Group facilitation: "compromise" and "integration"

[Sébastien Damart]

I have often been mandated by executive to organize (within firms) workgroup meetings in which people could work together on different topics (for example: how to manage the growth of our company?) (I precise that I am assistant professor and researcher in a french University). 

I am deeply convinced that facilitation of group working should have a lot to do with integration as it has been defined by MP Follett. In many cases, I am using tools in order to share opinions, build consensus (for example, cognitive maps). I often wonder if I am helping people to find compromise or if I really help them to create new ideas in a way that could be closed to integration and I would like to share these doubts with some of you.

I have often assisted to workgroup meetings where people really enjoy at agreeing on a subject even if all of them were losing something in the compromise they finally agreed on.

In a recent study (in a hospital), I decided to organize creative workshops where I asked people to think about very strange topics (for example, "in a hospital, how to give patients the way to reduce healthcare employees absenteeism?) in order to force people entering in a creative process. In doing so, I noticed (after two or three meetings where people were destabilized) that nobody were trying to convince the other that they were right. All were trying to imagine solutions that could be as innovative as possible.

Now, I believe that before integrating, the facilitator has to fight basic instincts which lead people to negotiate rather than integrate. I also believe that the frontier between compromise and integration is often seen very thin.

[Peter Spence]

Hi Sebastien,

 

I am not sure about the need to fight basic instincts which lead people to negotiate rather than integrate - I believe that negotiation is part of the integrating process - just as the (circular) communication process is a negotiation of meaning,  it appears that the integrating process also is the negotiation of complementary resources, knowledge, competencies, values, identities etc.  Perhaps it is how people perceive the concept of negotiation - if you had the traditional distributional bargaining or postional negotiation style in mind, I would tend to agree with you - however, if we think of the more contemporary integrative, mutual gains approach to negotiation, perhaps we should be promoting, rather than fighting the basic instincts to negotiate if we are to facilitate integration.

 

It is my understanding that MP Follett pioneered the concept of integrative negotiation, so rather than it being a case of one rather than the other, I would suggest that integration is intrinsically linked to and relies upon negotiation.  I am still involved with research on the use of negotiation training as an accelerator for collaborative enterprise for the reasons mentioned above, hence my interest in the work you are doing in this area. 

 

Kind regards

Peter

[Sébastien Damart]

Hi Peter,

 

Juste few words about group facilitation and an experience (or experiment) I want to share with you (although it would be easier to share it at the october meeting in a more informal discussion).

 

These last three months, I and some colleagues, have experienced the implementation of a method designed for stimulating creativity and innovation within organizations. The method has been developed by the Centre de Gestion Scientifique (centre for scientific management) at the Ecole des Mines de Paris (France) and is called the DKCP method.

 

It is interesting to see how the structuring of the method and the way it makes people interact calls for some of MPF's principles.

 

Let me just say few words about the method and the process as we implemented it.

1. The context was an important european firm searching for breakthrough innovation in a highly competitive context. A group of 30 participants belonging to different units of the firm (guaranteeing variety and diversity) has been formed.

2. During three days, participants have made short communications about their personal knowledge about the firm context, technologies in products developed by the firm: that was the stage K (K stands for knowledge).

3. One month later, during two days, we gathered the 30 participants for a C stage (C stands for concept) where we suggested conceptual ideas (that have emerged from the K stage), basis for conceptual discussions and search for new ideas. This C stage consisted in a series of 2 hours sessions where the first task was to gather within sub groups (composed with 7-8 participants) individual ideas about one particular conceptual idea. Each individual had the possibility to express his personal opinions and believes about the idea (its value, its potential). Then, the sub group tried to combine individual ideas (written on post-its) in order to create new conceptual ideas or in order to find knowledge spaces to be explored (we used a particular form: CK exploration trees I can describe in a more precise way if you are interested in). Of course, the whole sessions were recorded and the post-its have been kept.

4. We, then , organized, meetings between sub groups in order to make sub groups exchange their (new) conceptual ideas together and have a discussion on it.

5. The P stage consisted in gathering all the new conceptual ideas in order to build the premisses of a concrete business development plan for the firm.

 

Now let's get back to MPF:

- I am trying to analyze the material we have collected wondering if it was possible to highlight the group process (has defined by MPF in "the New State" not especially in the same context),

- I am trying to see whether the differencing of ideas (hightlight the differences of opinions, judgment, knowledge, values, etc.) at the K stage and at the beginning of the sessions in the C stage was the kind of process MPF had in mind when she spoke about the impact of the differences emphasizing on individual and on creativity,

- What is knowledge? MPF shows her skepticism about expert knowledge at the beginning of "Creative Experience"; does it make sense to distinguish knowledge communication and conceptual ideas discussions?

- I do think we gain in creativity when we let people share their individual ideas (first step of the sessions in the C stage) but what about leadership biases in groups?

- etc. 

Some questions (and other) I want to answer on the basis of this recent experiment (or should I say, experience...) and share with you.

 

Kind regards

 

Sébastien

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Hi Sebastien...

 

I found your posts very interesting. I am a professional facilitator, specializing in helping people to find creative ways forward together. And, I am very inspired by MPF's work...I wish she had written more about the details of her process, which we can only guess at... however the energy of what she describes, feels very familiar to me.

 

I do think that the phenomenon you are describing of "people enjoying agreeing, even if they are losing something in the compromise" can be unfortunately very common... I see it as a form of "groupthink". People understandably value human relationships, and will often tend to downplay differences in order to preserve those relationships... It sounds to me, that this is what you are meaning by "negotiate"... a sort of compromise that falls short of a truly new approach, that everyone can feel good about... (not just, "live with"...)

 

So yes, I agree with you... I don't know if I would use the words "fight basic instints"... I would probably say, "create a container, where it is much safer to disagree and share different perspectives... so that people find themselves moving out of their usual tendency to conform and 'make nice'...."

 

Of course in some groups there is the opposite problem, of people disagreeing with one another before they have even finished hearing what the other person is saying... again, creating safety becomes important there as well.

 

I am interested in learning more about the DKCP method. In the approach I use, we find that welcoming individual differences in the initial stages is key. We do this by welcoming "initial solutions" -- NOT as "final proposals" to be decided on, simply as INFORMATION about all of the individual hard work that participants have ALREADY been doing with regard to a given situation... and also, as a way of learning more about the assumptions and working knowledge of each person, as these are usually embedded in these "initial solutions". It is also a great way to welcome creativity into the room... if we want to encourage people being creative together, it is helpful to honor and validate their individual creative efforts to date.

 

With regard to leadership bias, that is a longer answer, but basically we have the leader in the room, supporting this process with their presence. We have done advanced work with them beforehand, to reach agreement on the facilitation process -- their contribution is important and key, but they are not allowed to interrupt anyone else (just as no one else is allowed to interrupt others, either.) and, we will be "purging" them first -- inviting them to offer their own individual "creative solution" to the problem the group is facing... and then as facilitators, re-iterating that the reason the leader has invited us here as facilitators, is that he or she is clear that they, too, are only seeing part of the picture, and they are interested in the possibility of the group as a whole, coming up with something more powerful than anyone's individual solution, including the leader's.

 

Anyway, that's some of it... the heart of it is very active facilitation (mostly focused on listening and helping each person be heard) in order to create a space where BOTH creative and critical thinking can flourish. More on that later if you are interested.

 

with all best wishes,

 

Rosa

 

 

[Sébastien Damart]

Hi Rosa,

 

Very pleased to share some of my preoccupations... I like very much the words "initial solutions" you use in your approach as if it were (and in actually, I think it is) the beginning of a process. As you understood, we also do believe that the first stage where individual differences are expressed is the key stage of the process.

Maybe it could be interesting to compare the way we make it happens. I think the way we do it is a little bit too much informal but I also think that a too rigid framework could be "prejudiciable" (I don't know if it is the right word in english) for letting people express themselves about their ideas, believes, etc.

 

Did you write something about your approach, a kind of monography of one process for example? I would be very interested in. Do you attend to come at then gathering we try to plan the 20th and 21st October in Boston?

 

The "very active facilitation" you are mentioning is important. It requires skills and experience (also because the facilitator has to be creative and he/she does succeed in with experience, which is the "factory" for that).

 

Best regards,

 

Sébastien

Rosa Zubizarreta said:

Hi Sebastien...

 

I found your posts very interesting. I am a professional facilitator, specializing in helping people to find creative ways forward together. And, I am very inspired by MPF's work...I wish she had written more about the details of her process, which we can only guess at... however the energy of what she describes, feels very familiar to me.

 

I do think that the phenomenon you are describing of "people enjoying agreeing, even if they are losing something in the compromise" can be unfortunately very common... I see it as a form of "groupthink". People understandably value human relationships, and will often tend to downplay differences in order to preserve those relationships... It sounds to me, that this is what you are meaning by "negotiate"... a sort of compromise that falls short of a truly new approach, that everyone can feel good about... (not just, "live with"...)

 

So yes, I agree with you... I don't know if I would use the words "fight basic instints"... I would probably say, "create a container, where it is much safer to disagree and share different perspectives... so that people find themselves moving out of their usual tendency to conform and 'make nice'...."

 

Of course in some groups there is the opposite problem, of people disagreeing with one another before they have even finished hearing what the other person is saying... again, creating safety becomes important there as well.

 

I am interested in learning more about the DKCP method. In the approach I use, we find that welcoming individual differences in the initial stages is key. We do this by welcoming "initial solutions" -- NOT as "final proposals" to be decided on, simply as INFORMATION about all of the individual hard work that participants have ALREADY been doing with regard to a given situation... and also, as a way of learning more about the assumptions and working knowledge of each person, as these are usually embedded in these "initial solutions". It is also a great way to welcome creativity into the room... if we want to encourage people being creative together, it is helpful to honor and validate their individual creative efforts to date.

 

With regard to leadership bias, that is a longer answer, but basically we have the leader in the room, supporting this process with their presence. We have done advanced work with them beforehand, to reach agreement on the facilitation process -- their contribution is important and key, but they are not allowed to interrupt anyone else (just as no one else is allowed to interrupt others, either.) and, we will be "purging" them first -- inviting them to offer their own individual "creative solution" to the problem the group is facing... and then as facilitators, re-iterating that the reason the leader has invited us here as facilitators, is that he or she is clear that they, too, are only seeing part of the picture, and they are interested in the possibility of the group as a whole, coming up with something more powerful than anyone's individual solution, including the leader's.

 

Anyway, that's some of it... the heart of it is very active facilitation (mostly focused on listening and helping each person be heard) in order to create a space where BOTH creative and critical thinking can flourish. More on that later if you are interested.

 

with all best wishes,

 

Rosa

 

 

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Hi Sebastien,

 

good to hear back from you, and it seems we are understanding one another... yes of course the "initial solutions" are the beginning of a process... just as in your first stage where individual differences are expressed.

 

i'd love to "compare notes" on process. I, too, think that it's helpful to have an approach that is not too rigid, and that invites people to express themselves freely without having to "learn" a particular mode of expression first, and also, in a fairly open-ended way. (though i also believe that every approach has its "niche" and particular area of usefulness, and I know that there are some highly structured methods out there that have their own value... ) Also, it's always a question of "too rigid -- compared to what??  for some people, our approach is TOO open-ended --- for others, it is TOO structured....  so anyway, I invite you to see for yourself... 

 

We do have a manual that I have written, to help people learn and understand the approach. I would be happy to send you a pdf of it, and would welcome your feedback on it (that offer extends to anyone on this list). It is a bit of a large file though, so be forewarned.... The simplest  way for me to send it, would be through my website at www.diapraxis.com -- you can send me your e-mail through the "Contact Us" page. I also have a few papers about it if you are interested.

 

Of course there is an experiential dimension to this kind of work, as you are pointing to also... with our approach it seems to me that the most crucial part there, is that it gives the facilitator the "faith based on experience", that it is possible for a group to find "unity not uniformity", without the facilitator ever abandoning the principled stance of continually welcoming divergence...

 

And YES, I am planning to be at the October gathering,  and very much looking forward to it...

I am very much looking forward to meeting you and others in person!

 

with all best wishes,

 

Rosa

[Sébastien Damart]

Hi Rosa and all,

 

As I am reading "Constructive conflict" the paper MPF presented in 1925 (one of the collected paper in Dynamic Administration), just few quotes and few ideas to feed our thread:

 

"The first rule, then, for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open".

MPF also referred to a process of "revaluation of desires" that this first rule can lead to. But she also insisted in the same paper on the "obstacles to integration" and one of them is the lack of training (in learning to appreciate the differences with the other side).

 

Maybe this could be the argument justifying initial stages in the integration process where the facilitator (as a "leader" in the sense of MPF) organizes kind of training sessions (I don't know if it is the right expression to use here, maybe too much "mechanical") learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).

 

The facilitation process would rather consists in the long run "integration training" process within the group (the organization) than in a short run intervention of the facilitator. I think this idea is a kind of application to organizational contexts of the ideas of MPF in the New State (1918) about the neighborhood groups:

 

"This neighborhood consciousness can be evolved in five ways:

1. By regular meetings of neighbors for the consideration of neighborhood and civic problems, not merely sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects.

2. By a genuine discussion at these regular meetings.

3. By learning together - through lectures, classes, clubs; by sharing one another's experience through social intercourse; by learning forms of community art expression; in short by leading an actual community life of the neighborhood.

4. By taking more and more responsibility for the life of neighborhood.

5. By establishing some regular connection between the neighborhood and city, state and national governments."  (p. 204)

 

Best regards,

 

Sébastien

[Albie M. Davis]

Hey, Rosa and Sebastien!

This is a great conversation, going back to April!  As one eagerly looking forward to our gathering in October, I think this question has great potential and I think it might be good to "try it" with some topic of mutual interest.

Rosa, can you tell me how to find the paper you wrote on your DiaPraxis site.  I tried the "Creating a Culture of Collaboration" link, but it seems no longer in service."  I've put your site on my menu bar.

And Sebastien, do you have some paper I could find or you could send to me?  Although you have already given plenty of food for thought within this forum.

 

Albie

[Sébastien Damart]

Hi Albie,

 

As you probably noticed, I do appreciate the discussion opportunities I meet on the MPF forum site.

My interest for MPF's thought is very recent. In 1999, when I started my PhD, I have tried to define what we call in France 'concertation'. I made some references to the concept of integration but not too far and I did not notice that the MPF's concept of integration was exactly the conceptual material I was needing !

Since that moment I have worked on concrete facilitation methods for group decision aiding or on collective problem structuring frameworks (the paper I send you in attached file is one of these) having implicitly in mind MPF's concepts (integration, group principle, "breaking the whole", "progressive differings", constructive conflict, etc.) but I never paid very much attention to MPF's work (which now seems to me so crazy !). I began to see how big was my mistake for 2 or 3 years.

Now, it is time for me to repair my mistake by taking time to read MPF and to rethink the whole conceptual frame I use in my works and in my researches through the use of MPF'S ideas. I am sure this will help me to have new ideas about group facilitation techniques.

That is why I really want to meet people like you working on (or working with) MPF's thought and share ideas with them.

Maybe could I suggest to try a discussion in Boston on MPF inspired group facilitation techniques? Why not a short session about it (among others)?

I enjoy to meet you in Boston,

Best regards,

Sébastien

Albie M. Davis said:

Hey, Rosa and Sebastien!

This is a great conversation, going back to April!  As one eagerly looking forward to our gathering in October, I think this question has great potential and I think it might be good to "try it" with some topic of mutual interest.

Rosa, can you tell me how to find the paper you wrote on your DiaPraxis site.  I tried the "Creating a Culture of Collaboration" link, but it seems no longer in service."  I've put your site on my menu bar.

And Sebastien, do you have some paper I could find or you could send to me?  Although you have already given plenty of food for thought within this forum.

 

Albie

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Hi Sebastien, hi Albie, hello all...

 

Albie, I just sent you links etc to my papers...  I too, don't yet have many explicit mentions of MPF  in my work... with the exception of the web-published essay "Deepening Democracy" at

http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/papers/zubizarreta_democr...

Sebastien, thank you for posting your paper here, I am very much looking forward to reading it, and am intrigued by your mention of Cognitive Mapping. In the meantime, I am attaching below notes from a presentation I co-led at a conference, with Jeff Conklin, the inventor of Dialogue Mapping, as it may be of some relevance...

 

In response to your points in your earlier post...

 I LOVE the following quote you offered!

 

"The first rule, then, for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open".

 

yes, yes, yes....

 

of course even there, there may be different WAYS of doing so, in different processes... but yes, for me that is clearly the first step...

 

you then wrote:  

 

MPF also referred to a process of "revaluation of desires" that this first rule can lead to. But she also insisted in the same paper on the "obstacles to integration" and one of them is the lack of training (in learning to appreciate the differences with the other side).

 

Maybe this could be the argument justifying initial stages in the integration process where the facilitator (as a "leader" in the sense of MPF) organizes kind of training sessions (I don't know if it is the right expression to use here, maybe too much "mechanical") learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).

 

My own response to that would be, well.. maybe... but why?

Why not have the learning be, in the very process itself? And working with the same issues?

I do agree, that it is very important to frame our work explicitly as a longer process, and one that involves group learning as much as it does group problem-solving. With clients, what I have begun doing is speaking of the first four-session module, where we are working on a specific (and real!) issue, as an opportunity to "taste" the process, and begin to "learn" how to function effectively within it. Afterward, we can talk about how to take this learning to the next step... deepen the learning, share it with other areas of the organization, etc....

 

Yet the added value for the client, is that from the beginning, we are ALREADY working on their "main issue"... So yes, I can see that you could do it in the other way that you are describing, but am not seeing what the reasons for doing that way would be...

 

You wrote that "this idea is a kind of application to organizational contexts of the ideas of MPF in the New State (1918) about the neighborhood groups:"

 

"This neighborhood consciousness can be evolved in five ways:

1. By regular meetings of neighbors for the consideration of neighborhood and civic problems, not merely sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects.

2. By a genuine discussion at these regular meetings.

3. By learning together - through lectures, classes, clubs; by sharing one another's experience through social intercourse; by learning forms of community art expression; in short by leading an actual community life of the neighborhood.

4. By taking more and more responsibility for the life of neighborhood.

5. By establishing some regular connection between the neighborhood and city, state and national governments."  (p. 204)

 

I agree very much with the five points above, though I still don't see how they lead to the idea of a need for "initial training"... 

re the first one, regular meetings for the consideration of the ever-present problems, not merely "sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects"... That is clearly what I would suggest as a goal with an organization that wants to engage in culture change: to work up to having regular "integration meetings" (we call them "choice-creating meetings") where there is "real discussion": i.e. real issues are considered, and diverse viewpoints are actively welcomed in a creative process...  however my own experience with organizations has been that few of them would be willing to commit to regular meetings held in this way without first having a taste of them, hence the intro four-session module.

I also want to note that I am not against "training" per se  (though I do prefer the term "learning opportunities" :-) )  It's just that I honestly don't see the NEED to create "additional" learning opportunities, outside of the experiential learning opportunities that are already present, in the facilitated dialogue on real issues. There is so much learning that goes on, in that process...

so I guess there must be something I am not understanding, in your vision about "learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).".

I would love to hear more.

with all best wishes,

Rosa

Hi Sebastien, hi Albie, hello all...

 

Albie, I just sent you links etc to my papers...  I too, don't yet have many explicit mentions of MPF  in my work... with the exception of the web-published essay "Deepening Democracy" at

http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/papers/zubizarreta_democr...

Sebastien, thank you for posting your paper here, I am very much looking forward to reading it, and am intrigued by your mention of Cognitive Mapping. In the meantime, I am attaching below notes from a presentation I co-led at a conference, with Jeff Conklin, the inventor of Dialogue Mapping, as it may be of some relevance...

 

In response to your points in your earlier post...

 I LOVE the following quote you offered!

 

"The first rule, then, for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open".

 

yes, yes, yes....

 

of course even there, there may be different WAYS of doing so, in different processes... but yes, for me that is clearly the first step...

 

you then wrote:  

 

MPF also referred to a process of "revaluation of desires" that this first rule can lead to. But she also insisted in the same paper on the "obstacles to integration" and one of them is the lack of training (in learning to appreciate the differences with the other side).

 

Maybe this could be the argument justifying initial stages in the integration process where the facilitator (as a "leader" in the sense of MPF) organizes kind of training sessions (I don't know if it is the right expression to use here, maybe too much "mechanical") learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).

 

My own response to that would be, well.. maybe... but why?

Why not have the learning be, in the very process itself? And working with the same issues?

I do agree, that it is very important to frame our work explicitly as a longer process, and one that involves group learning as much as it does group problem-solving. With clients, what I have begun doing is speaking of the first four-session module, where we are working on a specific (and real!) issue, as an opportunity to "taste" the process, and begin to "learn" how to function effectively within it. Afterward, we can talk about how to take this learning to the next step... deepen the learning, share it with other areas of the organization, etc....

 

Yet the added value for the client, is that from the beginning, we are ALREADY working on their "main issue"... So yes, I can see that you could do it in the other way that you are describing, but am not seeing what the reasons for doing that way would be...

 

You wrote that "this idea is a kind of application to organizational contexts of the ideas of MPF in the New State (1918) about the neighborhood groups:"

 

"This neighborhood consciousness can be evolved in five ways:

1. By regular meetings of neighbors for the consideration of neighborhood and civic problems, not merely sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects.

2. By a genuine discussion at these regular meetings.

3. By learning together - through lectures, classes, clubs; by sharing one another's experience through social intercourse; by learning forms of community art expression; in short by leading an actual community life of the neighborhood.

4. By taking more and more responsibility for the life of neighborhood.

5. By establishing some regular connection between the neighborhood and city, state and national governments."  (p. 204)

 

I agree very much with the five points above, though I still don't see how they lead to the idea of a need for "initial training"... 

re the first one, regular meetings for the consideration of the ever-present problems, not merely "sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects"... That is clearly what I would suggest as a goal with an organization that wants to engage in culture change: to work up to having regular "integration meetings" (we call them "choice-creating meetings") where there is "real discussion": i.e. real issues are considered, and diverse viewpoints are actively welcomed in a creative process...  however my own experience with organizations has been that few of them would be willing to commit to regular meetings held in this way without first having a taste of them, hence the intro four-session module.

I also want to note that I am not against "training" per se  (though I do prefer the term "learning opportunities" :-) )  It's just that I honestly don't see the NEED to create "additional" learning opportunities, outside of the experiential learning opportunities that are already present, in the facilitated dialogue on real issues. There is so much learning that goes on, in that process...

so I guess there must be something I am not understanding, in your vision about "learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).".

I would love to hear more.

with all best wishes,

Rosa

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Sorry I forgot to attach the file from the conference presentation/workshop... here it is.

I am also including another paper, that has a fuller description of Dialogue Mapping (and DF).

[Sébastien Damart]

Well, thank you very much Rosa for these very interesting points.

 

Let me be more precise on what I want to say by "training". You have used the expression "to engage in culture change". That is exactly what I want to insist on: a way for the organization to make the integration process as a very usual way for people to work together. The integration training could designate these many opportunities people meet where they learn how to deal with conflict and differences of opinions.

As you said, the working on the main issues of the organization is of course part of these opportunities (there are plenty opportunities like these, every days). I also argue that it is possible to find some "additional opportunities" such as team building seminaries (for instance): from my experience, some organizations try to work on their general abilities to: improve cohesion between their members, to solve problems, to create services and product, etc. Giving possibilities to improve these general abilities by improving skills for integration process within concrete activities is an idea.

 

Furthermore, this could be a way to make organizations taste the "group principle" before using it within a more focused (focus on main issues) integration process.

In fact, I think that there is no right answer to our discussion and it probably depends on the context and on what the organization is willing to accept.

I am very interesting in the "Dialogue mapping" you are working on and I will soon read what you sent us.

Thanks again.

 

Best regards,

 

Sébastien 

Rosa Zubizarreta said:

Hi Sebastien, hi Albie, hello all...

 

Albie, I just sent you links etc to my papers...  I too, don't yet have many explicit mentions of MPF  in my work... with the exception of the web-published essay "Deepening Democracy" at

http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/papers/zubizarreta_democr...

Sebastien, thank you for posting your paper here, I am very much looking forward to reading it, and am intrigued by your mention of Cognitive Mapping. In the meantime, I am attaching below notes from a presentation I co-led at a conference, with Jeff Conklin, the inventor of Dialogue Mapping, as it may be of some relevance...

 

In response to your points in your earlier post...

 I LOVE the following quote you offered!

 

"The first rule, then, for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open".

 

yes, yes, yes....

 

of course even there, there may be different WAYS of doing so, in different processes... but yes, for me that is clearly the first step...

 

you then wrote:  

 

MPF also referred to a process of "revaluation of desires" that this first rule can lead to. But she also insisted in the same paper on the "obstacles to integration" and one of them is the lack of training (in learning to appreciate the differences with the other side).

 

Maybe this could be the argument justifying initial stages in the integration process where the facilitator (as a "leader" in the sense of MPF) organizes kind of training sessions (I don't know if it is the right expression to use here, maybe too much "mechanical") learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).

 

My own response to that would be, well.. maybe... but why?

Why not have the learning be, in the very process itself? And working with the same issues?

I do agree, that it is very important to frame our work explicitly as a longer process, and one that involves group learning as much as it does group problem-solving. With clients, what I have begun doing is speaking of the first four-session module, where we are working on a specific (and real!) issue, as an opportunity to "taste" the process, and begin to "learn" how to function effectively within it. Afterward, we can talk about how to take this learning to the next step... deepen the learning, share it with other areas of the organization, etc....

 

Yet the added value for the client, is that from the beginning, we are ALREADY working on their "main issue"... So yes, I can see that you could do it in the other way that you are describing, but am not seeing what the reasons for doing that way would be...

 

You wrote that "this idea is a kind of application to organizational contexts of the ideas of MPF in the New State (1918) about the neighborhood groups:"

 

"This neighborhood consciousness can be evolved in five ways:

1. By regular meetings of neighbors for the consideration of neighborhood and civic problems, not merely sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects.

2. By a genuine discussion at these regular meetings.

3. By learning together - through lectures, classes, clubs; by sharing one another's experience through social intercourse; by learning forms of community art expression; in short by leading an actual community life of the neighborhood.

4. By taking more and more responsibility for the life of neighborhood.

5. By establishing some regular connection between the neighborhood and city, state and national governments."  (p. 204)

 

I agree very much with the five points above, though I still don't see how they lead to the idea of a need for "initial training"... 

re the first one, regular meetings for the consideration of the ever-present problems, not merely "sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects"... That is clearly what I would suggest as a goal with an organization that wants to engage in culture change: to work up to having regular "integration meetings" (we call them "choice-creating meetings") where there is "real discussion": i.e. real issues are considered, and diverse viewpoints are actively welcomed in a creative process...  however my own experience with organizations has been that few of them would be willing to commit to regular meetings held in this way without first having a taste of them, hence the intro four-session module.

I also want to note that I am not against "training" per se  (though I do prefer the term "learning opportunities" :-) )  It's just that I honestly don't see the NEED to create "additional" learning opportunities, outside of the experiential learning opportunities that are already present, in the facilitated dialogue on real issues. There is so much learning that goes on, in that process...

so I guess there must be something I am not understanding, in your vision about "learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).".

I would love to hear more.

with all best wishes,

Rosa

Hi Sebastien, hi Albie, hello all...

 

Albie, I just sent you links etc to my papers...  I too, don't yet have many explicit mentions of MPF  in my work... with the exception of the web-published essay "Deepening Democracy" at

http://www.collectivewisdominitiative.org/papers/zubizarreta_democr...

Sebastien, thank you for posting your paper here, I am very much looking forward to reading it, and am intrigued by your mention of Cognitive Mapping. In the meantime, I am attaching below notes from a presentation I co-led at a conference, with Jeff Conklin, the inventor of Dialogue Mapping, as it may be of some relevance...

 

In response to your points in your earlier post...

 I LOVE the following quote you offered!

 

"The first rule, then, for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open".

 

yes, yes, yes....

 

of course even there, there may be different WAYS of doing so, in different processes... but yes, for me that is clearly the first step...

 

you then wrote:  

 

MPF also referred to a process of "revaluation of desires" that this first rule can lead to. But she also insisted in the same paper on the "obstacles to integration" and one of them is the lack of training (in learning to appreciate the differences with the other side).

 

Maybe this could be the argument justifying initial stages in the integration process where the facilitator (as a "leader" in the sense of MPF) organizes kind of training sessions (I don't know if it is the right expression to use here, maybe too much "mechanical") learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).

 

My own response to that would be, well.. maybe... but why?

Why not have the learning be, in the very process itself? And working with the same issues?

I do agree, that it is very important to frame our work explicitly as a longer process, and one that involves group learning as much as it does group problem-solving. With clients, what I have begun doing is speaking of the first four-session module, where we are working on a specific (and real!) issue, as an opportunity to "taste" the process, and begin to "learn" how to function effectively within it. Afterward, we can talk about how to take this learning to the next step... deepen the learning, share it with other areas of the organization, etc....

 

Yet the added value for the client, is that from the beginning, we are ALREADY working on their "main issue"... So yes, I can see that you could do it in the other way that you are describing, but am not seeing what the reasons for doing that way would be...

 

You wrote that "this idea is a kind of application to organizational contexts of the ideas of MPF in the New State (1918) about the neighborhood groups:"

 

"This neighborhood consciousness can be evolved in five ways:

1. By regular meetings of neighbors for the consideration of neighborhood and civic problems, not merely sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects.

2. By a genuine discussion at these regular meetings.

3. By learning together - through lectures, classes, clubs; by sharing one another's experience through social intercourse; by learning forms of community art expression; in short by leading an actual community life of the neighborhood.

4. By taking more and more responsibility for the life of neighborhood.

5. By establishing some regular connection between the neighborhood and city, state and national governments."  (p. 204)

 

I agree very much with the five points above, though I still don't see how they lead to the idea of a need for "initial training"... 

re the first one, regular meetings for the consideration of the ever-present problems, not merely "sporadic and occasional meetings for specific objects"... That is clearly what I would suggest as a goal with an organization that wants to engage in culture change: to work up to having regular "integration meetings" (we call them "choice-creating meetings") where there is "real discussion": i.e. real issues are considered, and diverse viewpoints are actively welcomed in a creative process...  however my own experience with organizations has been that few of them would be willing to commit to regular meetings held in this way without first having a taste of them, hence the intro four-session module.

I also want to note that I am not against "training" per se  (though I do prefer the term "learning opportunities" :-) )  It's just that I honestly don't see the NEED to create "additional" learning opportunities, outside of the experiential learning opportunities that are already present, in the facilitated dialogue on real issues. There is so much learning that goes on, in that process...

so I guess there must be something I am not understanding, in your vision about "learning integration through concrete group activities (including activities about subjects and issues that are not directly in connection with the main issues the facilitation process has to deal with).".

I would love to hear more.

with all best wishes,

Rosa