I'm a little surprised that all the reviews of this book Getting to Maybe are so overwhelmingly positive. To be sure, I thought it was a fun book to read--used it a couple of times in a grad program. The authors provide great examples and the book is overall well-written and designed. Working for an NGO I find it helpful to get different perspectives on change-thinking and social innovation. In the context of my organizational work I regularly advice people to read this book. That's the good part.
What I'm not so happy with is the dogmatic philosophical stance of the authors on Complexity Science. It permeates everything they write. Life is completely unpredictable it seems. (If you believe this, please, don't board a plane again. The science behind flying is based on predictability.) Admitted, there is some truth to that--life is at time hard to predict--but to absolutize that observation is what bothers me about the book. It undermines the credibility of this otherwise wonderful contribution to social change. (Took one star off for that.)
What bothers me most about the book is that the authors in their convictions of complexity science have a chip on their shoulder about funders and logic frameworks for planning (read: results-based management). I bet you they have had some bad experiences with funders... and obviously are having difficulty dealing with it a little more maturely. Here is an example (from page 170):
Social innovators offer visions and dreams. Funders and the evaluators they often hire want concrete, clear, specific and measurable goals. They also want to know step by step, in advance, how the goals will be attained, an approach doomed to failure in the complex and rapidly changing world in which social innovators attempt to work.
Wow, there you have a caricature! (Not a lot of reflective thinking went into that statement.) As if social innovators are the only ones who dream and funders and evaluators (I'm one of them--do it for free) don't. As if funders and evaluators and those who implement logic frameworks are purely mechanical, never flexible, never adjusting, oblivious to the fact that we live in an ever-changing environment. Many NGOs I know work with logic frameworks and they all are doomed to failure, if we are to believe the authors. (Took another star off for that.)
Anyway, go and buy the book and then download Splash and Ripple from Coyne & Cox for free (socially innovative idea, isn't it) to show that logic frameworks aren't as sterile and mechanical as Westley et al. make them out to be. Let one bias complement the other.
[...]