The call to adventure to address poverty typically comes in one of these four ways:

1. 1. Provide private, limited charity to deserving, needy people as prescribed by my faith.
   2. Mentor someone poor who wants to learn how to not be poor anymore.
   3. Directly hire the poor.
   4. Support any policy that would eliminate subsidies that ultimately enable the poor to stay poor.

What’s wrong with solution No. 3: Directly hiring the poor?

Nothing, as long as employers have at least a higher-than-normal poverty IQ. We often hear, I gave them a job, and they didn’t show up on time, in uniform, with a smile, ready to work. They were ungrateful, unreliable, and my business suffered for trying to be helpful. Again, the Drama Triangle is in play. We are giving people what they want and need, but they are blowing it.

There are a couple of new economic realities that make strategy No. 3 something that employers must undertake if they are to sustain and grow their businesses. In the book When the Boomers Bail, my friend and colleague Mark Lautman shows clearly how the massive exodus of aging baby boomers from the workforce now forces employers to mine the talents of their “unqualified workforce” to fill jobs. When there were plenty of job candidates, communities and their employers could manage a consistent level of poverty because there were plenty of others to hire, and the economy could handle the costs of carrying a percent of dependents without much burden on the tax base.

In communities that now suffer from slowing economic development efforts through which they are unable to bring many new jobs to town, there is enormous pressure to increase the number of qualified workers and to reduce the tax burden of dependents in poverty. This forced call to adventure is a great opportunity for communities to finally see that solving poverty is not just a humanitarian effort—it has become an economic development imperative.

Stanford University published a case study about Cascade Engineering, a business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that found success with an innovative approach to hiring people from welfare. I had the opportunity to visit them and speak with owner Fred Keller about his insights into what it takes to successfully employ, retain, and advance the poor:

1. 1. An accepting organizational culture.
   2. Education, not only of new employees but also of existing employees, about what it means to be in poverty.
   3. A strong system of support for people moving from poverty into careers.

The results? Keller and his company improved their welfare-to-work program results from a 29% retention rate per year to over 90%.

Fred is now one of the investors of our Circles USA chapter in Grand Rapids. He sees the value of building long-term relationships between those who need jobs and those who can support people in finding, keeping, and advancing in those jobs over time.

A final post will walk through the 4th common response to poverty next time.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

The call to adventure to address poverty typically comes in one of these four ways:

1. 1. Provide private, limited charity to deserving, needy people as prescribed by my faith.
   2. Mentor someone poor who wants to learn how to not be poor anymore.
   3. Directly hire the poor.
   4. Support any policy that would eliminate subsidies that ultimately enable the poor to stay poor.

What’s wrong with solution No. 2: Mentoring the poor?

The problem with the second solution, mentoring the poor, is that it begins with the assumption that people with middle-income and upper-income means and backgrounds know enough about the experience of poverty to tell people in poverty how to effectively address the challenges of being poor in our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

People in poverty must inform all the decisions that go into making their own personal plan, as well as the development of community and government programs that are designed to “support the poor.” Without the wisdom of such a partnership, middle-income and upper-income folks fail with spectacular consistency as evidenced by an unchanged poverty rate for decades and decades of well-intentioned government and charity efforts. The result of these failures, unfortunately, is often to simply blame the poor:

“We have great anti-poverty programs; we just need better poor people.”

The first person I ever tried to help out of poverty resisted my first 38 great ideas to fix her. The more enthusiastic I was to find a way to fix her, the less willing she was to invest her time in interacting with me. I wanted her to take my advice and get out of poverty. Our relationship ended immediately and for good reasons. I had a low poverty IQ, unrealistic expectations, no support system to determine how best to be of assistance, and a worldview that she definitely did not share. Life did not look like endless opportunities for the taking to her. It looked hostile, disappointing, and dangerous. Her everyday challenge was one of survival. Mine was a search for more meaning through making a difference to another. I was willing, just sadly uninformed.

Follow-up posts will walk through common responses to poverty 3 and 4…stay tuned for more.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

The call to adventure to address poverty typically comes in one of these four ways:

1. 1. Provide private, limited charity to deserving, needy people as prescribed by my faith.
   2. Mentor someone poor who wants to learn how to not be poor anymore.
   3. Directly hire the poor.
   4. Support any policy that would eliminate subsidies that ultimately enable the poor to stay poor.

What’s wrong with solution No. 1: Provide private, limited charity to the deserving poor?

Nothing is wrong with charity per se. Expecting that it will solve the long-term problem of someone experiencing poverty is the problem. The major issue with charity is that most people expect it to solve the underlying problem, which typically backfires because of a dynamic identified by Dr. Stephen Karpman as the “Drama Triangle.” My first job in the “anti-poverty” field was to meet with up to 40 people a week who were coming in asking for handout of $50 to $100. In 15-minute interviews, it was impossible to discern whether the financial assistance would help or hinder in the long run. Furthermore, I had no place to refer people so they could address the underlying reasons for being in poverty. It was this experience with charity that eventually led me to the development of Circles USA.

When the call is that of charity, we are compelled to see someone as a “deserving victim” who can be rescued, at least in this moment, with a quick fix of some sort. We do not engage with the complexity of the situation, instead prescribing the fix(es): Let me give you some food, a check, gasoline, or a referral to someone else who can help some more. I might be involved with a program that can help you get a job, repair your car, be a better planner, manage your budget, etc. Our unwillingness and often inability to acknowledge that poverty is complex for both internal and external reasons leads us down a path of disillusionment when our help doesn’t seem to add up to a long-term result. We might begin to harbor feelings of resentment toward the person who refused to be fixed through our “wise counsel” and best intentions.

Persecutor: Appears controlling, critical, angry, authoritative, rigid, and superior.

Rescuer: Needs to be needed. Enables others to remain dependent and gives them permission to fail; rescuing helps rescuers avoid facing their own issues.

Victim: Appears oppressed, helpless, powerless, ashamed—finding it difficult to make decisions or solve problems.

The Drama Triangle addresses individuals’ perceptions as they shift back and forth between roles. The drama persists when it fulfills some unmet need for individuals to continue in conflict in lieu of addressing the real issues, identifying solutions, and taking action.

Books such as Toxic Charity and When Helping Hurts have become popular study group material in faith communities as they examine their own experiences on the Drama Triangle. Circles USA is attractive to faith communities because they see it as a structured and safe program through which to build long-term relationships of mutual respect that begin to address the underlying problems of poverty. We call the participants in Circles USA who are working their way out of poverty Circle Leaders in order to reinforce the idea that they will make their own plans to move out of poverty and tell others how they would like to be supported. It puts the rescuer impulse on its head.

Follow-up posts will walk through common responses to poverty 2, 3, and 4…stay tuned for more.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

How one hears the call to adventure is influenced by one’s belief system about how the world operates. In early 2001, a national poll conducted by National Public Radio (NPR), the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University’s Kennedy School asked nearly 2,000 Americans aged 18 or older, “Which is the bigger cause of poverty today: that people are not doing enough to help themselves out of poverty, or that circumstances beyond their control cause them to be poor?” Respondents were roughly equally divided between “people not doing enough” (48%) and “circumstances” (45%).

A 2016 poll conducted by the LA Times and the conservative think tank American Enterprise showed similar results in terms of who or what is responsible for poverty — but with interesting nuances. For example, White blue-collar workers were more likely to blame the poor for their situation than Whites with college educations. When it comes to solutions, the study showed that more Blacks than Whites believed that government programs put people back on their feet and allowed them to get jobs and out of poverty. A majority of Whites believed that government programs create dependency and encourage people to stay poor. People in poverty believed that government programs fail primarily because not enough money had been put into them. More affluent people than working-class people believe that government programs are badly designed.

When people first get involved in Circles USA, they usually have a strong set of opinions about why people are in poverty and what kind of help they need. What happens through their experience with Circles USA, however, often shifts these opinions over time more to the middle ground. Many people discover that it is the combination of self-responsibility and planning skills coupled with new support systems and better designed private and public programs that can best help people escape poverty.

Because people do not change their belief systems easily, and because our beliefs ultimately drive what we do as individuals, a community, and a nation about poverty, the beginning of the end of poverty must start with understanding our current beliefs. While we have books and training programs that can increase people’s awareness of their beliefs, the most important strategy of Circles USA is the opportunity to build healthy and effective relationships across socioeconomic class lines. We want people in poverty to get to know people of middle-income and upper income means. It is through these relationships that people challenge their assumptions and arrive at better, more informed views of poverty.

As a White suburban kid, my primary call to adventure was to chase the American Dream as defined by making money, buying a nice house, raising a family, taking fun vacations, and having a respectable career. I learned that shopping is good for the economy, more stuff equates to more happiness, and respect from others comes through higher income and net worth. While my parents were born during the Great Depression and had a deep respect for the value of a dollar, my surroundings screamed out to me that consumerism is the path to happiness. My worldview might have remained the same except that I fell into an emotional abyss trying to be an architecture student, a path that did not seem to be my calling or fit my talent. Through the confusion that followed my leaving the architectural program, I encountered several significant guides who challenged my thinking to its core.

In my mental model of the American Dream, people could make as much money as they wanted to if only, they applied themselves. Through this lens, I saw the United States as the greatest equal opportunity nation on Earth. It was a level playing field, and if you worked hard and played by the rules, you would inevitably achieve the promises of the American Dream. Being poor was largely the consequence of not putting enough effort into one’s goals. Enabling the poor with subsidies, for example, was not going to help them in the long run.

For the past 40 years, however, I have met countless everyday heroes who have heard the call to alleviate the suffering caused by poverty. Heroes who have big hearts, keen minds, tenacious personalities, compassionate ears, generosity beyond the norm, and an uncommon amount of common sense. I have been inspired by the thousands of everyday heroes who have humbly answered the call to adventure and forged new relationships with people who have either a lot more or a lot less money than they do. People join our work with Circles USA because they want to help someone else. The nation has a deep tradition of charity, goodwill, and a love-thy-neighbor attitude, and it is wonderfully evident throughout our network of Circles USA chapters across the country and in Canada as well.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

The transformational planning process builds a shared vision that generates more commitment and solutions than you had before you started. To transform something requires a clear vision of what life would be like as a result. You must make this visioning process very personal for those you want to engage in your agenda. You must engage Allies in a rich planning process that taps into both their deepest worries and their dreams for the future. You will create strategies for creating the next level of commitment from stakeholders to the shared vision.

There are three reasons to involve others in developing your transformational plan:

1. 1. To have a shared vision. Peter Senge and other experts on organizational development tell us how rare it is to find a truly shared vision.
   2. To generate commitment. Shared visions generate more commitment than visions that are passed down from above. People find activities more meaningful if they are involved in developing those activities.
   3. To create better strategies. The more people enjoy pursuing the vision because it is personally meaningful to them, the more insights and energy you have going toward getting results.

Your preparation for developing a transformational plan is now complete. You developed a clear leadership agenda in Step 1. You have recruited a leadership team, and you have gathered compelling data. You are now ready to engage the community, your staff, and board in the transformational planning process for the purpose of building a shared vision that generates more commitment and solutions than you had before you started.

So, what should the plan look like when it is done? How will you know if you have something that is really capable of transforming your community?

Now, it is time to start writing the plan that will guide you and your stakeholders over the next couple of years. Here are the most important points to consider when writing your plan:

1. 1. Make it highly readable. Use “language of the heart” to capture people’s attention and to remind them of your passion to achieve the vision.
   2. Make it specific, holding people accountable to leadership assignments that will make a clear difference.
   3. Continue revising your drafts until you can reach consensus with your stakeholders. Have them show it to others who will be playing a role. Even if it takes 20 versions, it will be worth it to get full buy-in.

Another tip is to have one key writer who is supported by someone with editing and planning skills. Let these two people synthesize the feedback you receive. Much of the feedback will be about outcomes and strategies.

One rule of thumb with outcomes is that they should challenge the stakeholders of the plan without setting them up for failure. You don’t want your staff, program participants, board members, or volunteers feeling bored because the indicators are too modest or feeling anxious because they are too ambitious.

Regarding strategies, the dialogue needs to be around two questions:

1. 1. Do we have the right criteria to evaluate the potential impact of our strategies?
   2. Do we have the highest impact strategies we are capable of implementing?

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

Several leaders we work with like to use the following court roles as a metaphor. To be effective, organizations must have strong people playing the roles of King/Queen, Warrior, Lover, and Wizard.

King/Queen

The primary responsibility of the King or Queen is to download the initial vision and communicate it regularly to others so that it can be built upon through a shared vision involving the key stakeholders of an organization or community. John Kotter, author of Leading Change, speaks to the importance of creating a sense of urgency.

The Queen

or King cannot underestimate how frequently she or he needs to articulate his or her vision and eventually the shared vision. In most organizations, the King or Queen is played by the CEO, president, or executive director. In collaborative leadership, it can be an entire group of leaders who are playing this role in tandem with each other.

Warrior

Every organization is vulnerable. Its weaknesses must be monitored and addressed by the Warrior. Unexpected threats arise, and it is the role of the Warrior to take responsibility to protect the organization. Too often this role is left to the King or Queen, which is inappropriate. It is too difficult to effectively lead and protect at the same time. The Warrior role is typically played by the CFO, executive assistant, and/or COO. His or her job can also include protecting the King or Queen from himself or herself as needed. Obviously, there is a strong level of trust between Warrior and Queen or King.

Lover

Lovers are the ones who attract others to the organization. They typically work in sales, fundraising, marketing, communications, and community engagement positions. Lovers are those you want to be around, join with, and have ongoing interactions with throughout a process. They are very easy to get along with and will go out of their way to help you.

Wizard

The Wizard develops and maintains the magic that an organization creates in products and services. He or she is the one generating the value added for the world. The Wizard(s) can be the chief technology officer, services or products manager, chief designer, etc. Because the Wizard is producing on behalf of the organization what the world is buying, it is easier for the Wizard to confuse his or her role with the King or Queen than for the Lover or Warrior. When and if that happens, the King or Queen must immediately assert his or her role and reset the boundaries to eliminate confusion.

The more able we are to understand these personality traits in ourselves and others, the easier it is for us to build a conscious leadership team that is capable of functioning at a high enough level to bring about transformations. Does your organizational leadership team possess each of the archetypal roles: King/Queen/Warrior/Lover/Wizard? If not, how can you bring someone onto your team to play these crucial roles?

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

A fully empowered leadership team is aligned to a shared vision and works together to move others through the process embodied in the Transformational Map. Each knows his or her role and has enough authority to carry out his or her responsibilities. She or he must also be aligned with her or his own organization’s top management team.

The team at the top of an organization must be analyzed to determine its capacity to lead transformational change. Standing committees, ad hoc committees, and de facto leaders and groups who have “always done things the same way” can become siloed in their approach to meeting the organization’s mission and its new change agenda. In order to implement the change that is envisioned, the way in which work gets done must change to align with the new strategies. Here are examples of how the leadership team must evolve as it moves into the various stages of the Transformational Map.

The defining criterion for membership in the top leadership team is the ability to fulfill a staff member’s role in supporting the transformational change process.

Practices and Procedures

Leaders must analyze existing practices and procedures to assure alignment with the change initiative.

Definition: Practices and procedures are the way policies and strategies are carried out in the organization or system. They might develop formally or informally over time. They might be invisible — we don’t notice many of them because they are “the way we do things around here.” Some are in writing, some are not. Leaders and managers usually have the authority to change them without changing policy.

Examples: performance review, communication systems, staff development, leadership development, recognition systems, compensation systems, budgeting processes, purchasing, planning work activities with individual workers, and many others.

Exercise: Identify the key structures, practices, procedures, or organization attitudes that will hinder your organization from moving through the transformational map

You should now have an outline for the organizational shifts that must occur for you to align your leadership efforts to achieving the vision. Management should be firmly delegated to others, and the leadership team should focus on articulating the vision, gaining agreement and commitment from stakeholders, facilitating learning, and embedding change into the culture.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

When I woke up on January 1, 2050, I joined my large circle of friends to formally celebrate the elimination of poverty from Story County, Iowa. Let me tell you how this happened. It’s an amazing story that few believed possible 60 years ago.

Once we were sure that all our children were safe and healthy, then, and only then, did we turn our attention to making our personal lives more comfortable. Schools no longer charged fees for extracurricular activities. All children now had access to computers in the home so that the playing field was level from the beginning.

We helped couples decide to postpone having children. Adults made the conscious decision to slow down and take the time to really notice the extraordinary individuality of each child in our community. We decided to invest more of our time and energy in raising our children than in the pursuit of wealth. We got so interested in children that we were right there for them, in appropriately sensitive ways, on the very days when they had questions about sexuality, feelings of loss, and anxieties about being loved. We became more sophisticated about what children need from adults and made it our priority to give it to them. We watched while teen births gradually decreased, then became a thing of the past. During 2049 in Story County, no child was born to teenage parents.

Adult parents in Story County learned how to value maintaining a committed relationship above all else—how to simplify life by reducing unnecessary consumption, freeing up time and energy for building and strengthening their commitment. We realized that the benefits of having a successful, lifelong partnership far outweigh the difficulties we all experience sustaining one. People stopped tolerating emotional and physical abuse—indeed, the community developed strong, assertive plans to interrupt patterns of abuse in families.

Men and women realized the necessity of establishing good relationships with one another in order to stay close. People got better about asking friends for help with negotiating the challenges of staying together and raising a family. Children observed these changes and so learned how to choose compatible mates and how to communicate effectively to maintain a good, intimate relationship. The rate of family breakups fell from 50% to 6%.

Employers in Story County saw the wisdom of turning away from short-term earnings, investing more time and money into building teams of steady, reliable, well-paid workers able to fully utilize their talents to provide meaningful services to the community. During the past 40 years, employers have shifted away from generating products and services of questionable value for people and the environment, moving toward a deep commitment to enrich lives, while conserving and renewing natural resources for future generations.

Health insurance became universally accessible, benefiting thousands of vulnerable families in Story County. Many of the county’s older residents still remember the years of preferential medical care; younger people hear those stories with disbelief.

Transportation changed as radically here as in the rest of the nation. Electric vehicles replaced the fleet of polluting cars we once had. Supplementing our clean energy supply by natural gas burning facilities is necessary less than 5% of the time. Electric bus service now extends to all area businesses and communities. The use of bicycles increased dramatically as it became safer and easier to pedal around the county on hundreds of miles of newly constructed bike paths. As generosity and making new friends became a normal way of life, carpooling became easy. People with lower incomes now don’t have to worry about maintaining a car. There are plenty of ways to get where they need to go. Those who absolutely need a car but can’t afford the price can obtain a donated vehicle that has been donated.

The cost of housing decreased dramatically during the past 40 years. No one now has to spend more than 30% of take-home pay for rent. The city of Ames and Story County, through a number of bold public initiatives, paved a clear and reasonable path for anyone to move from affordable, subsidized rental situations to home ownership.

Because adults focused more on children, Story County citizens enthusiastically created the best childcare support system we could. Iowa joined the rest of the states in  providing excellent and affordable childcare for all. Most people had more time to spend with their own children because of their commitment to staying together as families, and, as life became more affordable and manageable, they didn’t feel compelled to work ever longer hours.

Story County developed such a powerful social safety network that it became virtually impossible for anyone to suffer poverty in isolation. These emergency financial support services have become just as important to us as our emergency police and fire services. People in our communities now know when families are in financial trouble and so are able to reach out quickly and effectively before evictions, job losses, family breakups, and a host of other destructive outcomes occur. Every community has ample emergency funding, plenty of skilled volunteers and professionals who know how to intervene, and Circles USA to ensure that people don’t fall back into poverty.

A family’s financial crisis is treated as an opportunity for community members to reach out in service to a neighbor—to support a family out of isolation. We have realized that every member of the community has gifts to share, and we’ve stopped wasting human potential by marginalizing individuals and families living in poverty.

When I woke up on January 1, 2050, I realized that at some point during the previous 40 years, a critical mass of people had figured out how to have enough money, enough friendship, and enough meaning in their lives to be truly happy. This core group became the catalyst necessary for making it an eventual reality for all. Story County had been transformed.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

Whether you are a visionary, facilitator, or practitioner, you need enough time to play your role. Each role must engage in the entire Transformational Map: articulating a vision to others, aligning with other leaders and facilitating a shared vision, helping yourself and others learn whatever is needed to achieve the vision, and building policies and program structures that will embed the vision into reality. Realistically, three to four days each week are needed to provide leadership to people through all four stages of the Transformational Map.

Many leaders find themselves saddled with management responsibilities. They are busy with budgets, personnel issues, and administration. If one is spending the majority of time in management, there is no way one can lead a transformational process to change the culture of an organization, a community, or a system. Sure, some management is unavoidable, but leaders must have time to read, write, think deeply about ideas, and then discuss those ideas with others. Leadership is needed in order to create a shared vision that makes people feel they can achieve something great.

Transitioning from manager to leader requires careful planning. The first step is to decide such a transition is important and then to find ways to delegate management to others. This might require re-prioritizing budgets, raising funds to hire a manager, and letting go of low-impact programs. Remember, high-impact programs change the community’s and organization’s mind-set from poverty management to poverty reduction. Which of your current programs are doing that, and which are not? What can be done to either bring programs from low impact to high, or to eliminate programs in order to free up time and resources?

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.

Are You a Visionary, Facilitator, or Practitioner?

All three roles of visionary, facilitator, and practitioner contribute to achieving the vision of ending poverty, and we each possess all three capabilities. The question is: Which one is most dominant for you, and how does that fact affect your leadership? How you communicate your vision will in part be informed by whether you identify as a visionary, facilitator, or practitioner.

Based on a military model adapted from a talk by Vipin Gupta, a colleague and a research physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, here is a description of the three types:

The visionary says we need to take the hill. It’s an impossible task to most, but the visionary makes the impossible seem possible.

The facilitator prepares the hill to be taken. By negotiating with the visionary and translating the vision into action, she or he turns what’s possible into something probable.

The practitioner implements the day-to-day details for taking the hill. By collaborating with the Facilitator, he or she makes what’s probable more predictable.

Visionaries can see, often with great clarity, how the world could function after the transformation. Even in the face of many unknowns, visionaries have confidence that something new is possible. Facilitators appreciate the visionary’s vision and can see it well enough to help make it a reality. Facilitators possess patience and enthusiasm to figure out the practical steps, so they can implement the plan. It is often a disaster to put visionaries and practitioners in the same room without facilitators, because a practitioner’s questions might stop the flow of a visionary’s process.

We all have habits that identify our preferences. A practitioner might say, “Just tell me what needs to be done.” A facilitator might say, “I don’t want to be in charge, but I can help organize things in the background.” A visionary might say, “Let’s do this completely differently.”

Knowing what role feels best to you is important information. If you are not called to be a visionary, take heart, you can still lead a tremendous change. As a facilitator, you can seek out visionaries who need someone like you to translate their visions to others. If you are a practitioner, you can insist that visionaries and facilitators join the leadership team to play their roles.

Understanding the preferences of your teammates is equally important. If you plug people into the wrong roles, you will end up with unnecessary difficulties. Take the time to learn how to read people’s interests and skills with regard to the roles of visionary, facilitator, and practitioner.

Learn more: Transformational Leadership: A Framework to End Poverty ~ By Scott C. Miller

To learn more about Scott Miller, please see his website here.