by Judah Freed
MKP leaders circle up at Glen Ivy.
In May 2009, about 25 leaders from The ManKind Project worldwide gathered at the Glen Ivy Retreat Center in Corona, California. A similar meeting at Glen Ivy in February had set the agenda for this gathering.
Over the course of four days, these men passed through an intense process of personal and group transformation that culminated in a profound rethinking about how to structure the international operations of MKP.
In the spirit of open “transparency” about The ManKind Project and its activities, I asked MKP chairman George Daranyi to talk about the leadership conference and its implications. For the members of MKP and the general public alike, he shared a rare glimpse into the inner process guiding the organization.
Freed: Please briefly describe the international plan envisioned last February by the MKP Project Council.
Daranyi: These are my personal interpretations, and may not line up completely with the meeting minutes or other men’s views. The plan created in February at Glen Ivy envisioned a slimmed-down Project Council, more autonomy for the international regions, and the current Executive Committee morphing into an International Operating Council to handle affairs of the Project when the Project Council is not in session (which is most of the year). The plan also envisioned a separate, stand alone U.S. region, MKP-USA, that would focus on U.S. centers only. There were other issues, but these were the key ones in my mind.
Freed: Knowing that the international structure of MKP was on the agenda when the ExCom and IOC gathered at Glen Ivy in early May, what were your expectations about what they would get done together?
Daranyi: Primarily, my expectation was that we would form and empower and begin to work as an International Operating Council (IOC) instead of as a U.S.-focused Executive Committee. I believed that the OUS [Outside the U.S.] representatives would come ready and willing to do that.
Freed: How did the process at Glen Ivy lead to the discovery that the ExCom and IOC had different visions and perhaps different priorities?
Daranyi: It became apparent after two days of initial deliberations and process that we had very different ideas about what was going to emerge from our gathering. Clearly, the OUS men, who were going to make up the majority of the newly formed IOC, were not in a position to take on, nor did they want to take on, the vast operations and management of the Project on an International scope.
What they were really looking for, in my judgment, was autonomy, a lessened economic burden “imposed” on them by the Project Council, and to be relieved of any responsibility for the overall management of the international affairs of the Project. They wanted regional autonomy, but not international responsibility.
Freed: As the MKP chair, what was your response to the discovery that the Project Council plan from last February was not realistic?
Daranyi: I am not sure that the plan was not realistic; my belief is that it may have been premature. We or I may have made an assumption that the OUS men were willing, ready and able to take on the broad scope of the IOC’s functions in 2010. I now see that as unrealistic. It could still happen in the future.
Freed: What were your personal responses to the discovery, your thoughts and feelings?
Daranyi: Initially, I was angry and frustrated. Then sad. Then relieved. It felt like the Project, and me as the Chair, had been pushing against the river. Near the end, it felt like we and I were more in the flow of what was emerging.
Freed: How did your responses influence your choices and actions as chair of the gathering?
Daranyi: I actually stayed remarkably calm and clear during the four days together. My impatience was present, particularly during the first two days. I wanted us to move forward with the original plan, and I believed for a short time that was possible. But once I realized that it was not, my job was to hold space for what emerged. I did that quite well, I think.
Freed: What was the creative or intuitive process that let to the emergence of the idea to shift into an affiliation of autonomous regions?
Daranyi: At dinner after the second full day of discussions, I made a comment to several of the men present that maybe it was simply time to “let the OUS centers and men go”, or words like that. And, I asked the question, “What would the Project look like then?”
Several of the key OUS men were at the table, together with key U.S. men. They heard the conversation and then took it upon themselves, thankfully, to work on the issues I had informally raised. They then came back the next day with a proposal that evolved into the working resolution that was then posted to the Project in my email after we returned to our homes from the meeting.
Please understand that this is still a work in progress and must be formally approved by the Project Council in February 2010.
Freed: What was the decision-making process in forming a recommendation for the Project Council?
Daranyi: My belief was that everyone there must be heard, first. Then, at a minimum, a consensus needed to develop if we were going to go in a direction different than what we had all decided in Glen Ivy in February. So, a lot of room was created for that to occur. And, in the end, it was unanimously supported by the men present.
Freed: How did issues like NWTA training protocols and intellectual property rights factor into the group’s consideration of the proposal?
Daranyi: This surprised me a bit, but it was clear early on that the OUS men were adamant that the intellectual property, including all of the protocols, remain the “property” of the Project, i.e. the U.S. corporation. So, there was little debate about that.
Freed: In a nutshell, what is the new international structure being proposed for MKP?
Daranyi: A U.S.-centered Project that holds the intellectual property and “licenses” its use to OUS centers according to new regional agreements. which will be negotiated between now and February 2010. The U.S. centers stay under the current umbrella of the US Project.
Next is the disbanding of the IOC and its transformation into a loosely defined and informal International Regional or Coordinating Council that will address the concerns and issues as they relate, primarily, to OUS centers.
What has still not been clearly defined is what happens to the constituency groups like the Lodge Keeper Society (LKS), Multicultural Council (MCC), Integration Group Council (IGC) and – most critically in my judgment, as it relates to the NWTA – the Leader Body. It was the consensus of the group that the Leader Body should remain international in its scope of authority and involvement, especially as it relates to certifying full leaders for the NWTA.
The other overriding question is what happens to the Project Council? Does it go away? Is there still a role for it post 2010?
Freed: What are the possible benefits and risks of these structural changes?
Daranyi: Possible benefits include much greater autonomy for the OUS centers, lower costs for those Centers to operate, lower costs to the Project because the Project will not have to incur expenses related to managing OUS centers, and a simpler “licensing” agreement with OUS centers.
The risks include reducing contact with our international brothers, reducing the connection between men as they relate to LKS, IGC and MCC issues. One other risk is that there is no super-governing (or judicial) body that currently exists to help resolve issues between regions and Centers. And there’s the risk to the Project Council as an entity, which I identified in the previous answer.
Freed: How might these changes affect the various MKP constituencies, such as the elders, LKS, and the multicultural initiatives?
Daranyi: I am not sure; and I do not think we spent enough time fleshing these out. I believe more time and energy needs to be spent addressing this question.
Freed: What is the plan of action from here? Can you give a realistic timeline for each step in the process?
Daranyi: The plan right now is to move forward with the key items of the working resolution. The Structure committee is working on their issues and must bring forward a proposal to the ExCom by October, I believe.
The IOC is meeting monthly and addressing issues related to them and their transition into a coordinating council rather than an operating council.
The MKP USA Council meets on June 22 for their inaguaral meeting to address issues pertaining to them.
And the ExCom is still managing the Project during all of this transition.
I believe that by February of 2010, a more formal proposal with more specifics will be presented to the Project Council for their consideration.
Freed: What did you learn about MKP’s leaders from seeing the transformative creative process at Glen Ivy?
Daranyi: I have had, and I believe that many men have had, a narrow definition of “leader” inside the context of our work. We and I often tend to project our leadership onto the “certified” leaders. We and I forget that leaders exist everywhere inside and outside of this organization.
I saw many leaders appear in Glen Ivy from many places in the Project around the world. I am more comfortable now than ever about the quality of our leadership – from the staff, to the members of ExCom, to the IOC, to the heads of all groups and constituencies. I believe these are the right men at the right time to make these difficult transformative decisions.
Freed: What did you learn about yourself as a leader in MKP? Will you do anything differently as a result?
Daranyi: I learned to be even more patient with myself, with others and with our processes. I learned again to trust process more than content. I learned again that we need competent third-party facilitation when we get into these difficult areas, for which I want to say “thank you” to Thomas Griggs. I learned that I have much to learn. What I will do differently is to check my expectations at the door and trust more in the flow of what transpires and emerges.
Freed: Finally, if this change is implemented, what is your vision for MKP five years from now?
Daranyi: I do not yet have a clear vision, partly because I am not sure this is a “permanent” move forward. This may only be one intermittent step in our progress. And we may undo all or part of what we just did at the second Glen Ivy conference. All of this is subject to approval of the Project Council in February 2010.
However, my broader vision is this: I believe that these changes will make it easier for OUS centers to initiate more men more inexpensively than before. And I believe that these changes will force, in a good way, MKP-USA to take itself on again, that is, to focus on its work and its own issus. Ultimately, I think this will re-galvanize and re-inspire us to get back to the business of serving men, more of them and faster. I believe that if we do not grow this organization, it will die. These are steps toward growth and expansion, so I support them.
 |
George H. Daranyi was born in Lima, Peru in 1957. He has been in the United States since 1965 and became a U.S. citizen in 1989. He is a noted attorney, intervention coordinator, lecturer, workshop facilitator, and poet. He serves as chairman for The ManKind Project International (http://www.georgedaranyi.com) |
I am grateful to our Chairman for taking on these tough issues. I particularly resonate with the leadership questions around certified men. These are the men we entrust with our lives on NWTAs, and they rightfully bear the power and the respect they have earned.
Yet there is also a disconnect. I don’t see certified men doing the ongoing leadership work in individual centers. There is a disconnect, IMJ, between the Leader Body and the “lay” leadership. Certified men are asked to lead NWTAs, but there is so much more to leading and nurturing MKP communities, and I don’t feel the power and the gifts of certified men flowing in those channels the way I would like. It’s not that I want certified men to be in charge of everything, but that there be a connected set of power relationships so that centers have a clearer and strong connection with their leader body members.
In my church, we call ordained leaders. They are accountable to us. They don’t just preach on Sundays, they minister to people everyday, and help administer the community. Even in more hierarchical faith communities, like the Catholic Church, there may be less accountability to the parish, but good priests show up every day and do a wide variety of services.
My wish is for an MKP that betters integrates the leadership talents and the investment of power and energy we give to certified men, with the power that is needed in center leaders, elders, LKS, and other bodies. To me, that might include giving individual centers more of a voice in certification. I know of at least two men in my community who have been turned down by the MKP certification process, but who I have seen serve and lead and carry the energy I want in a leader, year after year. It frustrates me that because they don’t say the right things or present the right way at a cert meeting, that their true value is not honored. It’s like test-taking–some people are great at standardized tests, but they may not show up and do the work it takes to succeed in the real world.
So, how about a process whereby if a man is rejected by the centralized MKP process for co-leader or leader, they can get a defined level of support, through a defined process, from their center and thereby be certified to (at least) lead trainings sponsored by their center?
Bill Prindle in Washington, DC