What is the foundation of what we do?
Art of Hosting, Collaboration, Conversation, Facilitation, Open Space, Organization, World Cafe
Lovely day here in Marin County hanging out with friends and charting some interesting paths forward on a few projects. One highlight of the day was spending time with Amy Lenzo, who I have known for a while but met only one time previously when we were on an diverse and eclectic team of facilitators holding space at the Pegasus systems thinking conference a couple of years ago. Amy is, among other things, the web goddess for The World Cafe community and we spent a lovely lunch at the excellent Buckeye Roadhouse talking over the nature of our work, the ways in which we look at the art of hosting within rich social spaces and what is at the core of our approach to things. We were reflecting on what the World Cafe, Open Space, Berkana and Art of Hosting communities (among many others) have in common and it comes down to these four things – archetypal patterns if you will:
- The source pattern for our understanding of group process is the circle
- The source pattern for leadership within that process is “hosting” or facilitative (or “holding space“)
- The source pattern for design of process is diverge – emerge – converge
- The source pattern of our worldview is living systems
These four patterns form a set of foundations about our practice. They stand in contrast to foundations of group work for which:
- The source pattern for understanding group process is the traditional school room.
- The source pattern for leadership is the teacher or command and control
- The source pattern for design is linear: moving from point A to point B
- The source pattern for worldviews is mechanistic.
These distinctions are useful because the source patterns serve as an invitation. If you find yourself in alignment with the first set of patterns, you’ll probably find kin in the Cafe, Open Space, Berkana and Art of Hosting communities. If you relate more to the second set you ‘ll probably find yourself engaged with people from more traditional training backgrounds. There is certainly a time and place for both, and the skillful application of one or the other sets of foundations is what is brought by artful process practitioners.
What a beautiful job you did of conceptualizing this set of “source patterns”, Chris. I love it!
It occurs to me that not only does this map allow folks to find their “place” or ground and their collaborators, “kin” as you speak it, but it also gives us a framework for a deeper exploration of our conceptual terrain. I plan on spending a lot more time with these first four source patterns because I sense much more of value emerging from them, at least in my own understanding about what I do and why.
Thank you for such a rich and scrumptious afternoon – so much nourishment on so many levels! I’m very looking forward to our next visit.
The best kind of lunch…great food, excellent conversation and some lovely learning to boot. What a gift to live like this.
I was flowing with this until the last bit Chris, when you took what felt like a hard turn from facilitation to training, which I don’t think are at all either ends of the spectrum of “the same thing.” (Not sure how to express this.) Or that group process is one thing and training is another. Actually, training is not a very useful word.
Something is jumbled up but I can’t quite figure it out.
What we do
The purpose or application of the work we do
The values underneath what we do
The processes we use to do what we do
I’m worried if they get all jumbled up. Or maybe worried is not the word. Ah, maybe I’m just tired from pruning on a beautiful sunday afternoon.
I seem to always create an energetci response when I try to throw my practice field up in relief to others. IN this case, I am trying to do with respect and appreciation for the way “training” is offered.
I want to be clear that I’m talking here about traditional corporate triaingin like the training I received in 1996 on the federal government filing system. That one day is etched in my mind as an incredibly dull experience, and yet it tauight me what I needed to know. I think I can still remember some of the stuff that was taught to us 13 years later. In that sense I guess a design that featured seemingly complete inattention to group process was an appropriate way to teach.
You’ve caused me to look back at my post here, and I still stand by it. I think an additional distinctino might be to say that the field of hosting or facilitation or holding space is applicable to complex situations and the traditional training approach is useful to simple situations.
However, distinctions are provocative and I’d love to hear a little more about what you’re sensing in this.
Hi Chris (and Amy and Nancy),
I think something of the distinction that you are striving to describe is captured in my blog post at: http://myriam-musing.blogspot.com/2009/01/engaging-groups-around-solving-tough.html. My ‘aha’ which in retrospect seems obvious, is that we need both problem-solving methodologies (linear) for simple and complicated issues, and conversational (circle) approaches for complex issues. When we use either inappropriately, results don’t stick.
All the best,
Myriam
Exactly, Myriam. Thanks!