All Conversations Tagged 'deep' - The Art of Hosting2024-03-28T14:06:10Zhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=deep&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWho is attending ChangeMaker Festival in Sweden? Would be nice to meet some fellow AoH practitionerstag:artofhosting.ning.com,2013-06-21:4134568:Topic:803922013-06-21T11:18:14.910ZMelinda Varfihttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/MelindaVarfi
<p>Dear AoH members,</p>
<p>Next weekend ChangeMaker Festival starts in Sweden, in Jarna and I would love to meet some AoH practitioners there and maybe co-create a deep listening workshop. Let me know if you are interested!</p>
<p>There are still some places left, if you feel a calling to attend: <a href="http://hostingtransformation.eu/festival/">http://hostingtransformation.eu/festival/</a></p>
<p>Warmly,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Dear AoH members,</p>
<p>Next weekend ChangeMaker Festival starts in Sweden, in Jarna and I would love to meet some AoH practitioners there and maybe co-create a deep listening workshop. Let me know if you are interested!</p>
<p>There are still some places left, if you feel a calling to attend: <a href="http://hostingtransformation.eu/festival/">http://hostingtransformation.eu/festival/</a></p>
<p>Warmly,</p>
<p></p> Rethinking democracy?tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-12-07:4134568:Topic:693182012-12-07T14:13:30.850ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>From the emaillist summer '12:</em></p>
<p>Dear All,</p>
<div lang="EN-IE" xml:lang="EN-IE"><div><div><p>I am looking for inspiration on new (?) or different or comprehensive forms of democracy (initially for a speech that I need to draft about democracy and human rights). Please would anyone be able to point me to good stuff/texts about democracy as a participatory (rather than representative) concept?…</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><em>From the emaillist summer '12:</em></p>
<p>Dear All,</p>
<div lang="EN-IE" xml:lang="EN-IE"><div><div><p>I am looking for inspiration on new (?) or different or comprehensive forms of democracy (initially for a speech that I need to draft about democracy and human rights). Please would anyone be able to point me to good stuff/texts about democracy as a participatory (rather than representative) concept?</p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">I find it striking that wherever I hear or participate in debates about democracy, anyone (well where I am located, in the EU) immediately presupposes I am speaking of representative democracy through elections from party lists by national citizens (so basically excluding from participation everyone with a foreign passport even if they have lived in the country and participated otherwise in society for over 30 years…; and equally excluding anyone under 18 years; and excluding persons with mental disabilities; etc…)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">Interestingly, even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><em style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: #333333;" lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” (Art. 21)</span></em></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">So – I wondered, are there any alternative views on the concept of democracy, on democracy and human rights, consensus democracy, concepts as well as practical examples of (political) participation etc. etc.? (I know of Wisdom Council and of the great work done in Vorarlberg – any others?)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">Many thanks in advance and greetings from Vienna,</span></div>
<p>Wal</p>
<p>----------------</p>
<p>Hi Wal,<br/> <br/> In case this is relevant to what you are looking for ..... I have been tremendously impressed by the concept of 'generative ownership' vs 'extractive ownership' set out in a new book by Marjorie Kelly. While I have so far read only the excerpts that are available online (<a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/static/Owning_Our_Future_EXCERPT.pdf?GAN=GAN">http://www.bkconnection.com/static/Owning_Our_Future_EXCERPT.pdf?GAN=GAN</a>), it seems clear to me that the structures of 'generative ownership' she is talking about operate in ways that are far more congruent with my notion of democracy and participatory process than are the ways of 'extractive ownership'. Here is one paragraph from the excerpt above that may give a flavour:<br/> <br/> “....What’s under way is an ownership revolution. It’s about broadening economic power from the few to the many and about changing the mindset from social indifference to social benefit. We’re schooled to fear this shift, to think there are only two choices for the design of an economy: capitalism and communism, private ownership and state ownership. But the alternatives being grown today defy those dusty 19th century categories. They represent a new option of private ownership for the common good. This economic revolution is different from a political one. It’s not about tearing down but about building up. It’s about reconstructing the foundation of ownership on which the economy rests." (Kelly, M. <i>Owning our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution</i>, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, Calif. 2012)<br/> <br/> By the way, it also seems to be full of stories, well told in an interesting and very readable style.<br/> <br/> Kind regards,<br/> Rosemary</p>
<p>--------------</p>
<p>Dear Rosemary,<br/> <br/> I wholeheartedly agree with you about Marjorie Kelly's new book. I picked up a copy while attending the 2012 BALLE conference in Grand Rapids.<br/> <br/> Dave</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;">Dear Wal,</div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;"> </div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;">I was just researching the concept of participatory budgeting and came across this thoughtful piece.</div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;"><a href="http://www.tni.org/archives/archives_wainwright_matter">http://www.tni.org/archives/archives_wainwright_matter</a> , it has other tags to participatory democracy in Europe.</div>
<div style="right: auto;"> </div>
<div style="right: auto;">I think looking to Brazil and latin american countries may give some insight and inspiration, they have established procesess for participatory democracy.</div>
<div style="right: auto;"> </div>
<div style="right: auto;">Sharuna</div>
<div style="right: auto;">---------------</div>
<div style="right: auto;"><div>Hi Waltraud,</div>
<div>Here a quick few thoughts as a brainstorm:</div>
<div>- the liquid democracy system of the Pirate Party: <a href="http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Liquid_Democracy">http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Liquid_Democracy</a></div>
<div>- a Collaborative Democracy reflection from former Hub Berlin members: <a href="http://www.oya-online.de/article/read/470-kollaborative_demokratie.html">http://www.oya-online.de/article/read/470-kollaborative_demokratie.html</a> who work on the concept of the Bundeswerkstatt (a collaborative co-creation space for citizens next to the Bundetag and Bundesrat): <a href="http://www.bundeswerkstatt.de/">http://www.bundeswerkstatt.de/</a></div>
<div>- some more thoughts around Collaborative Democracy: <a href="http://streethostingberlin.posterous.com/veranstaltung-kollaborative-demokratie-in-ber">http://streethostingberlin.posterous.com/veranstaltung-kollaborative-demokratie-in-ber</a></div>
<div>- Joseph Beuys and his Direct Democracy approach: <a href="http://www.omnibus.org/geschichte.html">http://www.omnibus.org/geschichte.html</a></div>
<div>- and a political empowerment approach from social work in the US: community organizing - the platform I am a member of in Berlin: <a href="http://www.wirsindda.com/">http://www.wirsindda.com/</a></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Frauke</div>
<div>------------</div>
<div><p>Hi Waltraud,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Have looked at the concept of ‘Deep Democracy’? The term was coined by Arnold Mindell and it rests on “<i>that special feeling of belief in the inherent importance of all parts of ourselves and all viewpoints in the world around us</i>.” (From <a href="http://www.aamindell.net/category/ww/deep-democracy-terms/">http://www.aamindell.net/category/ww/deep-democracy-terms/</a>)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Arnold Mindell is the co-founder of the field of Process Oriented Psychology (or Process Work). POP is a radically inclusive way of conceiving our ourselves and our relationships with each other. In practical terms, it provides a framework for understanding the various conscious and unconscious processes that occur within and between individuals, groups, communities and nations. Deep Democracy seeks to apply the principles of POP in the belief that <i>“the world is here to help us to become our entire selves, and that we are here to help the world become whole.”</i> (From <a href="http://www.iapop.com/">http://www.iapop.com/</a>)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have attached a paper which provides a more detailed (if academic) exploration of the history, philosophy and practical aspects of Deep Democracy. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hope this helps!</p>
<p>Marc Coulombe</p>
<p>----------------</p>
<div>And in this context it is also interesting to look at the Deep Democracy work in Southern Africa:</div>
<div>"Deep Democracy is based on the work of the American psychologist Arnold Mindell, known for his innovative work in Process Orientated Psychology. In the early 1990s two of Mindell’s students, Myrna Lewis and her late husband, Greg, began translating some of the psychological tools for use in organizations. As corporate consultants, they applied what they had learned to a unique situation: South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy.<br/> <br/> Deep Democracy was born when South Africa’s national utility company asked Greg and Myrna to help a large division make the leap into the New South Africa. Like most apartheid-era corporations, this was a racist, sexist workplace, where each employee filled a rigidly defined slot in the hierarchy. Now, virtually overnight, workers were expected to become team players. The company had to find a way to keep running while its 5,000 employees adjusted to new and often awkward peer relationships with their former supervisors and subordinates. Suddenly these people had to make cooperative decisions and support each other in implementing them—all in the crucible of deeply rooted racial, cultural and gender-based tensions.<br/> <br/> The Lewises responded to these enormous challenges by adapting the complex science of Mindell’s Process Orientated Psychology and applying it to everyday demands of the new dispensation. With their help, their client’s 5,000 workers weathered the transition, and the company went on to thrive.<br/> <br/> Greg and Myrna subsequently discovered that their methods work just as well for educators, students, communities, families and couples. After Greg died in 2002, Myrna continued to refine the techniques they had created together. It has taken more than fifteen years of intensive work to hone Deep Democracy into the straightforward, five-step methodology changing lives and relationships all over the world today. Today, the methodology is used in all sectors of society and in over 20 countries."</div>
<div><a href="http://deep-democracy.net/about-dd/history.php">http://deep-democracy.net/about-dd/history.php</a></div>
<div>Articles: <a href="http://deep-democracy.net/links/articles.php">http://deep-democracy.net/links/articles.php</a></div>
<div>Frauke</div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div><div>And…wow this is rich stuff </div>
<div>Don’t know if this is helpful but have just been re reading Peter Block's book – community the structure of belonging ( re reading is such a good experience you see all sorts of stuff you didn’t the first time round ) </div>
<div>He speaks of reframing leadership away from being at the front ( representative ) structures transforming it into convening and creating the conditions for participation – opening the creative spaces within which citizens get deeply engaged. Now that’s an inspiring purpose for the european institutions if ever there was one. </div>
<div>Many useful and practical examples in the book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Community-Structure-Belonging-Peter-Block/dp/1442964847/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345619603&sr=1-1-fkmr0">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Community-Structure-Belonging-Peter-Block/dp/1442964847/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345619603&sr=1-1-fkmr0</a></div>
<div>Love linda x</div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div><p>Hi Wal,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is a vast and fascinating subject indeed. So glad to hear that you’re looking into it.<br/> <br/> I’d like to start by echoing Silvia’s plug to not forget direct democracy. Too often people who promote “participatory democracy” feel uncomfortable with direct democracy, especially the traditional forms of initiatives and referendums (IRI-Europe and its co-founder Bruno Kaufmann are definitely the experts on these). However, there are other forms of direct democracy where citizens make the decisions themselves like participatory budgeting (<a href="http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/">see PB Unit</a> in the UK or the <a href="http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/">Participatory Budgeting Project</a> in North America) or the various parts of the Campaign for Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, India.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For extensive listings and descriptions of a wide variety of innovative projects from around the world that involve different ways of “doing democracy” check out the wiki <a href="http://participedia.net/">Participedia</a>. The 2011 <a href="http://www.vitalizing-democracy.org/">Rheinhard Mohn Prize on “revitalizing democracy”</a> from the Bertelsmann Foundation featured some of these as well, with nice videos.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My favorite thinker in the field of public participation and democratic innovation is <a href="http://cas.la.psu.edu/faculty-staff/jwg22">John Gastil</a> at Penn State. He’s both very practical and willing to explore quite innovative approaches. Before jumping into his numerous books, you might want to watch some of the videos he has on You Tube. <a href="http://www.co-intelligence.org/">Tom Atlee</a> also has some good pushing-the-envelope thinking on this topic, including in his newest book <u>Empowering Public Wisdom</u>. Peter Levine at Tufts sponsors a yearly <a href="http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/circle/summer-institute/frontiers-of-democracy-innovations-in-civic-practice-theory-and-education/">Frontiers of Democracy</a> conference -- you could look at what he’s written, as well as conference participants. In the international development world, <a href="http://www.coady.stfx.ca/coady/staff/john_short_bio">John Gaventa</a> is definitely a very important thinker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A great think-tank on this topic is the <a href="http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/">Deliberative Democracy Consortium</a>. I really like their latest publication <a href="http://www.nlc.org/find-city-solutions/center-for-research-and-innovation/governance-and-civic-engagement/democratic-governance-and-civic-engagement/planning-for-stronger-local-democracy">Planning for Stronger Local Democracy</a>. It’s US-focused, but still relevant elsewhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In Europe, OECD (Joanne Cady) and the Council of Europe also study democratic innovations and have produced interesting publications.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can also find very interesting discussions on this topic on the <a href="http://ncdd.org/">National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation</a> (NCDD) list-serve and resources on the website.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I’ve been working in this area of citizen participation and democratic innovation for the past few years, first in Europe and now the USA, so it’s hard to know where to begin… </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Janice</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> Rethinking democracy as participative instead of representational?tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-12-07:4134568:Topic:692752012-12-07T14:07:45.148ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>From the emaillist summer '12:</em></p>
<p>Dear All,</p>
<div lang="EN-IE" xml:lang="EN-IE"><div><div><p>I am looking for inspiration on new (?) or different or comprehensive forms of democracy (initially for a speech that I need to draft about democracy and human rights). Please would anyone be able to point me to good stuff/texts about democracy as a participatory (rather than representative) concept?…</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><em>From the emaillist summer '12:</em></p>
<p>Dear All,</p>
<div lang="EN-IE" xml:lang="EN-IE"><div><div><p>I am looking for inspiration on new (?) or different or comprehensive forms of democracy (initially for a speech that I need to draft about democracy and human rights). Please would anyone be able to point me to good stuff/texts about democracy as a participatory (rather than representative) concept?</p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">I find it striking that wherever I hear or participate in debates about democracy, anyone (well where I am located, in the EU) immediately presupposes I am speaking of representative democracy through elections from party lists by national citizens (so basically excluding from participation everyone with a foreign passport even if they have lived in the country and participated otherwise in society for over 30 years…; and equally excluding anyone under 18 years; and excluding persons with mental disabilities; etc…)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">Interestingly, even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><em style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; color: #333333;" lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” (Art. 21)</span></em></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">So – I wondered, are there any alternative views on the concept of democracy, on democracy and human rights, consensus democracy, concepts as well as practical examples of (political) participation etc. etc.? (I know of Wisdom Council and of the great work done in Vorarlberg – any others?)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; color: black;">Many thanks in advance and greetings from Vienna,</span></div>
<p>Wal</p>
<p>----------------</p>
<p>Hi Wal,<br/><br/>In case this is relevant to what you are looking for ..... I have been tremendously impressed by the concept of 'generative ownership' vs 'extractive ownership' set out in a new book by Marjorie Kelly. While I have so far read only the excerpts that are available online (<a href="http://www.bkconnection.com/static/Owning_Our_Future_EXCERPT.pdf?GAN=GAN">http://www.bkconnection.com/static/Owning_Our_Future_EXCERPT.pdf?GAN=GAN</a>), it seems clear to me that the structures of 'generative ownership' she is talking about operate in ways that are far more congruent with my notion of democracy and participatory process than are the ways of 'extractive ownership'. Here is one paragraph from the excerpt above that may give a flavour:<br/> <br/>“....What’s under way is an ownership revolution. It’s about broadening economic power from the few to the many and about changing the mindset from social indifference to social benefit. We’re schooled to fear this shift, to think there are only two choices for the design of an economy: capitalism and communism, private ownership and state ownership. But the alternatives being grown today defy those dusty 19th century categories. They represent a new option of private ownership for the common good. This economic revolution is different from a political one. It’s not about tearing down but about building up. It’s about reconstructing the foundation of ownership on which the economy rests." (Kelly, M. <i>Owning our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution</i>, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, Calif. 2012)<br/> <br/>By the way, it also seems to be full of stories, well told in an interesting and very readable style.<br/><br/>Kind regards,<br/>Rosemary</p>
<p>--------------</p>
<p>Dear Rosemary,<br/><br/>I wholeheartedly agree with you about Marjorie Kelly's new book. I picked up a copy while attending the 2012 BALLE conference in Grand Rapids.<br/><br/>Dave</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;">Dear Wal,</div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;"> </div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;">I was just researching the concept of participatory budgeting and came across this thoughtful piece.</div>
<div style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; right: auto;"><a href="http://www.tni.org/archives/archives_wainwright_matter">http://www.tni.org/archives/archives_wainwright_matter</a> , it has other tags to participatory democracy in Europe.</div>
<div style="right: auto;"> </div>
<div style="right: auto;">I think looking to Brazil and latin american countries may give some insight and inspiration, they have established procesess for participatory democracy.</div>
<div style="right: auto;"> </div>
<div style="right: auto;">Sharuna</div>
<div style="right: auto;">---------------</div>
<div style="right: auto;"><div>Hi Waltraud,</div>
<div>Here a quick few thoughts as a brainstorm:</div>
<div>- the liquid democracy system of the Pirate Party: <a href="http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Liquid_Democracy">http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Liquid_Democracy</a></div>
<div>- a Collaborative Democracy reflection from former Hub Berlin members: <a href="http://www.oya-online.de/article/read/470-kollaborative_demokratie.html">http://www.oya-online.de/article/read/470-kollaborative_demokratie.html</a> who work on the concept of the Bundeswerkstatt (a collaborative co-creation space for citizens next to the Bundetag and Bundesrat): <a href="http://www.bundeswerkstatt.de/">http://www.bundeswerkstatt.de/</a></div>
<div>- some more thoughts around Collaborative Democracy: <a href="http://streethostingberlin.posterous.com/veranstaltung-kollaborative-demokratie-in-ber">http://streethostingberlin.posterous.com/veranstaltung-kollaborative-demokratie-in-ber</a></div>
<div>- Joseph Beuys and his Direct Democracy approach: <a href="http://www.omnibus.org/geschichte.html">http://www.omnibus.org/geschichte.html</a></div>
<div>- and a political empowerment approach from social work in the US: community organizing - the platform I am a member of in Berlin: <a href="http://www.wirsindda.com/">http://www.wirsindda.com/</a></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Frauke</div>
<div>------------</div>
<div><p>Hi Waltraud,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Have looked at the concept of ‘Deep Democracy’? The term was coined by Arnold Mindell and it rests on “<i>that special feeling of belief in the inherent importance of all parts of ourselves and all viewpoints in the world around us</i>.” (From <a href="http://www.aamindell.net/category/ww/deep-democracy-terms/">http://www.aamindell.net/category/ww/deep-democracy-terms/</a>)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Arnold Mindell is the co-founder of the field of Process Oriented Psychology (or Process Work). POP is a radically inclusive way of conceiving our ourselves and our relationships with each other. In practical terms, it provides a framework for understanding the various conscious and unconscious processes that occur within and between individuals, groups, communities and nations. Deep Democracy seeks to apply the principles of POP in the belief that <i>“the world is here to help us to become our entire selves, and that we are here to help the world become whole.”</i> (From <a href="http://www.iapop.com/">http://www.iapop.com/</a>)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have attached a paper which provides a more detailed (if academic) exploration of the history, philosophy and practical aspects of Deep Democracy. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hope this helps!</p>
<p>Marc Coulombe</p>
<p>----------------</p>
<div>And in this context it is also interesting to look at the Deep Democracy work in Southern Africa:</div>
<div>"Deep Democracy is based on the work of the American psychologist Arnold Mindell, known for his innovative work in Process Orientated Psychology. In the early 1990s two of Mindell’s students, Myrna Lewis and her late husband, Greg, began translating some of the psychological tools for use in organizations. As corporate consultants, they applied what they had learned to a unique situation: South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy.<br/> <br/>Deep Democracy was born when South Africa’s national utility company asked Greg and Myrna to help a large division make the leap into the New South Africa. Like most apartheid-era corporations, this was a racist, sexist workplace, where each employee filled a rigidly defined slot in the hierarchy. Now, virtually overnight, workers were expected to become team players. The company had to find a way to keep running while its 5,000 employees adjusted to new and often awkward peer relationships with their former supervisors and subordinates. Suddenly these people had to make cooperative decisions and support each other in implementing them—all in the crucible of deeply rooted racial, cultural and gender-based tensions.<br/> <br/>The Lewises responded to these enormous challenges by adapting the complex science of Mindell’s Process Orientated Psychology and applying it to everyday demands of the new dispensation. With their help, their client’s 5,000 workers weathered the transition, and the company went on to thrive.<br/> <br/>Greg and Myrna subsequently discovered that their methods work just as well for educators, students, communities, families and couples. After Greg died in 2002, Myrna continued to refine the techniques they had created together. It has taken more than fifteen years of intensive work to hone Deep Democracy into the straightforward, five-step methodology changing lives and relationships all over the world today. Today, the methodology is used in all sectors of society and in over 20 countries."</div>
<div><a href="http://deep-democracy.net/about-dd/history.php">http://deep-democracy.net/about-dd/history.php</a></div>
<div>Articles: <a href="http://deep-democracy.net/links/articles.php">http://deep-democracy.net/links/articles.php</a></div>
<div>Frauke</div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div><div>And…wow this is rich stuff </div>
<div>Don’t know if this is helpful but have just been re reading Peter Block's book – community the structure of belonging ( re reading is such a good experience you see all sorts of stuff you didn’t the first time round ) </div>
<div>He speaks of reframing leadership away from being at the front ( representative ) structures transforming it into convening and creating the conditions for participation – opening the creative spaces within which citizens get deeply engaged. Now that’s an inspiring purpose for the european institutions if ever there was one. </div>
<div>Many useful and practical examples in the book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Community-Structure-Belonging-Peter-Block/dp/1442964847/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345619603&sr=1-1-fkmr0">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Community-Structure-Belonging-Peter-Block/dp/1442964847/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345619603&sr=1-1-fkmr0</a></div>
<div>Love linda x</div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div><p>Hi Wal,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is a vast and fascinating subject indeed. So glad to hear that you’re looking into it.<br/><br/>I’d like to start by echoing Silvia’s plug to not forget direct democracy. Too often people who promote “participatory democracy” feel uncomfortable with direct democracy, especially the traditional forms of initiatives and referendums (IRI-Europe and its co-founder Bruno Kaufmann are definitely the experts on these). However, there are other forms of direct democracy where citizens make the decisions themselves like participatory budgeting (<a href="http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/">see PB Unit</a> in the UK or the <a href="http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/">Participatory Budgeting Project</a> in North America) or the various parts of the Campaign for Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, India.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For extensive listings and descriptions of a wide variety of innovative projects from around the world that involve different ways of “doing democracy” check out the wiki <a href="http://participedia.net/">Participedia</a>. The 2011 <a href="http://www.vitalizing-democracy.org/">Rheinhard Mohn Prize on “revitalizing democracy”</a> from the Bertelsmann Foundation featured some of these as well, with nice videos.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My favorite thinker in the field of public participation and democratic innovation is <a href="http://cas.la.psu.edu/faculty-staff/jwg22">John Gastil</a> at Penn State. He’s both very practical and willing to explore quite innovative approaches. Before jumping into his numerous books, you might want to watch some of the videos he has on You Tube. <a href="http://www.co-intelligence.org/">Tom Atlee</a> also has some good pushing-the-envelope thinking on this topic, including in his newest book <u>Empowering Public Wisdom</u>. Peter Levine at Tufts sponsors a yearly <a href="http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/circle/summer-institute/frontiers-of-democracy-innovations-in-civic-practice-theory-and-education/">Frontiers of Democracy</a> conference -- you could look at what he’s written, as well as conference participants. In the international development world, <a href="http://www.coady.stfx.ca/coady/staff/john_short_bio">John Gaventa</a> is definitely a very important thinker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A great think-tank on this topic is the <a href="http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/">Deliberative Democracy Consortium</a>. I really like their latest publication <a href="http://www.nlc.org/find-city-solutions/center-for-research-and-innovation/governance-and-civic-engagement/democratic-governance-and-civic-engagement/planning-for-stronger-local-democracy">Planning for Stronger Local Democracy</a>. It’s US-focused, but still relevant elsewhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In Europe, OECD (Joanne Cady) and the Council of Europe also study democratic innovations and have produced interesting publications.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can also find very interesting discussions on this topic on the <a href="http://ncdd.org/">National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation</a> (NCDD) list-serve and resources on the website.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I’ve been working in this area of citizen participation and democratic innovation for the past few years, first in Europe and now the USA, so it’s hard to know where to begin… </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Janice</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> What is soft shoe shuffle? or Moving Conversationtag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-08-06:4134568:Topic:575532012-08-06T20:31:55.321ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>(from a question in another thread of conversation):</em></p>
<p>Hi Linda,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Soft Shoe Shuffle is an exercise/process developed by Myrna Lewis of Deep Democracy. I think the name comes from a group she first did it with who were wearing no shoes, just socks, and it became known as the “Soft Shoe Shuffle”. We tend to call it a “Moving Conversation” these days.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fundamentally it involves a groups standing around and someone makes a statement, typically in…</p>
<p><em>(from a question in another thread of conversation):</em></p>
<p>Hi Linda,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Soft Shoe Shuffle is an exercise/process developed by Myrna Lewis of Deep Democracy. I think the name comes from a group she first did it with who were wearing no shoes, just socks, and it became known as the “Soft Shoe Shuffle”. We tend to call it a “Moving Conversation” these days.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fundamentally it involves a groups standing around and someone makes a statement, typically in response to a powerful question put to the group. When someone makes the statement all other people either move towards that person if they agree with it, or move away from the person if they disagree with it. People are strongly encouraged to move around. The facilitator/host identifies the people who have moved furthest away and ask them what their view is. Again people either move towards or away from that view. The “heat” or energy of the conversation can be turned up if the facilitator/host amplifies the statement. This is where the statement is extrapolated. For example someone might say “Sometimes our work is not very high quality” and that could be amplified to “Sometimes the quality of our work is shit, and it’s just not acceptable”.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sometimes these conversations resolve into a statement that everyone can agree with and sometimes they highlight polarities. It is then possible to work with those polarities with some sort of conflict resolution process.</p>
<p>It can be a very powerful process and very often draws views into the conscious arena, allowing them to be dealt with in a constructive way.</p>
<p>It’s also great fun!</p>
<p>Others might have different experiences and ideas about it and I’d love to hear about them.</p>
<p>Kindest</p>
<p>Stephen Duns</p> Convergence and Decision Making Methodologies and Practicestag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-08-06:4134568:Topic:577102012-08-06T20:28:05.269ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>From the emaillist, spring '12:</em></p>
<p>Hello friends,</p>
<div>For some of my work in Japan, I am compiling a set of tips on methodologies and practices for convergence and decision making.</div>
<div>I would really appreciate it if you could share what you use that you have found to be particularly effective.</div>
<div>In Japan in our Future Center work we're using an approach which works with seven stages:…</div>
<p><em>From the emaillist, spring '12:</em></p>
<p>Hello friends,</p>
<div>For some of my work in Japan, I am compiling a set of tips on methodologies and practices for convergence and decision making.</div>
<div>I would really appreciate it if you could share what you use that you have found to be particularly effective.</div>
<div>In Japan in our Future Center work we're using an approach which works with seven stages:</div>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 40px; padding: 0px;"><div>1) relationship building</div>
<div>2) identifying needs</div>
<div>3) gathering data</div>
<div>4) generating ideas</div>
<div>5) converging</div>
<div>6) prototyping</div>
<div>7) communicating results</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Over the last couple of years we've paid most attention to the first four stages, now our attention is turning to the last three.</p>
<div>Of course this is a never ending cycle and in some ways I experience it as each further steps reaches back and embraces what's gone on in the previous arenas. In Japan, where there is such a sense of beauty and aesthetics, we've even come up with a large graphic workboard (about 3 feet by six feet) which can be used to illustrate where we are on the journey:</div>
<div><img id="30f3f3a6-1bbe-45d0-85aa-9e67590fe471" height="640" width="960"/></div>
<div>Thanks for your help!</div>
<div>Bob Stilger</div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div><p>Hi Bob,</p>
<p>The importance of convergence is a topic that resonates with me. In fact I wonder if it is one of the things that could be considered to be “missing” in typical AoH trainings. Of course Proaction Cafe is a good divergent process, as can be World Cafe and even OST, with the right questions.</p>
<p>In addition we have been working with the idea of Participatory Decisions, based on Arnold Mindell’s work, some classic consensus decision-making and some of Myrna Lewis’ work on Deep Democracy. A problem in terms of training is that it’s a reasonably large piece in its own right and so very difficult to incorporate into AoH training. (Having said that it is also true of Appreciative Inquiry, which is often given merely a passing nod.)</p>
<p>The critical concepts in our Participatory Decisions model are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Ensuring all views are aired</li>
<li>Encouraging the voice of dissent</li>
<li>The wisdom of the minority (from Deep Democracy) – the classic majority democratic approach assumes that those who lose the vote will fall into line, and that can be somewhat naive.</li>
<li>The sabotage spectrum – when those who “lose the vote” continue to work for their cause/case by sabotaging the majority decision</li>
<li>Social Field Theory/Role Theory (Mindell)</li>
<li>Metaskills (Lewis, et al)</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>We tend to use Circle as the framework to support the approach, and if it’s a big group we use multiple Circles. I guess it could get slightly clunky with very large groups, of say over 50 people. So far we have used it with smaller teams, but that might just be our lack of imagination.</p>
<p>Anyway if this is helpful and of interest I’d be happy to talk further with you.</p>
<p>Kindest,</p>
<p>Stephen Duns</p>
<p>-------------------</p>
<div>I have found that the ICA methods, focused conversation and workshop, are the most efficient participatory methods for convergence.. They are designed for people to reach shared understanding, shared meaning and shared direction. ICA is a global community of practice and their work is complementary to AoH methods. While they have their own training and certification, it is experiential and reasonably priced. Would be great to develop a relationship and explore ways to bring this work to AoH practitioners. I have been a mentor trainer of these methods and find them highly useful, along with Sam Kaner's work.. </div>
<div>I appreciate the distinction of "convergence" as I think these methods are not as effective without the "divergence" processes that I believe AoH so beautifully integrates.</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Ginny Belden-Charles</div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Hi Stephen, <div>We're thinking along the same lines and holding similar partial responses!</div>
<div>I often turn to Deep Democracy's "soft shoe shuffle" as one good way to get an excellent sense of the room in a more dynamic fashion. And I know that we can employ a variety of dialog methodologies to help create a meaningful conversation which can help to narrow and even select options.</div>
<div>I guess I am looking for more "tools" like soft shoe shuffle.</div>
<div>At one level I realize that an experienced host is always reading the air and when a moment for convergence appears, almost instinctively know how to proceed. I'm looking for what processes might be useful for the less experienced host!</div>
<div>Thanks for your thinking and response.</div>
<div>Cheers.</div>
<div>Bob</div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>A rich one...<div>Decision making process I have used over the years, depending on scale... I'm finding much of what has been offered so far to be frameworks for making decisions. I think we are good on frameworks in AoH practice - we speak a lot about the theory and architecture of moving towards convergence, but, at least in the many AoH's I have been involved in, we don't spend a lot of time actually practicing decision making. So this mail articulates some of the core decision making mechanisms I have used over the years.</div>
<div>First of all let me say that the biggest piece of wisdom I can offer on decision making is that you need to agree as a group before hand what the rules are. I have had terrible results from making it up as we go along or by imposing a decision making framework on a group at the end of a process. If decisions are to be made it is important to agree on the process as soon as you know you will be using one. This is basic design work and fits into the "practice" step of the chaordic stepping stones.</div>
<div>The second piece of wisdom is that bad decision are decisions that get made resulting in separation between people. If we make the decision at the expense of relationships we are risking sustainability of our action. So even where we need to make a decision to split a group or leave, it is wise to always remember that we are still in relation to those that are left behind, whether that relationship is positive, amicable or negative.</div>
<div>And a third piece: decisions are NOT the same as action. They often get confused. Sometimes people ask me to host strategic conversations that result in action and what they mean is that they want decisions to be made. Action is what follows a decision and good decisions contribute to wise action. In this sense some of the methodologies we are talking about are not necessarily decision making processes. For example, Pro-Action cafe is not per se a decision making process but rather an action making process. But I'll say something about that below. </div>
<div>Here are a few classes of processes that I use:</div>
<div><b>Voting</b></div>
<div><ul>
<li>I have used majority rules voting before. But it is often important to do that alongside using a relational protocol to deal with dissent and the minority voices. In other words, knowing that a vote will result in a dissatisfied minority, it is wise to immediately work on how to include the minority back into the field of the whole. In my home community we had a very divisive referendum on a contentious issue and those of us on the losing side of the vote were never properly brought back into the fold. My recommendation for our Council was for us to take the decision (on whether to establish a national park on our public lands) and then to engage in a piece of work we can all get behind (building a community centre). Shared work can often be enough to pull people together in a space of difference - as Tuesday Ryan-Hart is saying - and in the absence of a shared purpose, or in a wounded collective purpose, an invitation to work on a piece of bigger communal need can be important. That didn't happen in our community - the group that promoted the majority NO vote on the park has taken control of the community centre project and has not offered an invitation to others to engage. It is a deep bruising sore in our community and instructive for me to be on the losing end of something with no power to convene.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div><b>Consensus</b></div>
<div><b> </b></div>
<div>By far I prefer to use consensus building tools, because they fit with our basic approach to working in relational fields.</div>
<div><ul>
<li>Larry Dressler has some good ideas in his book on Consensus Decision Making. He focuses on the process and architecture of planning decision making processes. The essence is moving from dialogue to the creation of a proposal to a decision making process.</li>
<li>Sam Kaner et. al. also has great tools in The Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making. That book has given us the groan zone, but it has also given us a suite of excellent decision making tools. One I use all the time is the graduated scale. This is where we ask people to vote on a proposal using a scale of one to five or one to seven. For large scale work I often place a big scale up on a wall and invite people to indicate their support for the proposal with a post it note place somewhere on the scale. I ask people to write on the post it note their reason for voting this way. This allows us to immediately see the grades of agreement and allows us to hone in on on the important conversations that we need to have to move more of the groups towards inclusion. This works well in very large groups. I have used it in a series of Cafe's involving a total of 400 people to make decisions about choosing a site for an indigenous school.</li>
<li>I use a scaled down version of this in Council decision making using the three thumbs method of making decisions. Thumbs up means support, thumbs sidewise means I need a conversation about something for clarity and thumbs down means that we cannot proceed, and that I am willing to bring forward another proposal. This is how I lead decision making in Circle.</li>
<li>Decision making of any kind at large scale takes time. If you don't have enough time, relationships will suffer. A good pattern to remember when designing is to Bring Forward a Clear Proposal. Another pattern to remember is Tend to Relationships. And another one is Seek Clarity. These three patterns should give you enough to design processes, but you need good time. The Occupy movement has several great and evolving lessons about large scale decision making, but they also have a lot of time to deliberate.</li>
</ul>
<div><b>Self-organizing decisions and action</b></div>
</div>
<div><b> </b></div>
<div>Sometimes we don't need everyone to be on the same page. What we need instead is a lot of prototyping, or connected action. In this case there is still a decision making process, but it is individual led, "posted and hosted" and undertaken by invitation. In Open Space and Pro-Action Cafe we see this process at play. It is valuable because it allows for actions to come from the margins without the need for a whole group to be involved. But if it involves the resources of the whole group, it will eventually need approval from the whole group.</div>
<div>My basic decision making process for Open Space is documented in Harrison Owen's third edition of the User's Guide. It is essentially opening space again. For example, after a day of conversation in Open Space, we print out and circulate the proceedings of all the small group sessions and then invite anyone who is willing to lead an action planning session to come forward and host a short planning meeting on their passion. Each one takes responsibility for birthing a new initiative and each group is asked to design a little plan and bring it back to the whole. If there is a decision that the whole needs to take, we can do that too. Here is an example of an event we did last year in which we used this process for a 1.5 day Open Space to address addiction related stigma in the health care system in Vancouver: <a href="http://addressingstigma.ning.com/">http://addressingstigma.ning.com/</a></div>
<div>Pro-action Cafe works in a similar way.</div>
<div>While these are action planning processes and they contain decision making, they aren't really collective decision making processes in the same way that the above methods and tools are. </div>
<div>And although I haven't worked with it, my friends Peggy Holman and Tom Atlee swear by Dynamic Facilitation as a way of hosting and harvesting emergent decisions, the kind that come from the clarity of simply being in dialogue together. That is also worth a look.</div>
<div>I've been gradually writing a little more for our workbooks on decision making, and this email may well serve to seed some other ideas. Please feel free to use it in any way in journals and workbooks for events, and let's add to it.</div>
<div>Hope this helps.</div>
<div>Chris Corrigan</div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div>This is really excellent, Chris. Thanks so much for your continued contributions to the learning of this community!<div><br/><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;">Bob Stilger</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">----------------</div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><div>When I was leading facilitation trainings with a team at Michigan State University, we practiced the same 'gradients of agreement' method that Chris describes so well here (the Sam Kaner et. al. piece). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have a written guide for leading a session, with a couple practice scenarios that I'm happy to offer. It's about 3 pages long, so I think pasting it here might be a bit excessive. I'd happily email it to you (any of you), if you would find it useful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems I'm still finding my way beyond facilitation and into hosting, and sometimes struggle with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many of these tools we've used for so long are already woven into our hosted conversations in both subtle or more obvious ways. It's an interesting process to sort what I've often referred to as my 'laundry basket' of tools to find ways of working with what still holds value in service of these deeper processes. I'd love to just sit with some of you and sort the laundry some day!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I so love these conversations; the learning never ends...</div>
<div>in peace,</div>
<div>Tracy Meisterheim</div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div><div>Tracy,</div>
<div>What a lovely reflection in the midst of a very rich conversation. And I have loved the offerings of Bob, Chris and others here. It is a conversation that already had my attention as we seed the field for California where this question is already being raised.</div>
<div>One of the things I love about AoH is that it doesn't have to be either/or, just one way to do things. There are a myriad of possibilities and the key is to learn discernment. At what point does what process serve? This includes decision making processes. There really is a balance between how we tend the relational field and how we get work done. There is no one right way to to do this. This is why it is an art. We sometimes lose the "art" in the process when we become too impatient, wanting things to happen quicker, not trusting convergence will happen. Convergence also needs leadership – it doesn't necessarily just happen. In my work with leaders of teams and organizations there is a tendency for them to lean in too far or not lean in far enough. This is why I've been growing my understanding that there is a set of leadership skills that support hosting in organizations and in teams. </div>
<div>In my experience, there is a difference between consensus in teams and consensual decision making. Teams that have learned to work well together function in a consensual fashion. If you really look at their decision making processes a lot of what they do is far more directive by individuals but the trust level inside the teams is so high that whoever makes the decision is supported by the rest of the team. I loved Chris' distinction between decisions and actions. I see that a lot as well.</div>
<div>One of the value added AoH brings is around engagement strategies. The question is what is the degree of involvement of each individual/stakeholder in the decision making process? And what is skill of the host in inserting the right question at the right time time to support convergence that wants to happen and not the convergence that any one is trying to force to happen. It is a delicate balance and there are many tools to help with the process. And there is also something about the awareness and intentionality we bring to the process that feels important here. </div>
<div>I'm always happy to learn more about decision making tools that support the work we do in well ways. </div>
<div>Kathy Jourdain</div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div><div>Kathy, your distinction between consensus in teams, and consensual decision-making, reminded me of a resource that I've found extremely useful...</div>
<div>in Barry Johnson's book on Polarity Management, he has a section called "How Participatory Management Gets Into Trouble" where he explores two different polarities... autocratic management / participatory management, as well as centralized decisions / decentralized decisions. As the two polarities are independent of one another, we can have participatory management that is either centralized or decentralized (or ideally, shifts between both poles, as appropriate to the needs of the situation...)</div>
<div>the 'decentralized decisions' end of the polarity is the one that would correspond with your high-trust factor... where individuals make decisions and are supported by the rest of the team. From the Polarity Management perspective, one of the places where participatory management has often gotten into trouble, is getting stuck in the "centralized decision-making" end of the polarity... the group has all the power, but individuals have little freedom, as everyone feels the need to be "in" on every single decision that gets made...</div>
<div>the "decentralized decisions" end would also correspond to what Chris wrote, about the value 'self-organizing decisions and action'... and at the same time, as Chris points out, "if it involves the resources of the whole group, it will eventually need approval from the whole group"... which makes sense from the PM perspective, which holds that what is most valuable is the ability to flow freely from one end of a polarity to the other, as needed...</div>
<div>and Chris, I love your description of Dynamic Facilitation as "a way of hosting and harvesting emergent decisions, the kind that come from the clarity of simply being in dialogue together".</div>
<div>You've really gotten to the core of it... I've sometimes described DF as "taking all sides, while holding space for creative possibility" ... or even more briefly, as "welcoming the gift in everything". Of course there are also some specific tools that embody the underlying awareness practice... For anyone interested, more info is available on Tom's site at <a href="http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html">http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html</a></div>
<div>with all best wishes,</div>
<div>Rosa Zubizaretta</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div><div style="font-size: 14px;">Dear all </div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;"></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">Wow many thanks for all this, just today Im about to host a leadership group in conversation about their decision making process, this couldn’t have come at a better moment – thank you, such elegant writing on the context and content of what to hold in the space and pay attention to.</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;"></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">I'd love to add to the richness of the tools we are talking about ( and to ask what is soft shoe shuffle ? ) by posting a bit of info about a convergence tool I have used which I love for its simplicity, participation and optimal/minimal structure. Its simply a clustering/harvesting process with a lovely twist in the middle which seems to engage people in finding common ground, whilst also allowing space for diversity and its totally participant led…. in fact follow the process but get totally out of the way as you host it. </div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;"></div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;">It's Swedish/Finnish ( as are many beautiful designs ) and comes from a company called Innotiimi who I trained with years before coming into contact with AoH, its one of the very few processes that has travelled with me since. Its called OPERA, has 5 stages and comes as the session begins to converge ( and depends on how ready the group is to converge ) although its also pretty useful to collaboratively set out the things people want to talk about at the beginning of a ( longish ) meeting</div>
<div style="font-size: 14px;"></div>
<div><b>O</b> – wn work – people work on their own in silence making their own list of what ever the matter in conversation – so decisions, principles, priorities, important points to capture/propose ( 5 mins ) </div>
<div><b style="font-size: 20px;">P</b> –airs – people work in small groups (up to 4 in total) and share their lists choosing between them 4 to put forwards as their contribution ( up to 20 mins ) when they have chosen 4 from all their lists they write each one on a separate large post it note and stick them on a sticky wall matrix which is pre - prepared with letters across the top ABCDEF and 1 – 4 down the side. Group A post their 4 in the A column – group B in the B column etc. Done when the board is covered ( this works best with up to 6 groups of 4 people so ideally not more than 24 people per session – although you can have simultaneous groups going on – I have done this with up to 100 people at a consultation ) - 20 mins</div>
<div><b>E</b> – xplanations – each group speaks to their 4 proposals and explains a bit the thinking behind it – ask the group to listen to all the contributions and be sensing where the greatest energy lies, which proposals feel right, create a feeling of YES that’s really right, even if they didn’t propose it – go through from A – F, give this time but not huge explanations just enough so we can all hear it, understand what has been written down and see the energy behind it. 10 mins</div>
<div><b style="font-size: 18px;">R</b> – anking – ask the groups of ( up to ) 4 to come back together and choose 4 proposals from the board. They can choose from anywhere on the board <i>BUT they can only choose one from their <b>own</b> line.</i> They can use the ABC 123 as short hand to make their decision ( ie I liked A4 and B6 – stops them crowding the board so everyone can still see it ) and it also has the effect of requiring them to seek out similarities across the board ie. Proposals that have the same energy but might not be written in exactly the same way. This is usually a lively session where they realise if they play their cards right they can get all their proposals in by choosing similar ones from other groups and still have space to choose something unique from their own group. When they have made their choice ask them to come and put a marker on the 4 that they have chosen - 10 mins.</div>
<div><b>A</b> – rranging – take off all the proposals that don’t have a marker and arrange the remaining ones so that the proposals with the most markers sit in a horizontal line, the proposals that have just one or two markers elsewhere. Ask the group to cluster them – which ones go together and which ones stand alone. ( again using the short hand of A4 goes with D3 ) Do not get involved in anyway in this conversation, let the group tell you where to cluster – simply be there to move pieces of paper around. If they cannot agree then the group that proposed the decision decide where it goes – proposals can straddle two themes. This session leads to even more conversation and clarity about the decisions or what is being proposed. 15 mins </div>
<div>If you have time you can then work with the group to give each column a new heading – that also helps to clarify each decision, proposal, harvest point and can lead to even more clarity emerging.</div>
<div>Whew – hope this is helpful, like most things the real tool is yourself not the process, however this is just a little gem, would love to hear of your gems.</div>
<div>Love,</div>
<div>Linda xx</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>