, and understand the Martyrs & Slackers dynamic to which every group is susceptible.

• • •

Starting July 2 (that's a Wednesday if you're keeping score at home) and running for seven consecutive weeks ending Aug 13, I'll be offering through Ecovillage Education US two-hour live webinars on workshops 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 14. Participation will run $30 a pop, and you get $90 off if you sign up for all seven.

In addition, EEUS will be offering a couple of mini-courses this summer:

—Starting an Intentional Community • July 26-Aug 1
Faculty: Ma'ikwe Ludwig, Alyson Ewald, Laird Schaub

Seven days of total immersion at Dancing Rabbit, this is a boot camp for would-be community founders. (It turns out that good intentions and a pure heart are not enough!)

—Encountering Climate Change • Aug 22-24
Faculty: Ma'ikwe Ludwig, Alyson Ewald, Danielle Williams, Joan Shagbark

This three-day retreat at Dancing Rabbit will be a Joanna Macy-style exploration of the overwhelm many of us experience when trying to cope with global change.

I hope you can join us for one of more of this cornucopia of offerings!

Reflections from a Reflective Reader

Here's another exchange from the mail bag. This comes from a regular visitor to this blog, who is sharing his thoughts about intentional communities, their place in the culture, outreach among communities, FIC's online Directory, Ecovillage Education US, and correspondence in general.

• • •

I. Defining "Intentional Community"
I have been giving some thought to just what makes intentional communities unique. I am defining an intentional community as a group of individuals who organize themselves to manage a resource, purposely left unspecified.

The definition I use is “a group of people living together on the basis of explicit common values.” It’s interesting that you’re focusing on managing a resource. 

I chose "resource"  because in the broadest sense any group organized for a common purpose is a community. For the purpose of this discussion I wanted to exclude groups like social and service clubs and organizations. Besides, lifestyle can be construed as a resource.

I think the reason I’m uncomfortable with that definition is because “resource" does not suggest a vision and most communities start with that, and then organize resources to pull together a living situation in service to that vision. The vision is the driver; not a commitment to managing a resource.

After browsing the FIC, Dancing Rabbit, Sandhill Farm, and other FIC listed sites, I think the defining characteristic is the seeking of a more cooperative, less competitive lifestyle. It may include religious contemplation, low ecological impact, or other goals but they are not defining.

I think that’s fair.

II. Community Outreach
I would guess that Dancing Rabbit is one of the more out reaching of the communities…

It is.

… due to Ma'ikwe's work in eco education.

Ma’ikwe’s EEUS work, though important, is only one of the ways that DR is outward facing. The community is trying to be a model of sustainable culture, creating a vibrant, fully-featured lifestyle consuming only 10% of the resources of the average US citizen.

I found out there is an artist community nearby I never knew about and I suspect most neighbors of many communities don't know that they exist.

You may be right; it's hard to say. Groups are "intentional communities” when they say they are. FIC doesn’t own the term or attempt to tell groups when they "qualify.” It turns out that there’s considerable softness about when a group is comfortable with the label intentional community; and further softness about whether they want to list their existence with FIC or let their neighbors know what they're up to.
  
III. Directory Listings

Another thing I noticed is there seems to be [in FIC's online Directory] a lot more forming/re-forming communities than established ones. Makes me wonder just how stable many of these communities are.

You are right that there many unsettled groups. FIC made the choice right at the beginning (with our first edition of Communities Directory in 1990) to list forming and re-forming groups along with established ones because finding people to match with your dreams early on is often crucial to survival. While we know that many of these tenuous groups will not succeed, we made the choice to support breadth above stability—which we are continuing to do today. That said, we have recently decided it will be a better service to users if we sort groups into four categories:
A. Established intentional communities
B. Forming intentional communities
C. Re-forming intentional communities
D. Groups with a strong community association but which are not intentional communities


I like your reorganized listing. As to the too-real question of whether a community is still "alive," you might want to consider something what Congress had the IRS impose on not-for-profits a half dozen or so years ago: the form everyone loves to hate, the 990. By requiring them to raise their hand every year and say "I am still here" at least you develop a foggy idea of who is still around. By de-listing them after three years of non-filing a lot of deadwood gets removed.

We’ve decided we don’t even want to wait that long. In the future all listed communities will be asked to affirm their existence every year and persistent non-response will result in their being moved into an Unresponsive category in less than six months.

I know that at least for very small not-for-profits they got de-listed by IRS because of personnel changes and mail not being forwarded. And getting re-listed is a royal pain. You could be less strict with re-listing.
IV. Community Demographics

My guess is that many communities are formed by idealistic younger folks who later mature and go more mainstream.

There’s certainly some of that. While you’re right that most communities are started by people in their 20s and 30s, one of the more interesting trends in the movement over the last 30 years has been the steady rise of people over 50 joining or starting communities for the first time.

I suspect individuals like you and Stan [a long-term member of Sandhill Farm] are in the minority in the movement. I think I remember Stan lamenting he was 27 years older than the next oldest member of Sandhill in one of his recent posts.

That’s true today because I’ve moved in with my wife at Dancing Rabbit, but that’s only been since December. For the first 34 years that Stan’s lived at Sandhill, he had me and others his age living there also.

V. Future of Intentional Communities
My bottom line is that while I think these communities are a valuable testing place well worth supporting, I don't think they will ever be more than a small niche.

I doubt they will ever represent a significant fraction of the population (while the movement is growing, FIC's best guess is that there are about 100,000 people in the US today who live in some form of self-identified intentional community—just 0.03% of the US population). Despite low numbers, however, communities can nonetheless play an important—even crucial—role as the tugboats that pull the Titanic of our culture in a cooperative direction, away from the icebergs of materialism, militantism, and competitive waste.

I also wonder if they will ever be really self supporting. I guess this is an important part of the experiment.

The overwhelming majority of established communities are self-supporting. What DR is pitching (both in support of the capital campaign to create their Green Community Center—which will include office space for FIC's headquarters—and in funding for EEUS) are outreach initiatives.

A good portion of the Community Center will be for the benefit of members, and that portion will be funded by loans that will be repaid by user fees. The donated portion will be to support DR’s education/outreach mission, which is tax deductible. In the case of EEUS, it’s definitely an attempt to get the thing off the ground and firmly established. There’s a constant dance between keeping the tuition low to attract students and keeping the tuition high to adequately compensate staff.

All of that said, I think it’s fair to hold the long-term goal that these efforts ultimately pay their own way entirely. 

VI. EEUS This Year How is Ma'ikwe making out with her training? Both her personally and the course she has planned for the summer.

Thanks for asking. She's doing pretty well these days in her battle with chronic Lyme disease. While there was a time this winter where the symptoms (muscle and joint ache, brain fog, diminished stamina) seemed to be increasing, she was able to adjust her health regimen in time to stave it off and she's doing rather well right now. (Knock on wood.)

Regarding EEUS, we did not get the enrollment we needed to do the full 37-day immersion course this summer (as we did in 2013), so we’ve switched to a number of smaller courses to help build energy:

—Laird's Greatest Hits • July 2-Aug 13
Seven two-hour webinars about cooperative group dynamics, offered every Wed afternoon. Come to one, or come to all.

—Starting an Intentional Community • July 26-Aug 1
An intensive week-long workshop with instructors Tony Sirna, Alyson Ewald, Ma'ikwe, and me—all of whom have experience starting communities.

—Encountering Climate Change • Aug 22-24
A Joanna Macy-style weekend retreat with Ma'ikwe, Alyson, Danielle Williams, and Joan Shagbark. This will focus on naming and working with despair, anger, numbness, and overwhelm related to our changing world and uncertain future.

Check here for details about this summer's offerings.

VII. Spreading the Word
I wonder if any of your other readers have had comments on my emails. If so, were they reflective, in alignment with my views, or did they feel I was totally off the wall?

I’ve (gratefully) used our correspondence as a springboard for a few blogs and will probably do more [such as I'm doing right now!]. I think your questions and observations are things many readers can relate to and it’s an excellent vehicle to amplify some points I want to make.

That said, not many people post comments. While I know that 100+ people read each blog entry and another 200 or so subscribe (which means it’s sent to them as an email), few write me. If there are comments posted on the blog site (which is open to anyone, without restrictions) then you can see them yourself.

I shared some of your Internet addresses; sandhillfarm.org, dancingrabbit.org, and ic.org; with a fellow teacher this morning, as well as showing him how to find your blog. I am curious as to what he thinks when I see him again.

Hah! Let me know. I am always interested in what my constituency (people interested in community) has to say.

Asking for Money

A lot of people are uncomfortable asking for money. I used to be one of them.

Then, back in 1996, we had an experienced fundraiser attend an FIC Board meeting and he enlightened me to the common need for nonprofits to get over it. That began a process that took me a couple years, at the end of which I could look people in the eye and ask them to write a check in support of the Fellowship.

In the world of community, there's a fair amount of uneasiness with money in and of itself. This shows up in a variety of ways:
o  A commitment to sharing (reducing what you need to own)
o  A commitment to voluntary simplicity (making do with less)
o  A tendency to ask for less compensation than our contributions are worth (asking for more shows a lack of spiritual development)
o  Hesitation to share information about what one earns or one's net assets (polite people don't do that)

In short, many communitarians are motivated to get as much distance as possible between themselves and the rootstock of all evil.

Growing up with an entrepreneurial father, I had evidence at an early age about what money could buy, and how that didn't necessarily include happiness. Moving purposefully away from that capitalist model, it took me 25 years as an adult to come to grips with the possibility of embracing my entrepreneurial heritage without selling my soul. It just required the discipline to make sure that how I made money and what I did with it were aligned with my values. 

When it came to development—identifying donors in support of worthy causes—I came to appreciate that value-centered fundraising was not about money so much as it was about relationships, and matching the donor's financial capacity with the beneficiary's energy, time, and reputation to realize a common vision. It turns out that there a good number of people who care about what's happening in the world, and are happy to see some portion of their discretionary dollars being used in support of efforts they don't have time to do themselves. 

The art is in making sure that you're not deciding what to do based on what can be funded, and that you're sensitively matching both the size and the purpose of the request with the funder's interests. Good fundraising is not about charity; it's about a dynamic partnership.

But this won't go over well if you haven't first done personal work around your relationship to money—as squeamishness on your part will change the energy of the exchange. This is a particular challenge in intentional community, where ease with money tends to be viewed with the same jaundiced eye as power mongering, kicking cats, driving an SUV, or living in a McMansion.

The good news is that it can be done—which is a damn good thing given how far we need to go in creating cooperative alternatives in a world that's going to hell in a competitive handbasket. It's not so easy financing one's dreams on downwardly mobile budgets and we need those progressive friends with hearts of gold and gold in the bank to be partnering with us to create a brighter future.

• • •

So what have I been involved in lately that's worthy of financial support? Glad you asked.

My wife, Ma'ikwe, is the director of Ecovillage Education US and we're running an Indiegogo campaign to raise money in support of scholarships and educational materials for this summer's 37-day immersion course. The campaign runs for 10 more days, and we have an anonymous donor who's willing to provide a 10% match (he'll give an additional $10 for every $100 donated). Click here if you're inspired to be one of those folks with a heart of gold.

FIC is just on the verge of completing a massive overhaul of our website. In addition to markedly faster loading and more reliable checkout, we'll be offering a tantalizing array of new digital products, including subscriptions to Communities magazine, all back issues available as downloadable PDFs, and new collections of our best articles, organized by theme. We spent down our cash reserves to finance these improvements; now we need to recoup the money through increased traffic and donations. If you like what we're doing, you can let us know by making an online donation here.

See. That wasn't so hard.

The Entrepreneurial Dilemma

This past summer, Terry O'Keefe and I co-taught four days of focus on the economic dimension for the Ecovillage Education US training at Dancing Rabbit. (The other three dimensions are worldview, ecological, and social.) We started the afternoon of our last day with a 90-minute discussion about the challenge of integrating entrepreneurial energy in cooperative communities.

Most of the students in the class aspired to start an ecovillage and we challenged them to consider how to fit together the following pieces:

A. Most intentional communities struggle to create a solid economic base for their members. That is, it's rare that all members have the income stream they need without leaving home to secure it. To be clear, I'm not saying that all members of intentional communities struggle to make enough money; I'm saying that it's rare for a community to provide its members decent work—by which I mean work that pays well, has flexible hours, can be done at home, and is well-aligned with one's values.

(To be fair, income-sharing groups almost all tackle this challenge head on, but they're only 10-12% of the field of intentional communities—the vast majority of communities leave the matter of member income almost wholly up to the members themselves and don't even attempt to address it.)

B. Communities tend be located in areas where property is more affordable—an unintended consequence of which is poor wages in the immediate area. Thus, unless a member's income is unrelated to geography (perhaps they're retired and living off a pension or investments; living off inheritance; telecommuting, or relying on off-site consulting), there is often a struggle for members to make ends meet. This can show up in long commutes, less-than-satisfying employment, or weak wages—none of which produce much joy.

C. Entrepreneurs tend to prefer working alone, with plenty of room for creativity, few encumbrances on what they can do, and minimal bureaucratic oversight. Often, if there are concerns about their ideas that arise within the group, the entrepreneur has reactions such as:
—You're just not open to new ideas.
—It's not fun for me to do this work if you're just going to be critical.
—I'm trying as hard as I can to generate new income in line with the community's values, and instead of appreciation I get accused of compromising what the group stands for. Instead of being a hero I'm the villain!

D. Successful entrepreneurs often accrue income, latitude, and power out of proportion to their dedication or years of service to the community, which creates tension (envy?) with those (the non-entrepreneurs) who feel they don't have access to the same pathway to a better life or greater standing in the group.

E. The ability of entrepreneurs to be joyous about their pursuit of money-making is often viewed as suspect in the context of communities that have core values around equity and fairness. (If money is the root of all evil, it's suspicious that you take such pleasure in its generation.)

F. Many of the traditional rewards for entrepreneurs in the wider culture (personal financial gain, a corner office with a view, a reserved parking place, a year-end bonus, increased power) do not necessarily transfer into the community milieu. A vibrant entrepreneurial subculture can translate into significant inequalities among the membership.

G. One of the surest ways to generate new income streams is to attract and support residents with entrepreneurial (money-making) energy. However, once you digest the complications of factors C-F above, you can see why entrepreneurs don't flock to communities.
What are suitable rewards for entrepreneurs that: a) genuinely recognize their contributions;
yet b) don't compromise or undercut the community's values? Keep in mind that entrepreneurial energy manifests in more ways than just starting business ventures. It also shows up in solving problems and establishing systems and structures. Thus, there is an aspect of founding communities that is entrepreneurial, even if isn't linked directly to income generation.

This is a poignant problem. Communities need entrepreneurial energy, yet are conflicted about embracing it.

Among other things this is a diversity issue.

o  How wide a range of views about money can exist among the community membership without incurring undue tension? If the values of the entrepreneur's product or service align well with group values, is this sufficient to bridge the gap?

o  Entrepreneurs typically want to run their own businesses. If they are sufficiently successful to create jobs for others in the community (which are likely to be desirable to non-entrepreneurs, most of whom would prefer to work near home), then you necessarily walk into the schizophrenic dynamics of Member A being an employee of Member B Thursday afternoons (when they're both on the job), yet being equals at the Thursday evening community plenary. This can get awkward.

o  Entrepreneurs tend to keep their eye more closely on the bottom line when assessing community proposals. For others, community living is mainly a social experiment, to enhance the stimulation and quality on one's life. When finances are mainly a personal concern (rather than a group issue), the steady insertion of financial analysis into group conversations can be experienced as sand in the gears. How much weight should be given to the question of financial impact, short of bankruptcy?

o  One of the key spectra that most groups need to manage is risk tolerant members living with the risk averse. While most groups are reasonably clear about their common values and do a decent job of screening prospectives for a good fit in that regard, there is typically little attention given to where a would-be member positions themselves relative to risk—with the end result that the membership is all of over the map. As you might expect, entrepreneurs tend to be more risk tolerant; non-entrepreneurs the reverse.

[For the risk averse, it can be exhausting listening to a steady stream of new things to try; what's exciting for the risk tolerant is a nightmare for the risk averse. Consequently, they come to dread meetings.

Going the other way, it's a drag for the risk tolerant, every time they introduce a new idea, to be offered up a steady diet of worry and caution from the risk averse—sucking the life out of the conversation. Consequently, they come to dread meetings.

Unaddressed, everyone loses!] 

Ironically, unless groups have sufficient skill in the social dimension (being able to talk authentically, yet compassionately about hard things), they are unlikely to be able to handle this normal range of diversity well, which undercuts their ability to be economically vibrant. 

It's eerie how much these dimensions of sustainability interrelate.