|A question to ask always is whether or not your conversation design is breeding possibility or impossibility. Are we asking questions that look at what is possible, that look at overcoming our fears, or are we looking for things that emerge out of fears.
And example of the later is when clients ask me to design conversations around proposals or presentations. It seems to happen most commonly with government clients that they want to ask a variation of a question like “What do you notice is wrong with our proposal? What are we missing?”
Now it’s not a problem to explore new ideas, but questions like this invite people to come from a place of fear and anger and negativity. Instead, seek to design conversations around naming fears and exploring ways around them. “What ideas do we need to include to strengthen this proposal? How can we mesh those ideas with what we have already proposed?”
And of course none of that precludes people from calling out a completely wrong-headed approach. But the responsibility to tank something always comes with the caveat that a better proposal should be offered so that we can move forward. –
From our Art of Hosting gathering that concluded here on Bowen Island today comes a great line from my friend Christie Diamond:
“Conversation begins before it starts, continues after it ends and doesn’t always involve words.”
Brilliant, because once you understand THAT, you embark on the path of mastery.
Update: Dave Pollard has posted a nice harvest of his learning at our gathering.
The thing about working as a facilitator and helping groups become acquainted with their own brilliance is that you really want to be able to leave a group once it can take care of itself. For me, my consulting practice is as much about building capacity as it is about doing work. Viv captures this beautifully today:
So those of us working as facilitators are demonstrating how to tap into the wisdom of a group of people. How to hear what they are saying, build on each others’ ideas, and create solutions. The world needs a lot of creative solutions, I think. Not everyone has facilitation skills. Not everyone understands the difference between dialogue and debate, when to inquire and when to advocate. These skills will be necessary. Not as a profession – but as something we can all do. Maybe once we could, and we’re on a journey of rediscovery.
For my part, I’m going to continue to try and do myself out of a job. To let others in on ‘secret facilitators’ business’, build capacity where I can, use processes that are easy to learn and transferable, train others, share resources, help each other.
I was working with a group yesterday that was making a number of small decisions as they worked their way through an agenda. The meeting was semi-formal and my role as facilitator was mostly to hold space and draw attention to process where appropriate.
I let the group talk, asked questions from time to time and noted the decisions that they had made. As I was observing this group working, I noticed something interesting about their process.
Frequent readers will know that I use the diamond of participation often as a map to organize and design meeting processes. One feature of the diamond is the three phases that groups go through, from divergent thinking through emergent thinking to convergent thinking. There are noticiable transitions between these three phases, with groups becoming quiet when the hit the groan zone, and the energy becoming lighter when concrete proposals and decisions begin to emerge.
Yesterday I was watching the pattern of the conversations in the group and I noticed that the language changed. Participants began and ended each journey through the groan zone using lots of “I” language and while they were in the middle, there were lots of “we” statements. A typical agenda item began with one partcipant introducing it with a personal statement or a question. The group listened and then replied with further I statements. These responses were a combination of personal questions and personal responses to ideas. Typically I heard things like “What I\m wondering about is…”, “I don’t like that idea very much…” “I can see your point…”
As the conversation unfolded however, there was a shift to “we” and group members began exploring ideas that were in the best interests of the group. People seemed less preoccupied with their own ideas and began working on the emerging ideas that were capturing energy. There was the occasional drift back to “I” language but for the most part I heard things like “We could do it like this…” “We don’t have the time or resources for that…” or “How else could we do that?”
Finally, you could tell the conversation was coming to a close when people started discussing the personal implications of the emergent decision. “Okay, so I will make that change to the timetable…” “I like this choice…” and so on.
Not just a flow from I -> WE -> I, but I also noticed that the conversation went from curious to concrete, and that this map took the form of quadrants, similar to the ones I have worked with before. This observation is in line with Otto Scharmer’s Theory U, and this diagram above shows the path the conversation took also shaped like a U, with the group going from inquiry which opened up options to concrete decisions and implementation plans.
The cool thing about this map of patterns is that it gave me enough for to be able to hold very lightly the conversational space that the group was in. I watched them go through this process something like 15 times over the course of the day and only a couple of times did they get stuck. When they did, it was simply a matter of consulting the map to see what to do. I intervened at least one in each of these four quadrants, something like this:
- Asking for more clarity in personal introduction of agenda ites, and alos inviting the person introducing the item what they are curious about.
- Helping the group see emergent ideas as they were taking shape and asking about the nature of the ideas rather than people’s personal preferences or thoughts.
- Inviting people to concretize what they were hearing, and to explore the implications of one option over another.
- Inviting personal responsibility and ensuring that implementation plans were in place for each decision.
Simple, but this is value of having maps at your finger tips to help find your way through the wilderness of emergent conversation\
Update: Dave Pollard has built on this thought and redrawn the map and I like his thinking. I will say though tha tthis version of the map stops at decision making, and my interest is in seeing the way the individal comes back into the fold as implementation takes over. We’ll be talking more about this I think at the Art of Hosting this month here on Bowen Island. At any rate, here’s Dave’s map:
Thanks Dave!
Yesterday Ashley Cooper posted a question on the OSLIST about the enigmatic principle of “whatever happens is only thing that could have:
Feeling those gathered in San Francisco, swimming in the hearty open space soup, I find a myself pondering a topic I would host if I were there… a topic I’d love to have a conversation around.
I’m curious about the wording of the principle, “what ever happens is the only thing that could have”. I know John Engle brought this question up in the past http://www.openspaceworld.org/news/2007/05/11/whatever-happens/ and I’m still curious about it.
I find that people sometimes use it as a block to reflection, a reason to not look back and learn from what didn’t happen because “whatever happens is the only thing that could have.” Yes, and…
I love the principle for the acceptance that it invites. And I struggle with it because there is a sense of finality that it also invites (if you want to let yourself go there). We did what we did and that’s, that. Which is true… And…
I appreciate how in Haiti they are playing with What Happens is what happens – learn and move forward. I like the learn and keep moving part.
Are there other ways that people phrase this principle? How do you invite the spirit of acceptance and invitations to be with what is alive and happening in the moment, while also inviting reflection and learning from what has and has not emerged?
If anyone at WOSonOS is reading this and you find this conversation springing up in your face to face time, please do share your harvest with us. I’m contemplating posting a skype session tomorrow morning on this topic… and I’ve not yet been able to commit myself to being inside at the computer tomorrow morning!!
I put the question to a few folks here and recorded about a half hour of their answers. Wisdom follows from Larry Peterson, Michael Cook, Viv McWaters, Peggy Holman, Susan Kerr, Michael Pannwitz, David Barnes, Jeff Aitken, Lisa Heft, Aine Corrigan-Frost, Alan Stewart, Phelim McDermott, Elwin Guild, John Engle and Brian Bainbridge, You can listen to the interviews here: