A Closer Look At My Topics

The following are summary descriptions of my thematic focus topics drawn from my LIPD. For more detail on these please see the original document.

Regenerative Economics:

Regenerative Economics refers to an economic system that seeks the regeneration of its capital assets as its primary objective, unlike prevailing economic though that emphasizes the generation of financial capital through the extraction of value from other forms of capital, typically leading to their degeneration. Fundamental to this hypothesis is a worldview that recognizes other forms of capital beyond financial capital, such as Roland and Landua’s intellectual, spiritual, social, material, financial, living, cultural, and experiential capitals. [Roland & Landua, P. 11]

Beyond mere theorizing, regenerative economics is spawning a movement of practice. We saw its tepid beginnings in the proliferation of Environmental, Social, and Governance departments and initiatives in corporate and government settings over the past couple of decades. Following this, the emergence of the “benefit corporation” – companies that identify social or environmental benefits as integral to their operations – indicates a major culture shift: acceptance of the idea that businesses can be founded on the principle of doing good and doing well. Civil society movements that pursue regenerative economics have also emerged at international, national, and local levels.

My theory of change that drives me to engage with this topic is my belief that shifting the culture of business will have a determinant effect in shifting the dominant culture. Particularly in the West, culture is heavily influenced by business: how we think and behave at work, how our beliefs are guided by sophisticated marketing, how we are influenced by corporate-owned media, how corporate money influences politics, how our public education is designed. All of these factors combine to shape what we value and how we think and act. At a macroeconomic level, shifting economic policy towards promoting the wellbeing of society and the biosphere as well as the economy needs to be a priority. At a microeconomic level, we must recognize that business controls significant capital and thus determines what has the resources to grow and what does not. Shifting how the business community perceives its role in society, away from a purely financial role and towards a more holistic one, can be a significant lever towards a regenerative society. Identifying intervention points to effect these shifts is a worthwhile endeavor for an ecosocial designer.

Transformative Education:

I use the phrase Transformative Education (TE) to refer to a range of pedagogies that share some common characteristics. These include an intention to deepen the analytical abilities of the learner to reflect on self and context (critical thinking skills), change their perspective based on such analysis, and guide their future action towards desired outcomes. These approaches acts on three key aspects of the individual:

Psychology: including changes in understanding the self.
Belief: especially the ability to examine and evaluate one’s belief systems.
Behavior: developing the ability to change one’s lifestyle to align with emerging beliefs.

The ability to balance theoretical, academic learning with real-world action is a hallmark of a transformative learner and underscores one of the key aspects of TE: that action learning and action living are entwined. In other words, a well designed action learning process involves both the topic one is studying and the learner themselves. It is lived learning and therefore becomes not merely a method of study, but the way one navigates the world.

I submit a theory of change that shifting the culture of education can be a significant lever in shifting the dominant culture. The combination of teaching-to-the-test and the compliance-based discipline model common in Western education undermines the agency of teachers in program design and of learners in their own learning. It also weakens both of their investments in their learning communities. This loss of agency in learning handicaps the development of self-reliance and independent, critical thinking, while the focus on compliance explicitly reinforces hierarchical leadership models in which learners become mere objects into which learning is delivered. Transformative Education, conversely, places the responsibility for learning on the learner themselves and gives them the analytical and process tools to fulfill that responsibility. The learner becomes a source of learning. Further, they learn to recognize dysfunctional patterns in themselves, their communities, and society, and how to change these. In so doing, they gain improved resilience and adaptability in the face of change. This empowerment instills an appreciation of each individual's role in community, thereby obviating the need for hierarchical authority. Together with an enhanced ability to understand and integrate new perspectives, so necessary for collaborative work, TE becomes an essential tool for cultivating conscious leaders.

Conscious Leadership:

Conscious Leadership, also known as Transformative Leadership, can be characterized as a leadership style that prioritizes benefit to the community over benefit to self. Conscious leaders strive to operate from a place of awareness, identifying and “transcending unconscious patterns, fostering an expanded perspective and openness to new possibilities.” This communal orientation – what we might call an eco-centric worldview – opens doors for power sharing in organizations and movements, more equitable distribution of benefits, and the positive transformation that occurs when members of a venture feel that it is truly collaborative.

I dare say that no meaningful societal transformation can happen without a significant shift towards Conscious Leadership as a dominant paradigm. In fact, every framework of ecosocial design calls for personal growth and self-awareness in its practitioners: Permaculture has its Zone 00 work; Regenesis Group identifies self-actualization as a core part of systems actualizing; Theory U emphasizes deep listening skills and the cultivation of Open Mind, Open Heart, Open Will, and so on. I have found in my own organizational development work that you cannot manifest outward what you don’t practice inward. Ultimately, conscious leadership is a necessity for everyone in order to be advocates for themselves and to stand in the face of, or simply disengage from, abuses of power.

My theory of change is that redefining leadership towards the values of Conscious Leadership will have a significant effect in shifting culture. From the compliance model used in schools that teaches kids (and adults) to “behave” rather than how to become engaged members of a community, to rigid corporate hierarchies, Western society is permeated by ideals of leadership based on power over others. These ideals empower only a sliver of society to make decisions and promotes a culture of inequity; an extractive mindset that assures that the greatest benefits accrue to those already in power. Instead, conscious leadership can have a multiplier effect on the benefits of decision making by ensuring that all stakeholders are considered. Further, by creating a culture of servant leadership and active following, all people can lead for the benefit of their communities regardless of the title they hold. The understanding of shared benefit and risk is a systems-level awareness that improves decision making, reduces unintended consequences, and promotes equity.

OP5 Capstone – Learning Review

Core Report Page 2: Capstone OPs and Projects

Confirm copying