The 7 Other Laws of Lifetime Growth

My previous post had the title 10 Laws of Lifetime Growth, but I presented only three from the authors’ complete list – the first two, and the last.

Some have asked: “Where are the other seven?” Here they are, in the order that the authors present them, with short commentaries.

Always make your contribution greater than your reward. This is the core driving principle of social activism, I think. But at times it may be interpreted one-sidedly as only demanding personal sacrifice, without contributing to personal growth.

I remember receiving, in prison, a message from a fellow activist. She was apologetic, informing me that she was dropping out of the movement, because she wanted to focus on developing  herself. I told her to follow what she felt she needed to do, but also asked why she felt stifled through her participation in the movement. In my experience, my contribution to the movement also led to personal growth, including sharpening my mind and developing my communication skills and creativity.

Activist involvement does involve deferred gratification, even opportunity costs. But “serving the people” need not be sheer self-sacrifice. There can also be self-fulfillment and growth.

Always make your performance greater than your applause. I like this aphorism and would have added it to my top list if I wanted to include more than three.

Some audiences are easy to please and generous with their appreciation. This can lead to complacency and “performances” that may satisfy audiences, but not ourselves, if we are honest and admit that we have not given our best. Do this too often, and we grow stale. But if we treat every performance as a fresh challenge, we stretch ourselves and experience the excitement of growing.

I am reminded of the advice that we should aspire to be primarily “inner driven.” We should set our inner professional standards, as a corrective to primitive conceptions of being “market-driven.” While there is value in the external validation of markets, we know that there are all sorts of markets, and many of them are too short-term and fickle.

Always make your gratitude greater than your success. An inner sense of achievement that is affirmed by public recognition is heartwarming and always reason to give thanks. But in addition to the ritual, “Una sa lahat ay salamat sa nasa itaas,” we need to acknowledge that are are many factors that contribute to any success.

It has taken me more than half my lifetime to appreciate the element of “grace” in our lives. I describe grace as something that is not the fruit of our efforts, nor something we fully deserve. And which we accept with thanks and wonder. Like the gift of true friends.

Always make your enjoyment greater than your effort. The first time I read this, I worried that it could encourage slackening, or taking things easy. I decided to interpret it along the lines of Mihaly Csikszentmihaly’s studies into the phenomenon of “flow.”

When the task is more difficult and demanding than our capabilities, we experience anxiety, even discouragement. When the task is too easy, we experience boredom. But when the task matches our capabilities, or even better, is slightly higher so that it stretches our capabilities, we experience “flow.” At the best moments, he describes flow as an experience of spontaneity, and even rapture.

Always make your cooperation greater than your status. There are two ways to interpret this. One is to challenge any diffidence to work with others whom we consider of a higher status than ourselves.

The other interpretation, emphasized by the authors, is a call to concentrate on the work we do with others, rather than worrying about who gets the credit, or being self-conscious about raising our status. That is similar to the saying that we can accomplish many things together, if we do not care who gets the credit. That will take care of itself, eventually.

Always make your confidence greater than your comfort. It is easier to remain inside our comfort zone, rather than face the risk that accompanies any promise of further growth.

The career path of Manny Pacquiao is a good example. Instead of remaining at the weight level where he has beaten all significant opponents, he had the confidence to fight at higher weight levels. Of course this meant more intensive training, new tactics, and careful study of prospective opponents. If he had remained at his initial lower weight level, he would not be as successful, or as respected. The British metaphor about “punching below or above your weight” also applies.

Always make your purpose greater than your money. I always comment that fellow activists do not really need this challenge. Our problem has usually been the opposite – how to get enough money to match our much greater purposes.

Perhaps the most symbolic target of this challenge is Bill Gates. After earning his billions, more money give diminishing returns of satisfaction and growth. That may be the reason for his shifting to philanthropy. Below a certain level (of survival and comfort) money can be the driver of growth. But eventually, the main drivers are the higher (or deeper) needs in Maslow’s hierarchy: self-actualization, learning, and transcendence.

P.S. Lifetime Growth is not just about knowledge, skills, and achievement. It is also about our moral sense, which we deepen and broaden, instead of settling for what is acceptable to the majority at the current level of social development.

P.S. Daniel Dennett in his TED talk asserts that the secret of happiness is “to find a cause much greater than yourself, to which you can devote your life.” In the spirit of the Laws of Lifetime Growth, I would add “and in whose service you become even more of what you can be.”

10 Laws of Lifetime Growth

Today, my son Yeyi celebrates his 37th birthday.

To have a 37 year old son, who is father to twin boys Edric and Yohan, is to be reminded that I am a grandfather!

Should I feel old at 67? Not particularly.

I  experienced feeling old much earlier, when I turned 63. For no particular reason. But I remembered mulling this over as I wandered into the National Book Store at the Glorietta, looking for a book that might stimulate my mind and mood.

One book title caught my eye – The Laws of Lifetime Growth. The names of the authors Dan Sullivan and Catherine Nomura were unfamiliar, but as I flipped through the pages, I liked what I gleaned. I brought the book to the cashier, intending to buy it, so I could read it at leisure.

It’s a good thing I checked the price at the back of the 130-page book. It was 1300 pesos!

“I won’t spend 1300 pesos for such a small book,” I muttered to myself, as I returned the book to the shelf. But then I realized that I had an hour to spare before my next appointment.

So I speed-read the book.

Since then, I have cited the 10 “laws” in my talks to various audiences, but I have never managed to recall the complete list of 10. I console myself with the finding of pop-psychology that the average human being’s short-term recall extends only to a list of 7. This is supposedly why phone numbers have 7 digits.

I usually add that this may also explain why most Christians cannot recite from memory all the 10 commandments!

Here are my favorite 3 of the 10 Laws of Lifetime Growth.

1.  Always make your future bigger than your past. My immediate reaction to this was: “Why are you telling me this only now, when I am 63?” But the more I thought of the aphorism, the more it made sense. Of course, for those who don’t have much of a past to be proud of, it’s easier to think of making a future that is bigger and better. But for those who can look back to some significant achievements, the “law” is a challenge and a stimulus for growth.

At a conference in Thailand, a Maori woman leader reacted favorably to the aphorism. “We Maoris spend most of our energies defending our history and culture, and we need to do this still. But we may end up with no energy left to envision and create our future.”

Activists of my generation look back with legitimate pride to the years of repression and resistance (1972-1986). By next year, we will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of EDSA 1986. That is a good occasion to ask ourselves: How do we imagine and construct a future that is bigger and better than our past?

2.  Always make your learning greater than your experience. This is part of the answer to the question. We Filipinos have been often criticized for not having enough sense of history. Or more precisely, for not drawing lessons from our history.

Activists of our generation have been often challenged by activist-friends from other countries: “Your experience and practice are much, much richer than your theorizing and reflections.”

How do we make our learning greater than our experience? We need to reflect on them, of course, and communicate our reflections to one another. We must allow our practice and theory to be “interrogated” from various points of views. And we need to go beyond our direct experiences to learn from the experiences and reflections of other places and movements.

It was in Belgium, I think, that I first heard the wise advice from an El Salvadorean comrade: “Learn from others, but think for ourselves.”

3.  Always make your questions bigger than your answers. This is the last in the original list of 10, and I find it the most useful.

I read somewhere that teachers in Japan are supposed to be trained especially to teach their students how to ask questions. This seems to contradict the stereotypical image I have of Japanese culture. But I liked the explanation in that article. Answers represent a closure, the end of an exploration. Questions open new paths of inquiry, and lead to new discoveries.

Thanks for 67 Years, and Counting…

Just a few hours remain of July 11, time enough for a few quick reflections on my life of 67 years.

Thanks to all who have greeted me today, some face to face, more by phone, text, and e-mail, and most on Facebook.

I have been looking forward to July 11, but for another reason which I share with most of the world – the final game of the World Cup in Jo’burg, South Africa. Spain versus the Netherlands, both aiming to win their first ever World Cup championship.

Although I have a morning flight tomorrow to Mindanao, and my voice is still hoarse, I persuaded Girlie to let me stay up to watch the game live: “It’s a birthday treat to myself.”

She’ll probably stay up with me, though she isn’t really into sports. And she is rooting for Holland. Why? Because we stayed there for a number of years, and have many Dutch friends. Our daughter Ayen was conceived and born in Holland. When I told her that Spain has the edge, though the game could go either way, she blurted an added reason: “I am for the Dutch, because Spain colonized the Philippines!”

What if Admiral van Noort’s Dutch fleet had beaten the Spaniards in 1604′s La Naval de Manila? Would she be rooting for Spain? I should ask my Indonesian activist-friends if they share the logic invoked by Girlie.

Some sports commentators try to give the championship game a more weighty perspective by bringing up the historical Dutch-Spanish wars. I trust that they write tongue-in-cheek, like those who elevate the boxing bouts of Manny Pacquiao against Barrera, Morales and Marquez to a contest between the Philippines and Mexico.

Getting back to my 67th birthday, I remember the first months of our Tetada Kalimasada sessions. During the time for meditation (Tafakur), I couldn’t empty my mind enough to direct the energies generated during the jurus. No matter how I tried, too many thoughts intruded.

After some time, I decided that rather than empty my mind, I should just organize the thoughts that wouldn’t go away. I would think of all my concerns, all I cared about deeply, from family and friends, comrades and companions, to communities I worked with, to other issues of justice I knew about. It was an exercise in praying for my expanding circle of compassion.

After some weeks, I switched from prayers of petition to prayers of thanksgiving. I decided to count my blessings, and give thanks for family and friends, for comrades and companions, for communities I worked with, for lessons learned from life’s journeying.

Eventually, I managed to empty my mind or keep it quiet enough to focus on the flow of energy through my body toward those parts that needed healing.

To think of these 67 years is to give thanks.

Some writer, whose name I can’t remember, claims that all human beings share two deepest wishes: To live long, and to live well.

When we celebrated my mother’s 85th birthday, I used that idea for the tarpaulin banner we made for her: Pagdiriwang at pasasalamat sa isang mahabang buhay at makabuluhang buhay.

When she died last year a few days after her 89th birthday, we said good-bye and repeated the same thanks for a long life and a meaningful life.

I thank Girlie for wishing me an even longer life. I hope that I can also give thanks for a meaningful life.

President Aquino and the Magnificat

My soul praises the Lord…/Because He has put down the mighty from his throne/ And lifted up the lowly/ He has filled the hungry with good things/ And has sent the rich away empty.

As I was listening to President Noynoy Aquino’s inaugural speech, I thought of these biblical lines from Mary’s Magnificat. I first used these in relation to President Cory Aquino in 1986, after I got out of prison, when I was asked : “How do you feel about EDSA people power and Cory?”

My immediate answer was straightforward: “I am happy about EDSA and Cory. After all, I have been released from prison much earlier than I expected.”

The follow up question was harder to answer: “But you are a social activist. You don’t judge an event only on the basis of its personal benefit to you. What about your struggle for social justice, and your hope for more radical changes?”

At that point, the lines from the Magnificat provided a useful language to describe what had happened and what still had to happen.

He has put down the mighty from his throne. That has happened. Authoritarian rule was ended. That was reason enough to celebrate and welcome Cory Aquino’s presidency.

But will the lowly be lifted up? Or will the one mighty be merely replaced by competing groups of mighty? In secular language, will elite authoritarianism be replaced by a restored elite democracy, dominated by democratically competing elite factions, rather than by a much broader, participatory, and popular democracy?

I said that the end of authoritarian rule opened up democratic space for greater people’s participation. it was up to us to pursue the opportunities, in cooperation or competition with the dominant elite factions.

Next year is the 25th anniversary of EDSA. That would be a good time to look back and assess to what extent the possibilities for a more popular democracy have been realized in the context of an elite-dominated democracy.

I liked President Noynoy”s description of the roles his father and mother played, and the role he intends to play, in relation to democracy in the Philippines. Ninoy offered his life to restore democracy. Cory devoted her life to protect the restored democracy. Noynoy says that his role is to make democracy deliver benefits to the people. Gawing kapaki-pakinabang.

It reminded me of a quote from Thailand, attributed to a leader of the poor people’s forum: “We want a democracy that we can eat!”

He mentioned only two cabinet members by name – Procy Alcala of the Department of Agriculture, and Leila de Lima of the Department of Justice, and their brief marching orders.

That was when I thought of the remaining texts of the Magnificat.

He has sent the rich away empty. In 1986, I half joked that some of our very rich were sent away, but not empty! They took quite a bit with them, in addition to what they had already salted abroad earlier. And most of the other rich stayed behind, switched sides, and continued to control most public and private resources.

Hence the hungry still wait to be filled with good things.

These biblical texts are not a substitute for needed analysis of complex causality. But they evoke the more immediate and popular expectations of justice – as retribution and redistribution, linking them to the hope that government will deliver benefits to the poor.

Somewhat like the catchy, but over simplified, campaign slogan “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.”

The marching order to Procy Alcala (one of the more inspired cabinet appointments) does acknowledge that “filling the hungry with good things” needs more than retribution and redistribution. It needs other interventions – irrigation, technology, markets.

Still there is also the closely related redistribution issue of agrarian reform, if the increased production and incomes are to benefit the small farmers, and not just the general public or the national economy.

When the ANC took power in South Africa, they faced similar questions about how to address this interrelation of justice and productivity. Their initial formulation of their development strategy was “growth through redistribution.” But over time, the operational strategy tended to be “growth, then redistribution.”

In his speech, the biblical image Noynoy invoked is of Calvary and carrying a heavy cross. I presume that his immediate reference is to the problems he has inherited from the past administration. But I think the heavier burden is that of leadership, and the high expectations he has generated.

Six years from now, which lines from the Magnificat will we have reason to invoke?

Part 2: The Noynoy Presidency and Civil Society

Between the first Aquino presidency (Cory) and the second Aquino presidency(2010) the term “civil society” entered the political vocabulary of the Philippines.

In the run up to EDSA 1986 the key buzz word was “people power.” Sometime later, I think under the Ramos presidency, “civil society” entered Philippine discourse, interacting with the global discourse.

In 1986, people power was the name for the collective cross-class struggle against the government of the day, which succeeded in forcing it out, “with a little help” from other powers – military, church, media, business, foreign.

What shape and role is there for people power after it has forced out a government? Does it content itself with supporting the government it has helped install?

Just after I got out of prison in 1986, Cory Aquino’s speech at the Luneta gave an answer that surprised me.

Her speech went along these lines:  People power is visible and awe inspiring when hundreds of thousands gather in Luneta, as they did in EDSA. But when they disperse and go back to their homes and neigborhoods, what is people power? Just a memory? Or a promise?

She urged us: Give people power a permanent form.  She called on us to organize “permanent people’s councils.”

Listening from the outer fringes of the huge crowd, I was pleasantly surprised at her message. It didn’t sound like someone whose elite origins and caring for people would be closer to the spirit of  noblesse oblige. Later, some activist friends claimed that her speech may have benefited from suggestions of people like Dodong Nemenzo.

Post EDSA 1986, those who labeled ourselves “popular democrats” were looking for ways to build institutions of people power outside the state. We picked up Cory’s call and pursued the idea of organizing “people’s councils.”

During our research, we stumbled on Andres Bonifacio’s evocative concept of consejos populares as the base of the Katipunan, and possibly earlier, of the La Liga Filipina. From the limited literature available to us, we culled ideas from the early years of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

But the idea of  institutions outside the government that would embody “people power” was difficult to build, or even imagine, at the national level. All we could do was to hold forums and publish pamphlets about it.

It took a group of activists in Naga City to give Cory’s call a practical shape. They called themselves NagaPopdem, and they convened the NGOs and POs in Naga City to set up what they baptized as Naga City People’s Council (NCPC).

That was the first step. If it stopped there, their initiative would have been no different from the various coalitions that were being organized by NGOs, POs and “political blocs” in MetroManila.

The second step was the entry of Naga City Mayor Jessie Robredo. EDSA inspired him to enter into public service from his previous private sector involvement. I don’t know the details of his interaction with the Naga City People’s Council, but he took Cory’s idea a giant step forward by signing and seriously implementing a city government legislation institutionalizing the NCPC.

Institutionalization included the participation of NCPC leaders in the various committees of the Naga City council. I was told that some city council members were not enthusiastic. They expressed concern that the NCPC leaders would eventually be their rivals in future local elections.

The experience of institutionalizing the NCPC has not been without problems, both internally among the coalition members, and in their relationship to the city council. But the NCPC has enabled the “people” of Naga City, especially the sectors less represented in government, to have a more meaningful voice and participation in governance.

Mayor Jessie Robredo has served for two full 9-year terms. Many of us hope that the announcement of his appointment to the DILG will be made tomorrow.

Would his leadership in DILG mean that we will see a sprouting of “people’s councils” institutionalized as independent but engaged partners of local governments?

Not necessarily. The NCPC experience is an example of Gramsci’s concept of “good sense” that still needs a lot of work to become “common sense.” Good governance, especially participatory good governance, is still the exception, though admired and acknowledged (good sense) rather than the rule (common sense).

Initiatives like the Galing Pook awards, and horizontal learning exchanges among the LGUs, help accelerate the process of good sense becoming common sense.

Having an innovative leader in the DILG can hasten it further.

The Noynoy Presidency and Civil Society: Part 1

Exactly one month after the May 10 elections, we finally have a proclaimed president-elect.

Not that there have been serious doubts about Noynoy’s victory. Though the automated election system is less clean than initially claimed by COMELEC and Smartmatic, the questions about the AES did not extend to the presidential race.

The legitimacy and democratic mandate of Noynoy is beyond challenge.

The challenge is how his legitimacy and democratic mandate can deliver the changes people expect, while working within the checks and balances of Philippine democracy.

Despite his overwhelming majority vote, Noynoy does not have what Cory started with in 1986 – greater powers under a revolutionary government and freedom constitution.

If we are to believe activists and military allies in the Noynoy campaign, they had a contingency plan to set up a revolutionary government in case there was massive cheating to thwart the people’s will. If that had happened, presumably with a “people power” component, a Noynoy presidency would be starting with a more powerful momentum for change, like Cory after EDSA 1986.

The 1986 context was different, of course, and Cory didn’t use her greater powers to bring about greater changes. Her vision was modest, though significant enough. She vowed to restore democracy, and she did.

Still, as Conrad de Quiros keeps insisting, the driving energy in Noynoy’s election campaign is the spirit of EDSA. Will the same spirit drive the Noynoy presidency to pursue a vision greater than restoring trust and decency in government?

The question is not posed to the Noynoy presidency alone. Not even just to the people he will appoint to his cabinet. The question is posed as well to the those of us who voted for him, and want to do what we can without wanting to be in government.

I chanced upon an article by Cliff Durand on “Democracy and the Struggle for Social Justice” that offers some ideas on how “civil society” may help in an expanded vision of the Noynoy presidency.

Durand starts by reminding us that democracy is a contested concept, with two main competing concepts of democracy:  One is popular or participatory democracy; the other is elitist democracy.

The first is the classical idea suggested in the original Greek word which referred to the rule or power, cratos, of the people, demos. In this sense, “democracy” means people’s power. But in the contemporary world, “democracy” has come to mean rule by a political elite so long as it has been elected by popular vote.  Most accept Joseph Schumpeter’s definition of “democracy” as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”

In this limited concept of elitist democracy, the role of the people is mainly to produce a government. The people are sovereign only on election day. Once they have done their job, they should go back to their private affairs and leave governing to the elite they have selected.

The identification of democracy with institutionalized procedures for selecting leaders has been dubbed “polyarchy” by political scientist Robert Dahl. It is a formal, rather than a participatory concept. Polyarchy is simply the selection in multiparty elections of leaders from among competing elites.

On the other hand, popular democracy emphasizes democracy as people’s power. It means participating in the decisions that affect ones life. It is the vision of popular participation in collective decision making about collective action for a common good. But Durand admits that “we do not yet have a theory, a programme, or a strategy for realizing this vision.”

In the Philippines, people power and the concept of popular democracy have developed mainly as opposition power. This notion of popular democracy as opposition is almost a Philippine default mode.

The challenge is how to develop people power as autonomous, but supportive of a government that merits its trust. For civil society, how to be in support of the Noynoy presidency and government, without being a simple extension of it.

Durand adopts the distinction between the state (or the political sphere) and civil society: “Civil society consists of all those consensual social relationships citizens have with one another, from trade unions, political parties and voluntary associations, to the family. Since de Tocqueville it has been recognized that a vital associational life is essential to a healthy democracy; it is this civil society that links government to the individual citizens and keeps it accountable. In effect, the state becomes an extension of civil society in the sense that it represents it. Ultimately power rests in civil society. That is what the sovereignty of the people means. That at least is the democratic ideal.”

In polyarchy however, civil society becomes an extension of the state. That is, it is through its penetration of civil society that the elite garners the consent of the people to their rule and thereby achieves governability. This idea of the extended state is the key to Antonio Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony. Hegemony refers to the consensual domination by an elite whereby its rule is accepted as legitimate. Effective rule cannot be just “from above.” It depends on structuring civil society down below so as to support the state.

Polyarchy then involves elite rule through an extension of the state into civil society. Popular democracy, on the other hand, involves an extension of an autonomous civil society into the state.

More on this in my next post.

8 Steps to Bring About Change

One thing we can agree on about the May 2010 elections –  the dominant sentiment of Filipino voters is a desire for change.

They may not agree on what precise changes. But the desire for change is what the victory of Noynoy Aquino represents, and the challenge that he faces.

Whatever changes he wants to bring about, there are useful insights from John Kotter’s eight-step change process in his 1995 book, Leading Change. I do not have a copy of the book here in Indonesia, so I am lifting the key points from a summary article in my USB file – Mind Tools e-book:

Step One: Create Urgency

The more people want change to happen, the better the chance. Develop a sense of urgency around the need for change, to  spark the initial motivation to get things moving.

This isn’t simply a matter of giving information. Open an honest and convincing dialogue about what’s happening in the government . If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.

Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition

Convince people that change is necessary. This often takes strong leadership and visible support from key people within your organization. Managing change isn’t enough – you have to lead it.

You can find effective change leaders throughout your organization – they don’t necessarily follow the traditional hierarchy. To lead change, you need to bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance.

Once formed, your “change coalition” needs to work as a team, continuing to build urgency and momentum around the need for change.

Step Three: Create a Vision for Change

When you first start thinking about change, there will probably be many great ideas and solutions floating around. Link these concepts to an overall vision that people can grasp easily and remember.

A clear vision can help everyone understand why you’re asking them to do something. When people see for themselves what you’re trying to achieve, then the directives they’re given tend to make more sense.

Step Four: Communicate the Vision

What you do with your vision after you create it will determine your success. Your message will probably have strong competition from other day-to-day communications, so you need to communicate it frequently and powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do.

Don’t just call special meetings to communicate your vision. Instead, talk about it every chance you get. Use the vision daily to make decisions and solve problems. When you keep it fresh on everyone’s minds, they’ll remember it and respond to it.

It’s also important to “walk the talk.” What you do is far more important – and believable – than what you say. Demonstrate the kind of behavior that you want from others.

Step Five: Remove Obstacles

If you follow these steps and reach this point in the change process, you’ve been talking about your vision and building buy-in from all levels. Hopefully, your staff wants to get busy and achieve the benefits that you’ve been promoting.

But is anyone resisting the change? And are there processes or structures that are getting in its way?

Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it. Removing obstacles can empower the people you need to execute your vision, and it can help the change move forward.

Step Six: Create Short-term Wins

Nothing motivates more than success. Give your people a taste of victory early in the change process. Within a short time frame (this could be a month or a year, depending on the type of change), you’ll want to have results that your staff can see. Without this, critics and negative thinkers might hurt your progress.

Create short-term targets – not just one long-term goal. You want each smaller target to be achievable, with little room for failure. Your change team may have to work very hard to come up with these targets, but each “win” that you produce can further motivate the entire staff.

Step Seven: Build on the Change

Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep. Quick wins are only the beginning of what needs to be done to achieve long-term change.

Launching one new project using a new system is great. But if you can launch 10 projects, that means the new system is working. To reach that 10th success, you need to keep looking for improvements.

Each success provides an opportunity to build on what went right and identify what you can improve.

Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Organizational Culture

Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the core of your organization. Your organizational culture often determines what gets done, so the values behind your vision must show in day-to-day work.

Make continuous efforts to ensure that the change is seen in every aspect of your organization. This will help give that change a solid place in your organization’s culture.

To sum up: Create a sense of urgency, recruit powerful change leaders, build a vision and effectively communicate it, remove obstacles, create quick wins, and build on your momentum. If you do these things, you can help make the change part of your organizational culture.

P.S. If you’re too impatient, and if you expect too many results too soon, your plans for change are more likely to fail.

24 Hours

Exactly 24 hours ago, Girlie, Ayen, and I cast our vote at the polling center inside Claret School in Quezon City.

Today, 24 hours later, what can I say about the May 10 elections?

Are the elections sufficiently credible?

In the weeks immediately preceding election day, Girlie and I were drawn into the campaign for credible elections. We took seriously the criticisms of IT experts and election watch groups about the flaws in the automated election system, especially the logistical problems. The COMELEC’s cavalier stance did not help, even though one of its members, Rene Sarmiento, is a good person and trusted friend.

Up to the eve of the elections, I shared the fears of those who worried that the combination of system vulnerabilities and the special ops of competing camps would result in less than credible elections.

Well, our worst fears did not happen. There are many reports of long lines, disenfranchised voters, and malfunctioning PCOS. But the COMELEC’s “partial but official” tally of 30 million votes from 80% of the PCOS after 24 hours is impressive.

At today’s noon press conference, Chairman Melo allowed himself to joke that this count is “faster than Garci.” For his sake, I hope the results of the random manual audit do not feed lingering doubts about the integrity of the PCOS transmissions.

Are the national election results as expected?

Days before election day, our expanded household was a microcosm of the electorate.

We had different preferences for president – Noynoy, Erap, Gibo, even Gordon. For vice president, Mar, Binay, and Loren. We had more unity on the senators – we did not want the old names, even if they were predicted to win. We agreed on some new faces, especially Danny Lim and Alex Lacson.

For party list, almost all agreed to support 1 CARE because of my work in rural electrification. But Girlie voted for AMIN because Ayi Hernandez is her “adopted son,” and because AMIN has been unfairly attacked by self-proclaimed progressives. Of course we campaigned for Larraine Sarmiento as QC councilor, though our hopes were not sanguine.

Did Noynoy Aquino’s victory come as a surprise? No, I expected him to win, since his campaign had managed to capture the general sentiments for change, against corruption. What surprised me is the landslide lead. I expected his margin over Erap to be narrower.

What about Binay’s lead over Mar Roxas? This definitely surprised me. When the Binay camp talked about overtaking Loren, it made sense since Loren’s campaign was on the decline. But to catch up with the Mar campaign and to overtake it? I thought it presumptious. As usual, hindsight gives some explanations. My best information is that the Mar Roxas focused too much on Loren and matched her preference for “air war,” did not do enough “ground war,” and was blindsided by the Binay ground campaign which was “below the radar.”

The Senate results are predictable and uninspiring. I don’t recall the original French, but it applies: “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Frank Sinatra and the party list elections. Since 2001, I have worked  with the rural electric cooperatives, particularly in the education of member-consumers. This year, they decided to form the 1st Consumer Alliance for Rural Energy (1 CARE) and sought the support of the electric coops and the member-consumers. The “courtship” took a while, since the coops and consumers had not yet gotten over their disappointment with the party list that they had previously supported. I teased them that their theme song should be Frank Sinatra’s “Let Me Try Again.”

Last time I checked the GMA TV count, the party list 1 CARE is number 8 in the winning list.

Gardner and the May Elections: Part 2

Howard Gardner’s The Unschooled Mind is about education, but it has a message applicable to politics and elections.

He describes the unschooled mind this way: “By the age of 5, human beings already have a well-formed ‘unschooled mind’ that consists of simple theories about mind and matter… These are charming, but often misguided or plainly false.”

He says that most adults continue to theorize much as they did when they were young, unless their childhood theories have been decisively replaced or modified through formal studies, systematic observations, and reflected-upon experiences. In other words, through “lifelong learning.”

This development happens more definitely in specific disciplines or “domains” like the arts, physical sciences, even social analysis. Hence, leaders in specific domains should presume that their audience are “already sophisticated in the stories, the images, and the other embodiments of that domain.” They are communicating with “experts.”

But when leaders want to address a broadly based institution, like the church or the military, or a political entity like a nation, they are dealing with “individuals who bring an ordinary, relatively undisciplined frame of mind to their audience membership.”

This is especially true of electoral politics.

Gardner observes that expert artists, scientists and intellectuals can have very sophisticated theories about their domain, but rather naive theories about politics. They may fancy themselves as “intelligent voters” and look down on the “masses” who make their electoral decisions based on emotional identification and simplistic political campaign pitches, but if we probe their implicit framework, these may also be “unschooled.”

For Gardner, more leaders appear to have succeeded in leading a domain, compared to those who tried leading a society.

To be effective, would-be leaders in society have to communicate with the “unschooled mind.” They have to “address a public in terms of the commonsense and commonplace notions that an ordinary inhabitant absorbs simply by virtue of living for some years within a society.” But of course, that is only the starting point. The most effective leaders also see the need to challenge the unschooled mind. This is no easy task.

I like this extended quote, which describes the “dialectic” between the leaders’ storytelling, and their audiences: “The audience is not simply a blank slate…waiting for the first, or for the best, story to be etched on its virginal tablet. Rather, audience members come equipped with many stories that have already been told and retold in their homes, their societies,and their domains. The stories of the leader…must compete with many other extant stories, and if the new stories are to succeed, they must transplant, suppress, complement, or in some measure outweigh the earlier stories, as well as contemporary oppositional counterstories.”

Gardner calls his approach to studying leadership “cognitive.” But he acknowledges that there are other approaches that have other emphasis. He mentions four: 1) The acquisition and utility of power, 2) the formulation and implementation of policies, 3) the grievances, goals and anxieties of the public, and 4) the personality of the leaders.

I like Gardner’s ideas, since they help us make sense of the various campaign pitches of the candidates. Someone with the time and inclination may even use them to analyze the various political postings and comments in Facebook.

From London, with Logic

Pancho Lara is back in town, and has weighed in quickly into the election debates. He asked me to post his critique of Prospero de Vera’s proposition that “endorsements by the INC and El Shaddai have become more strategic because of a potentially low turn-out in the automated elections.”

Prospero’s Thesis
Francisco Lara Jr.
Research Associate, Crisis States Research Center
London School of Economics

Professor Prospero De Vera of the University of the Philippines College of Public Administration has posed an interesting thesis regarding the likely outcomes of the 2010 automated elections. He argues that the shift from a manual to an automated system in the current elections is prone to several problems that will most likely result in a lower voter turn-out. Prospero begins by citing evidence of the current national voter turn-out that averages 80% of the total voting population. He then speculates that a flawed automated system will likely reduce turn-out by more than a quarter of the previous voting average, consequently producing a lower turn-out ranging from 50-60%.

Prospero’s speculation about the likely impact of automation on voter turn-out is a compelling argument – even though he neither cites which aspect of the automation process will produce this sort of outcome, nor why turn-out can go as low as 50%. Why not 70 or 20 percent? Alas, Professor De Vera does not explain the basis behind his numbers.

Nevertheless, this is not the vital aspect of Prospero’s thesis. What is significant is that he then jumps to the conclusion that automation will undermine the importance of current survey results and trends, and accentuate the importance of the command votes that the Iglesia Ni Cristo and El Shaddai can deliver. Following Prospero’s logic, a command vote of more than 5 million will be daunting, nay decisive, even if the survey front-liner leads by about 12% in the current survey, which is roughly equivalent to 7.5 million votes of previous national turn-outs. De Vera then argues that survey results are not as awesome as they seem, and can be easily overwhelmed by the lucky candidate who gets the blessings of the INC and El Shaddai, and is in turn rewarded by the latter’s formidable vote banks.

I argue that this thesis is deeply flawed for at least two reasons.

One, Prospero’s argument actually operates on the notion that the lower voter turn-out that affects the population in general will exclude those who come from the INC and the El Shaddai. This can only happen if the poll precincts where their members vote are ring-fenced from the sort of automation problems that will impact on the rest of us. Are members of the INC and El Shaddai segregated from the rest of us? Are special voting booths available for them? Are their PCOS machines more efficient than the rest? If not, then the low voter turn-out for the population in general will produce the same low turn-out for voters coming from the INC and El Shaddai. Consequently, the strength of their respective vote banks will be dampened by the same problems that De Vera refers to.

Two, Prospero’s argument presupposes that the current surveys that show Noynoy Aquino leading by as high as 12% from the rest does not include any respondent that comes from the INC and the El Shaddai. If that were the case then the issue is not the impact of automation, but the validity and reliability of the survey results due to a flawed sampling design. However, both the SWS and Pulse Asia have acquired their credibility precisely because of their ability to predict voting outcomes with relative precision, which partly explains the sort of negative reactions from those who rate poorly in their surveys. As Professor De Vera, who teaches research methodology at the UP knows, a sample population should be able to represent the universe from which they are drawn. I argue that these groups are in fact represented in the survey, probably among the undecided if they actually operate as groups “in waiting” for the command of their leaders, which is how they are often described in the political literature.

Prospero’s logic is countenanced by several critical questions that need to be addressed. We need to consider whether the vote banks of the INC and the El Shaddai are equally strategic in determining member’s choices at both local and national electoral competitions. I raise this issue due to a single important factor – the difficulty of capturing the rewards from the choices made by their leaders at the national level, compared to the palpable incentives that members secure from a unified vote at the local level. In short, it is more difficult to sustain the allegiance of members to national, versus local choices.

It is also important to distinguish between the ability of the INC and the El Shaddai to compel obedience from its members, which is more apparent in the case of the former. It is clear at the local level the INC vote bank counts. Yet to actually prove the salience of the INC command vote at the national level one needs to look at the outcomes of their decisions. Here the data suffers from problems of endogeneity. There are few instances when the INC supported national candidates who were not popular to begin with, thus hiding the true value of their endorsement. In the single instance that I can recall when the INC went against the tide, their candidate Eduardo “Danding” Conjuangco lost.

So, it is extremely improbable to assume that INC and El Shaddai members have either made their choices already, or are as undecided as the rest of us? Will they bend in the same way to exogenous influences that do not carry the same coercive force at the national versus the local level? These are strategic questions, but they do not remove from the main argument of this article.

I argued that the INC and the El Shaddai vote will be equally affected by the automation-related problems that De Vera warns against; and are already adequately represented in the current survey results, either as partisans (of certain candidates) or among the undecided. The proposal that current survey trends can be overwhelmed by a combination of low turn-out and command votes does not hold water. Of course, these do not mean that the El Shaddai and the INC vote will be less important in shaping the results of the 2010 elections, only that this factor will not be the most decisive, even if the promise of automation turns out to be as flawed as Prospero’s logic.