The Scarlet X

The Task

Think of an extremist...what are the top three things that come to mind.
Ok, now a moderate...what comes to mind?

Now that you have done that, think about each of the following people, how would you characterize each of them, as an “extremist” or a “moderate”?

Frida Kahlo

Glenn Beck

Geronimo

Rosa Parks

Sarah Palin

Emma Goldman

Mahatma Gandhi

Nelson Mandela

MalcomX

Hmmm, does that make you want to change your answers to the first questions?

Is "extremist" just a label or a stereotype?

Does history change the evaluation of an extremists?
And perhaps most importantly, can we separate extreme ideas from extreme behaviors?

That’s how we began what became an excellent discussion at today’s Public Participation Learning Community meeting.

Our wide-ranging discussion touched on the following points:

The Diagnosis
When we call someone an extremist, might that tell us more about us than it does them? Is it just a response to the discomfort we are feeling? Are we just reacting to a difference between their world view and ours? Perhaps we are being overly diagnostic. And, does attaching that label to someone affect our own ability to work with them? Do we sometimes not let the extremists talk because their views are too different from our own? We live in a society that is very quick to judge and is often intolerant of things that make us uncomfortable. Things that threaten our worldview are “not normal.”

The Behaviors or the Ideas
Can we separate the behaviors of people from the ideas they are proposing? Is someone an extremist because they are proposing radical ideas that fundamentally rather than incrementally change the system? Sometimes those we might label as extremists are pioneers, innovators, first movers, who see something clearly that most of us aren’t seeing. They may be people who are willing to fail, they may be willing to leave people behind, and we might even think this is OK unless we have an attachment or a stake in their failure.

To Negotiate or Not to Negotiate?

Are there times when we shouldn’t be seeking consensus from a group? The example of the mediator's joke that had a mediator been on the bus with Rosa Parks it might have set back the civil rights movement by 20 years. So, if a negotiation isn’t always appropriate what kind of moral obligation does this place on a facilitator? Facilitators need to guard themselves with great vigilance so that their own discomfort doesn’t cause them to “abandon the richness of disagreement.” We must be vigilant against “the worst kind of consensus, the tyranny of mediocrity” where a consensus is foisted upon us by exhaustion or alleged deadlines.

Shopping for Extremists?

When we think of group processes, are there times when the extremist point of view is the most helpful? Maybe we should make sure the extremists have a voice at the beginning during the framing of the issue/problem. Maybe we should even "shop" for certain viewpoints to make sure they are a part of the discussion. But if someone is given the label of extremist--the big scarlet X--will they be able to help shape the discussion?

The Scarlet X

Once you are labelled an extremist it often doesn’t matter what you say anymore. It can feel quite horrible to wear the scarlet X, and we should have compassion for those who do. Presenting an extremist view point can be a courageous act. As a facilitator you should ask yourself: “Am I creating a space for courageous acts and if I am not, then what the hell am I afraid of?” The discomfort an extremist can invoke in the group can be a service to the group. Groups with a devil's advocate come up with much better solutions to the problems they attempt to solve.

Sanctuary
How do we create a safe space for courageous acts?
Start with shared values and move on from there. Make the distinction between accepted wisdom and common sense (see Sustainable Capitalism). Let people know they will feel some discomfort. Create Sanctuary. Create art spaces that catalyze a conversation--art has the capacity to help us create spaces to let go of our preconceived ideas. Remember that while some people are looking for quick answers, a lot of us are looking for more deliberative answers and that requires slowness.

----

There were many more wonderful points made in the discussion, so those of you who were a part of it, what parts did I miss? And of course, those of you who missed it, please let us know what you think!

Jury and Democracy

The Jury and Democracy Project blog provides great discussions, ideas, and resources regarding Juries and collaboarative processes. They have even discussed the idea of a Jury training program! Check it out.

"The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Too often, people think of the jury as nothing more than a means of reaching verdicts. In fact, serving on a jury can change how citizens think of themselves and their society. Our purpose is to study those changes."

Collective Impact

This seems like something we could talk about someday.

Collective Impact

Links to Documents

Public Participators:
Here are "clickable" links to the documents posted by Deb.

Cognitive Edge, Ritual Dissent-assent: http://www.scribd.com/full/43759835?access_key=key-1opiyfw1ucc14ssgf0es

Consensus Building Tools: http://www.scribd.com/full/43760613?access_key=key-buarvmj66w84parbr08

Blake and Moulton's Conflict Grid: http://www.scribd.com/full/43760618?access_key=key-l7c9f58dpfvzabe9upl

Thanks!

Cognitive Edge

Consensus Building Tools

Blake and Moulton's Conflict Grid

Invitations. 11.15.10

Peter Block's book, Community: The Structure of Belonging was the inspiration for today's conversation.
After check in, Sue and Sheila started us off with the following question:  What excites you about being here? The responses were quite inspiring:

Reenergizing
Learning something new
Always a strong sense of support
Connection with the group
Some validation of what I do know and practice for what I don't
Courage to go out and try it
The space and safety to experiment--connect to possibility
Stimulating and energizing

From here we focused on the idea of Invitation as Block imagines it.  At this point, Harry described his experience and the effect music had on his thinking as he sat in a coffee shop while Bach was playing.  Harry felt that music could be part of the invitation.  Mark described a grad school experience where food played an important part of the invitation, creating an environment for conversation.

Block describes possibility as what we have come together to create.  It is future oriented.  Declaring something as possibility is the first step in making it happen.

Jay prefers the term engage rather than participate as it involves thought and talking about possibility, not getting lectured at or listening to the expert tell us what we should be thinking; instead, getting to generative dialogue.

Creating a cradle for dialogue:  the irony is that more structure on the front end allows for creativity and generative dialogue; important to recognize and hold on to the tension found in these two opposites.

When facilitating a group, remember the following:  Plan well and play loose.

How do we balance opportunities for things like the PPLC and all of the other things people need to do? Is it sustainable?

Block's view on sustainability:  what can I do; what do I commit to regarding the possibility we can together talk about.  The group consensus:  we live and reaffirm the list at the beginning of this post every time we come together.  We are being the future we would like to see.

Mark quoted a poem with a line that was meaningful to him:  Peace is this moment without judgment, that is all.

Cassandra thought the group was sustainable as we use it to invite others who have similar interests.  She thought it was like a pyramid scheme; others thought it was more organic, like an algae bloom, viral.

This group is an antidote for the dysfunctional politics that exist today.  See The Politics of Meaning by Michael Lerner.

Melissa stated that she felt there is an abundant quality to this group.

The question was posed:  Why do people come?  Is it dependent on the schedule or topic-driven?  Some come when they can, given their schedules.  One comment (sorry, I don't know who said this:  I come because I have a tremendous confidence that I will get something from this group).  We need to remember that the list generated at the beginning of the meeting includes the core of why people are coming to these meetings.

We are going to use the blog to create an artifact that validates the value of this group.

We need to determine a process for generating paper handouts. Should presenter assume to bring them?  Or should participants take responsibility for bringing their own copies?

For a future agenda:  complete StrengthsFinder, a tool that can be used to help us uncover our talents.

o Engaged Participators

From Sheila Spear and Sue Robbins 

At the PPLC meeting on November 15th we plan to use Peter Block’s advice to see if we can develop an invitation to join the Public Participation Learning Community that is so compelling that people will engage and participate actively.  (See attachment; also below).

We hope you will come to share your sense of interest in this group and engage in developing its possibility.

The attachment has definitions we plan to use in this session.  Please review it and bring a copy with you. 

If you are interested but cannot attend this session, do let us know by responding to sspear@wisc.edu to share any thoughts you have on the topic.  

Public Participation Learning Community

1 pm, November 15^th 2010, Memorial Union (TITU)

Handout for our discussion on Structuring the Invitation

Source: Peter Block:  Community – the structure of belonging

A.  THE INVITATION (p. 113 and elsewhere)

The first critical question is who do we need in the room.  But we (Sue, Sheila) are setting aside for now the issue of whom we want to be in the room.

• The invitation is the first step in creating an accountable and hospitable community.  It is the means through which hospitality is created.  (The need for invitation arises because we don’t just ‘run into each other’).
• Invitation counters the conventional belief that change requires mandate or persuasion. 
• Invitation honors the importance of choice, the necessary condition for accountability.
• An invitation is more than just a request to attend; it is a call to create an alternative future, to join in the possibility* we have declared. 
• The question is: “What is the invitation we can make for people to participate in creating a future distinct from the past?”
• P 118:  There are certain properties of invitation that can make it more than simply a request.   
• (the hurdle) – to make even the act of invitation an example of the interdependence we want to experience.  So the invitation is a request not only to show up but to engage. “We want you to come, but if you do we want you to do something.”

The elements of the invitation are: (p 119)

1. Name the possibility about which we are convening.
2. Frame the choice
3. Name the hurdle: specify what is required of each person should they choose to attend.
4. Reinforce the invitation but be clear that not attending does not carry a cost
5. Decide on the most personal form.

POSSIBILITY

The power of possibility as used here is distinguished from words like vision, goals, purpose.

A possibility is a declaration of a condition or value that we want to occur in the world.

A possibility is created in the act of declaring it, what we create when we show up.   

Possibility is a statement of a future condition that is beyond reach.  It works on us (we don’t have to work at it) and evolves from a discussion of a personal crossroads (I don’t quite get that bit).  It is an act of imagination of what we can create together and it takes the form of a declaration, best made publicly.

The possibility is one way of speaking of the future.  Declaring the possibility can itself be the transformation.  Postpone problem-solving and stay focused on possibility.  Once we have fully declared in it works on us.

You might also want to read “The Possibility conversation” pp125-7

Innovation Café Focuses on "Technology & Community" on November 11th

Innovation and Collaboration Café: Technology & Community

Thursday, November 11, 8:30am-1:00pm, Pyle Center, $15


Join us at our next MANIAC Innovation Café!

This is an opportunity to explore a variety of technology tools and how they may be used to enhance innovation and collaboration in the workplace. The workshop will help participants recognize opportunities for technology tools in their workplace and projects; demonstrate the basics of web site design, social media (facebook/ twitter), blogs, surveys, and video conferencing; showcase good examples of technology use; and provide helpdesk support for real world technology questions. Register here! Or go to www.ohrd.wisc.edu, look for upcoming events.


You have MANIAC potential! Hope you can join us!

Leveraging the Power of Public Participation

I came across an excellent blog post the other day about a city government IT makeover. What is most striking is the ingenious way this vision takes advantage of a community's greatest resource, the people! I have pasted the first few paragraphs below, please click on the link to read the post:

http://govfresh.com/2010/10/gov-2-0-guide-to-a-city-makeover/

Gov 2.0 Guide To A City Makeover

My name is Dustin Haisler and I’m the Assistant City Manager and Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the City of Manor, Texas. Manor is a small community, located just east of Austin, of approximately 6,500 citizens. More recently, Manor has received a lot press for some of our innovative projects; such as our QR-code program,citizen idea portal, and pothole reporting system. In fact, we are in such a state of continuous improvement that we even added the word ‘beta’ to our city logo.

Over the past year, it’s been my pleasure to be one of the many evangelists of these new citizen-empowering technologies for government agencies across the country. In the process, I’ve realized that there are many bureaucratic constraints, fears and misunderstandings about how these technologies fit within municipal government. Further, I understand that type of innovation within government is sometimes seen as a risky concept; however, I would argue there is a science to what we do in Manor that can and should be replicated by other municipalities.

So let me brake down what we’ve done by starting at the beginning. Continue reading...

"Leadership" in Engagement/Transformation?

Great discussion yesterday around helping Deb engage school board members, in a short period of time, around the issue of educational reform. A word that kept being bandied about, and seemed central to the discussion (and plans) was "leadership." Yet, we did NOT make the time to talk about how leadership is/might be perceived with this group (or our group, for that matter).

As I reflected on the discussion it occured to me that one "definition" of leadership (or maybe better stated as one aspect of leadership in this area) would be facilitating the conversation between the stakeholders in the reform/transformation itself. Being a BIG believer in solutions from within (makes the whole issue of "buy in" completely absolete!) I do believe this to be one of the primary roles of leadership. Peter Block, who came up, again, in our dialog yesterday, agrees, stating that the two questions to keep in mind are always "How do we choose to come together?" and "What do we want to create together?"

Final reflection - true, sustainable change (read transformation, if you want) is an ongoing process. It is NOT wholesale change, it is not finding the "silver bullet." Acceptance of this very concept is a primary step in helping people see that change, positive change towards the world we collectively would like to see, is possible and that they (the community or any human system, from 1,000's down to the individual) can make it happen. Helping people come to this realization, in today's world of the "instant solution" is an ongoing challenge!

Introduction to Participation and Engagement Course Offered Again this Fall

For those seeking to learn more about the convening, design, and facilitation of participatory engagement processes, they are invited to take the free course we offer each fall through OHRD. The "Introduction to Participation and Engagement Processes" course provides a solid foundation for bringing together multiple stakeholder groups of various sizes and contexts to engage in collaborative deliberation regarding a wide range of issues. Registration information may be found at:

https://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/OHRDCatalogPortal/Default.aspx?tabid=29&CourseGroupKey=26287

Although the course is primarily intended for University of Wisconsin-Madison staff and faculty, students and members of the community are welcome to attend. For those interested in the "Fully Prepared to Engage" Certificate Program, this course serves as the "Level 1" point of entry into the program, as well as excellent background for participation in the Public Participation Learning Community that meets each month, or any of our other communities of practice.

Please check with me with any questions at hwebnebehrman@ohr.wisc.edu or 608-262-9934.

-Harry

Consensual Process -- Training for Juries and Other Deliberative Groups?

The Public Participation Learning Community has engaged in a series of fascinating discussions regarding consensus, dissent, and how to facilitative collaborative process. This included a viewing of the classic film, "12 Angry Men" at our May meeting, which led to the question, "Would there be value in offering brief training to juries around collaborative group process before they began deliberation?"

As we engaged in the June discussion, we broadened the conversation to include other types of groups, depending upon (a) their length of time together, (b) their level of transparency in process, and (c) the formality of their decision-making process. At yesterday's meeting, we continued to explore the value of this training in various contexts, likely sources of resistance and what they mean, and the continued application of such training for capacity building (in organizations and across citizenry) for student leaders, as well as those in workplace, organizational, and public policy leadership roles. At next month's meeting on August 23rd, 1-3pm at the Union, we will more specifically discuss the components of such training: What is needed? How should it be taught? How might content and process be varied to accommodate for different contexts?

You are invited to comment on this topic, offer any resources that may be helpful in understanding what has been done thus far, and (as possible) to join us in the discussion! Some additional notes from our June discussion are included below, as well.

Harry
__________________________
Public Participation Learning Community – Focus on Training in Consensual Group Process for a Variety of Deliberative Bodies (Draft, June 2010)


At our June meeting, we identified a matrix of variables to consider in developing the most effective tools and strategies for helping group members learn effective consensual processes. We thought that if we distinguish among these types of contexts and applications, it may help us arrive at more specific suggestions to offer. We identified three key variables:

(1) Length of time the group is constituted

(2) The degree of transparency in their deliberations

(3) The expected decision-making (DM) protocol

Short-term
(e.g., Jury, Project Team) Medium-term
(e.g., Task Force, ad hoc Committee) Long-term
(e.g., School Board, City Council, Standing Committee)

Private
(e.g., Jury, Senior Management Team) Semi-public/ Somewhat transparent
(e.g., School Board in ‘executive session’) Public/Transparent
(e.g., open meetings, forums)

Majority Rule (Likely using Robert’s Rules) DM
(e.g., City Council, School Board) Consensual Approaches with Majority Vote ‘Default’
(e.g., Many Task Forces and Committees) Consensus DM
(e.g., some staff teams and committees, Coops; Quaker Meeting, Swiss Legislature)

The core elements we think need to be understood in all cases include:

• Communication Skills (both assertion and listening) that are consistent with inquiry, dialogue, and problem-solving based upon a mutual understanding of members’ perspectives

• Negotiation Skills that emphasize interest-based approaches to conflict management and solution seeking

• Creative thinking and problem-solving, including processes that appreciatively invite divergent thinking and welcoming innovative perspectives on issues, the testing of potential solutions and convergence around solutions in a manner that is connected to transparently articulated criteria.

• Facilitative Leadership, both in formal ‘Chair’ functions and embodied in members, so that a safe, constructive working environment is present that cultivates respectful application of the above skills and practices. The group facilitator needs to help the group fulfill its charge within its scope and parameters (often legal), in a manner that is both efficient in use of resources and effective in bringing forth the best participation of the group members.

There are likely additional elements that are required, though they appear to be more appropriate in some circumstances than in others. For example, school boards need to be educated regarding legal obligations, funding streams, collective bargaining agreements, and other specific information that would be quite different from a jury. However, a jury needs to understand its charge under the law, the admissibility of certain evidence (or not), and the specific consequences of lack of consensus.

-- Harry W-B

The Challenges of Seeking Consensus

Over the past three months, the Public Participation Learning Community has been exploring the challenges of consensus, as well as resources for being able to achieve it in various participatory processes. We've explored polling tools, to take the 'temperature' of the group at any given point in time without it being 'voting' with an implication of decision-making momentum, and we've examined the curcumstances where really taking the time to achieve a consensus decison makes sense.

The key, from my perspective, is to approach consensus-seeking in the context of a respectful, genuinely collaborative effort to meld interests and seek solutions in which all are free to express dissent, reservations, and questions. The worst types of results are those that emerge from the 'tyranny of mediocrity,' that exhaustive point in group process where people simply no longer have energy to explore the "groan zone" and accomodate the powerful in order to save face, avoid conflict, or otherwise close the conversation. Consensus must truly be a way towards insight and improved solutions that consider the diverse perspectives and needs of stakeholders (both represented at the table direectly and otherwise considered). I'm excited that the group will now be turning its attention to the challenge of integrating the expression of dissent into our processes, whether for use in consensus deliberations or those that make decisions in other ways.

I invite PPLC members and others to offer comments on our learning these past few months, as well as to post resources we have uncovered for ths work.

-Harry