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 .

Circles USA is proud to be featured as an innovative strategy for TANF programs in a new brief, “Social Capital Initiatives To Achieve Employment Goals.” This brief is part of the Office of Family Assistance’s Emerging Practice Series, which highlights how TANF agencies and their partners are helping low-income individuals gain and sustain meaningful employment. Here’s a description: “TANF participants in Utah are moving from poverty to earning incomes at or above 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) through a social capital-building strategy. Implemented by the Utah Department of Workforce Services through partnerships with community action agencies, the Circles program matches TANF participants with community volunteers in a long-term weekly support group. With this circle of support and resources, participants are empowered to move toward employment and self-sufficiency. The brief [gives] an overview of the program model, and the results that have been achieved. Compelling stories of participants’ success and suggestions from TANF agency staff to their peers provide actionable insights and on-the-ground perspectives.” Click here to download the brief.

“Science fiction is the very near future.” –Mark Lautman, author of When the Baby Boomers Bail Looking into his crystal ball, my friend and colleague Mark Lautman, national economic development architect and author of the book When the Boomers Bail , gave me his well-informed forecast about the emerging economy. He tells me we are dispensing with most blue-collar jobs and even the white-collar ones like attorneys, mortgage brokers, etc.that can be done with automation and artificial intelligence. On the one hand—good — people don’t have to do as much grunt work. But where are the jobs for all the people we want to support out of poverty? Although it is unclear, there may be a completely new concept of an economy being birthed that holds the promise of providing people with enough money to pursue enough meaning and friendships to thrive. This new economy will likely be a hybrid of paid work, community work, and a new level of sharing that reduces expenses while increasing a sense of community with others. I realized that our program, Circles USA, and other approaches like it are offering intentional communities where people have each other’s back to help secure basic needs as well as to advance in the emerging economy. In Circles, we recruit people from middle-income and upper-income households to enter into powerful and meaningful relationships with people who want to become economically stable. Ironically, many volunteers recognize that they, like me, carry around a lot of financial anxiety through unconscious spending. The relentless pursuit of making and spending money has contributed to both a sense of ennui and isolation. We are sacrificing time for meaningful activity and quality friendships in pursuit of the quick fix that a new purchase provides. I suggested to our Circles USA leadership team that it was time to refocus on the message of supporting everyone to have enough money, meaning, and friends . We need a new American Dream that will help more people live happier lives. Too Much Evolves into Just Enough Using a more appropriate measurement than the outdated poverty guidelines adopted in the mid-’60s by the federal government, the current economy, according to a recent New York Times report, is generating a 50% poverty rate. The official White House assertion in 2018 was that the poverty rate is actually 3%. Quite a difference in the “facts.” Regardless of what the rate really is, the emerging economy is trending toward more disparity and fewer people experiencing the ideals of the American Dream of the ’50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s. Therefore, new structures such as Circles are emerging to help people learn not only how to have enough money, but enough meaning and friends as well. According to the website Sapiens, https://www.sapiens.org/debates/simplicity-culture , almost 60 million people in the United States are embracing voluntary simplicity — working fewer hours, spending less money, and being more mindful about how they live. Perhaps the Great Fog is beginning to lift for a critical mass of us. From the book: Enough Money, Meaning & Friends ~ 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 .

How we choose to spend our money will determine whether the emerging economy increases or reduces poverty, protects or further degrades the planet, and makes us a happier or a more miserable society. Our individual consumer habits matter. Every dollar is a vote for the world we want to create. Worried about climate change? Notice how often you tank up or travel for leisure. How about that new plastic gadget? How long before it ends up in the landfill? How about food shipped from a distant part of the country? As millions of us awaken to the detrimental impacts of our spending habits on the environment and on our health, we will generate a major shift in how our economy functions. An economy should serve the greatest number of people for the highest good. It’s a system that we invented for the primary purpose of generating value for one another. We don’t just work to make money. We work because we have an inherent need to contribute to others. Human beings have spent the majority of their history working together in small groups to survive. Deep in our social DNA is the protective instincts of taking care of one another so that each of us can make our necessary contributions to thrive as a group. There is far more cooperation in successful economies than we realize. Think of the coordinated efforts in providing you with this book to read. There are too many companies to list that were involved in making the complex products and providing the services necessary for me to write on a computer, email it to an editor, have it uploaded onto a publishing and distribution format, notify you that it’s available, and prepare the cup of coffee that you might be having while reading it. Imagine if we understood the notion that the best economy is one that works for everyone. The tragedy of poverty would end. The United States has more than enough resources to eradicate poverty, literally overnight if we chose to do so. These realities can happen once a critical mass of people adopts a new paradigm about the purpose and goals of the economy. From the book: Enough Money, Meaning & Friends ~ 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: 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. 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. 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: 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. Make it specific, holding people accountable to leadership assignments that will make a clear difference. 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: Do we have the right criteria to evaluate the potential impact of our strategies? 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 .

Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson, in their 2000 publication Cultural Creatives , estimated that 50 million adult Americans focus on values that actively support the goal of ensuring everyone can pursue enough money, meaning, and friends to thrive, including an aggressive approach toward mitigating the problems of climate change. According to a Huffington Post article, “ Cultural Creatives Are Changing the World ,” updated on Dec 6, 2017, it was estimated that Cultural Creatives could now make up over half of the American population. This number may seem high to many of us because one thing Cultural Creatives have in common is the feeling of being alone in our values. We are not yet connected in ways that give us the common experience of changing the world together to reflect these values. The values of the Cultural Creatives could be the key to creating the transformation we desire, values such as seeing nature as sacred, viewing relationships as important, and focusing less on material success. They want self-actualization and don’t believe in financial materialism. They want to be conscious activists for a world that works for everyone. On the other hand, Traditionalists, as Ray and Anderson label them, do not embrace change, hold conservative political and religious beliefs, and are generally fearful. This market is dying off. Modernists believe in financial materialism and are secular. Success is a high priority, but they are being recruited to join the Cultural Creatives as they mature and realize that material success is not as satisfying anymore. If you are a baby boomer like me, almost everything you think is normal is already changing: from the houses we live in; to how we get energy, transport ourselves, grow and buy our food; the materials we use for clothing and household items; and on and on. What has been an almost hidden force of cultural values is beginning to show itself. A recent poll done by NPR/PBS NewsHour and Marist conducted July 15-17, 2019 reveals that the majority of Americans believe in the following ideas: Free public college $15 minimum wage A “Green New Deal” Millionaire tax Pathway to citizenship Regulate drug prices Voluntary Medicare for all Gun background checks The underlying values that support these ideas include fairness, society-mindedness, global-mindedness, and the diffusion of power from the hands of the few. While Modernists continue to press for free-market, deregulation, freedom to use the environment as you wish, lower taxes, etc. and Traditionalists fight for border security, nationalism and a merging of state and religion, the cultural creatives are gaining in numbers that will eventually change politics, the economy, how people practice their faith, our community infrastructure, the treatment of the planet, animals and each other. Image Credit: By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58681355 From the book: Enough Money, Meaning & Friends ~ 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 .

Click HERE to download the PDF. Featured sections include: Our new Chapter curriculum for Circle Leaders, Allies, and Staff Our work on systemic change, including Big View, Cliff Effect, and Poverty Reduction Labs A recap of our 2019 Leadership Conference We thank all of our dedicated staff, volunteers, and Circle Leaders across our network whose steadfast efforts are represented in this report.

Circles USA is pursuing a 10-year goal to inspire a 10% reduction of poverty rates in 10% of all U.S. counties (300 of them). We are building Poverty Reduction System models that are synced with the emerging economy. While the idea of ending poverty seems impossible to many people, reducing it by 10% in 10 years seems more doable to the audiences I have shared my vision with over the past five years. Perhaps the 10% number in 10 years harkens back to reaching the moon by the end of the ’60s, or 10% tithing as a reasonable amount to give back to one’s community of faith. Whatever it represents to people, we now have 60 counties on board in 21 states and counting to pursue this goal. When people get their minds around what this might take, everything that works against the goal comes to the surface with new clarity. The needs I keep hearing are for: Better, updated job-creation strategies More powerful and better-targeted training programs for the job demands of the emerging economy Performance metrics and payment systems that reward workforce programs that help people make progress to 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines A strong safety net with the complete elimination of the Cliff Effect (disproportionate decreases in safety-net benefits when earning increases), incentivizing and rewarding work with pro-rated, easy-to-manage benefit schedules Community-building programs that give people weekly support to manage poverty issues while they pursue a self-directed pathway to economic stability. From the book: Enough Money, Meaning & Friends ~ 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: Provide private, limited charity to deserving, needy people as prescribed by my faith. Mentor someone poor who wants to learn how to not be poor anymore. Directly hire the poor. 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 .

The call to adventure to address poverty typically comes in one of these four ways: Provide private, limited charity to deserving, needy people as prescribed by my faith. Mentor someone poor who wants to learn how to not be poor anymore. Directly hire the poor. 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 .