{"id":754,"date":"2026-04-28T13:49:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T11:49:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/?p=754"},"modified":"2026-04-28T15:54:02","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T13:54:02","slug":"design-delle-organizzazioni-rigenerative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/2026\/design-delle-organizzazioni-rigenerative\/","title":{"rendered":"Regenerative Organization Design: Design Week 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 23rd, we were in Milan for a day dedicated to the design of regenerative organizations. Not at the Salone, not in pop-up stores, not at the installations in the courtyards of downtown buildings. We were in the Milanese editorial office of Scomodo, on the veranda with a garden, together with a handful of people who work within organizations, who founded them, who inhabit them every day and try to keep them afloat without losing their way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was Design Week, and all day we made ourselves uncomfortable talking about conflicts, power, decisions that can't be made, organizational identities creaking under the weight of necessary compromises and the struggles of working together in times unsuited to those of the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it so anachronistic to bring these themes into a context that has made aesthetics and product innovation its dominant language?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Milan Design Week is a machine capable of bringing hundreds of thousands of people to engage with design as a form of thought. But the design that occupies our reflections and practices\u2014the design of relationships, decision-making processes, the distribution of power, and what lies behind the design\u2014rarely finds space in the pavilions of Rho or on evenings in the Navigli district. It's less photogenic. Less Instagrammable. But no less necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The event was called Regenerative Organization Design and was organized together with Apical<\/a>, a network of people working in social innovation and activism. The topic of regeneration as a concept (not in its guise of urban cleansing) is very close to our hearts. In a context of significant environmental, social, cultural, economic, and political degeneration, sustainability is no longer sufficient: it thinks in terms of balance, not consuming more than we produce, maintaining existing conditions. Regeneration thinks in different terms: giving back more than we take, improving the conditions of the system we are part of. In the current circumstances, committing to internalizing regenerative practices that can balance the extractive erosion of our surroundings and of ourselves as workers and citizens invested in participation is essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without delving into the day's events in detail, I'd like to explore some of the points raised during the morning workshop and afternoon conversation, drawing inspiration from the participants and the anniversaries we see in the so-called bubbles we inhabit and connect with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those in the little gardens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I immediately relate to a phrase by Paola Bonini: in the eyes of institutions and large organizations, "we are the ones in the little gardens," those who, while everything follows a predetermined path of large numbers, start gardening on a small scale and tend to small growing plants. The organizations we've come to know\u2014associations, cooperatives, cultural enterprises, informal networks\u2014often produce relational and organizational building work that lacks a visible language to express itself. It's not a product, it's not a patent, it's not a scaling up or out<\/em>. It could instead be a question of stairs<\/em> deep<\/em><\/a>? or "that lasting change that occurs only when people's hearts and minds, their values and cultural practices, and the quality of their relationships are transformed" <\/em>The term was coined by Tatiana Fraser (Girls Action Foundation), formalized by Riddell & Moore for the JW McConnell Foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we were to use Ecosistemica's words, we would describe it as the ability to bring together people with different visions, to navigate conflicts without dissolving, to make decisions in a way that makes everyone feel included, and to focus on well-being and effectiveness rather than efficiency. To inspire and engage people to dedicate their time and energy to work, volunteering, or activism for the common good. This caring skill exists, it is real, and, to a large extent, it is not recognized as such, either by those who produce it or by those who could enhance it.<\/strong>
This isn't a eulogy to care, as Genna Veneziano Labanca of Fantapolitica! pointed out, which is starting to show its limits as a buzzword of recent years (along with, of course, regeneration, sustainability, resilience, and all the others). Rather, it's the ability to see beyond grand, techno-optimistic statistical narratives, to focus on the small and discern those seeds that need to be supported if they are to become new hegemonies in the future. It's about passing the torch in the relay of history. Where we can't reach in the present, other people and organizations will be able to in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Design
The closing round of the Organizational Compass workshop<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You can't see from the inside<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On the morning of April 23rd, together with Martina Beria, I facilitated the Organizational Compass workshop with the people who had chosen to participate, each bringing an organization they know from the inside. It's always important to observe the space of possibility that arises when someone manages to take a snapshot, to distance something they experience so closely every day that they can no longer see it clearly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It's not a problem of intelligence or awareness. It's structural. Those who inhabit an organization (ourselves included) inevitably develop a form of selective blindness: everyday problems are crystal clear, but it becomes much more difficult to distinguish what is structural from what is contingent, what is a symptom from what is a cause, what can be changed from what seems immovable only because it has always been that way.<\/strong> Proximity distorts perspective, and no one is immune. Organizations that never take the time to construct an external representation of themselves tend to accumulate dysfunctional patterns that no one can see anymore because everyone is there. Taking the time to abstract one's gaze, to observe oneself and one's organization with different eyes, is always precious. Being able to be complicit in this moment is, for us, always a source of great comfort, inspiration, and learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lie of horizontality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the themes that ran throughout the day, sometimes explicitly, sometimes subtly, was that of power in organizations that claim to be horizontal. It's a topic close to my heart and one I often discuss. I'll do so once more, but I don't think it will be the last.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There's a widespread tendency, in many organizations with a progressive or alternative culture, to eliminate the concept of hierarchy without eliminating its actual dynamics. The result is often the worst of both worlds: formally flat structures in which power exists, circulates, and is concentrated, but is unrecognizable, unnameable, and unchangeable because it has become invisible. Jo Freeman had already written it in 1970<\/a> in his essay on the tyranny of structurelessness: When you refuse to structure power, you don't eliminate it, you hide it. And hidden power is more difficult to redistribute than declared power, because those who wield it are often unaware of it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This doesn't mean that traditional hierarchy is the only possible alternative. It means that building more equitable organizations requires addressing power directly, making it visible, and designing mechanisms that allow for its intentional and reversible distribution. This is where the As<\/em> of organizations, that dimension which in Organizational Compass<\/a> It brings together structure, participation, decision-making processes, information flows, resource management, and collective learning, becoming the densest and most political space in which to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compromise is not a dirty word or almost<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The third theme that emerged strongly, especially in the discussion between Luca Dubbini of Banca Etica, Alessia Cottini of Scomodo, and Pietro Mensi of Futurevox, was that of compromise. In organizations that work on values, missions, and strong identities, compromise is often experienced as a threat. There's a fear that giving in on something means betraying something else. It's an understandable fear, and in some cases, even well-founded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless compromise is inevitable<\/strong>, and during the afternoon it emerged with a certain honesty that the question is not if<\/em> accept it, but as<\/em> Continue to choose through constant negotiations. There is a significant difference between the compromise that allows an organization to evolve, adapt, and maintain its coherence in a changing context, and the compromise that produces an increasingly smaller common denominator, to the point of emptying the organization of any shared meaning. The former is an act of collective intelligence. The latter is a slow form of self-dissolution that isolates the organization and its operations in the name of a certain purity, often pursued purely for the sake of fashion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compromise is often necessary to ensure co-evolution between the organization and its environment, but it shouldn't lead to the creation of cookie-cutter organizations, with the same organizational methods and the same products. It's a question of organizational biodiversity, and we desperately need it right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This intertwines with the speech by Isnaba Miranda of Scenic Industry on need to do business to provide jobs<\/strong>: Creating economic sources for those working in the social, cultural, and political sectors, building economic circuits independent of those that, with great difficulty and dedication, we continually try to boycott. Doing business then becomes a revolutionary act: designing organizations that are healthy in their own right. As<\/em>, capable of generating self-sufficiency for those who work there, means eroding shares of those economies that constrain and dominate us. A counter-hegemonic gesture, once again. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Design
Workshop Feedback<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Intentionality, time, desire to invest<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the issue that remained most unresolved, the one over which there was the most genuine tension in the air, was organizational change: how much time it requires, how much energy it costs, how much one is willing to invest in something whose effects are not immediate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We ourselves, and many of the organizations we've encountered, live under constant pressure: scarce resources, people doing too much at once, and timeframes that never stretch far enough. In this context, the idea of stopping to work on internal structure, decision-making processes, and organizational culture often seems like a luxury. It's something that will be done when there's more time, when the pressure eases, when things stabilize. But time doesn't happen on its own, and the moment of stabilization never arrives as expected. Meanwhile, the organization adapts to the context, absorbs its pressures, replicates its logic, and gradually loses the critical distance that was often the reason it was created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Individual and organizational intentionality isn't a slogan. It's the conscious and laborious choice to dedicate resources, time, energy, and thought to caring for one's organization, even when they're scarce. This isn't organizational narcissism, but rather a prerequisite for continuing to do what one wants to do well, alongside the people who do it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Design
Panel with Fantapolitica, Industria Scenica and Sai Che Pu\u00f2?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Regenerative Organization Design<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We finished the afternoon with many open questions, some of which I don't think will ever be resolved. Some people stayed to talk during the aperitif, others ran away in fear, still others told us they wished they had more time to build self-reflective communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We weren't there to provide answers. We were there to work together on questions that the people here face every day, within real organizations, with real resources and real contradictions. It's the type of work I find most honest, and also most difficult, the one that perhaps pays the least financially at the end of the year, but which restores to me the profound and political meaning of what I do. Who knows if next year we'll be able to self-produce a metadesign oasis during Milan Design Week, who knows if we'll build something more structured, or perhaps nothing at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As one of my teachers in the workshop of the craftsmanship of complexity, Salvatore Iaconesi, always said: \u201cit was a success because it happened\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Thanks go to Martina Beria for additions and revisions and to Claude for brainstorming parts with my old writings and for the format.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On April 23rd, we were in Milan for a day dedicated to the design of regenerative organizations. Not at the Salone, not in pop-up stores, not in installations...<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":768,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,25,9],"tags":[49,48,46,36,45,30,42,43,50,44,47],"class_list":["post-754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-caso-studio","category-esperienza","category-teoria","tag-bussola-organizzativa","tag-cambiamento-organizzativo","tag-compromesso","tag-design-organizzativo","tag-design-week-milano","tag-facilitazione","tag-governance","tag-organizzazioni-rigenerative","tag-orizzontalita","tag-potere-nelle-organizzazioni","tag-terzo-settore","beyond-forth"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=754"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":781,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/754\/revisions\/781"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecosistemica.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}