Yesterday we talked about the Thinking dimension and what the 'painpoints' are for organizations in this dimension. As a reminder of what we're trying to do: speak the same language of our potential clients so that we can open a conversation, get invited, and then slowly introduce the IDG language. This is not always needed. Some organizations already understand our language. We just need to pick people up where they're at. The conversation mainly revolved around 'Perspective Thinking'. The result of not giving space to different perspectives in company culture may lead to: - 'mono culture' (especially in very diverse cities that's a big problem, people disengage as shared by @Michele Manocchi) - Silos - Low engagement - Negative employer branding and no attraction of best candidates Out of those 4 pain points, organizations might only have awareness of the last two (engagement and hiring problems). So we reverse-engineered 'Perspective Thinking' which is our IDG language, into 'Low Engagement' and 'We Can't Find Good Candidates' which is an expression of the organizational pain points. My perspective is that if we are good bridge-makers between these languages, we increase our chances of getting invited to the table. And then we can slowly introduce the IDG language and skills. Thank you @Marvin Maneve, @Erhovwo Josiah, @Michele Manocchi and @Paolo Nicora for sharing your perspectives and ideas!

Hi everyone I invite you to join me next week on Tuesday, 6pm CET, for another 30-minute discussion about what's come up so far in our reverse-engineering Client Value Challenge for the THINKING dimension. If you haven't had a chance yet to contribute your thoughts on what the concrete outcomes of the IDGs are for organizations (their pain points), then I invite you to have a look at 👉 this post and add your contribution to 👉 this Google Doc And if you can, join the conversation next Tuesday, at 6pm CET 🦋 Have a wonderful weekend Sarah (and Nadene) P.S. If you're just joining us: what we're co-creating is the language we need to speak in order to get the attention and to be understood by our clients. We need to pick them up where they're at, and therefore we are reverse-engineering the IDG language into 'organizational pain-point' language.

Great conversation today. Here are some insights shared: Core IDG Concept (unchanged): - The sustainability crisis is fundamentally a behavioral crisis, not just a technical problem - Inner development is essential for outer change - values, perspectives, relationships need to evolve - This core mission remains the same for the next 50 years What's Changing - Organizational Structure: - Moving away from centralized startup mentality with big summits and central control - Transitioning to a distributed movement model - Central node should focus on narrative and integrity rather than operations - Suggested that leadership should be elected by the community, not controlled by founders Survey Insights (50 responses): - Strong grassroots energy with decentralized involvement - Participants across multiple roles in hubs, centers, and ambassador networks - Missing voices: strategic stakeholders, business/academic partners, co-founders Key Themes from Survey: - What brings aliveness: Human connection, local trust, small circles, clear roles, readiness for local action - What enables progress: Clear decision-making agreements, better two-way communication, cross-collaborations between communities, trust in community-led action - IDG Foundation's role: Hold integrity of IDG essence but not manage operations Here are two documents for you too look at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f3k_2awsQR5vsuieONW-fD9Fr4KxjdQAgvB-GHkFWHc/edit?tab=t.0 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/16MhWjtjmCNqgF7mOZnX02UCwPNehNqfs4hkO8SiHlMU/edit?slide=id.g3ac78849a87_0_11#slide=id.g3ac78849a87_0_11