I attended a Melbourne Creative Performance Exchange gathering where Pete Williams, CEO of Deloitte Digital spoke about his work as an enabler of the Flowerdale community, after the Black Saturday bushfires. Flowerdale is demonstrating all of the principles of self-organising community development in its recovery and redevelopment efforts and Pete is using his extensive networks to assist the community make happen what they want to happen. Flowerdale is also one of three communities where our Uniting Church Camping organisation is operating temporary villages, seeking to balance logistical skills with its emphasis on community building.

One of Pete's key principles for being an enabler is the "don't walk by" principle. I don't interpret this as "whatever stimulus hits, you must respond to." Instead I think it's a dynamic demonstration of balance (or effective tension) between reflection and action.

Because of ties he has to Flowerdale and particular strengths he brings with him, Pete felt a deep and immediate call to action in that place. And it was in response to this call that he "didn't walk by."

This is not an action driven by guilt or any other "should" or "must" type feelings. This is action based on spirited encouragement - literally "a voice in the heart." Community and organisational development hero, Meg Wheatley, speaks extensively of the use of this principle to organise our lives (and the lives of our organisations).

Last weekend the text read by Christian communities all over the world had the Jesus character encouraging his followers to rest and reflect. But, almost simultaneously, they feel a deep sense of compassion (read: spirited encouragement?) and act out of that to enable the gathered crowds. Out of a deeper understanding of "who they are" they take action. Sounds like "don't walk by" might be something of a timeless, spiritual principle (and certainly not just a Christian one)?

Comment about this on stumbleupon.com!; Digg it; Privately E-mail it!; Technorati Links; Save to del.icio.us

I love to read of initiatives that get diverse people in neighbourhoods together to explore ideas and then provide seed funding to reduce anti-activist friction. Here is one from a newspaper article a couple of weeks ago in Waseca, south of Minneapolis. Those Minnesotans are always pushing the community development envelope (well, actually its very simple ...but they are doing it!).

We've played with grants for these purposes as well. The concept of anti-activist friction, and its alleviation with a financial payment is one of interest to me. My feeling is that this is not a bribe. Perhaps it points to the fact that - in the way we've constructed the world - the fear of financial loss (when we take risky, creative action) is very strong. Perhaps seed grants reduce that primary fear. I know I like the idea, but I wonder if that's why (and under what circumstances) it works?

Here is an excerpt form the article (by the way, hope the projects led to more than just economic growth)...