--------------------------------------------------------
Mapping Dialogue
A research project profiling dialogue tools and processes for social change
Version 2.0
April 2006
Johannesburg, South Africa
Produced by: Pioneers of Change Associates
Commissioned by: The German Technical
Co-Operation (GTZ) Project: Support to the
HIV/AIDS Programme of the Nelson Mandela
Foundation
ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION
This publication is the product of a
collaboration between the German Technical Co-
Operation (GTZ) and Pioneers of Change. As it is
our intention to disseminate it as widely as
possible, it can be downloaded on
www.pioneersofchange.net.
We are very interested in receiving feedback on
this toolkit and its usefulness. If you are a
dialogue practitioner and you have feedback or
additional tools or resources, we would greatly
appreciate hearing from you. Any reading
materials, contacts, books or articles, or
reflections and input to the content of this
report from your experience will be greatly
appreciated. Please contact
•••@••.•••.
Johannesburg, February 2006
Marianne "Mille" Bojer, Marianne Knuth, Colleen
Magner Pioneers of Change Associates
Elaine McKay HIV/AIDS Programme Nelson Mandela Foundation
Heiko Roehl German Technical Co-Operation (GTZ),
Support to the HIV/AIDS Programme of the Nelson
Mandela Foundation
_____________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
OUR ASSIGNMENT
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PART I: FOUNDATIONS
A DIALOGUE DICTIONARY
FOUNDATIONS FOR A DIALOGUE PROCESS
1. PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES
2. GOOD STRATEGIC QUESTIONS
3. PARTICIPATION AND PARTICIPANTS
4. UNDERLYING STRUCTURE
5. THE FACILITATOR
6. PHYSICAL SPACE
AFRICAN CONVERSATIONS
LIVING CONVERSATIONS
THE LEKGOTLA
DRAWING LESSONS
PART II: TOOLS
APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLE - THE IMAGINE MOVEMENT
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
CHANGE LAB
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLE: THE SUSTAINABLE FOOD LAB
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
CIRCLE
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLE - KUFUNDA VILLAGE
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
DEEP DEMOCRACY
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLE - IMMIGRATION IN DENMARK AND THE TOPIC OF HONOUR
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
FUTURE SEARCH
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLES - NATION-BUILDING IN BANGLADESH AND THE INUIT IN CANADA
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN SCHOOL FOR PEACE
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLES - ADULT AND YOUTH PROGRAMMES
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY
OVERVIEW
APPLICATION
CASE EXAMPLES - SOUTH AFRICA'S TRANSITION AND INTERNATIONAL SUMMER VILLAGES
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
SCENARIO PLANNING
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLE: MONT FLEUR SCENARIO-PROCESS, 1991, SOUTH AFRICA
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
SUSTAINED DIALOGUE
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLE - IDASA YOUTH PROJECT IN ZIMBABWE
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
THE WORLD CAFÉ
OVERVIEW
APPLICATIONS
CASE EXAMPLES - FROM MAORI FORESTRY CLAIMS TO NORWEGIAN TOWN PLANNING
COMMENTARY
RESOURCES
ADDITIONAL TOOLS
BOHMIAN DIALOGUE
CITIZEN COUNCILS
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
DEEP ECOLOGY
DYNAMIC FACILITATION AND CHOICE-CREATING
FOCUS GROUPS
FLOWGAME
GRAPHIC FACILITATION AND INFORMATION DESIGN
LEARNING JOURNEYS
LISTENING PROJECTS AND DIALOGUE INTERVIEWING
QUAKER MEETINGS
SOCRATIC DIALOGUE
STORY DIALOGUE
THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED
THE 21ST CENTURY TOWN MEETING
PART III: ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSING THE METHODS
ASSESSING A FACILITATOR
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
_____________________________________
INTRODUCTION
"An answer is always the part of the road that is
behind you. Only questions point to the future."
- Jostein Gaarder
The modern world loves answers. We like to solve
problems quickly. We like to know what to do.
We don't want to "reinvent the wheel". We don't
want to "waste our time". And when we have the
answers or have a wheel invented we like to pass
on the information to others. We do this through
the media, through training programmes where
teachers pass on answers to students, or through
conferences where experts speak on panels while
hundreds listen (or pretend to listen) in the
audience. This approach may be useful for some
situations, but is problematic for a number of
reasons, particularly when working on social and
human challenges in the 21st century.
Firstly, we live in a world of increasing
complexity, where answers have a short life-span.
Adam Kahane in his recent book "Solving Tough
Problems" (2004) points out that tough problems
are characterised by three types of complexity.
Dynamic complexity means that cause and effect
are distant in space and time. To address this
type of complexity you need a systemic approach
to the problem and the solution. Social
complexity means that there are many different
and usually conflicting points of view and
assumptions about the issue, and the problem
isn't owned by a single entity. This demands a
participative approach. Finally, generative
complexity means that the old solutions are no
longer working, and the problem is constantly
changing and unpredictable, which requires a
creative approach. Not all problems are
dynamically, socially, and generatively complex,
but most if not all of the major social issues
South Africa as a country is currently trying to
work through are. Hiv/AIDS, black economic
empowerment, democratic transition,
globalisation, unemployment, and crime are all
perfect examples.
Secondly, it seems to us that people have an
inherent desire to want to solve their own
problems. When universal, formulaic responses are
imported or imposed from the outside, they meet
resistance and often fail. This is partly
because they are not exactly appropriate in the
given context, but just as much because there is
a lack of ownership from people who haven't
participated or been consulted in the
decision-making. Human beings have a living, deep
impetus for freedom and self-determination, and
given appropriate circumstances, people are
usually more resourceful than expected in terms
of finding their own answers. They buy in to, and
own, solutions they have been a part of creating.
The success of implementing interventions on
social issues often depends more on ownership and
motivation of those involved than on the
cleverness of the idea.
Even if only for these two reasons, we need to be
adept at asking questions, and at talking and
listening to each other. These are age-old
competencies. For millennia, people in villages
across Africa have worked through collective
challenges, creating solutions through
conversation. But it is not only when the group
is faced with problems that dialogue comes in.
Life in an African community is an ongoing
conversation.
Why is this art of talking declining? Many of us
seem to have forgotten how to engage in, and be
present to, such conversations. In these times of
busy-ness, information overload, electronic
communications, scientific rationality, and
organisational complexity, we are forgetting how
to talk to each other. Fortunately, as a response
to this trend, a number of methods for
facilitating dialogue have been emerging
globally, in particular over the past 20 years.
This collection profiles 10 such methods in depth
and a number of others more briefly. The
approaches are diverse in many ways. Some are
designed for small groups of 20 people, some can
accommodate up to 1200 or even 5000 in dialogue
at the same time. Some focus on exploring and
resolving conflict and differences, while others
emphasise looking first to what is working and
agreed upon. Some are explicitly dialogues
between groups while others require each
participant to be there only as themselves and
individuals.
Yet across all these dialogue methods are some
clear common patterns. They focus on enabling
open communication, honest speaking, and genuine
listening. They allow people to take
responsibility for their own learning and ideas.
They create a safe space or container for people
to surface their assumptions, to question their
previous judgments and worldviews, and to change
the way they think. They generate new ideas or
solutions that are beyond what anyone had thought
of before. They create a different level of
understanding of people and problems. They allow
for more contextual and holistic ways of seeing.
They lead to "a-ha" experiences. Each of the
profiled approaches has a life story behind it.
Many of these stories begin with a person who
posed a question. "How do the questions we ask
shape our reality?" "Given that the coffee breaks
seem to be the most useful part of the conference
anyway, what if the whole conference was designed
similar to a coffee break?" "What is being lost
when we just take majority decisions and don't
hear what the minority has to say?" "How do we
create a networked conversation, modeled on how
people naturally communicate?" "Why are we re-
creating the same conference rituals when they
are passifying us and limiting our creativity?"
"Why are we not managing to bring in the
collective intelligence of hundreds of people but
rather choosing over and over to just listen to a
few expert voices?"
These inquisitive characters proceeded to
experiment with new ways of organising
conversations. They drew inspiration from
indigenous cultures, lively cafés, international
peace processes, and personal experiences of
trial and error. The result is the potpourri of
possibilities described in the following pages.
As we were reading about dialogue in doing the
research for this project, we were struck by how
often South Africa is mentioned again and again
as an inspiration to these originators of
dialogue methods internationally. South Africa's
peaceful transition to democracy is hailed as an
example of dialogue. Concepts of Ubuntu, and the
indigenous African processes which are as much
from South Africa as from the rest of the
continent, are also looked to for wisdom. To the
rest of the world, this country is a living
testimony to the power of conversation. But as we
spoke to South Africans currently trying to
promote dialogue, there was a sense of sadness
that something is being lost. There is a
question as to whether South Africa is still
managing to cultivate internally what it is so
well-known for externally. Or are we overlooking
this gift, and "moving on" to the modernity where
quick fixes and answers are more important?
Our assignment
This research project was commissioned by the
German Technical Co-operation (GTZ). It is part
of their supporting the Nelson Mandela Foundation
(NMF) to explore ways in which dialogue can be
used to address social challenges in South
Africa. During and since South Africa's
transition to democracy, Nelson Mandela has
exhibited a formidable ability to forgive and
suspend judgment, along with an awareness of the
importance of listening to all sides. We were
asked in this context to map out a variety of
approaches, and to provide an overview, case
examples and our own subjective commentary on
each. We are hoping that this material will be
useful not only to NMF but to anyone who shares
our questions and our desire to improve the
quality of human conversations.
In navigating the field of dialogue, it became
apparent to us that the term is very broad. In
one of our interviews, it was pointed out to us
that dialogue includes dialogue with oneself,
dialogue with nature, dialogue with the past and
future, and online dialogue. For the scope of
this project, we would like to be explicit that
we have been asked to focus on dialogue methods
applicable to face-to-face gatherings of groups
of people meeting to address collective social
challenges. We have also for now not broached the
topic of what a "Nelson Mandela dialogue method"
would look like, but have rather been asked to
map the main approaches available globally. We
have, however, included a brief section on
indigenous African approaches to conversation.
How to use this document
This report, or toolkit, is divided into three
parts. Part I is called "Foundations". It
offers a brief "Dialogue Dictionary" to help
distinguish the term dialogue from other concepts
such as discussion, debate, and negotiation. It
then goes deeper into what some of the generic
foundations are for a good dialogue process.
These are aspects that are more overarching and
fundamental than the choice of method, and which
can help guide that choice. Finally, Part I
includes a brief introduction to the African
tradition of conversation, honoring the deep
roots of these processes on this continent.
Part II is the actual toolkit. This is where you
will find the in-depth explanation of 10 methods
as well as shorter descriptions of an additional
14. Each of the 10 methods contains an overview,
a review of applications, a case example, and our
subjective commentary. The methods have simply
been ordered alphabetically, as we found other
types of categorisation too constraining. This
means, of course, that the order in which you
read them is completely up to you as well.
Part III offers initial guidelines on how to
assess which method to use in a given situation.
We have outlined a series of different purposes a
dialogue may have as well as a series of
contextual factors, and we give some pointers as
to which tools are most suited to different aims
and situations. We also look at different types
of facilitation, offering points to consider in
choosing a facilitator for a dialogue. As you
read, you may want to flick the pages back and
forth between sections II and III.
A note on "tools"
We will emphasise multiple times through this
report that we don't see these methods as recipes
that should be applied universally, and we are
not prescribing specific tools. The ideal is to
understand deeply the purpose, context, and
participants of a given dialogue and design the
process accordingly. We encourage you to read
each of our descriptions and to look for the
context, story and impetus behind how these
processes were developed. A deeper understanding
of how processes are designed would help you in
turn to design the appropriate process for your
own situation. We find it useful to continually
pose the question of how these different tools
and processes can also be combined in new ways.
If dialogue itself is about exploration, so
should our process be about exploration.
There is an obvious paradox in this whole
assignment. All of these approaches have evolved
as a way of bringing people together to
understand problems in context, challenging and
moving beyond universal answers and
prescriptions. And yet they are themselves tools
which in some cases claim to have universal
applicability across cultures, group sizes, and
situations. Are they somehow above the trend they
are criticising because they are focused on
dialogue, and so in a different dimension? Yes
and no.
We do believe that there are underlying
archetypal patterns that recur, that conversation
is a universal need, and that some of the
principles in these methods are deeply human. But
it is also important to be aware that we are at
risk of falling into the very same trap of
thinking our favorite tool is what will save the
world. Tools have an interesting effect on us -
they provide safety and comfort, and we become
attached to them because they help us to function
in a complex world. A tool can become like a lens
that affects how we see our surroundings, and if
we wear only one lens all the time, our
perception of the very thing we are trying to
change may become distorted.
The challenge is for us to use these tools wisely
to be effective, while being able to hold them
lightly and to let them go when they are not
serving us any longer. As you read this, we
invite you to try with us to find that balance
between honouring the energy, and the power of
these tools, while holding their answers lightly.
About the authors
The three of us have been working in a variety of
situations as facilitators over the past 10
years. In 1999, we co-founded an international
learning network called Pioneers of Change and
through that, experimented with new ways of
organising and hosting meetings. We have used
many of the approaches profiled here personally,
and have met and become friends with several of
the originators. We are currently working in
different contexts. Mille works as a facilitator
of dialogic change processes in her capacity as
associate of Generon Consulting and Pioneers of
Change. Marianne has founded and co-leads a
learning village in Zimbabwe called Kufunda
Village, primarily focused on building
self-reliance in rural communities. Colleen
manages the Gordon Institute of Business
Science's "Dialogue Circle".
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge a number of people
who have contributed to this research by emailing
us documents, sending us feedback, and/or taking
time to talk to us face-to-face or over the
phone. They include: Busi Dlamini, Doug Reeler,
Nomvula Dlamini, Gavin Andersson, Ishmael
Mkhabela, Njabulo Ndebele, Teddy Nemeroff, Bjorn
Brunstad, Carsten Ohm, Tim Merry, Mogomme Alpheus
Masoga, Myrna Lewis, Zaid Hassan, Nick Wilding,
Bob Stilger, Kate Parrot, Bettye Pruitt, Leon
Olsen, and Anthony Blake.
PART I: FOUNDATIONS
A DIALOGUE DICTIONARY
What is Dialogue?
The most common dictionary definition of a
dialogue is simply as a conversation between two
or more people. In the field of dialogue
practitioners, however, it is given a much deeper
and more distinct meaning. David Bohm went back
to the source of the word, deriving from the
Greek root of "dia" which means "through" and
"logos" which is "the word" or "meaning", and
therefore saw dialogue as meaning flowing through
us. Elements of this deeper understanding of the
word include an emphasis on questions, inquiry,
co-creation, and listening, the uncovering of
one's own assumptions and those of others, a
suspension of judgment and a collective search
for truth. Bill Isaacs calls a dialogue a
conversation "with a center, not sides".
What is Dialogue Not?
Advocacy. Advocacy is the act of pleading or
arguing strongly in favor of a certain cause,
idea or policy.
Conference. A conference is a formal meeting for consultation or discussion.
Consultation. In a consultation, a party with
the power to act consults another person or group
for advice or input to a decision. The
decision-maker generally retains the power to
take the advice or not.
Debate. A debate is a discussion usually focused
around two opposing sides, and held with the
objective of one side winning. The winner is the
one with the best articulations, ideas and
arguments.
Discussion. As opposed to dialogue, Bohm points
out that the root of the word discussion, "cuss",
is the same as the root of "percussion" and
"concussion", meaning to break apart. A
discussion is generally a rational and analytical
consideration of a topic in a group, breaking a
topic down into its constituent parts in order to
understand it.
Negotiation. A negotiation is a discussion
intended to produce an agreement. Different
sides bring their interests to the table and the
negotiation has a transactional and bargaining
character to it.
Salon. A salon is a periodic social,
unstructured, and informal gathering involving
open-ended conversation with no particular
objective.
FOUNDATIONS FOR A DIALOGUE PROCESS
The different dialogue methods in this collection
may seem very diverse and distinct, which means
we risk using them as separate and unrelated
tools. In this section, we intend to give some
perspective that may be helpful in thinking about
how these tools are connected, and what is
required to design integral processes of change
and learning, whether for very small groups of
people, or gatherings and processes of several
hundred.
These points are aspects which we feel are
foundations to be considered for any dialogue
process to be successful. They are not
prescriptive, but rather areas to consider as you
work through your design, making choices about
process, flow, and which of the many tools for
dialogue and interaction you will make use of.
1. Purpose and Principles
"Clarity of purpose is a sweet weapon against confusion" - Toke Moeller
Within most if not all of the tools that we are
presenting, but also beyond them, lies an
essential principle of clarity of purpose. Before
deciding on which tools to make use of, we need
to be crystal clear on our intention for bringing
together a group of people or initiating a
process of change. Sometimes we may find
ourselves having begun something without quite
knowing why, or for reasons that are
inappropriate or external to the particular
context and the needs of the people involved.
Before clarifying a purpose, it can be necessary
to connect with the need. What is the need that
has propelled us to come together? What do we
hope to achieve as we respond to it? From a
genuine need, a clear purpose can be derived.
It's also important to be clear on whether the
amount of investment of time and attention we are
demanding from participants is in proportion with
the importance to them of meeting this need.
The purpose needs to be attractive, but it should
not be in the form of too specific, structured,
and quantifiable goals. If objectives and
expectations are too dominant in the room, this
can deter dialogue and openness. Some proponents
and practitioners of dialogue emphasise that it
needs to be completely open-ended and not
attached to specific outcomes, but there is still
clarity on why the group is together.
Principles are our aspiration of how we would
like to be together as we pursue our purpose. The
principles can be used to design and guide the
process and the involvement of participants. Even
if we simply come together as an informal group
for a conversation of a few hours, making a
simple set of agreements for how we wish to be
together is important. The longer and larger an
initiative the more critical working through
principles together becomes.
Most of the tools here have a set of principles
attached to them, and this is a significant part
of what makes them work. Some examples include:
"Rotate leadership" (Circle), "Access the wisdom
of the minority" (Deep Democracy), "Explore
questions that matter" (World Café) and "Whoever
comes are the right people" (Open Space).
Often a convener will share (or co-create) the
purpose and principles with participants both
before and at the beginning of an event or
process, and where possible allow for its
evolution during the process with the broader
group of participants. Ideally the group, not
just the convener, should "own" the purpose and
principles. Taken as a whole, a clear purpose
together with the principles provides a compass
helping us to navigate and make decisions about
how to move forward.
2. Good Strategic Questions
The power of a good question cannot be
underestimated. Good questions are catalytic.
They open up the learning field. They stimulate
thought processes, curiosity, and the desire to
engage with a group, and they are central to what
defines and distinguishes dialogue.
Often we arrive with answers and expertise,
statements to be discussed, or positions to be
advocated or negotiated. But in dialogue,
questions are actually in many ways more powerful
than answers. Questions pull people toward the
future, while answers - while useful of course -
are of the past. A question that has meaning to
the people involved can ignite the whole process
of learning and change. The knowledge that people
involved are genuinely needed to bring forth the
answers and solutions collaboratively changes the
entire field of interaction. Where Bill Isaacs
describes dialogue as a "conversation with a
center, not sides", that "center" is often
created by one or more good questions.
It is an art to identify questions with real
power and meaning to a group of people, a
community, or a nation. These are questions that
can come alive inside of us, as we seek to work
with them. The most powerful questions come
directly from the field (the hearts and minds) of
the people involved.
There might be one or more overriding question/s
framing an entire process. During a process we
can then continue to work with questions as a
powerful tool. Many of the tools here use
questions as an integral part of their make-up.
3. Participation and participants
How serious are we about the people we bring together?
So often we bring people together to listen to
experts, ask a few questions, and make some
comments, and we feel that we have involved them.
We may label it a "dialogue", or a "consultation"
but actually only a few people have been heard.
In contrast, this dialogue work comes from a deep
belief in, and appreciation of, the intelligence
and wisdom that is accessible to us from each
person we connect and engage with.
Depending on our purpose, different forms and
levels of participation will be required. Based
on our purpose, who needs to be involved? What do
we hope to do and achieve with them? What will
each of them be bringing and what will they be
wanting to gain? Do we really trust that they
each hold an invaluable part of the puzzle we are
trying to solve? How do we best involve and
engage them?
Many dialogue methods support the work of going
from fragmentation to connection and wholeness
through inclusiveness. As we find ways of
connecting and including different voices and
parts of a system, surprising and new discoveries
can be made.
If time and resources allow, it can make a big
difference to interview all or some of the
participants in advance of a workshop. This will
help you plan, but will also make them recognise
this as a process in which their voice is
appreciated and get them started thinking about
the topic in advance.
The ultimate level of inclusion is when the
participants all step into a role of co-hosts,
such that the group's leadership and facilitation
is completely shared. That of course is not
possible with processes of thousands, but
imagining what that level of involvement and
engagement would look like can help us stretch
ourselves in making the most of the people who
are involved in any given process.
4. Underlying Structure
There is an underlying rhythm to most processes
of change. Some of the tools and processes we
have included here have integrated their own
understanding of deep-rooted change in their
overall design. However for many of the tools, we
need to design a daily rhythm and an overall
workshop flow paying attention to the underlying
architecture that might best serve our intent. It
can help to look at a dialogue process as a
story. What is the "beginning", the "middle" and
the "end"? How will people arrive, clarify their
individual and collective intentions, agree on
how they want to be together and set out on the
journey? What will be at the center of their
process? How will they close, note individual and
collective commitments and conclusions, and
prepare to return to where they came from?
There are several models that can help us think
through the most appropriate underlying structure
of a process. One simple version is the model of
divergence and convergence:
The divergent phase of a process is a time of
opening up possibility. It is about generating
alternatives, gathering diverse points of view,
allowing disagreement in and suspending judgment.
We are often afraid of really opening up, to
allow for full divergence to occur, because we
are uncomfortable or even fearful of the
messiness of too many new and divergent ideas and
perspectives. Yet the greater the divergence, the
freedom of voicing wild ideas, at the beginning
of a process, the greater the possibility of
surprising and innovative outcomes.
If divergence is all that occurs, however, we
risk facing frustration and lack of positive
results. The convergence is therefore as
important to plan for and design into the
process. Convergence is about arriving at, and
making explicit, the conclusions, insights, and
next steps of the process, and perhaps what the
new shared questions are. The two movements of
divergence and convergence can happen multiple
times during a process or as one pattern. Some
tools are better suited for divergence, others
for convergence.
Transformative dialogue processes that truly
allow for divergence often include a "groan zone"
or "grey fog" situation in the middle. The groan
zone is that somewhat painful place, where
everything is a little too chaotic, unclear and
unstructured. Sometimes this is a time of
conflict and "storming", sometimes it's
characterised more by confusion and feeling
overwhelmed by complexity or even despairing. It
is however also here that innovation and
breakthrough has a real chance of occurring. When
the group manages to "stay with the messiness"
for a little while, and then enter into a process
of convergence, they can go through major
changes. On the other hand, if divergence is
less, and convergence is premature, the potential
is lower for major shifts to occur. Kurt Lewin,
in his famous theory of change, talks about this
as the process of "defreezing" (which involves
some anxiety and letting go of one's old
assumptions) followed by "refreezing".
Different models will highlight different aspects
of underlying architecture. Some of our ten
methods have an architecture and a flow
associated with them. They have a storyline or a
set of specified phases they move participants
through. For example, we profile the Change Lab
process which works with a very specific
structure, in broad strokes following the general
Divergence Convergence principle of
allowing initial divergence followed by very
clear convergence, with a phase of emergence in
between. Future Search moves through looking at
the past, then the present, and finally the
future. Others of the methods like World Café or
Circle are less focused on flow and can easily be
incorporated as a tool into a variety of
processes.
5. The Facilitator
The tools, the design, the process. It is easy to
let concerns around these preoccupy us, and yet
the most important tool that any one of us have
at our disposal as a facilitator is ourselves and
our presence. That is not to say that the others
don't count. It is simply to state that the
importance of the preparation, presence, and
state of mind of the facilitator are often
neglected. As a convener and host of groups, the
facilitator influences the space and the group in
visible and invisible ways.
Although much can be planned in advance, a true
master will stay present to what shows up in the
moment. For dialogue to work, the facilitator
should not be getting caught up in a
predetermined structure and timetable that has to
be followed at all cost. The rule of thumb:
over-prepared, under-structured, speaks to the
criticality of preparation, coupled with the
flexibility to respond creatively as the process
unfolds in real time. This may sound like
laissez-faire, but actually requires great
clarity, and the ability to listen to the group
and the process. This is where the value of
purpose and principles shows up strongly: A clear
purpose and set of principles that are alive and
embodied in the facilitator will enable him or
her to improvise and respond with freedom that is
rooted in clear direction.
The ability to hold clear and strong the
intention and principles of a gathering or
process is directly related to how able the
facilitator is to be fully present. Some of the
most successful facilitators we know take time
for a meditative practice, and time to tune into
an intention to serve the group before stepping
into the facilitator role. To perform well a
facilitator needs to develop humility, but also
courage to go with the flow. If the facilitator
has this kind of confidence and groundedness,
they will also gain more legitimacy and trust
from participants.
In the last section of this report, on assessment
tools, we go further into different qualities a
facilitator may embody.
6. Physical Space
Many typical conference-room setups are actually
not conducive to dialogue, but we continue to use
them out of habit. We worry more about the
agenda, and less about the set-up of the rooms or
halls. Meanwhile, the physical space exerts an
invisible but incredibly strong influence on what
can happen in a process.
Will people meet in circles, in theatre style,
board-room style, or around small café tables to
allow for more interaction and participation?
Some of the newer more interactive methods can be
run with hundreds of people, so size shouldn't
deter us from a set up that allows for true
interaction. Will we meet in nature, in a
conference room with fluorescent lights, in a
coffee- shop with music playing in the
background, in someone's home, in a shebeen for
the ultimate relaxed conversation? Will there be
music playing? Refreshments served? Or do those
seem alien to the aim of getting work done?
When people step into a room that is appealing to
the senses, something happens to them in turn. It
is as if more of the person has been invited in.
Before the conversation has even begun, before
the intention has been introduced something has
already shifted. The physical space can also hold
the collective intelligence of the group as it
evolves. Places with lots of wall space can be
helpful especially if there is someone in the
facilitation team with the role of making visible
the learning and break-throughs of the group on
the walls.
We can do well to think more about where we
ourselves feel comfortable and relaxed, yet alert
and awake, and pay attention to creating those
kinds of settings in every single conversation or
dialogue process that we initiate.
--
The set of considerations outlined in this
section - the purpose and principles, the
questions at the center of the dialogue, the
participants, the underlying architecture of the
process, the facilitator, and the physical space
- provide a list of thinking prompts and
discussion items for you to go through in
designing a dialogue process. We hope you will
keep them in mind as you read through the toolkit
in Part II.
AFRICAN CONVERSATIONS
"In the end our purpose is social and communal
harmony and wellbeing. Ubuntu does not say 'I
think therefore I am.' It says rather 'I am human
because I belong. I participate. I share.'" -
Desmond Tutu
In embarking on this research, we were acutely
aware that it is in some ways absurd to import
dialogue methods from the West into Africa, where
conversation is so deeply engrained in the
indigenous culture. Given that Africa is the
"cradle of humankind", this may well be the place
where people first sat down in circle to
communicate. Before we move into looking at more
recent dialogue methods, we therefore wanted to
explore and recognise this tradition.
We started our inquiry into African dialogue
intending to clarify and rectify the meaning of
terms such as "lekgotla", "imbizo", and "indaba".
These words which signify traditional African
gatherings have today become popularised, and
some would say co-opted, in South Africa as a
label for myriad conferences and workshops. The
intention with using these labels so broadly may
be to somehow honour Africa, but what gets
overlooked is that these words have meanings that
are very different from a modern conference
complete with panel discussions, event management
companies, and hotel buffets. We naively thought
that we would be able to define these indigenous
approaches to clarify the difference, and include
them in our "tools".
It's important to emphasise that what became
apparent to us quickly is that this exploration
is a universe beyond the scope of this initial
report. Firstly, it is impossible to characterise
African processes sweepingly because Africa is a
continent with 2000 tribal groupings each with
their own particularities in terms of governance,
decision-making, and community life. Secondly,
the meeting forms are inseparable from the wider
culture in which they are used. Thirdly, if we
really want to engage with these processes in
their entirety, they challenge fundamental
assumptions and preconceptions about our world.
Still, we feel it is relevant for us to attempt
to document briefly here what we have learned to
date. This section is inspired by two interviews
with Dr. Magomme Masoga and Nomvula Dlamini, as
well as our own experience and a few readings. It
should be read as a general description and is
not intended to be cited as factual evidence that
has been thoroughly researched.
Living Conversations
With the above-mentioned caveats about the
diversity of Africa, the easiest approach to this
section seems yet to be to try to imagine a
"typical" traditional African village. In this
village, conversation is constantly alive as an
ongoing process from the family level to the
communal level. Women are meeting by the river
during the day, young men and boys talk while
herding cows, families gather around the fire.
Conversations weave together. Through oral
history, story-telling, and proverbs, the
principles and rules for the community are shared
and alive.
These ongoing conversations are not
goal-oriented, but rather a way of life. The men
of the village do gather in specifically convened
meetings (lekgotlas or imbizos) as necessary,
where they come to an overview of what is going
on in the village and take decisions. But this
is only a small part of the village conversation.
The women, youth and families converse outside
and influence the conversation that takes place
at the lekgotla.
When conversations happen, it is always with an
engrained awareness that these are not just
individuals communicating. Each person is
connected to a family, a community, and a group
of ancestors. They represent a larger whole. They
do not just speak for themselves and interact on
their own behalf.
Communication is not only direct and verbal.
Art, drama, drumming, and song are used as ways
to communicate, especially about things that may
be difficult to confront. Women in particular may
compose a new song to communicate what is going
on for them. The community is in some ways even
architecturally designed for conversation and
meeting. The houses are circular, the fireplace
is circular, the houses in relation to each other
make up a circle. The conversation is embedded
in the physical space.
The Lekgotla
The Lekgotla process of Botswana is likely to be
the most well-documented African council process
of Southern Africa. It is often criticised these
days because it has to be convened by the Chief
and only includes the men of the village, but
many argue that there are other ways for the
women and youth to get their issues across to the
Lekgotla. (In Venda culture, apparently the
final decisions must still pass by the matriarch
of the village.) For our purposes, we feel it is
useful to draw lessons from this process even for
dialogues across genders, though it may be
inappropriate to label such dialogues "Lekgotla".
In the village, the decision to convene the
Lekgotla is not necessarily transparent. The
chief's councellors play a role of listening in
the community and paying attention to issues as
they arise. When something is building up they
bring it to the Lekgotla to make sure that
conversation happens as early as possible before
a conflict escalates.
A Lekgotla is always held in the open air,
because the outdoors belongs to no one. This
provides a sense of freedom, openness and
invitation to people to attend and speak
honestly. There is also no time limit on the
process. It may go on for days or even weeks
until the issues being addressed have reached
resolution. According to Nomvula
Dlamini,"People's lives unfolded into time. Time
wasn't imposed on people's lives." This is a
whole different conception of time to that of the
modern world, and it is a fundamental frame of
mind. Nomvula points out that this freedom from
time restrictions enables participants to suspend
judgment and be willing to listen to someone's
point of view and story in context without
rushing them.
The Lekgotla meets in a circle. The circle
represents unity, and the participants are aware
that it is only if they are whole and united that
they can address their problems. The circle also
ensures that they face each other and speak
honestly to one another. As they gather, they
greet each person around the circle. They make
sure that those who really matter to the process
are present. Though they may be seated by rank
and speak in order of a hierarchy, the emphasis
is on every voice being heard equally.
The conversation is opened up. Each person in
turn talks about how the issue affects their
lives directly. Nothing is seen as an isolated
event. All the stories are heard in context,
respectfully, and taking the time it needs to
take. The different orientation to time allows
for a deeper quality of listening, and every
voice is listened to and given equal weight. The
same person won't speak twice or respond until
they've heard the views of others. Silence is
also an integral part of the conversation as in
between each voice the words are allowed to sink
in. Emotion is expressed freely but
constructively. The process enables each
participant to reflect on and assess his own
behaviour in relation to the community.
The Lekgotla is partly a court, passing judgment
on conflicts, but can also be a more general
gathering for conversations around the main
issues facing the village. When resolving
injustices, the focus is less on determining
right and wrong or on punishment, and more on
healing, restoration of relationships, and
finding ways of moving on. The accused is
always heard, first in the process of clarifying
what happened, but he is also given a chance to
assess at the end whether he thinks the group's
decision is fair and whether the rehabilitation
and restoration he is being requested to
undertake is within his means. He is never
silenced.
The group takes collective responsibility for the
issues. The solutions are explored meaningfully
together, rather than imposed from one side, and
the orientation is towards consensus and
compromise. The community's collective need is at
the center, above any individual's needs, and the
concern is always what is best for the community.
To the Western mind, this may sound oppressive,
but in this culture it is not seen as sacrifice,
because what is good for the collective is
completely intertwined with what is good for the
individual. The concept of freedom is that you
should have the maximum degree of freedom as long
as it is not at the expense of the freedom of
others.
Through the community's ongoing conversation
there is a level of shared clarity around the
principles and sense of right and wrong. These
principles are then applied through the
deliberation at the Lekgotla to determine what
should be done in the particular context. There
is no law outlining the standard punishment or
regulations for each situation.
Drawing Lessons
Some of the deeply held worldviews behind the
integral nature of conversation in a traditional
African community may seem incompatible with
modern life. The idea that we are not first and
foremost individuals but members of a community,
and that we don't need to be slaves to the clock
are difficult to practice in their entirety. But
exploring African culture can challenge our
mindsets and it's certainly possible to draw
inspiration and to see how the nature of our
conversations changes if we try to shift our
worldview.
Many of the tools and processes in this
collection have taken part of their inspiration
from similar underlying views and cultural
practices as those we know from the traditional
African village described above. Some have found
their inspiration directly from the soil of
Africa, others from Native American traditions
that share similar beliefs. Many of them share a
return to circular time, to the people and the
purpose for coming together being more important
than timing and structure. Most of them make use
of the circle as a way of coming together in an
unbroken whole.
Many of the processes also recognise and work
explicitly with story telling as a way of sharing
inspired knowledge and building on memories of
the best of what is and was. Dialogue is in many
ways about creating a culture of coming together
as a whole - letting each voice be heard, but in
service of the community and the whole. Many of
the methods that we are presenting seem to be
coming back to much of what we already know from
our own culture and history in Africa. And so
while at first it may look inappropriate to be
bringing in western methods to a place from which
dialogue and conversation may have originated,
there is something affirming in the way many of
these methods are coming back to some of our very
own roots.
One of the most important lessons is to
appreciate the value of African rural culture,
rather than seeing it as backward and in need of
development. There is life and community
available to us here, and these are among the
most essential components of any meaningful and
lasting positive change. Those of us who come
from here, and who might even have grown up in a
traditional rural setting, would do well to allow
our memories of being together in community, in
conversation - in all their different shapes and
forms - to inspire us as we continue on our
journey of facilitating groups, communities,
organisations, or even nations in coming together
in conversation.
As we continue into the description of a variety
of dialogue methods, we invite you to hold these
two perspectives from the last two sections: the
foundations for dialogue, as we have experienced
them through our work and experience, and our
sense of what the African approach might be. We
hope you will let both of these challenge you as
you imagine what is possible in bringing people
together in bold and possibly unusual ways for
meaningful dialogue and discovery.
PART II: TOOLS
Appreciative Inquiry
"Human systems grow toward what they persistently
ask questions about." - David Cooperrider and
Diana Whitney
Overview
Appreciative Inquiry is an approach and process
which turns problem-solving on its head. Instead
of finding the best ways to solve a pressing
problem, it places the focus on identifying the
best of what already is in an organisation or
community, and finding ways of enhancing this to
pursue dreams and possibilities of what could be.
Appreciative Inquiry orignates in the work of
David Cooperrider. As a doctoral student in 1980
Cooperrider made a shift in his approach from
identifying and mapping what was and was not
working at the Cleveland Clinic, which he was
studying, to more specifically looking for those
factors that contributed to the organisation's
health and excellence. Recognising the power and
change brought about simply from his shift in
focus, he began to lay the first foundations for
what is today Appreciative inquiry. He worked
under the guidance of his advisor Dr. Suresh
Srivastava, and the encouragement of clinic
leaders who were seeing the potential of his
approach for more widespread organisational
development.
A key underlying assumption of this approach is
that the questions we ask influence the answers
we find. Questions that can elicit strong
positive responses can be more powerful in
driving people towards a positive future. This
approach allows people to work towards something
that is energizing and inspiring instead of
working to overcome something that is deficient
and dysfunctional. In the process, they improve
systems, organisations and communities.
Appreciative Inquiry is by its nature a
cooperative process that collects, builds on and
works with the strengths, life-giving forces and
good news stories that are found in any community
or organisation.
The main differences between problem solving and
Appreciative Inquiry are illustrated below:
Problem solving Appreciative Inquiry "Felt need"
& identification of problem Analysis of causes
Analysis of possible solutions Action planning
Assumes: Organisation is a problem to be solved
What's in the way of what we want?
Deficit Thinking Appreciate & value the best of
What Is Imagine: What Might Be Dialogue: What
Should Be Create: What Will Be Assumes:
Organisation is mystery to be discovered Front
Door - what is it we ultimately want?
Possibility Thinking
There are four guiding principles:
1. Every system works to some degree; seek out
the positive, life-giving forces and appreciate
the best of what is. Ap-pre'ci-ate (verb):
valuing; the act of recognizing the best in
people or the world around us; affirming past and
present strengths, successes, and potentials; to
perceive those things that give life (health,
vitality, excellence) to living systems; to
increase in value, e.g. the economy has
appreciated in value
In-quire' (kwir) (verb): the act of exploration
and discovery to ask questions; to be open to
seeing new potentials and possibilities 2.
Knowledge generated by the inquiry should be
applicable; look at what is possible and
relevant. 3. Systems are capable of becoming more
than they are, and they can learn how to guide
their own evolution - so consider provocative
challenges and bold dreams of "what might be." 4.
The process and outcome of the inquiry are
interrelated and inseparable, so make the process
a collaborative one.
(Source: Appreciative Inquiry, An Overview - compiled by Kendy Rossi)
The AI process
As the below diagram shows, there are four main steps to the AI process.
Although this is the typical depiction of the
four D's of AI, there is actually an initial step
of Defining the focus of inquiry. Doing this
collaboratively is an incredibly important point
of departure. And it is important to frame it as
an affirmative topic, and not a problem
statement. For example: "creating and sustaining
high-quality cross gender work place
relationships," is an affirmative topic, whereas
"cutting incidents of sexual harrassment" is a
problem statement.
Discovery - Appreciating and valuing the best of
what is. This is a system-wide inquiry (through
interviews and storytelling) into people's
experience of the group, organisation or
community, at its most vital and alive,
reflecting on those highlights and clarifying
what made those experiences possible. This is
also known as identifying the positive core of a
system. This phase includes clarifying those
elements that people want to keep even as they
(their organisation, community) change in the
future, as well as identifying intriguing
potentials for the future.
Dream - Envisioning "What might be". Together
people build a vision of a future they want. They
respond to their sense of what the world is
calling them to become. They imagine that the
best of "what is" forms the foundation for the
way things are in the future. Questions in this
phase include: "What does our positive core
indicate that we could be?" "What are our most
exciting possibilities?" "What is the world
calling us to become?"
The four D's of Appreciative Inquiry Dream What
might be? What is the world calling for?
Envisioning results
Design What should be the ideal? Co-constructing
Destiny How to empower, learnin and
adjust/improvise? Sustaining Discovery What gives
life? (The best of what is) The positive core
Appreciating
Affirmative topic choice The four D's of
Appreciative Inquiry Design - In this phase,
people determine "what should be," crafting an
organisation or community in which the positive
core is vibrant and alive. The design focus is
placed on elements that can help bring the dreams
to life, such as practices, structures, policies,
technologies, etc. The work is to develop
provocative propositions (bold ideal
possibilities) and principles of design that
integrate the positive core.
Destiny - This final phase takes the step towards
creating the initiatives, systems or changes
needed to make real the future as articulated in
the design propositions. This phase can be done
using Open Space to make the most of the
creativity and insight of the people involved,
and allowing self-selected groups to plan the
next steps in the areas that they are most
passionate about, and willing to take
responsibility for. (See separate section on Open
Space Technology). The full AI Process
* Select focus area or topic(s) of interest *
Conduct interviews designed to discover
strengths, passions, unique attributes * Identify
patterns, themes and/or intriguing possibilities
* Create bold statements of ideal possibilities
("Provocative Propositions") * Co-determine "what
should be" (consensus re: principles &
priorities) * Create "what will be"
The full process can be done in what is called an
AI summit, including several hundred people
coming together for 2-6 days. In an AI summit,
the first phase (Discovery) always kicks off with
personal interviews around several questions that
elicit stories of highlights and strong positive
experiences. This is followed by people working
in smaller groups and teams, to map patterns and
distil the positive core from the stories.
Together they continue into envisioning "what
might be" together, followed by co-constructing
"what should be." In each of these phases there
is continuous feedback to the whole, to enable
the whole system to integrate what is happening
in other groups.
Applications
Appreciative Inquiry can be used in several ways
- one is using an AI summit as described above,
where an organisation, community or any system
comes together for 2-6 days to go through the
full AI process with the aim to engage in a large
scale change or developmental process. It could
be strategic planning, community development,
systems change, organisational redesign, vision
development, or any other process in which there
is a genuine desire for change and growth based
on positive inquiry, and for allowing the voice
of people at all levels of a system to be heard
and included. Although this application can be
seen as an isolated process, it is very much
based on a way of being where organisations or
communities can co-create a desired future
building on the best of the past. The AI summit
is often simply the beginning of a continuous
process of examining and building on strengths
and possibilities. These can include anywhere
from 100 - 2000 people.
Secondly, Appreciative Inquiry can also be done
without an AI summit as an on-going process of
interviews and dialogues that take place
throughout a system (organisation, community,
city). The case below is an example of such a
process.
Finally the principles of AI can be integrated in
simple yet powerful ways in most workshops and
other gatherings, following its basic principle
of asking appreciative questions, and working
with storytelling as a powerful agent to engage
and involve people. A simple guideline is to
learn the art of asking appreciative questions
that elicit compelling stories, and questions
that help envision the future.
Case Example - The Imagine Movement
Partly excerpted from 'Imagine Chicago - Ten
Years of Imagination in Action,' written by Bliss
W. Browne and Shilpa Jain.
Imagine Chicago is part of a movement of
imagination. It considers itself as a catalyst in
this movement, supporting the sprouting of
Imagine initiatives on six continents. While each
Imagine effort is distinct, all the efforts share
a few common convictions: that human beings can
unite around shared meaning; that each person's
contribution is vital to a flourishing community;
and that creating a culture of public learning
and civic engagement that connects generations
and cultures is at the heart of self- and social
transformation.
Bliss Brown, the founder of Imagine Chicago,
began in 1993 with a vision inspired by
conversations with many well-known city pioneers
and social innovators. She began to imagine a
city: * where every citizen, young and old,
applies their talents to create a positive future
for themselves and their community. * where hope
comes alive in the flourishing and connecting of
human lives. * where young people and others
whose visions have been discounted, develop and
contribute their ideas and energy.
In seeking ways to bring the vision to life, she
created what has today become Imagine Chicago.
The initial project was an attempt to discover
what gives life to the city, and at the same
time, to provide significant leadership
opportunities for youth, who most clearly
represent the city's future.
During 1993-1994, the Imagine Chicago team
initiated two parallel pilot processes of
intergenerational civic inquiry as the starting
point for a broad-based conversation about the
future of the city of Chicago. They were: 1) a
city-wide appreciative inquiry, and 2) a series
of community-based and community-led appreciative
inquiries.
The citywide interview process involved
approximately 50 young people as interviewers.
They interviewed about 140 Chicago citizens who
were recognized by the Imagine Chicago team as
"Chicago glue," including artists, politicians,
business and civic leaders, and other young
people. Over a period of many months, deep,
one-on-one conversations took place between the
adolescents and adults about the city's past and
about visions of its future. Both youth and adult
participants later described these conversations
as "energizing," "rejuvenating," "and
transforming."
IMAGINE CHICAGO INTERGENERATIONAL INTERVIEW
QUESTIONS (1993-1994) 1. How long have you lived
in Chicago? In this community? a. What first
brought your family here? b. What is it like for
you to live in this community? 2. When you think
about the whole city of Chicago, what particular
places, people or images represent the city to
you? 3. Thinking back over your Chicago
memories, what have been real high points for you
as a citizen of this city? 4. Why did these
experiences mean so much to you? 5. How would
you describe the quality of life in Chicago
today? 6. What changes in the city would you
most like to see? a. What do you imagine your
own role might be in helping to make this happen?
b. Who could work with you? 7. Close your eyes
and imagine Chicago as you most want it to be in
a generation from now. What is it like? What do
you see and hear? What are you proudest of
having accomplished? 8. As you think back over
this conversations, what images stand out for you
as capturing your hopes for this city's future?
9. What do you think would be an effective
process for getting people across the city
talking and working together on behalf of
Chicago's future?
In the community-based pilots young leaders
interviewed local community builders across
different ethnic communities. All of the pilot
interview projects broadened the participants'
views of what was possible, both within
themselves and within the city. The stories
conveyed in these small group interviews were
shared in a series of civic forums where Chicago
citizens convened and began devising projects to
bring about positive change in specific
neighborhoods and public institutions.
The appreciative questions were clustered around
three main stages of appreciative inquiry, which
still today is the common organizing structure
for all of Imagine Chicago's initiatives. This
approach moves from idea to action in a
generative cycle, which borrows its inspiration
from the basic structure of appreciative inquiry:
o Understand what is (focusing on the best of
what is) - All of Imagine Chicago's work begins
with and is grounded in asking open-ended and
value-oriented questions about what is
life-giving, what is working, what is generative,
what is important. o Imagine what could be
(working in partnerships with others) - New
possibilities are inspired by interesting
questions or stories, which stretch our
understanding beyond what we already know. o
Create what will be (translating what we value
into what we do) - For imagination to lead to
community change, it needs to be embodied in
something concrete and practical - a visible
outcome that inspires more people to invest
themselves in making a difference. Imagine
Chicago supports the creation of initiatives and
programmes in partnership with local
organisations and institutions.
All three processes feed into and out of each
other; the interdependent relationship enables
them to transform individual and community
visions into realities.
"For the twenty years we have been in Chicago,
we have only been talking in our community
organisation about survival. Now we have been
asked what we have to contribute to the city. It
is an exciting question that we are now asking
ourselves." - Filipino leader
Commentary
Appreciative inquiry is particularly impactful
with people who have been disempowered and are
focusing too much on their deficiencies. It is an
important contrast to the common approach of
seeing people as "poor" and in need of "help"
from the outside. A general tendency in
"development work" is to focus on deficiencies,
survey needs, and seek to solve problems. Not
only does this mean we overlook some
opportunities, but this approach also has a
negative impact on the self-esteem and creativity
of people involved.
We have used Appreciative Inquiry with rural
people in Zimbabwe, and there has been an amazing
shift as they begin to operate from a clearer and
stronger sense of the wealth and wisdom they have
as a community. When they discover that they can
harness their own wealth in various forms they
can break out of a scarcity and dependency
mindset, which generates a sense of freedom and
possibility, as well as creativity and
self-esteem. Their ability to imagine and plan
for the future comes from an entirely different
place of strength. Appreciative Inquiry in this
context is related to other development tools
such as the "community asset map" and "capacity
inventories".
On the other hand, Appreciative Inquiry can focus
so entirely on the good, that it prevents a full
view of a situation, and becomes illusory. It can
also feel restrictive, as if only the positive is
allowed in. Our experience has been that when we
bring in an appreciative approach it needs to go
hand in hand with releasing what has been
painful, or feels limiting. This could for
example be by complementing it with circle
dialogue, deep ecology work, scenario exercises
or other tools. This is especially the case when
working more intimately with a community over an
extended period of time. Working appreciatively
should not be about closing our eyes to the
things we don't want to see.
Finally, Appreciative Inquiry is a great exercise
in becoming aware of our questions and the impact
that questions have on human thoughts and actions.
Resources
Cooperrider, David, Diana Whitney, and Jacqueline
Stavros. Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First
in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change
Cooperrider, David and Diana Whitney.
Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in
Change
Whitney, Diana, Amanda Trosten-Bloom and David
Cooperrider. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry:
A Practical Guide to Positive Change
http://www.appreciative-inquiry.org http://www.imaginechicago.org
Change Lab
Overview
The Change Lab is a multi-stakeholder dialogic
change process. It is designed to generate the
shared commitment and the collective insight
needed to produce breakthrough solutions to
complex social problems.
Each Change Lab is convened around a particular
problem that appears to be stuck with no obvious
solution in sight. It is convened by one or more
organisations, that are committed to effecting
change, and aware that they cannot solve this
problem alone. The convener(s) brings together
25-35 key stakeholders of the issue who somehow
represent a "microcosm" of the problem system.
These people need to be influential, diverse,
committed to changing the system, and also open
to changing themselves.
The process which these people move through
together in the Change Lab draws inspiration from
the "U-Process", a creative 'social technology'.
The U-process was co-developed by Joseph Jaworski
and Otto Scharmer, based on interviews with over
150 innovators, scientists, artists, and
entrepreneurs. In applying it, an individual or
team undertakes three activities or movements:
1. Sensing the current reality of the system of
which one is a part, carefully and in depth, by
suspending judgment and redirecting one's vantage
point to that of the whole system; 2. Presencing
by letting go of past expectations and agendas,
and reflecting to access one's "inner knowing"
about what is going on and what one has to do;
and 3. Realising, acting swiftly to bring forth
a new reality, through prototyping, piloting and
institutionalising new behaviours, activities, or
initiatives.
While the U-Process is an archetypal change
process that can be applied at an individual or
collective level, the Change Lab is specifically
for multi-stakeholder problem-solving. Overview
of a Change Lab
In the Change Lab, the stakeholders go through a
series of activities together, associated with
each movement of the U-Process.
In Sensing, they transform the way they perceive
the problem. They are trained in, and practice,
an approach to dialogue interviewing which is
intended to uncover the systemic issues around
the problem and the deeper motivations of
stakeholders. They share their diverse stories
about the problem and seek to genuinely
understand each other's frame of reference. They
surface their shared body of knowledge, and
formulate the 'problem space' and the 'solution
space' in multiple iterations. Most importantly,
they participate in experiential "learning
journeys" - visits to affected communities and
organisations - during which they immerse
themselves directly in the field of the problem
at hand.
In Presencing, the participants usually spend
time in silence. The Presencing aspect of the
Change Lab often involves a "wilderness solo", a
reflective period of time spent alone in nature.
This is a powerful practice to enable the
capacities of presencing: letting go and letting
come. While the Sensing experience may have
overwhelmed them with complexity and information,
the Presencing experience is about returning to
simplicity, creating emptiness, and connecting to
what really matters. In focus is uncovering
shared purpose and connecting to their deeper
will: what do they each deep down want to do
about this issue?
In Realising they crystallise insights in terms
of the basic characteristics that need to define
a new system as well as creative ideas for
breakthrough solutions. These ideas are now
translated into "prototypes" - "mock-up" versions
of the solution that can be tested first with the
Lab Team and then with a wider group of
stakeholders. The prototyping process is about
going beyond writing up the idea in a document to
trying to create an experience of the initiative
for people. It is also about taking a more
emergent approach which allows a constant
adaptation of the initiative in conversation with
the context. This is in contrast to a more
traditional approach where the activities of
planning and implementation are separate in time
and space. The prototyping approach enables team
members to build, test, improve, and re-test
interventions in the real world.
Innovations which, on the basis of this
prototyping, hold the greatest promise for
effecting systemic change, are then developed
into pilot projects. Finally, these pilots are
scaled up, mainstreamed, and institutionalized
with support from committed government, business,
and civil society partners.
Applications
The Change Lab is intended to address problems that are complex in three ways:
- Dynamically: cause and effect are far apart in
space and time, resulting in the need for a
systemic solution;
- Generatively: the future is unfamiliar and
undetermined, and traditional solutions aren't
working, resulting in the need for a creative
solution;
- Socially: no single entity owns the problem and
the stakeholders involved have
diverse-potentially entrenched and
antagonistic-perspectives and interests,
resulting in the need for a participative
solution.
Because of the level of complexity being
addressed and the scope and scale of these
problems, the full Change Labs are often run over
a period of several years requiring investment of
significant time, attention, and financial
resources. However, it is possible to run
shorter and condensed versions of a few days to a
few months, and still have a remarkable impact.
It also has both global and local applications.
Generon Consulting, which is the key organisation
behind the Change Lab, runs these processes both
within organisations and across organisations,
but we are focusing here on the work in the
cross-sector, multi-stakeholder approach. In
this situation, if you are trying to convene a
microcosm of a system across sectors, it is
important to be aware of whether parties from all
three of these sectors are willing to be
involved. If the key actors needed in order to
construct a "microcosm" of the system cannot be
convened and committed, the Change Lab may not be
the right approach.
Case Example: The Sustainable Food Lab [primarily
exerpted from the SFL website at
http://www.glifood.org]
The purpose of the Sustainable Food Laboratory
(SFL) is to create innovations that make food
systems more economically, environmentally, and
socially sustainable - in other words, profitable
and affordable, in balance with nature, and good
for producer and consumer communities. The 35
members of the SFL Team first gathered at a
"Foundation Workshop" in the Netherlands in June
2004. Together they make up a microcosm of the
stakeholders in global food supply chains:
farmers, farm workers, processors, wholesalers,
retailers, consumers, representatives of
government agencies, activists, financiers,
researchers and others. They are primarily from
Europe, the United States and Brazil.
Individually, each of the team members has a
proven track record as an innovator, has both
on-the-ground experience with and a bird's-eye
perspective of food systems; and is passionate,
entrepreneurial, and influential.
Each of the team members was frustrated by what
he or she has been able to accomplish working
only in his or her own organization and sector.
In joining the Lab, they committed to 40 days or
more of work over two years, in whole team
workshops, learning journeys and sub-team work on
prototype and pilot projects. Through the SFL,
they are now engaging in dialogue and action to
achieve changes more ambitious than they could
achieve separately.
The Process: After the Foundation workshop, each
Lab Team member went on one of three five-day
learning journeys in Brazil. When they had
returned from and synthesized the results of
their journeys, the whole team reconvened for a
six-day Innovation Retreat. This process
supported and informed their choices about
initiatives which the participants started
working on in sub-teams. At a subsequent meeting
in Salzburg in April 2005, they prototyped the
new initiatives, which are now being piloted.
Each initiative is aimed, in some way, at
creating sustainable food supply chains and
bringing them into the mainstream. Recently the
team reconvened for a mid-course review in Costa
Rica. At the final Venture Committee Meeting in
the Spring of 2006, the Lab Team, Executive
Champions, and other interested parties will
review the results from the prototyping process
and decide which initiatives will be taken to
scale, how and with what resources, and by which
institutions.
The six initiatives that are currently being piloted are:
1. Linking sustainable food production from Latin
American family farmers to global markets
2. Delivering high-quality nutrition from
regional farmers to schools and hospitals
3. Building a business coalition for sustainable food
4. Creating sustainability standards for food
commodities and related investment screens for
food companies
5. Re-framing food sustainability for citizens, consumers, and policy makers
6. Increasing the sustainability of fish supply chains
The diagram below reflects the link between these
initiatives and the overall map constructed by
the SFL team to illustrate the linkages in the
food system:
SFL Systems Map
It is still early to document the results of the
SFL initiatives, but it's clear that the Lab has
generated new thinking, new relationships and
strong partnerships across sectors, and has
started shifting the global food system both by
changing the participants and through the
initiatives they are now busy carrying out.
Commentary
The Change Lab has some key distinguishing strengths:
1. The approach is systemic. Throughout the
Change Lab, participants are building "system
sight". They are defining the problem space and
solution space in a systemic way, and as a
microcosm of the system, they are also a
reflection of the wider issue.
2. It is action-learning. The Change Lab is a
dialogic process and has dialogue embedded in it
throughout. But it is also an action process.
It doesn't stop at the point where new ideas or
insights have been generated. The Lab Team stays
together through piloting the new initiatives and
continue to relate these initiatives back to the
picture of the whole system, so the effort
doesn't become fragmented.
3. The Change Lab is a process, more so than a
tool. It draws on 20 years of experimentation
with different kinds of tools and integrates the
best ones in various phases. The theme,
pattern, and glue that holds these different
tools together is the U-Process. This also means
that the Change Lab is very flexible and can
adapt around that core pattern.
There are a number of risks and challenges
involved in convening a Change Lab as well.
Working with stakeholders from a diversity of
organisations and sectors and coordinating the
different interests involved can slow the process
down significantly. This can be exacerbated
because the process is unfamiliar to many, and
some of the practices may lead to resistance. In
some cases, it helps to start with a "mini-Lab" -
a 3-day miniature version of the Change Lab - to
give participants a sense of what a larger
process could achieve.
Generon Consulting's approach to the Change Lab
is constantly evolving as experiences of applying
it accumulate. Generon has a "Change Lab
Fieldbook" available, a living document which
contains many of the lessons learned to date, as
well as both success factors and potential
pitfalls of the process. To request a copy email
Mille [•••@••.•••]
Resources
Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski and Flowers. Presence:
Human Purpose and the Field of the Future
Kahane, Adam. Solving Tough Problems.
http://www.generonconsulting.com
http://www.glifood.org - Sustainable Food Lab
http://www.ottoscharmer.com
http://www.dialogonleadership.org - Documentation
of a series of rich and in-depth interviews with
innovators in this field, conducted primarily by
Otto Scharmer
Circle
Overview
For as long as humankind has been around, the
circle has surely been with us. Human beings have
naturally been gathering in circle, around the
fire, sometimes in deep conversation, sometimes
in the quiet space of simply being together. At
its most essential level, the circle is a form
that allows a group of people to slow down,
practice deep listening, and truly think
together. When practiced fully, it can be an
embodiment of the root of the word dialogue:
"meaning flowing through".
"Council" is another word, which expresses the
promise of the circle. Imagine a circle of
elders, passing a talking piece around one by
one. Everyone's attention is on the person
currently holding the piece, sharing his or her
thoughts, perspectives, and wisdom. Each person's
voice is valued and honoured. Long pauses of
silence are an accepted part of the conversation.
People can meet in a circle as a once-off
gathering, or coming together regularly over
periods ranging from a few months to several
years. In both these forms, and everything in
between, the circle is in recent years making
something of a comeback. From business executives
in corporate boardrooms to community organizers
in rural hinterlands, people are re-connecting
with the value of sitting in circle.
Many of the processes described in this
collection make use of chairs set up in a circle
because it is generally the most suitable
configuration for a dialogue. This section,
however, looks specifically at Circle as a
process in its own right, not only as a physical
set up. We draw here on the guidelines developed
by Christina Baldwin of PeerSpirit. Inspired by
her exploration of Native American traditions,
Christina wrote a book entitled "Calling the
Circle", which has made a major contribution to
re-introducing circle process and developing a
set of practices that can help us to facilitate
meaningful circle dialogues. These guidelines can
be used in their entirety or held more lightly.
Three principles of circle
Three principles help shape a circle. They are: *
Leadership rotates among all circle members. The
circle is not a leaderless gathering - it is an
all leader gathering. * Responsibility is shared
for the quality of experience. * People place
ultimate reliance on inspiration (or spirit),
rather than on any personal agenda. There is a
higher purpose at the centre of every circle.
Intention
As with most of the tools and processes of good
dialogue, the starting point is with the purpose
and intention. The intention will determine who
should be invited to join, when, where and for
how long they will meet, as well as what
questions they will focus on.
The clearer the intention and the stronger the
commitment to it, the stronger the circle. There
are leadership circles, where people gather to
support each other in their respective leadership
practice. There are also circles that come
together to solve a specific challenge such as
improving a programme in an organization, or
working together to make a neighbourhood more
safe. It could be a group of workers coming
together in circle with management to find the
best way to deal with a need to retrench people,
or even a group of homeless people joining
members of a local church congregation to
together come up with the best ways to support
the homeless.
Sometimes a circle is more simply a tool used in
a larger process during the course of a workshop,
or as a weekly or monthly meeting in an
organization, or community. In this case the
intention is more informal - to share
expectations, to connect with how each other is
doing, and to surface and address any concerns or
needs people may have.
The host
Although leadership is fully shared in circle,
there will always be a host for the particular
circle. Often the host is also the caller of the
circle, but where a circle meets continuously
over a longer period of time, the host role can
change from circle meeting to circle meeting.
The host will ensure that the circle flows
through its main phases and that the intention is
at the centre of the dialogue. The host is often
also responsible, with the "guardian" (see
below), for the actual physical space. Special
attention is paid to the physical centre of the
circle - a colorful rug, some meaningful symbols
or objects, and/or a plant may mark the centre of
the circle and often represent the collective
intention. This paying attention to the centre of
a circle, brings with it a sense of the sacred,
when people gather together around it. Something
out of the ordinary is being invited in.
The Guardian
The Guardian is the person who pays special
attention to the energy of the group, and that
the group is not straying from the intention. The
Guardian may interrupt during the course of the
circle to suggest a break or a moment of silence.
Flow of a typical circle
Welcome. The welcome helps the group shift into
circle space. A good welcome can be a poem, a
moment of quiet, or a piece of music to help
people fully arrive, and to become present to
each other and their circle.
Check-in. One thing that distinguishes a circle
from many other ways of coming together is the
importance placed on bringing each voice into the
room. The circle therefore begins with a check-in
where each person has a chance to speak to how
they are feeling, as well as sharing their
expectations for the meeting that day. The host
may pose a specific question for each person to
respond to in the check-in. It is also not
unusual to invite participants to place an object
representing their hope for the circle in the
centre, sharing a little about the object as they
do so. The result is a meaningful visual
representation of the group's collective hopes in
the center.
Agreements. When any circle gathers, its members
need to formulate guidelines or agreements on how
they wish to be together. This is an important
part of shared leadership, and everyone taking
responsibility for their time together. An
example of commonly used agreements of circle are:
o Listen without judgment o Offer what you can
and ask for what you need o Confidentiality -
whatever is said in circle, stays in circle o
Silence is also a part of the conversation
Farewell/Check-out
At the end of a circle, similar to the check-in
at the beginning, there is now a check-out for
people to share where they are at. The focus of
the check-out can be as diverse as each circle.
It can be on what people have learned, how they
are feeling about what transpired, or what they
are committing to do moving forward from the
circle. Every participant usually speaks in the
check-ins or check-outs unless they explicitly
choose not to.
Forms of Council
The circle is well known for the use of the
talking piece. The talking piece is passed around
the circle, with the person holding it being the
only one to talk. The talking piece can be
anything - an object from nature, a photograph, a
pen, or even a cellphone. Some people think
circle is only about working with talking piece
council, but this is just one tool of the circle.
Often the check-in is done with a talking piece,
but then people can move into talking without it.
This is called conversation council, where anyone
who has something to say speaks. When people have
been using circle for a while, even in
conversation council, the practice is ingrained
to not interrupt someone, and to let each person
finish before a new person begins.
Sometimes this conversation does speed up a
little too much, and the centre - or calm - is
lost. This is where the Guardian, or anyone who
feels the need, can call the circle into
reflection, or silent council, where everyone is
silent for a while, letting things settle, before
continuing either with the talking piece or in
conversation council.
Three Practices
Essentially the circle is a space for speaking
and listening, reflecting together and building
common meaning. Three practices have been
clarified, which can be useful to help people
come into a higher quality of attention: o Speak
with intention: noting what has relevance to the
conversation in the moment. o Listen with
attention: respectful of the learning process all
members of the group. o Tend the well-being of
the circle: remaining aware of the impact of our
contributions.
Applications
As mentioned earlier, the Circle is the most
fundamental form of human organising, and in that
sense, it is of course used all over the world,
and has been for millennia. Christina Baldwin's
work in particular also has quite a global reach.
She has done trainings in Europe, North America,
and Africa, and frequently emails out "Peer
Spirit Tales" of how the circle is being used in
different settings. An initiative launched in
collaboration with the Berkana Institute, called
"From the Four Directions" led to the launching
of numerous leadership circles in North America,
Europe, and, to a lesser degree, beyond.
The Circle is good for: o Enabling a group to
connect more intimately o Creating equality among
people who are at different levels in a group,
organization or community - giving equal value to
each person, and requiring everyone to
participate o Slowing people down and allowing
them to think together
There is a lot of power in using the circle for a
group meeting over a period of time, but it is
also valuable to bring depth to a process or
workshop by including circle check-ins and
reflections during the course of the gathering.
Case Example - Kufunda Village
At Kufunda Village - a learning centre focusing
on rural community development in Zimbabwe - the
circle has become a core part of the work with
communities as well as the way the centre itself
is run. Every time the centre does its
evaluations of its programmes, or of the work in
the communities themselves, the circle comes up
as a key factor of success. People seem to
connect fully with it, perhaps because it is a
part of the traditional culture.
"The circle - we were brought up there. Round the
fire was where conversation took place. Every
evening we would sit around the fire, and talk."
- Silas, Kufunda Village
At its simplest, there is a daily morning circle
during community programmes in which each person
checks in with how they are feeling around the
programme, key learnings that survived the night
and hopes and expectations for the day. The
effect of using the circle with rural community
organisers is that, where it might typically have
been primarily adult men who would contribute,
here everyone speaks. Slowly but surely, they
build the confidence and naturalness of each
person to contribute fully to everything that is
done together. At the end of several programmes,
men express their surprise at how much they have
been able to learn in honest conversation with
women (in the Shona system women and men often
confer separately), or the elders from youth. The
circle is taken back home to the communities that
Kufunda works with, and it has become a natural
way of meeting for all of the partner
communities, allowing for the voice of the youth
and the Chief alike to be expressed.
At Kufunda, a monthly team retreat day, where
circle is used a lot (though not only) brings the
team together in a more intimate way, giving
space for people to express and work through
concerns, needs or new ideas that may not make
their way to the group during daily business.
Each team at Kufunda, meeting weekly, begin and
end all their meetings with a talking piece check
in, and check out. It means that people don't
dive straight into business, but allow themselves
to arrive and connect with each other, before
getting into work. The check-out usually allows
for reflection on how people are feeling about
what was covered or decided. In times when the
team struggles with misunderstandings, dedicated
circle work has been invaluable in clearing the
air - through a practice of truth-telling,
choosing to listen without interrupting and
jumping to defense. These are all aspects which
the circle help promote.
The following list is a reflection on what the
circle means both to Kufunda's employees and
community partners from a series of evaluations
done.
- The circle brings a sense of belonging -
Everyone contributes - Everyone is a leader -
People speak from the heart - Silence is ok - It
takes you out of your comfort zone - It disrupts
hierarchy - It connects people - It is
intimidating - It is liberating - Everybody's
voice is heard - It is effective in conflict -
The circle is regulated by guidelines created by
the group - It fosters equality
Another example of a powerful use of circle is in
the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Essential to the
AA model are weekly meetings of alcoholics to be
in dialogue and reflection together, bearing
witness to each person's challenges and progress.
At these meetings people can ask for help with
personal problems in staying sober, and they get
this help from the experience and support of
others like them. There is no hierarchy, but it
is rather a place to create a community of
support for people who all share a desire to stop
drinking and stay sober. It is a place where
people can show up as who they are, letting their
masks down, and not needing to hide their fear.
There are open and closed AA meetings. The closed
meetings are the ones that most resemble circle
as we've described it here. AA is sometimes
ridiculed by those distant from it, but in
reality, it is a very effective and creative
organisation. The relationships and capacities
people build at AA often turn out to be lifelong
and relevant in a much broader range of
situations.
Commentary
In our experience, up to 30 people (max 35) can
be in a circle together. With 8-15 people one is
able to go much deeper. It can also be used in
larger processes, breaking the group into several
circles. For this it does need someone familiar
with the basics of circle to facilitate each
group initially.
Another variation if the group is large can be to
use the "fishbowl", or what is known as "Samoan
Circles". Here, participants are divided between
an inner circle and an outer circle, with only
the inner circle speaking and the outer circle
listening. The inner circle can either be
representative of the whole group, or of a
sub-grouping, and sometimes it is set up so that
people can move in between the inner and outer
circles. This process is particularly useful when
issues are controversial, or if the group is
large.
For many who are not used to the circle, the
slowness of the conversation and thinking can be
frustrating. With time most people learn to value
and appreciate the gifts of slowing down
together, to really listen to each other.
Generally, people who tend to be less vocal and
less powerful will appreciate the circle
immensely because they are given the space to
speak, while those who are used to dominating a
conversation will be more frustrated.
It's worth noting that Social Science research
has actually been done to show that the first
person to speak can have a large influence on
what is said and the direction the conversation
takes. The circle seems particularly prone to
this dynamic. This can be useful, but it can
also be problematic. The way around it is to give
people time to reflect in silence and collect
their own thoughts before people start to speak.
In general, the host should be aware that while
the circle has a great equalising influence on a
group, informal power dynamics still exist, and
can influence the conversation.
Finally, there are rituals connected to some
circle practitioners, which can be off-putting to
some. The circle can be used in as ceremonial or
as bare-bones a way as one wants.
Resources
Baldwin, Christina. Calling the Circle
http://www.peerspirit.com http://www.fromthefourdirections.org Deep Democracy
Overview
There are a variety of reasons why people in a
group may not be saying what they really think.
Perhaps it is considered taboo, politically
incorrect, or too sensitive, or they may just
feel that they will never actually be heard and
able to influence the majority view of the group.
Deep Democracy is a facilitation methodology
which is based on the assumption that there is a
wisdom in the minority voice and in the diversity
of viewpoints, which has value for the whole
group. The approach helps to surface and give
expression to what is otherwise left unsaid.
Deep Democracy was developed by Myrna Lewis in
South Africa with her late husband Greg Lewis
based on 15 years of intense work in the private
and public sectors. It is closely related to,
and draws on, Arnold Mindells' process-orientated
psychology and "worldwork", but offers a more
structured and accessible set of tools.
Picture an iceberg. Generally, only 10% of the
iceberg is above the waterline, while 90% is
concealed in the depths of the ocean and not
visible. Many psychologists use this as a
metaphor for the conscious and unconscious of
human beings. Only a part of what drives us is
conscious while the bulk of it is unconscious.
Similarly, in a group coming together for some
purpose, there are aspects that are conscious to
the whole group and aspects that are in the
group's unconscious. The group's unconscious will
often be reflected in the one-on-one and small
group conversations that happen outside the
formal meetings, in hints and jokes, in the
excuses people make for being late or not doing
what they were supposed to, and in unexpressed
emotions and opinions.
Much of our work is comfortably done above the
surface in the realm of the conscious. But
sometimes there are underlying emotional dynamics
that continuously block us from moving forward,
from solving a problem or coming to a decision.
In this situation, Deep Democracy is designed to
bring these issues to the surface and facilitate
their resolution. The idea is that the group's
highest potential and wisdom is hidden in the
depths and will be brought out by surfacing what
is in the unconscious.
If issues in the group's unconscious have built
up over time because of a lack of open
communication, the group may have to go through a
conflict process to release them. Conflict here
is seen not as something to be avoided, but as an
opportunity for learning and change. The earlier
a conflict is expressed and spoken about in the
open, the less painful it will be.
A key aspect of Deep Democracy is that the
process focuses on roles and relationships rather
than on individuals. We normally think of
"roles" as social roles, jobs, or positions. In
Deep Democracy, a role can be anything expressed
by a person, for example, an opinion, idea,
emotion, physical sensation, or an archetypal
role like the parent/ the child, the teacher/ the
student, the oppressor/ the victim, the helper/
the needy, and so on. A role is usually held by
more than one individual, and an individual
usually holds more than one role in the group.
The most personal is linked to the universal, in
that each person actually deep down has the
capacity and potential to express any role. S/he
has both an individual identity as well as access
to the overall pattern and knowledge of the whole.
A system will tend to be healthier if roles are
fluid and shared. If one person is alone in a
role, it becomes a burden to that person. If
roles are too fixed, the organisation or group
isn't growing. In Deep Democracy, the role of the
facilitator is to help people make the roles more
fluid, to become aware of themselves, each other,
and their interdependence, and through that to
access their wisdom. The facilitator is trying
to help the group to "lower the waterline" of
their iceberg.
The first four steps
There are five steps to Deep Democracy. The
first four make up a unique approach to
decision-making and take place "above the
waterline":
1. Don't practice majority democracy. Traditional
majority democracy will take a vote and then move
forward with a decision. But the idea that the
minority will just go along happily with the
majority decision is actually a myth. In Deep
Democracy, the decision with a majority vote is
not the end point. The minority voice is
encouraged to express itself. Don't settle for
the vote. 2. Search for and encourage the "no".
The facilitator needs to make it "safe" for
people to express their dissent, and not feel
afraid to say "no". The minority view is
encouraged and given permission to speak. 3.
Spread the "no". Once the "no" has been
expressed, other participants are asked if they
agree with the "no" even if only in part. People
are encouraged to express agreement with the
"no". This process avoids scapegoating and people
being singled out and ostracised for disagreeing.
4. Access the wisdom of the "no". When the
majority have decided to go in a certain
direction, the minority is asked "what do you
need to go along with the majority?" This is not
a second chance for the minority to say "no".
The minority will add wisdom and elaborate on the
decision by qualifying it with what they need to
come along. This helps the group come to a more
conscious decision.
This decision-making process is an unusual
attempt to get a decision where the minority
actually comes along and buys into a decision. It
looks like a consensus but is not exactly the
same. In many situations this decision-making
process will be enough, if there is not too much
baggage or underlying conflict behind the
decision. If decisions are taken in this way, the
minority will feel heard, the group will be more
conscious about why it's doing what it's doing,
and conflicts will be settled early before they
become painful.
Below the waterline
Sometimes it is not enough to stay above the
surface. When resistance to a decision
continues, when people keep having the same small
arguments, when they start "sounding like a
broken record", when they feel unheard, or are
being very indirect, there is a need to go "under
the waterline", and move into the 5th step of
Deep Democracy. This is done through a process
whereby the facilitator "turns up the volume" on
a conversation. When a participant speaks in a
way that is indirect, the facilitator goes in and
speaks for that person, amplifying what they are
saying, making it more direct and taking out the
politeness. The facilitator in effect
becomes an instrument for the group. The
participants talk directly to one another, rather
than talking at the facilitator. The facilitator
is making the message clear and direct, which
gives people something to respond to. Ideally,
she is not adding meaning, but literally speaking
on the participant's behalf. It's like putting
an electrical charge on the words, and looking
for a reaction from other participants.
Participants are always made aware that they can
correct the facilitator if she gets it wrong.
In order to do this amplification, the
facilitator needs to apply a set of "metaskills"
- attitudes and behaviours with which the
facilitation skill or tool is used. The two most
important ones are neutrality and compassion.
The facilitator needs to not be judging what
people are saying as good or bad, and to really
support people in the totality of their
experience. This can for the facilitator require
a lot of "inner" work on her own personal
awareness, so that she can come into the group
centred and still without her own baggage.
If the discussion becomes polarised through the
amplification, the group may decide to actually
go into a conflict. This is always made as a
very conscious agreement, and participants are
told to remember that the purpose of the conflict
is growth and about remaining in relationship.
It is not about winning a battle. In a Deep
Democracy conflict, all participants agree to
express themselves fully and to own their own
side completely. This is different from many
other forms of conflict resolution where
participants are encouraged to focus on trying to
understand the other side or point of view first.
During the conflict, the participants are
explicitly requested not to express
defensiveness, but must take turns getting
everything off their chest. When a conflict
starts to be resolved, you generally find that
the different sides start saying the same thing.
They become more silent and contemplative. At
this point, each participant is requested to
share at least one personal learning - a grain of
truth that they have received from the conflict.
The wisdom from these grains of truth is taken
back to the initial issue the group was trying to
resolve.
Applications
Deep Democracy is a relatively young process, but
is spreading quite rapidly. In South Africa it
has been used in corporate settings as well as in
schools, with hiv/AIDS councellors, and in youth
groups. Myrna Lewis is currently training Deep
Democracy facilitators from a number of countries
including the UK, the US, Denmark, Israel,
France, Ireland, and Canada.
The key strength of Deep Democracy is in
recognising the important role that emotional
dynamics can play and in incorporating wisdom
into decision-making. Deep Democracy is most
useful in situations where: things are unsaid and
needing to be brought into the open; people are
stuck in roles and conflict may be arising; there
is a diversity of views in a group, and different
sides to an issue need to be considered; power
differences are affecting people's freedom to
act; there is a need to gain the buy-in of a
minority; and/or, people are being labeled by
others.
Case Example - Immigration in Denmark and the Topic of Honour
Immigration is currently one of the most
politicised problems in Denmark. As an issue, it
is having an impact on how elections fall out,
and not a day goes by when it is not covered in
the news. In particular, there is an emphasis on
the conflict between the Muslim culture of many
immigrants and the mainstream Danish culture.
In May 2005, a group of 20 people gathered in
Copenhagen, Denmark to learn about Deep
Democracy. About a quarter of the group were
non-Danish residents, while the rest were Danish
citizens, half of whom were ethnically Danish and
the other half second-generation immigrants or of
mixed ethnicity. The group was asked by the
facilitator to make a decision together on what
they would like to talk about. Two participants
self-selected to facilitate the decision-making
process. One of them started by immediately
saying he wanted to speak about the issue of
"honour". He was working with youth of an
immigrant background and found that they often
justify violence with an excuse that someone has
breached their honour. He wanted to understand
what that was about and how to deal with it to
stop the violence.
Participants "cycled" around wanting or not
wanting to discuss this topic. One person, a non-
Dane, said that the issue of honour was entirely
irrelevant to him in his work. Another person
suggested that the group should rather discuss
immigration issues, seemingly unaware that the
honour question was at the very heart of
immigration issues. It was the moment when
someone personalised the issue, sharing that he
had felt a breach of honour in relation to
another participant, the group decided to go into
a facilitated conflict.
Through the conflict, some participants gained
awareness of their own racism and privilege while
others became aware that they had been in a
victimhood mentality and not taking
responsibility. It turned out that some of the
immigrant participants felt that the Danes had
left honour behind generations ago and didn't
understand why honour was important in Muslim
cultures. Part of what was striking about this
process is that Danish culture has in the past
been, and seen itself as, very generous towards
immigrants. The space in which immigrants could
be allowed to criticise Danish culture, and speak
openly about their concerns is never created
partly because this would be seen as ungrateful.
Following the conflict where both sides had been
allowed to speak their mind, each participant
owned a "grain of truth". The following day,
there was a deep understanding towards each other
in the group, and a sense of joint endeavour and
desire to collaborate around working to improve
the cultural clashes in the broader society. As
one participant reflected afterwards,
"Immigration is such a burning issue for us in
Europe and this was the first time I experienced
an honest and open conversation about the issue
where everything that needed to be said was said
and we were all stronger for it." Commentary
Deep Democracy is obviously quite an unusual
process. We are used to trying to avoid or
contain conflict, polarisation, and disagreement.
Instead Deep Democracy invites it in, and at
times even provokes it. The result, when this
process works at its best, is a lively openness
and transparency and a very powerful
strengthening of relationships and collaboration.
Participants may go through a process where a
large part of the time is spent in discussion
that is antagonistic and polarising, and yet feel
afterwards as if they have experienced a deep
heartfelt and empathetic dialogue.
It's important to recognise that when Deep
Democracy encourages conflict, it is based on an
assumption that conflict is already present and
actually inevitable. But sadly, conflict is often
contained until it is too late to do anything
about it or for it to be resolved peacefully.
The idea here is to try to bring it on as early
as possible so that it will be less painful and
explosive and more generative and
transformational. This is done by helping people
to express themselves honestly to each other
through the facilitation tools of the five steps.
In our view, it's vital to have a well-trained
and experienced facilitator when working with
Deep Democracy, especially in groups where the
stakes are high. This is probably the tool in
this collection which takes the most in-depth
training to be able to facilitate, and it is
never mastered completely. Even with a good
facilitator, Deep Democracy is usually at first a
frustrating experience for participants. This is
part of the experience, but it just makes it all
the more important that the facilitator is
confident and clear on what they are doing and
why.
The value of Deep Democracy in relation to
dialogue facilitation is as much the philosophy
and assumptions behind it as the specific tools.
There are some simple tips from Deep Democracy
thinking which are useful for any group dialogue
process. In particular, we find the idea of
"spreading the no" and not letting participants
get stuck in a role very useful. Rather than
following the tendency of answering criticism and
singling people out in a group, invite the
critical voice in by asking if anyone else shares
that viewpoint. When there is dissent to the
direction in which a group is going, ask "what
would it take for you to come along?"
Resources http://www.deep-democracy.net Future Search
Overview
Future Search brings the "whole system" into the
room to look at the past, present and future
experiences of participants, through a
task-focused agenda. The design is based on the
intention to have all participants take ownership
of this past, present and future, thereby finding
common ground for collective future action. A
Future Search conference has a specific theme
which all stakeholders work on over a 3-day
process. An important principle of the process
depends on all the participants accepting an open
invitation to spend a few days together in an
explorative process.
Future Search was designed by Marvin Weisbord and
Sandra Janoff as a process where diverse groups
of people with a stake in a community or
organization can plan their future together. They
have written a book called Future Search which
explains the process in detail, and is summarized
in this short overview.
A Future Search process has a specific structure
to follow, which has been designed and evolved
based on the experience of hundreds of similar
gatherings. The process would typically bring
together 60-70 participants. This number works on
the principle of bringing the "whole system" into
the room, by selecting at least 8 stakeholder
groups, who are equally represented by
approximately 8 participants each. The agenda
works through the following steps:
* Review of the past * Explore the present *
Create ideal future scenarios * Identify common
ground * Make action plans
The Process
The Future Search process recommends that the
agenda includes at least 2 "sleep-overs", and
spans over three days. A typical Future Search
agenda would look as follows:
Day 1, Afternoon (1-5pm)
* Focus on the past: Mixed groups sit, share life
stories and discuss milestones which they have
experienced over a specified number of years.
Each person from these groups then plots their
experiences on massive flipcharts on the walls,
which have been divided into categories of
society/self. The end result will be a long row
of experiences which have filled flipcharts on
the wall. This gives everyone in a room a sense
of the collective past experiences, and the
parallels between individual trajectories and
societal trajectories.
* Focus on present, future trends: The whole
group together now reviews trends which currently
affect our lives and communities. These
experiences are documented by the facilitator
onto a "mindmap". After these have been put onto
the mindmap, participants are given stickers of
colored dots to "vote" which trends they feel are
most important. The session ends here, and gives
participants the opportunity to reflect on this
overwhelming diagram of complexity overnight.
Example of Mindmap above with sticker dots
Day 2, Morning (8:30am-12:30pm)
* Continued - trends: The larger group is now
divided into their stakeholder groups (around
similar interests/context). These stakeholder
groups review the trends and decide which ones
are important and which they want to take
ownership for.
* Focus on present, owning our actions: Each
stakeholder group then discusses which of their
group's contributions to these trends they feel
proud of or sorry about. This is where each
stakeholder group takes personal responsibility
for the current issues at hand. The groups
present their "prouds" and "sorries" to the
bigger group, which relates to the trends they
have been prioritising.
Day 2, Afternoon (1:30-6pm)
* Ideal future scenarios: The group returns to
their mixed groups from the day before. The
purpose of this exercise is to imagine their
desired future 10-20 years from now, and act out
this scenario to the bigger group as if it is
happening today. It is important to encourage the
groups to think with their minds, bodies and
emotions, tapping into unconscious aspirations.
They also need to highlight which barriers they
overcame from the time of the Future Search up
until the time of the scenario.
* Identify common ground: Once these scenarios
have been acted out, the mixed groups highlight
what the common future themes are that have
emerged. They also look at potential projects or
strategies which will help them get to these
futures. Finally, they note what disagreements
still remain.
Day 3, Morning (8:30am-1pm)
* Continued - confirming common ground: The whole
group reviews the lists from the previous
afternoon. A discussion is facilitated to try to
understand what each statement means, and whether
or not there is agreement. If there is no
agreement, then it is noted, and the group moves
on. This exercise also explores the tension
between the actual and the ideal. The group needs
to decide whether they want to delve further into
the conflict areas or focus on the common ground
already created within the limited time remaining.
* Action-planning: Participants now have the
opportunity to invite others interested in a
particular project or theme to join them in
action-planning. This process is similar to "Open
Space", explained in a separate section, and the
purpose is to encourage people to work across
boundaries in addressing these themes. These
groups then report back, highlighting how this
information will be implemented and disseminated,
and then the conference is closed.
Conditions required for a successful future search conversation
1. The "whole system" needs to be in the room.
Future Searches only work if "the whole system"
is in the room. It is critical that as many key
stakeholders of an issue are present in the room
and that the different voices of a "whole system"
are contributing. Diverse perspectives allow new
relationships to be built, and a stakeholder can
learn more about itself and the world by
interacting with other constituencies.
If there is only part of the story being told by
a group of people who normally interact with each
other, a collective future cannot be envisioned,
and a Future Search can't work.
2. The "Big Picture" as context to local action.
To get participants on the same wavelength, it is
important to get everyone talking about the same
world. Therefore it is important for the group to
describe this world in as much detail as possible
before doing anything about it. The conference
therefore starts by exploring the "global trends".
3. Exploring current reality and common futures, not problems and conflicts
Future searches delve into future scenarios,
rather than problem-solving or conflict
management. The process acknowledges differences,
but does not work through them, as the purpose of
the meeting isn't about team-building. Common
ground is the backdrop for planning in this
process.
4. Self-managed explorations and action plans
Self-managed groups are used throughout the
process, reducing passivity, hierarchy and
dependency on facilitators. The intention is to
shift control from external facilitators. Small
groups are recommended to rotate roles of
facilitator, reporter and timekeeper.
5. Attending the whole meeting
It is important that every participant be
involved in the shifts which change their
perspective on what needs to be done, and to
build common ground. For this to work, everyone
needs to be there for the whole meeting. It is
also discouraged to have non-participants or
observers present.
6. Meeting under healthy conditions
As has been highlighted in the introduction to
this toolkit, good food and a healthy atmosphere
with natural light help people's energy and
ability to concentrate. The space should be easy
to move around and have the flexibly to change
for small or large groups, with lots of wall
space for flipcharts.
7. Working across 3 days
It is not the amount of time which is important,
but the space to absorb the learning over 2
nights which is a benefit. We assume that the
unconscious works on unfinished business
overnight, which is how the programme is designed.
8. Taking responsibility publicly for follow-up
Having people select the action groups they sign
up for and to publicly acknowledge their next
steps helps to share ownership and commitment to
the follow-up process.
Preparation for a Future Search
The preparation process of a Future Search
conference is key to the success of the meeting.
Getting all the stakeholders taking ownership of
the meeting, as well as attending, is a process
which takes time. A Future Search is usually
"sponsored" by a particular organization or
person (sometimes a key stakeholder), who pulls
together the other stakeholders, and "hosts" the
preparation. It is recommended that at least 2
preparation meetings with a representative from
all stakeholders are present to do the following:
* define the purpose and expectations * introduce
facilitators * agree on programme * decide on an
invitation list * organize logistics
Applications
Future Searches have been used extensively around
the world, on each continent. Countries include
Sudan, Russia, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Sweden,
Northern Ireland and Australia. It has also been
used within sectors for example healthcare,
education and business. For a more extensive list
of applications, please see:
http://www.futuresearch.net/method/applications/world.cfm
Case Examples - Nation-building in Bangladesh and
the Inuit in Canada These cases are adapted from
the Future Search book, 2000.
Nation-building in Bangladesh
UNICEF agreed to sponsor a Future Search training
in Bangladesh, a country with a population of 110
million people, and many social challenges. The
intention was to train local facilitators who
would in turn host future searches to envision
new realities for Bangladesh's future, and move
the largely poor population out of poverty.
In 1994, 50 Bangladeshi consultants, trainers and
managers came together for the training. One of
the challenges was that participants struggled to
envision large future dreams, for example, a
country without child labour. The participants
agreed that "we need to learn how to dream". A
number of follow-up conferences were planned, and
future searches were run on topics including
"Stopping Children with Diarrhea from Dying",
"Early Childhood Development", "Child Labour",
"Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS, and others.
These conferences have proved to be very popular
as planning tools in Bangladesh, and have
subsequently spread to other parts of South East
Asia, including Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Regional Economic Development: the Inuit People, Canada
When the Inuit people of the Artic region were
granted a new homeland, they embarked on a Future
Search to develop a strategy for economic
development. The Future Search process was
conducted in both the local language and English,
and included drum dancing and other traditional
features. The conference included a range of
stakeholders of the newly formed homeland, and
produced frameworks for education and training,
social development, preservation of culture and
language, small business development,
transportation, infrastructure and other
organizational aspects of action-planning.
The Inuit people have sponsored several
subsequent future searches, and local community
leaders have learnt the future search techniques
of facilitating community-based planning at many
local levels.
Commentary
A Future Search is quite a structured process
with a sophisticated meeting "architecture", that
has been consciously designed to flow in a
particular order. This is a strength, but it can
also appear too rigid. It's important to realise
that while the instruction on how to do a Future
Search may seem to imply that there is only one
way to do it, the Future Search website and
newsletter include active discussions among
practitioners who have adapted it in various ways
to different cultural contexts. There is clearly
some variety in how it is applied.
One of the aspects of Future Search which we find
most powerful is it's use of visual techniques
and creative processes. The history timeline
which the group puts together on the first day
across an entire wall usually tells a striking
story, as does the colorful mindmap of current
trends. Similarly, the challenge to people to
act out their scenarios of the future rather than
just drawing them up on a flipchart invites in
multiple intelligences and invokes imagination.
It is important to note what Future Searches
cannot do. For example, future searches cannot
make up for weak leadership. If leadership
doesn't act on the actions from a Future Search,
or buy in to the process, it will not work. This
process stops at the point of action planning and
leaves the implementation as the responsibility
and ownership of the stakeholders participating.
Future searches also cannot reconcile deep value
differences. If people disagree deeply based on
religious or political differences, it is
unlikely to be solved in a Future Search. Future
Search quite explicitly chooses to put
disagreements aside and focus on commonalities.
In many contexts this is sufficient but if
underlying issues or disagreements will block
action, it may need to be replaced or
complemented by other processes.
Finally, great facilitation trainings are
available for Future Search, but we also feel
that if one has strong general facilitation
skills, it is possible to be able to facilitate a
Future Search based on the excellent written
materials available in the book and on the
website.
Resources
Weisbord, Marvin and Sandra Janoff. Future Search.
http://www.futuresearch.net
--------------------------------------------------------
continued...
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Blogs:
cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
