Thanks Jim for this clarity. I remember when I took your DF class in Port Townsend, we did a lot of brainstorming to create options. This is back when you were using the slug slime exercise. You wrote here about creating choices. What is the distinction between that and looking for options?
Happy Thanksgiving all.
nancy
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Rough
Sent: Nov 24, 2009 9:38 AM
To: DynamicFa...@googlegroups.com, wisdomcouncil
Subject: [WC] Re: Promise USA
Hi Raffi,Thank you for the "heads up" on this. I hope you and others will help the people at Promise USA know about Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council process and about choice-creating. I'm optimistic because Nancy Margulies, is a founding member of Promise USA, as well as a co-originator of World Cafe, plus being a world-reknowned graphic facilitator. She came to the DF seminar this past September and has been a strong supporter of the Wisdom Council Process for some time. I think her deep understanding of these different approaches will affect the orientation of Promise USA, as yours has with the folk at Open Space Technology. However, their orientation to "dialogue" makes me hesitate. I've seen a number of well-intentioned national dialogue networks fizzle because, in my mind, they misunderstand what is needed.There are many of us now who see that the problem with our society has something to do with our way of talking and thinking together. Many see "dialogue" as the missing ingredient, others see "deliberation," or the combination of dialogue and deliberation. I see it to be "choice-creating." The problem is that those in the dialogue community "get" the value of deliberation but don't tend to distinguish choice-creating. Those in the deliberation community tend to see the value of dialogue, but don't distinguish choice-creating. I used to think DF generated a form of "dialogue" and I used to talk about how the "Wisdom Council" would change the national "dialogue". I still do on occasion. But this is misleading. It's choice-creating that is the missing ingredient.Because others do not recognize the distinction, however, it's possible for us to pretend that we offer a new method of "dialogue" and fit under that umbrella. But since we set up the room differently, we don't require guidelines of talking, we encouraged advocacy, and we seek a unanimous perspective, our approach undermines dialogue. Ultimately, if we carry on in this way, we get people upset. The same is true for the methods of "deliberative democracy." We don't fit into that basket either but they don't make the distinction, so we seem to fit. Eventually people get upset with our different approach. Once, for example, some deliberative democracy gurus became so frustrated with me and my perspective ... we were going to meet with a high level government official ... they insisted I NOT give him a copy of my book. They didn't want my view of deliberation to mess up real deliberation.As Rosa Zubizarreta said in a recent public letter ..."our work does not fit tidily into the pre-existing categories of “dialogue” or “deliberation”. Instead, it falls squarely “between and beyond”. In some ways it resembles dialogue, as the conversation unfolds in an open-ended way with a “continually emerging agenda” of people’s concerns as they are expressed in the moment. The effects of the process are often extremely empowering to participants, especially those who have not often had the experience of being fully heard in groups or public forums. At the same time, this work is similar in some ways to deliberation, in that our forte is helping groups arrive at concrete action steps with regard to practical problems, action steps that emerge from a shared systemic understanding of the situation at hand."We need a new kind of public conversation. This is the point of greatest leverage for us to achieve real solutions to Peak Oil, Climate Change, the Environmental Crisis, etc. You name it. But to actually make this shift in our society requires choice-creating. That's my view. New national dialogue attempts like Promise USA start up often but they run into big problems immediately no matter who is behind it. One is that only members of the Blue Team show up. The Red Team goes missing. Another is that the process is fundamentally a small-group process that requires high levels of consciousness from participants. It sets up expectations for how people can talk with one another but there is no viable way to make this kind of talking systemic. Plus, of course, dialogue doesn't enable people to reach group conclusions.It's obvious to most process-aware people that we need to distinguish "discussion" and "dialogue." If we don't make this distinction, dialogue is impossible. Since dialogue requires an attitude of inquiry, not advocacy, it just takes one person to speak with advocacy in order to collapse the spirit of dialogue. The same thing happens when we do not distinguish between dialogue and choice-creating (or deliberation and choice-creating). Without understanding the requirements for choice-creating and setting up a proper structure to assure it -- mainly having a good DF'er in charge of the process -- it's easy to trash the spirit of choice-creating. But with a DF'er present we can achieve and sustain choice-creating and we don't need to rely on the skills of individual participants, as one does with both dialogue and deliberation. We just need people to care about an issue. This means the Red Team can show up as well as the Blue Team and the conversation will remain at a high level. Choice-creating doesn't avoid advocacy. It requires that people bluntly say what they want us to do. That's how people think already and with the DF'er present its OK. They don't have to define the problem first. They can jump to solutions. That's how people think already and it's OK, too. The DF'er provides a structure around how people naturally think rather than teaching them to think in a special way. He or she helps the group to hold these individual statements and behaviors in a way that supports the spirit of inquiry for the group.I've spent a lot of time trying to influence the advocates of dialogue methods and deliberation methods, encouraging them to see and appreciate this distinction. My efforts often backfire. Even some of the best supporters of this process have become really upset with me when I take the third path of just being honest about the different nature of DF, that it isn't deliberative or dialogic. So here's my current strategy, particularly that things are working so well in Austria.I think the best strategy for me is to aim toward communicating to the people who have impossible-seeming, messy, systemic problems. Government officials, for example, increasingly find themselves in these untenable situations. Since the Wisdom Council Process and the Creative Insight Council really do transform the public conversation and since Manfred Hellrigl in Austria has already begun demonstrating this in an organized a way, the time will come when this distinction and the need to make it will just become obvious.In the meantime I'm hoping you contact Promise USA and others to tell them about what's happening with the Wisdom Council Process and Dynamic Facilitation.Thanks for your persistence in helping to get processes into the mainstream that can help the human community transform the way we all make collective decisions.JimOn Nov 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Raffi Aftandelian wrote:[x-[posted from OSlist. Would Wise Democracy see it worthwhile to be part of this?]
warmly,
raffiDear Open Space Friends,
I'm excited to announce that several of your Open Space and World Cafe
friends are inviting Michelle Obama to engage the country in a
national network of citizen conversations, using World Cafe and other
dialogue methods such as Open Space Technology and Appreciative
Inquiry. Please visit our new Promise USA blog and be sure to post
your comments so that Michelle can see the groundswell of support.
We invite you to become an individual supporter of Promise USA. And if
you know of any organizations or communities that might want to offer
official support, please let us know.
You do not need to be a US citizen to share our passion. We welcome
all your comments and questions!
Warm wishes from a warm autumn in the desert,
Christine
Christine Whitney Sanchez
Collaborative Wisdom & Strategy
480.759.0262
www.christinewhitneysanchez.com
Skype: christinewhitneysanchez
http://www.facebook.com/ChristineWhitneySanchez---------------------
Jim Rough
Dynamic Facilitation Associates. | 360-385-7118 | j...@dynamicfacilitation.com |
Upcoming public programs . . .
- Upcoming seminars in Atlanta (Feb 22-24); London (March 8-11); Bregenz, Austria (March 22-26); Bangkok, and Hong Kong.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wisdom Council Enthusiasts" group.
To post to this group, send email to wisdom...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wisdomcounci...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wisdomcouncil?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
. In 1991 I wrote an article describing the difference between brainstorming and choice-creating that is still pretty good. It's posted at http://blog.tobe.net/?p=12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.
To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dynamicfacilitation?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.Harmonization circles look like they would be a good process for an organization at a “retreat,” say, to sort out where the organization may want to go, what it’s priorities are, etc.
One of the things you didn’t touch on is how you select people for the circles and how many people should participate. Where this process is used for the Board or Executive of an organization, there is no problem. But how would it work if you wanted to open the process to all members in an organization or community?
Do you see dynamic facilitation as playing any role in these circles, or do you stick to the idea of letting each person speak in turn, either going round the circle or using something like a “talking-stick?”
While harmonization circles should certainly be part of our arsenal for community governance, I would still like to see Jury Councils (I think Caspar called them) tried. These would essentially be Wisdom Councils with an agenda.
I like Richard's proposed Harmonization Circles and think they combine some critical elements of other processes and address some of the problems that often occur in group processes. This proposal merits further discussion.
Let's explore further -- because there might be a role for DF as the jumping off point for the HC's for example...
Hi Richard - we used the circle process for 5 years in Toronto as a "Conversation Cafe". it was reasonably succesful - but I think that the Wisdom Council Process is intended to be more dynamic.
Here in Victoria we worked with a circle-process for several years in the '90s (known to us Victorians as the "Group With No Name"). The quality of conversation was indeed very high and the levels of trust, heart-involvement, and personal authenticity were all high on the scale. Even though most of us considered the circle as an ideal "hothouse environment" -- where we felt nourished and protected... many members became frustrated with what they perceived as an inability to translate our conversations into real change out in the world.
In Victoria we've begun to work more closely with the neighborhood associations who have direct input to the city council, as well as with council members and public service staff. If we had a champion equivalent to Manfred's Office of Future-Related Issues at the provincial level -- with a budget no less -- our task would become much easier, I believe. I'm firmly convinced that once civic politicians see the benefits that CICs and WCs can bring to them personally (improved public accountability, reduced stress in trying to make the right decisions, increased transparency, more informed interactions with lobbyists, stakeholders, etc, etc). At least we have Manfred's work in Austria to point to when we talk to interested folks!
i recall there is a small passage in one of christine baldwin's on circle work on how there are times when in spite of best efforts of the group things just don't work out in a group.
perhaps because the explicit intention to let the circle breathe (invite people to let the law of two feet guide their participation) has not been built in?
your thoughts?
p.s. when you say, "tom, rosa, and tree" gave feedback, do you mean tom atlee, rosa zubizarreta, and tree bressen?
Rather than which model is better, I see it as which model is best suited for a particular situation.
For example one that is engaging for large groups and is easy to facilitate can spread dialogue widely.
One that addresses complex problems and requires skilled facilitation can deepen the dialogue.