Robb responded to the “Reinvention of I-I” thread, an encouraging sign:
Robb Smith Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Edward, I tried to reply on the Yahoo discussion board but didn’t have access and decided to reply here. I have reactions to what’s being discussed on several levels, so I’ll try to do justice to the thread accordingly. First, I wouldn’t deny anything you’ve said about Integral Institute. In observing the organizational mechanisms of Integral Institute since my tenure started I think I understand why various folks in the community have had a bad experience with the tone and behavior of Integral Institute over the preceding several years. I will offer, however, that if anyone thinks this is bad, take a look at any other business startup or turnaround: they all suffer from characteristics not dissimilar to the ones you describe. This is not an excuse, but it does serve as a reason that helps provide a backdrop for the discussion. I have outlined as much publicly on several occasions (and you can find more about what I’ve found in a presentation I published globally on my blog). Basically I agree with many of your criticisms and see it as our job to evidence a different tack with our behavior, and not just more promises. This is why we’ve kept largely quiet about many of the things we’re doing this year, up until a few weeks ago.
Second, the reason we’re starting an internet portal at IntegralLife.com is to try to build a robust community wherein anyone who is interested in integral discussion, intention and content can act and contribute in a central community of like-minded folks. Where will this go? I don’t know – our job is to build a platform and tools for the emergence, not to definitively sculpt how it grows.
Third, I disagree with Bert’s assessment of the questions we’re asking ourselves right now. The question I ask myself every morning, and right before bed, is how can I best serve the members of our community? The answers change depending on the situation, but I am not wondering if integral is a fringe movement. I don’t know what that means. I do, however, believe that Integral Life’s strategy of communicating integral in lay terms and without academic prejudice to one flavor of integral or another is key to its true functional worth in solving real suffering. I agree with you entirely in this. This is what motivates me.
Fourth, if anyone has valid academic criticisms of integral as a philosophical commitment I encourage them to air them clearly, cogently and respectfully through either our academic journal or through any of the others operating. I personally find the field fascinating and think that healthy and intelligent discourse is the key to moving the ball forward. This is another reason we are leading the way with the production of the first broad portal for the worldspace, the first academic integral conference in 2008, and widening the purview of our academic journal to consider well-considered criticisms of prevailing positions.
Finally, as always, I am available by phone (303-545-5445) or email (rsmith@integrallife.com) if anyone, anywhere, has anything they want to suggest about how Integral Institute or Integral Life is operating. I respond to blogs all over the world and publish my own (when I have time!) but the invitation is officially wide open for people to become involved with these organizations. As all organizations do we have a past with mixed results, but as far as I know we’re also the only organization in the integral space that is reaching out to over a million people in the next 6 months to broaden the loving, perspective-taking approach that integral can offer to so many of the world’s most pressing problems. I think we take our responsibility very seriously, and I always love feedback on how we can improve.
In love and service,
Robb Smith
CEO, Integral Institute
& Integral Life
Robb,
Great arms-wide-open display of accessability. I believe you and hope you will answer a few niggling questions I have, here.
(1) In Integral Leadership Review Volume VII, No. 3 – June 2007 [ http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/archives/2007_06/2007-06-bellamy.html ], you are interviewed by Keith Bellamy it says, “Robb is very aware that Integral Institute has a record of being long on promise and short on delivery. He doesn’t want to get into an analysis of why this happened, as he does not believe that it serves the Institute moving forward. What he is certain of is that under his stewardship, things will be different. In his experience, ‘Don’t tell people a lot about what you are going to do, because the best outcome is that you meet their expectation, the worst is you don’t. So there’s not a lot of upside.’His view is, “Not to get people all worked up about representations and promises about what we are going to do or what we are going to become. Frankly those are all future projections that are irrelevant anyway.’
From your statement quoted above, shouldn’t I ignore what you say you’re going to do and only trust what I see happen? While you may well be motivated to deliver, aren’t you telling me not to trust you until it happens? I’m not playing Gotcha; I’m truly wondering if you are slippery, because isn’t that what you admit to directly in the Bellamy interview?
(2) Your employee Lauren wrote me on July 9, 2007, re Al Mare Kooli, I-I’s largest contributor, according to II’s latest statement of activity, Form 990-
PF: “I am sure that I can answer your questions. Yes, our largest donor is from Estonia and this is his real name.” Can you confirm that what Lauren wrote me is untrue and that Al Mare Kooli is a psuedonym. Can you now identify Al Mare Kooli as II is legally obligated to. Can you tell me if II intends to amend it’s form 990 FYE 8/31/06 to properly ID persons improperly identified as anonymous or with fake names?
[See my Blogmandu post re Al Mare Kooli, and other matters: ( http://zenunbound.com/2007/07/integral-institute-review-of-disclosed.html ]
Sorry to be rather rude about all this, but I cannot continence any organization hiding facts in a public-disclosure document. You are CEO as of only recently; but being CEO you take responsiblity for BOTH the past and future of your organization. You are either really committed to being open or you are only wanting to have the reputation of being open. Which is it? And if you’re playing games, then that’s stark evidence you’re not on the better, bitchen Upper Tier where we get the wider seats, premium service, and gulp bodhisattva champaine
Tom:
1) “From your statement quoted above, shouldn’t I ignore what you say you’re going to do and only trust what I see happen? While you may well be motivated to deliver, aren’t you telling me not to trust you until it happens?”
I find that performance counts; future projections are interesting but can be unintentionally misleading and/or unrewarding for both sender and receiver, particularly when the sender has a history of mismanaging the expectation-setting process. So if you’re asking me for my advice, which it sounds like you are, then I’d counsel you this: expect nothing from II, that way everything is a pleasant surprise. Better for everyone, no?
2) “Can you confirm that what Lauren wrote me is untrue and that Al Mare Kooli is a psuedonym.”
No, I cannot confirm that what Lauren wrote is untrue. I can, instead, confirm that what Lauren wrote was true. Al Mare Kooli is not a pseudonym, as you imply; it is an educational institution in Estonia.
You are not being rude about not being able to countenance (presumably) an organization that hides facts in a public-disclosure document. That seems like a reasonable default position to me, depending on the nature of the facts and their materiality to the intention of the public-reporting process (e.g., GAAP). As it relates to Integral Institute, I think you are just mistaken.
I suppose that perhaps you are being rude when you state: “And if you’re playing games, then that’s stark evidence you’re not on the better, bitchen Upper Tier where we get the wider seats, premium service, and gulp bodhisattva champaine” But interiors are tricky, so I don’t presume to know your intention when you wrote that. If you felt you were being rude, then I’d ask what we can do to nudge your relationship to Integral Institute to one of a more caring, compassionate orientation?
Best regards,
Robb Smith
Robb,
Seriously. I-I needs to have a MUCH more caring and compassionate orientation and find its way to the 2nd Tier. I am forced by the evidence to write that I-I is not trustworthy and has not delivered. I agree with you that performance counts, which is why everyone should be wary of I-I until there is a radical change in its performance, something I have diminishing hope of expecting. But, please, Robb: Surprise me.
You misunderstand GAAP — and more so than that the principle of disclosure — if you believe that it is in any way OK to “disclose” contributors information with “Anonymous” and pseudonyms and to leave required address fields blank. And if a poor Estonian school is I-I’s largest contributor, perhaps you can explain to me why Lauren referred to it as “his name.” [btw, I'm not sure that it is GAAP that applies here, but close enough.]
I-I an I-L should be above reproach, but they are not. They goad reproach; they mock reproach; they say to reproach, “Bring it on.”
Tom, I’m not sure where to go from here.
One of the foundations of productive conversation is some common good will, and I don’t get the sense that you bear any good will towards Integral Institute. I hope I’m wrong, but in any case the prerogative is yours. However I believe I’ve tried to publicly outline the ways in which I think reproach of II’s past behavior is justified. I disagree with you in that I don’t think II is above reproach in any way, but I’ve found that people have unrealistic interpretations of what 2nd tier means. In summary, if we’re to engage in repeating cycles of recrimination, again I’m not sure what to do with that.
I have asked, earnestly, if there is anything we can do to move your relationship with II to one of more caring and compassionate exchange. Though I think your reading of the facts about the donor in Estonia are highly prejudicial – yes, there is a man, who donated through a school that he setup, and the school was the donor – that does not dissuade me from continuing to engage you on the basis of a loving and open exchange in an open forum.
You write that II is not trustworthy and everyone should expect a radical change in performance. To which I reply, by whose expectation of performance, and by what reasonable standards did they develop those expectations? Have I set expectations that have not been met? I serve the donors and the broader integral community, and I am proud of what we have accomplished in less than 8 months:
1. We have rehabilitated the financial condition of one of the leading integral donor organizations on the planet, providing a safe and effective vehicle through which donors can participate in integral development.
2. We have scheduled the first-ever broad integral theory academic conference to be hosted by II and JFK University in 2008.
3. We have continued the tradition of the annual Integral Spiritual Center event, where contemplatives from many of the world’s major lineages come together to discuss the future of an integral spiritual tradition.
4. We have provided for tens of thousands of dollars of academic scholarships for integral students in advanced programs.
5. We will soon be offering sponsored research grants to Principal Investigators in several areas, including Integral Parenting.
6. We hope to soon be covering 100% of Integral Institute’s operating expenses on a donated basis through Integral Life, which will enable every dollar of II donation to flow directly to the major projects of the donor’s choice.
And we have done this with an organization that, when we started, was losing significant sums of money due to strategic overcommitment, was in a low point of its generation of donor support, and had suffered from repeated market execution failures. To do so I have moved my family across the country, have worked full-time pro bono, and have asked most of my executive team to work pro bono (or close to it) as well.
I believe in what we’re doing and believe that fair-minded critics of our business performance – which as a former venture capitalist I have been my entire professional career – will find much to be enthused about in our new structure, the projects we’ve undertaken, and the results we’re getting in helping other people move integral thinking and applications forward. I don’t know what else I can do to assuage your concerns. But I continue to listen and will continue to try.
Finally, the only thing I really want to “bring on” more of is friends who want to help, friends who extend care and love, and friends of good will and vision. Anything else is painful to me and, I believe, the thousands of others on whose behalf we work.
Loving regards,
Robb
Robb,
I think that continuiing with ISC and introducing the JFK conferences are huge gains. Also, I know that the Integral Education Conference this summer in WA was a success — not only in terms of “content” and participation, but also in terms of the atmosphere, support, dialogic venue…
What I think is important about these kinds of venues is that they both welcome and invite inclusivity — of perspectives and views — and I hope that I-I will continue in this direction.
I’m eager to see what unfolds!
Bonnie
Tom,
Point blank question: what is your problem with I-I donations anyway? Is this the kind of thing that you want to spend your time doing? Robb already explained your confusion – but what does it matter anyway? Why not join in productive ‘dialogue’?
Robb has demonstrated the new attitude at I-I repeatedly.
Do you have anything constructive to say?