Panelists:
Peter Koenig, Zurich
Yves Claude Aubert, Geneva
Moderator:
Dr. Peter Lorange, Küssnacht am Rigi
Additional questions:
Per Lorange, Sandefjord
1) Please explain the essential elements of source/sourcework
Peter Koenig started working on the concept of source and sourcework in 2009. A key observation he had was that many entrepreneurs found that their projects indeed seemed to be quite similar, in terms of describing them through source/sourcework lenses, i.e. how they initiated and realized their projects and what they did to realize them.
Over time, Peter König has come up with a total of 26 principles for source/sourcework.
To better understand what is meant by source/sourcework, consider:
The first person to initiate the realization of an idea! This is the source.
How did it start?
What is happening in the informal structure, versus the formal one.
Understanding why things work, when they work and what does not work when they aren’t working.
Initiation process and creating the source field, from the source or original idea/vision.
Potential problem: If another person rather than the source claims that they are the legitimate source.
2) What are some of your learnings regarding source/sourcework?
Adds clarity, especially when it comes to where impact is coming from (i.e. from the source).
What are the key collaborations, in contrast to silos?
What works?
Again, who is the source, i.e. the original conceiver of the project; he/she is the “owner”!
This is a new way for understanding an organization, and this is not necessarily identical with the way the organization chart looks!
KEY: In entrepreneurial projects in particular: who is the source (the creator)? (not necessarily the entrepreneur in charge!) and who may be the source “shadow”?
Particular individuals are the source, i.e. not “the board”, or “the company”, etc. The source is a person.
Yves Aubert’s source mission is about “healing leaders in order to lead healers”.
Investors in entrepreneurial ventures often like to put themselves as the source, but they are not the source.
The Source’s role is 1. to receive the vision for the whole enterprise, or the part s/he is responsible for, 2. to decide on the next steps, and 3. to manage the boundaries of the field s/he has created on founding it. (Managing what belongs in the field and what not).
Often the source is an introvert, the person responsible for operations an extrovert.
Source awareness is important when determining succession.
Source’s vision or work as “an act of love”, a human affair, deeply intimate when it comes to the business vision.
In succession, undetermined source identity can cause chaos, disorientation and confusion, especially for example when the source is put or moves outside the organization and still retains his/her role.
3) Let us consider family firms, both those that are primarily focused on business (legacy) as well as those that manage a portfolio of business investments, including startups. How can the source/sourcework concept contribute here, say for developing more purposeful, participatory organizations?
One person is the source of every project.
So, when there is a co-founder, then there is potential confusion.
It is not possible that responsibility should be shared among several people. Only the originating source is responsible for the enterprise as a whole. Others are wholly responsible for their particular initiatives within the source’s field.
It’s always one particular person (the source) who is responsible for each initiative.
S/he is the sole decision maker over the initiative s/he has created
The notion of common vision is a false one., People are motivated by their own visions. A sophisticated team comes into being when all team members are simultaneously immersed in realising their individual visions within the source’s field. At that moment the team comes into being, all individual visions are being realised at that moment, including the source’s fort he whole enterprise.
The source knows intuitively when the next step is a succession step.
When a source communicates his/her vision with passion people are attracted to the source field.
Good investments: there must be a strong source behind it!
This is priority number one. Is there a strong source? That source must have a vision, must express that vision, want the source field to continue and be a people lover. Without values and vision, a company is not worth much.
Priority number two: funds, legal, etc.
When the source role – vision, next steps, boundary matters are well managed, the secondary legal and financial matters are easily settled. When the source matters are constricted the legal and financial issues become irresolvable. That’s why source issues are primary, financial and legai issues secondary.
4) Let us consider succession. How can “source fields”/source/sourcework facilitate this often so difficult process?
The succession process is a human process.
The key: the source’s values and vision are what is passed on. After succession the successor may change the vision but a succession will only take place if the person going into retirement can trust the successor will uphold the values. The values are passed on from one generation to the next.
Orderly succession cannot be technology-driven, typically not part of most head-hunters’ “tools”.
To hire a new boss who might not understand the key vision put forward by the source creates confusion.
Vision, i.e. the source’s vision.
Is he or she clear?
Entrepreneurs are often impatient, action orientated. But is he or she clear? If action is taken before 100% clarity, then the ensuing failure Is likely to cost a lot in terms of money, energy and time.
Failure: Lack of clarity regarding the source.
Identification of who is source is key!
“I am the one with this idea, but I do not want to run with it”.is not a statement a source would say
Selling an organization: Who is source is untouched by the sale of the company or shares. The source remains as source until s/he loses interest and the initiative atrophies through this, or an orderly succession takes place. For an orderly succession In many instances, a formal “handing over of the torch” is helpful.
Co-founder syndrome is when it is difficult to identify the real founder, both think they founded the company/project/idea.
5) Let us consider an organization which is evolving. How can source/sourcework contribute to a smooth evolution?
Sources are in doubt 80% of the time, it is their chronic state.. Doubt is not a bad thing.
Always look for the next step. Don’t take that step until you are clear.
When in doubt regarding the next step, then consult with the source. Then it typically becomes clear what to do.
The key idea of the source is often called the vision.
How to keep it going? Keep repeating the vision. People need to know what is next.
Additional questions from the audience (with replies directly by Peter Koenig):
1. What is more important: a visionary leader or a winning culture in an organization; charismatic leadership or extremely effective teams? Or can you not have one without the other?
Culture does not emerge in a vacuum. It is instilled by the Founder-source from the moment of the enterprise's founding, as an expression of his or her values and vision. Teams are effective when team members understand and respect each other's roles well, like in an orchestra rendering an inspiring performance of a Beethoven Symphony . The leader plays a key role in this, like the conductor of the orchestra but does not necessarily need to be charismatic, in the usually understood sense of the word.
2. Peter, you mentioned 26 source principles in the beginning. What are they? How can they be used?
The Source principles are simple things like there's only one founder, don't take a decision before you're 100% clear, an orderly succession passes from one hand to one hand... They're a bit like 'laws' (of gravity for example) insofar as when they're followed things work naturally, when they're transgressed there's invariably confusion and disorientation. What were originally just my own shorthand notes turned into a list of 26 principles. Stefan Merckelbach translated these into book form with "A little red book about Source". (I don't distribute my 6 pages with these principles except in longer intensive trainings, because without elaboration I found them being misunderstood).
3. Given the NextGen is growing up in a world that highly emphasizes teamwork, collaboration, togetherness and ESG, how do you think they feel when one says that source can only be one person, that behind co-founders is one founder, that "there is no common goal rather a personal one/own field of vision"?
Good question. The discussion on this is sometimes controversial, particularly since the notion of 'self-organisation' has become popular, especially with NextGen, but it's essential to offer clear guidance, so they're not led up the garden path wasting time and energy on pursuing illusions. To be clear, I find it key to make a distinction between 'visions' / 'purposes', which represent an image of the future in present time, but are unbounded in time; and goals, missions and objectives which have a clear time goal ('put a man on the moon by the end of the decade'). The latter need to be defined, shared and realised in common. The former however are intimate and always individual. Failure to comprehend this inevitably results in confusion and frequently conflict, because "you're not representing my understanding of our common purpose, which we spent 6 months and numerous offsites together figuring out and then communicating in a statement to the world". In hundreds of presentations over 11 years I've always requested those who believe in common visions and purposes to present me an example of one where a common vision was created and the participating team are still all active and realising it 5 years hence. I've not been presented with a single example. What is called "our common purpose" and often hung on the wall is normally the Source's vision, yet often compromised and insipid, having been watered down through a misapplied ideology of equality. By contrast, with the Source Principles we're simply suggesting a specific, natural order where, during their collaboration each member of a team, including the Source, is focused on realising his/her individual vision, not a common one, and respecting the order. It's precisely this mode that paradoxically forms them into an emergent sophisticated work team or group, with the experience of synergy that all wish to retain and replicate. Diffusing this simple understanding has the potential to save companies and non-profits alike, millions!
4. Please tell us more about how a source is often an introvert? And what is the impact on the extroverts out there?
The first role of the source is to receive a vision or idea and to continue to receive and sort out ideas that come gushing in once the enterprise is under way. This is more of a reflective than active role, suited to those who are more oriented inwardly. The no. 2 role is however very often occupied by someone outwardly active and responsible for operations and communications, so 'closing' things concretely rather than opening them; for example daily operational 'de-cisions' which cut away alternatives; with a decisive, concentrating impulse/energy. Both roles are mutually dependent, but the second one is 'dispensable' in the sense that the person occupying it can leave and the enterprise will still exist; with the replacement of the person or the enterprise taking another form. The Source role however is indispensable to the enterprise. If the Source goes or loses interest, and there's no orderly succession, the enterprise will atrophy and die. This said, the person in the outer operational role is more visible and often has better communication skills than the source, so without a finer inspection, can easily be thought to be the source when they're not. This rough ascription of introvert/extrovert to the source and no. 2 roles is a generalisation however, not to be taken as a hard and fast rule.
Comments