Episode 3.15: Wildest Dreams
THE PODCAST: April 27, 2021
ON NEUTRALITY, DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY & ROLLING STONES
Join Tim & Tuesday as they share their wildest dreams for The Outside with Organizational Development Strategist, and new member of The Outside team, Gian Paul Ganzoni.
Together, Tim Merry and Tuesday Ryan-Hart are THE OUTSIDE—systems change and equity strategists who bring the fresh air necessary to organize movements, organizations, and collaborators forward for progress, surfacing new mindsets for greater participation and shared impact.
3.15 — SHOW NOTES
Tim: Well, Gian Paul Ganzoni, it's fantastic to have you on the podcast with us. We've been working together in relationship for like two and a half years now. You’ve worked with us from within an organization we've been working with and you're now working alongside us as we go and work with other organizations and systems and you're also helping us develop and work on the inside of The Outside as we put it together. It's just amazing to have you with us.
Tim: We’ve got you down, on our newly created team page - that isn't published yet - as an OD [Organizational Development] Strategist, which I think, speaks to your experience and your area of expertise, but I feel like underneath that is just an enormous curiosity and willingness and hunger to find things that work for people in the world as it is right now. I think it's in that we've met. And in that our friendships have been forged. It's just wicked to have you with us.
Tues: I think, Gian Paul, you often kind of bring forward this kind of engineering, kind of Excel spreadsheet background you have, and you absolutely have that and that's a gift and a real gap filler for us in The Outside. And, I feel like you bring real artistry. In our last meeting, you and I had together on one hand you said, “Oh, I need to learn more about equity in this context, what you all mean.” You were like super open, super humble, and wanting to learn and then you said like five minutes later in the call, “I think I have to watch how much voice I'm having in team meetings.” That was brilliant! That wasn't because you've been to an equity training, it's because you have a sense of what needs to happen in a room and in a space. It's like that kind of artistry, that I feel is compelling about you. That's part of why I love working with you. It just feels like every time we talk, those two things come through quite strongly.
Tim: As our listeners know on the pod we’re in the middle of redesigning, what The Outside might be, we're trying to build an organization that is somewhat reflective of the future we want to create out there in the world and our own little part of The Outside. As part of that, there's been lots of emails going back and forth and videos shared and creative thinking. And you've had some response to that. Maybe just to bring your voice in, can you tell us what you are seeing? What are you hearing to get our conversation going?
Gian Paul: The spark so to speak, which brought us to this podcast was your cliffhanger about neutrality. People may realize that I'm not South Africa, I'm Swiss by nature or by cities and shape. In Switzerland, neutrality is a term that’s cool; it carries you along because it's an aspect of identity. I think this term of neutrality, or this type of definition, for me is way too simplistic. I think it could be constructed as being a fig leaf. If I then connect this with the coaching training I got many years ago - or even in engineering - once we appear as consultant, as coach, as facilitators in any setting, we start to disturb the setting. We influence based on our presence - be it our nonverbal or verbal communication - we have already influenced the system. From that angle, I buy it. It’s impossible to be neutral because your presence already does something to the surrounding. Depending on a mandate, we have beliefs and we make that very transparent. Therefore, no, we are not neutral.
Gian Paul: I’ve looked into the interpretation of neutrality in particular, because I worked with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for four years and the term neutrality and impartiality are very big terms, which I even now don't dare to properly interpret, but at least I have a much better understanding. What I believe about neutrality is that are always sets of values or beliefs, which you cannot shy away from. You can be neutral, but you defend them. A good example is basic human rights, or now even, international humanitarian law, which I was exposed to as part of the ICRC.
Gian Paul: There are some basic rules and everybody deserves to benefit from those basic rules. Of course, it is difficult and controversial, but that's a very deep belief. From that angle, I think it's perfectly fine, in a professional setting as we work now, to be transparent and say, we may be neutral, but there are sets of conditions or rules or other parameters, which we stick to. We make them transparent so it's not a hidden agenda, but yes, neutrality cannot shy away from that.
Tim: It’s interesting for me because I'm slowly being told that having me in internal meetings is not beneficial. It's like actually because we [TnT], as founders, as people who have an impact, like we're not neutral. The very arrival of the founder into a meeting is going to change the tone of that meeting and how people behave within it. During the last two and a half years, Tuesday and I have been in every meeting where we're like weaving the DNA of the organization live… but it's getting to a point now where we're actually beginning to distribute the weave. We're beginning to distribute the leadership across the organization. Suddenly us being in all of those meetings, can undermine the growth rather than enable it.
Tuesday: I do think that what you're pointing to is a new understanding of our power and influence, a new understanding of our need to let go, to let the organization grow and expand, while still having some need for our guidance and protection. I just think we're in a really interesting leadership space that feels like it takes us off in neutrality, but I think it's about power. I think it's about influence. I think it's about our own willingness to let go of control and still have accountability. It hits all the things that we talk to leaders about all the time. I think we're just really in it.
Tim: Isn’t that the essence of neutrality? I often think people coin neutrality as a way of avoiding talking about all of those things. I actually feel like neutrality becomes this way to like wash out some of the most meaningful, transformative, important conversations for us to have in groups or among ourselves as leaders or understanding our impact as leaders. I feel like what you're pointing at is exactly why neutrality is an important conversation.
Gian Paul: I would agree. The term neutrality is sometimes used as a fig leaf. It's used as a bit of a weak argument to stay away from difficult conversations, to shy away, to not be opinionated, maybe about conflicts and so on. Now the question is, again, "what exactly is it about?” I would argue, for example, as Outsiders, we probably will never shy away from all the process questions about the facilitation because that's our strength. So, that's where we always want to be opinionated and clearly not neutral. Now I think the interesting question is, “how neutral are we, when we are observing how our client is developing its substance?” At which point do we offer information, advice, consultancy, or solutioning?” I mean, we'd hopefully never go and implement on behalf of the client, but I think these terms are the ranges of interventions more traditional consultancy firms are intervening. I think these need to be really considered; where does it end or not?
Tuesday: I love what you just said because my first reaction was like, well, there’s 76 right ways to do something. However you decide to do it, client, as long as it doesn't hurt people I'm down, but that's not true at all either. We give all sorts of feedback and input, we want you to talk to this person because we like their thinking. I feel like we're [The Outside] right now at a point of saying who we will even take on as clients. It's actually about our orientation to our clients and our work. And I don't think we're neutral there either, unless I use your kind of more nuanced definition, which is more like, okay, I can have all these parameters in place and design principles in place. Within that, I can be fairly neutral. I can be open to what's possible, but there are some tight parameters. We’re talking about it on multiple levels - in the work of The Outside, in how we work with clients and then even what clients we’re willing to take on.
Tim: Our [Tim & Tuesday’s] stance today has been we'll work with anyone if we feel there's a genuine opportunity for systems change with equity at the center. We’re pretty rigorous and increasingly rigorous about assessing appetite, assessing willingness, all of that, we've said that from the beginning. In some ways the more stuck the institution, then the more kind of intriguing it might be to us in some ways.
Tuesday: I was a psychotherapist for a short amount of time, and I really liked it and didn't like it for lots of reasons. One of the things I realized was that, once you talk to people, you understand why they do what they do. Just as a baseline. Once you talk to people, you actually understand why they think and behave the way they do. And like I said, it doesn't mean you have to agree with it. How can I go towards something in a more holistic way without hearing various perspectives on it? It is quite interesting how much we can dig in to like, no, this is my side even though I haven't even heard the story or had an understanding of the other side.
Tim: I’m just thinking about the tensions within The Outside of growth - To what size? What's acceptable growth? What's greedy growth? I'm thinking there are Outsiders who very specifically stand for de-growth as an economic stance, greater localization as we become more international. I loved what you said Gian Paul: A stance of neutrality is actually far more complex than taking a side. That feels very true of how The Outside approaches change. We spend our life in the gap somewhere, in the void between right or wrong. Our job, in many ways, is knitting together conflicting perspectives and peoples around work. There's something we can do together. Even though we disagree, maybe fundamentally, we could still do this together. And as a result, get to know some of those stories and also as a result, something changes in me personally, but also among us. In the midst of that, we get some good shit done; like we actually advanced something for the good. So I feel like your [Gian Paul] description of neutrality is almost a description of The Outside's work, but all too often I feel like neutrality becomes a way to hide from that complexity, to step outside of it and choose not to participate. I'm holding the edge and that's wrong.
Gian Paul: Agree. I think that's wrong. I think there’s another perspective to be taken. What is entertaining for me too, so to speak, being new to inside The Outside is in this discourse you are in. You hold a role, and by the fact that you are the founders, there are limitations for you to facilitate this process because that's what you're also telling your clients. You tell them to create a safe space, to let the teams develop something, to give them the parameters and they'll come back and they will give you the optionality. You can have a debate and it's also perfectly fine that you have the final voice in a decision. I think there are huge opportunities because you can now experience, yourselves, what our clients experience.
Tim: I don't think anyone can predict the future, but Gian Paul asked us “what are your wildest dreams for The Uutside in five years?” I think this is another place where we may not be neutral, I think it's somewhere where we're deeply curious, I think it is somewhere where we're very open.
Gian Paul: There were two motives behind it: (1) A bit to test this growth scenario - What’s you’re thinking? Is it very controlled growth or is it let’s go wild? (2) Testing the axis of creating wealth - What is it? Is it to create a nice golden nugget and then at some point sell it?
Tim: Five years ago, even before we started The Outside, we asked ourselves “how do we work less and make more, how does this not feel so exhausting, but still so good? How does working less, not cost us the quality of life we're trying to build, not just for our children, but for our grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, and in our being able to invest in our communities, which are a big part of our lives. I think that's it. Maybe that's a silly place to start, but it felt like an honest place to start, and I've got lots of ideas about what my wildest dreams might be…
Tuesday: Those are the two things, Gian Paul. I think it's funny because at some point last year we said, wait, we are definitely doing half of that equation. We are making more, however, we are not working less. And so again, this is where we are right now. What is the structure of The Outside? Tim and I both enjoy working but the pace is really intense. Part of the wildest dream is to make enough, do good work, have some relaxation, but also I think Tim and I see each other as in each other's future. I just think that's important to kind of name; that feels important. It doesn't feel like The Outside is just a business partnership, that in 20 years let's sell it, you go to your place and I'll go to mine. It's still a real friendship piece in the wildest dreams future. I think that feels important to name.
Tuesday: Tim, I'd love to hear your wildest dreams first. Not because I always make you talk first but I have a real question… cause I have a real allergy to kind of wildest dream kind of questions. I have a wondering if it's a class thing. Not that people who have lower income class backgrounds don't dream and they do, and that's not at all what I'm saying, but in some ways I'm kind of living my wildest dream, coming from a trailer park and having hunger and having all sorts of trauma in my early life. What I consistently find is that my dreams are not big enough for what my life has become and what it could become. I don't know if that's like an early childhood trauma background or a classic or just a personality trait. I would say sometimes I lack imagination when I'm just given your dreams question. That's why I'm asking you to answer first, Tim.
Tim: Here's some of the things I'd like for The Outside to get to whether it's five years or not. I’d like us to be able to be philanthropic. I'd like The Outside to have got to the point where we have wealth to spend on things we care about where a client could approach us and we could be so excited by them that we'd be like, we'll take 50% off that cause we want in. Actually the fact that you're struggling to find the wealth, to pay people to be part of this initiative, we're going in, The Outside foundation is going in on this with you. This idea of being philanthropic is compelling to me. I want us to be able to have enough wealth to invest in being absolutely cutting edge in our field. I want other people in our field to be looking at us and saying, holy shit, they're doing it! Let’s work in their wake. And I think that takes investment. I think that takes investment in our people. I think that takes investment in product development. I think that takes investment in public relations, marketing and publishing.
Tim: I feel like we're doing something magnificent here and we're building something magnificent and I want that to be seen and I want that to have influence. I think that takes investment that doesn't just take making enough money to pay everybody well, that takes making enough money to pay everybody well AND to have some for this thing to become truly visible in the world. I think that's where I go next. I want people to stay with The Outside and I want them to stay with The Outside because they love the work, they love the people and they're paid really well. I want this to be, when we say one of our founding principles is generosity, I want this to be generous in every way and economic too. I don't want anybody to feel unhappy with what they're getting paid ultimately, and I know we're moving towards that. I think that's what I begin to imagine is this highly generative, highly creative, ideas rich, product rich, money rich, people rich, environment rich, that not only has its own momentum, but has a gravitational pull through space and time that is drawing others along with it.
Tuesday: I was thinking, as you were talking, about Walmart. It is one of the biggest contributors to food banks. They give excess produce and food to food banks. They're a great contributor and yet many of their employees have to use food banks because they're not paying them a livable wage. I really take that to heart. I think my wildest dreams are a little more abstract in that I want to say things like: in five years we will look back and say how we grew was as important as that we grew and the work that we're doing. So that in five years, we’ll be able to look back and be like, “oh, we did that with intention, with intelligence in a way that reflects our values.” I want to be written up in five years as a company who did things differently, who actually put equity at the center as we did our work. Obviously all of our teams are going to be multiracial, multi-gender, cross nationality and cross class because we grew that way. Our DNA is shown out wherever we are in five years, our DNA is front and center and maybe getting recognition and maybe getting people wanting to learn from us. That idea of how we grow will be just as important as the work that we do in the world. Now, I also have ambitions for our work in the world. I want to be working in the most leading edge, social issues of the day. I want to be looking at climate change. I want to be looking at conservation. I want to be looking at race. I want to be looking at violence.
Tuesday: I don't have any desire for our work to be primarily private sector, if it's not doing that work. As we do the content of the work that matters to me, then I want the how we're doing it to not be lost. I feel like we have that so strongly right now. I think that's why this video Gian Paul sent us - when they talked about kind of self managing teams of 11 or 12 and went out - I'm like, oh, that's what we're doing. We could simply replicate that to 20 projects across the world. That would be amazing.
Tuesday: The other thing I think in my wildest dream, and I don't know how this would work is that every Outsider feels all of our core principles, but also feels connected to both the work, but feels really connected in relationship. Like in my wildest dreams, five years from now, all the Outsiders would know Tim and I, and be able to say hello to us and have a relationship in some way. My goal is that people have access to Tim and I quite regularly in a way that works for everybody that they can be in relationship mostly with each other, of course, cause there's only two of us, but also with us.
Tim: At the end of that video you sent around Gian Paul, there was three things that came up that struck me. They had it as the closing credits, and as principals, I liked them, which was (1) scale without hierarchy. I’m not sure, I completely agree with an absence of hierarchy, but like scale with minimal hierarchy. (2) Alignment without bureaucracy. That talks to me about very efficient workflows. (3) Autonomy, without anarchy, allowing people to be autonomous, creating conditions for people to lead without that becoming so chaotic that everything falls apart. And then you added another one, which was “humanity above quick wins” so rather than rushing in to get to the finish line where, we're actually putting humanity, that journey of people figuring things out together right at the center of it, which I thought was great too.
Gian Paul: Part of the DNA of The Outside, part of the uniqueness and the success of The Outside is caring primarily about the how, and then the what follows. That's why I also made that provocative statement - humanity over quick wins - because we have always this genuine impatience we need somehow to resist. And I think the other element, and I think this would be super interesting to hear from our colleagues at The Outside as well, is what would be their few cents into this provocative statement? I believe that could be a step to jointly listen and agree to what are those principles, which really constitute these elements, we then take as orientation going forward. In this situation you would advise to the leaders of a client that they are not alone. You have powerful, smart people around you who contribute to help you find the solution. I think the collective will find the right response.
Song: In Romansh: “Sch’eu füss na randulina” (“If I would be a swallow” ) by Corin CurschellasQuote: In Romansh: “Scha tü nu pousch portar il crap til stousch roudlar.” (“If you cannot carry a stone, you have to roll it.”)
Subscribe to the podcast now—in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher or anywhere else you find podcasts. New episodes will be available every second Tuesday. If you’d like to get in touch with us about something you heard on the show, reach us at podcast@findtheoutside.com.
Find the song we played in today’s show - and every song we’ve played in previous shows - on the playlist. Just search ‘Find the Outside’ on Spotify.
Duration: 58:31
Produced by: Mark Coffin
Theme music: Gary Blakemore
Episode cover image: source