Fw: [DF] My experience leading a 2-day retreat
Raffi Aftandelian
This story from Dynamic Facilitation list has some gems.
warmly,
raffi
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Miller <donmil...@gmail.com>
To: DynamicFa...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:40:23 -0500
Subject: [DF] My experience leading a 2-day retreat
> I was invited to lead the annual retreat of the staff of a Quaker
> retreat center last September. It was an extremely interesting and
> rewarding experience for me. I learned a lot, and I thought you might
> be interested in reading about that experience. Despite my going off
> course a few times, they seemed to think it was an enormous success.
> See below.
>
> Don
>
> The staff consists of about 35 people and includes the Director, the
> administrative staff (4 people), and everyone else working there
> (housekeeping, kitchen, grounds, curriculum, etc.) They are a unique
> group in that they aspire to act as a spiritual community of equals
> while simultaneously working within a hierarchical structure. This
> produces a built-in conflict: When are you my boss and when are you my
> friend? Other fissures also make living as a close-knit community
> elusive. In the last couple of years, the level of trust had
> deteriorated to the point that, as one person put it, the fabric of
> the community was torn.
>
> The theme of the retreat was What does it mean to be a community
> where all of us work here, some of us live here, some of us worship
> here, some of us socialize here and some of us do all of the above?
> My task was to facilitate a retreat in which they would address these
> concerns and try to rejuvenate the spirit of community.
>
> The Director appointed a committee of non-administrative staff to plan
> the retreat with me. They wanted to emphasize community building more
> than problem solving. They structured the retreat in the format of the
> 2-day, weekend workshops that they offer. On the first day, there were
> four 2-hour sessions at 10 noon, 1 3 pm, 3 5 pm, and 7 9 pm. The
> second day was the same schedule, except that there was no evening
> session. That was the framework I had to work with.
>
> This was completely new to me I had never done anything like it
> before. My plan (developed with a lot of anxiety, effort, and advice
> from Jim and DeAnna!) was to start with a whole-group DF session the
> first morning. After lunch, participants were paired semi-randomly and
> asked to share their stories of how they came to Pendle Hill. This was
> the committee s idea. The purpose was for two people who didn t know
> each other well to get to know each other better. At 3:00 pm, they
> would break out into small groups to talk about things that had
> emerged in the morning session. The format would be what I will call
> listening circles with closure . (More on that later.) After dinner,
> do something for fun. The second day would start with the same plan,
> but we would adapt it based on the first day s experience. All
> sessions would start with a light and lively for a warm-up.
>
> How did it go?
>
> Day 1
>
> In the morning session, I read the theme aloud, and asked what aspects
> of the theme we might talk about. This produced my first surprise.
> They produced 35 topics and could have kept going if I hadn t stopped
> it! Then I attempted to identify a topic theme to explore, by
> aggregating similar statements from the list. They chose to work on
> What unites us? Note that this avoids addressing any uncomfortable
> problems, which I did not realize at the time. It isn t a problem
> statement! ( How can we ?) This led to my second surprise: a new
> list of 19 items which I recorded on the Solutions chart. Instead of
> having a choice-creating conversation, we were back to creating a
> list! How might I have steered them into a conversation? I think that
> I should have pressed someone to go deeper, leading (hopefully) to
> more of a purge. Nevertheless, after we broke up at noon, a number of
> participants told me it was the best meeting they had ever had! My
> conclusion: Even if you only get some of DF right, you re way ahead of
> the competition!
>
> I haven t mentioned that the planning committee offered to provide an
> elder . That s their term for a person who would be there in support,
> in whatever way I needed it. This ranges from making sure we have
> enough markers to being a spiritual presence. I accepted the offer,
> stating that I m probably the least spiritual person on the planet but
> that I could use the help. This turned out to be a godsend (so to
> speak).
>
> For the 3-5 pm session, my elder helped me to develop 5 topics based
> on the morning s work. An example: What can we do to relate as
> equals, regardless of our position in the organization? We wrote each
> on a chart and posted them in different locations around the room. We
> read them aloud and asked each person to walk to the topic he or she
> would like to talk about. Fortunately, each topic attracted at least 5
> people, so we didn t have to move anybody. We sent each group to a
> breakout location. First, they talked in a listening circle: Each
> person said what he or she had to say, then the next person spoke, and
> so on around the circle. After someone spoke, the other participants
> could not make comments or ask questions. Just go to the next person.
> When it came back around to the first person, they kept on going. You
> could pass on your turn, knowing that you would get another chance
> later. This continued until either no one had anything more to say or
> the allotted time had run out. Then we moved to closure. Each group
> was instructed to frame the just-completed exercise into 3 distinct
> statements that were supported by everyone. At the end of the session,
> we all gathered, and each group in turn positioned themselves in front
> of the larger group. A spokesperson for each group presented the 3
> statements. Then others in the group were invited to elaborate for a
> few minutes.
>
> This exercise was a raging success. They loved it. They were so
> enthusiastic that I decided not to do a whole-group facilitation the
> next morning but instead to do another listening circle with closure.
> So I ended up facilitating only one whole-group session.
>
> The evening session was voluntary, and 10 participants showed up. We
> did an exercise called broken squares (aka cooperative squares)
> that was wonderful in helping individuals learn experientially things
> about themselves and the other participants. Contact me if you d like
> to know more about this exercise.
>
> Day 2
>
> We used listening circles with closure again. In the morning session,
> the breakout groups were the departments (Marketing, Building and
> Grounds, etc.). Each was asked to address six questions that my elder
> and I developed based on the previous day s listening circles. For
> example: What are we doing well? What are we doing not so well?
>
> In the 1-3 pm session, we had fun. Individuals were grouped randomly.
> Each developed a skit depicting The Center's taking in a new sojourner
> for a year-long retreat. (I distributed about 35 household props to be
> used a roll of tape, a hat, a yardstick, etc.) The catch was that
> the newcomer was a zombie. (This idea came from one of the younger
> staff members -- I didn t think this up!)
>
> For the 3-5 pm session we returned to the listening circle with
> closure format. The groups were the same as for the skits. The
> question was How do we carry this retreat forward, with renewal?
>
> We didn t get to do much a closure exercise because the 3-5 pm session
> was delayed in starting by an event at the site. So we ran short of
> time at the end.
>
> Some Observations
>
> 1. I suspect that we Dfers will often be asked to lead meetings in
> which DFing whole-group isn t the only thing we do. So it is a good
> idea to know good breakout-group processes, light-n-livelies,
> experiential exercises, etc.
>
> 2. Even if we aren t actually DFing a group, our DF training is
> invaluable. In almost any leadership mode (for a group or an
> individual), we are more effective because we know how to listen more
> deeply and to we-flect and how to draw out (purge) a reluctant
> speaker. We are able to recognize when the problem at hand has shifted
> and the discussion has moved to a deeper place.
>
> 3. The group was too large for me to lead a whole-group DF session
> very effectively unless we had a lot more time. After introductions,
> there were only about 1 1/2 hours left in the morning session. But I
> would have facilitated better if I had more DF experience.
>
> 4. Having an elder was extremely helpful. She was in fact an
> experienced facilitator, but she never tried to steer me in another
> direction. She was supportive in every way, and she offered good
> suggestions when I asked her.
>
> 5. Listening circles are very effective when you have multiple
> small-group meetings, such as breakout sessions. They allow
> individuals to feel heard and valued, help them to really listen to
> the perspectives of others, build trust within the group, and get
> everyone to a deeper understanding of an issue. And they don t require
> a facilitator. Forcing convergence to 3 statements supported by all
> compels the group to figure out what they ve come up with and to
> convey that to the whole group.
>
> 6. The light-and-livelies were important. They loosened the atmosphere
> and helped people to dive into the exercises. (Contact me if you re
> interested in knowing which ones I used. They worked out great.)
>
> 7. The broken squares exercise helped to deepen the participants
> knowledge of themselves and their trust in others.
>
> --
> 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.
>