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!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
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:
Gov 2.0 Guide To A City Makeover
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
"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!
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!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
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
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
Friday, March 26, 2010
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
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
Monday, November 23, 2009
Center for Positive Organizational Change
I first heard Dan Mulhern speak about a year ago. He talks about everyday leadership. One of my favorite lines from his talk was "putting energy on the grid."
He has a weekly e-mail that often includes amazing insights and cool tools. This week he talked about the Center for Positive Organizational Change at the University of Michigan.
Thought you all would find this intriguing.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Deb
He has a weekly e-mail that often includes amazing insights and cool tools. This week he talked about the Center for Positive Organizational Change at the University of Michigan.
Thought you all would find this intriguing.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Deb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)