This series of posts will be stories from my facilitation career, highlighting lessons I learned from working with clients. I intend for these to be helpful for those I am mentoring, but in general to all facilitators. Perhaps it will mean that you don’t have to learn the same lessons I had to — that you can build on these and build on these learnings. Please feel free to add your stories to the comments!
The following post is the first story in the series….
One of the things I have heard the most in the last few months is a yearning to understand how different people can think so differently about what is going on in the world. Others have said that making meaningful connections with others is really important for mental health.
Since my vocation is about building bridges between people, and my career has involved leading conversations among all kinds of people, I thought perhaps creating a relaxed conversation with friends and acquaintances that anyone could host could lead to addressing this need.
The design of this conversation is inspired by two main resources:
I Never Thought of it That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times, by Monica Guzman
The Art of Focused Conversation Second Edition: More than 100 Ways to Access Group Wisdom in your Organization, by R.Brian Stanfield and Jo Nelson, General Editors
There are three parts to this guide.
If you try this, please let me know what actually happened and any suggestions you have.
Invite neighbours or friends to come together around your kitchen table or living room to have some facilitated open dialogue about current challenges. At first, it may be wise to have a small group of people who may have similar thinking. Let them know ahead of time that this is an invitation for those who are curious and want to explore the issues from many perspectives. You may also share the working assumptions that will create safety to speak together (See below).
Let people know that you will facilitate the conversation, and that while you are facilitating, you are detached from any opinions you might have about the content – your role is to ask questions and guide the conversation so that everyone has a chance to participate and it stays respectful.
Be ready to stop the event (respectfully) if it degenerates into digging in, arguing or ranting, or verbal attacks. Not everyone is prepared to participate in a conversation like this. If the first one goes well, try some groups with more diversity in their perspectives, but who are curious and have a readiness to be in dialogue.
You do not need to ask every question laid out below, but ask at least one or two at each level. The questions are designed to follow a pattern of clear thinking, from surface to depth, which guide the allows the understanding of the group to evolve naturally as each level builds on the level before it.
The intent of the conversation:
The Topic: What is going on right now that presents challenges for us, and that we might be able to do something about?
The Rational Aim: To have articulated, heard, and understood different perspectives on at least one current event and its impacts. A list of a few doable positive actions that will make a difference. Practical recommendations to share with leaders and decision-makers.
The Experiential Aim: Each participant will feel heard and will feel that they have connected with others who care. Each participant will have a better understanding of what is going on and of other perspectives.
(A small local conversation might connect later to many larger conversations, either on larger topics, or with other groups of people.)
Serve tea, coffee, snacks…. Make sure people are comfortable.
Opening: Welcome everyone! (a round of short introductions if people don’t know each other)
I’ve invited you here to have a conversation about current events – to choose one that we would like to explore, and then to have a thoughtful conversation, hearing each others’ perspectives about it. Perhaps we will come up with some positive actions we can do later, or recommendations for leaders and decision-makers.
My role is to make it a safe place to ask questions and explore different perspectives on the topic we choose to explore. When I am asking questions, I do not have answers. I am leaving my opinions at the door so that I can guide respectful dialogue. I’m going to ask questions in a specific order that is designed to move our thinking from what we observe, through our internal reactions and memories, to interpretations, and finally to decision and closure.
There are two parts to this conversation: the first to pick one event to explore, and the second longer one to explore it.
These are some assumptions in guiding this conversation:
Working Assumptions:
Everyone has wisdom – life experience, personal perspectives, knowledge that they are bringing with them.
We need everyone’s wisdom for the wisest result — just as the value of a diamond lies in its many different facets, the value of a conversation lies in understanding the many different perspectives people bring.
There are no wrong (or right) answers in this conversation – we do not have to agree, just to listen to understand where someone is coming from.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts – we will all have a better understanding of what is going on after we listen to all the perspectives.
Everyone will hear others and be heard – we will all speak and listen to understand, not to argue or convince others.
All of this is about respecting different perspectives, both in listening and asking questions to clarify and understand.
2a. First Conversation: Narrowing the topic to pick one to explore:
Objective Level: What are some news events, local (or at any other level), that you have heard recently? Not commentary, but the actual event itself. Give it to us as a headline (not the whole story).
(take brief notes)
Reflective Level: Which of these news events are you most familiar with?
Which of these raise the strongest emotion for you?
Which of these are you least interested in?
Interpretive Level: Let’s pick one to explore more deeply. There are several more questions here to weigh the events up before we decide:
Which of these events seems like it has the most resonance with this group?
Which seems like it needs the most exploration to understand what’s really going on?
Which one of these do we feel we might potentially meaningfully address through our actions?”
Decisional Level: Which of these shall we pick for this conversation today? (We can talk about others at another time if we like.)
2b. Second Conversation: Focusing on the event the group has picked to explore:
Objective Level: What is some of the background data we know about this event (name it)? What is the source of that background data?
Reflective Level: What part of this is the most confusing or obscure?
What part of this is the most fascinating to you?
What part is the most frightening?
Where have you experienced something like this in the past, or observed it happening?
Interpretive Level: What might have been some of the root issues that made this event happen?
What are similar events that have happened recently?
What are some of the trends that this event might be pointing to?
What are the possible impacts of this event – either positive or negative, or both? Let’s capture this in notes. We can add plus (for positive) or minus (for negative) or both for our reactions to any impact.
Decisional Level: What can we do at the local level to influence the impact of this event and those similar to it, to mitigate potential negative impacts and strengthen potential positive impacts?
What practical recommendations do we want to make to decision-makers in our community, country, or world?
Closing: I have found it helpful to have this conversation and find out your concerns. I have learned a lot from everyone, and I hope you have, too.
Would you like to come another time to explore another topic? Who would like another cup of tea or coffee?
Optional:
Feel free to have a quick evaluation of the conversation itself with the group if appropriate:
O. What are some words or phrases that caught your attention during our conversation?
R. What was the most engaging part of the conversation?
At what part did you find yourself uneasy, or uncomfortable?
I. What is something new that you are considering now? (“I never thought about it like that!”)
What is something that confirms something you were already thinking about?
D. If we were going to have another similar conversation, what changes would you make?(Take notes on the recommended changes.)
Note: Although the content of the context talks about the Democratic party in the US, the actions could be about any political party in any country.
Context: Selected quotes taken from a post by Rosemary Cairns via The Atlantic.
“What Would a Liberal Tea Party Look Like? Democrats might have a chance to replicate the energy of the 2009 grassroots movement—if they actually want to.”
“Republicans aren’t the only ones taking flak. Democratic voters’ frustration with their party’s leaders, who are widely seen as either flat-footed or acquiescent, is growing.
To recover their mojo, Democrats need some sort of organizing principle, real or purported.
One challenge of creating a liberal version of the Tea Party is that what liberals want right now is so basic. The opposite of what Trump has done in his first month in office is good governance—careful, measured administration. But that doesn’t make a good bumper sticker, and it doesn’t inspire crowds.
Representative Jake Auchincloss, a Massachusetts Democrat, has warned against Democrats trying to offer voters a “Diet Coke” version of Trumpian populism. “Voters who ordered a Coca-Cola don’t want a Diet Coke,” he told the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently. “There are two different parties. We have to start by understanding who our voters are not and then understanding who our voters could be—and go and try to win them over.
Ultimately, Democrats will return to viability only if they’re able to learn from and absorb grassroots energy.
Democrats could certainly use an infusion of fresh ideas—and new leadership.”
My response:
Maybe a shift is needed to what the Iowa caucuses looked like when I was a child in the 1950’s — not about candidates for President, but grassroots meetings to create planks for the party platform. The ideas from the precinct caucuses were taken to a county convention, which then took the consensus to the state convention, and the consensus from the state was taken to the national convention to create the national party platform. (I remember one of these precinct caucuses happening in our family front room when I was 10. I was serving hot coffee to the participants and spilled it on me, which literally burned the meeting into my memory.)
This is what my father loved about politics – the way that ordinary people coming together and sharing their ideas created the foundation for grounded choices and decision-making all the way up to the national level.
Facilitators know how to design these from the grassroots up. And ICA did community town meetings across the US in 1976. I personally have facilitated consultations for governments that started at the local level and brought those ideas together at a higher level, looking for the common patterns that included all the perspectives.
What if we locally took action to bring our neighbours together to discuss what is important to them, and then shared these concerns with others doing the same thing? This could shape how leaders make decisions.
New Society Publishers has a Winter Sale with 40% off all their books including The Art of Focused Conversation Second Edition until Dec. 6, 2024.
https://newsociety.com/book/the-art-of-focused-conversation-second-edition/
by R. Brian Stanfield and Jo Nelson
The Art of Focused Conversation is the quintessential theoretical and practical guide to group communication and participatory decision-making. Incorporating over 60 years of meticulous research and collaborative development, this perennial, international bestseller is an indispensable addition to any facilitator’s toolkit.
The Focused Conversation Method at the heart of The Art of Focused Conversation is a core component of the Technology of Participation (ToP) methodology developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs. The original book is widely regarded as a key resource for designing and leading useful and effective conversations and fostering consensus and collaboration. This fully updated and revised edition includes:
Invigorate and elevate your group process with this invaluable resource—required reading for facilitators, leaders, educators, and anyone who wants to think clearly and guide thoughtful conversations.
About the Authors
R. Brian Stanfield was an educator, researcher, and Director of Publications at the Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs. Editor of the first edition of The Art of Focused Conversation and The Workshop Book and author of The Courage to Lead, Brian made a lasting contribution to the use of participatory practices in facilitation. He died in 2006.
Jo Nelson worked with the Institute of Cultural Affairs for 50 years, leading participatory development projects and designing and teaching ToP facilitator training programs. She was a contributor to the first edition of The Art of Focused Conversation and is author of The Art of Focused Conversation for Schools and Getting to the Bottom of ToP.
Pre-ordering is available at a discount until September 10. Order from
| Dialogue to Heal an Adversarial Worldview by Jo Nelson, CTF, IAF-CPF Emeritus From <The Power of Dialogue- Conversations with Masters> series |
| This session was part of the CP Yen Foundation Workshop series on the Power of Dialogue and featured Jo Nelson, CPF Emeritus on the topic of the use of dialogue to heal an adversarial worldview. “Once a society loses this capacity [for dialogue] all that is left is a cacophony of voices battling it out to see who wins and who loses. There is no capacity to go deeper, to find a deeper meaning that transcends individual views and self-interest.” Peter Senge On March 19th, 2024, 43 people joined together to consider how dialogue can be used to help heal an adversarial worldview. Jorie Wu, from CP Yen Foundation started the session with this quote by Peter Senge and encouraged everyone to be fully present, engage in and enjoy the mutual learning and be prepared to be surprised. She then introduced Jo Nelson as “an iconic figure in the profession of facilitation”. With over 50 years facilitating, teaching, mentoring and writing about facilitation, Jo has been inducted into the International Facilitators’ Hall of Fame and is currently working on the 2nd edition of Focused Conversations, scheduled for publication release in the fourth quarter of 2024. Jo started the session with her belief that everyone on this planet wants to have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives, and that everyone has wisdom that can affect those decisions in a very positive way when asked and listened to. Her concern is that there is an underlying image that reality only has two sides and that this worldview that is intensifying in the 21st century. This two-sided worldview – right/wrong, for/against, us/them, left/right, good/bad, friend/enemy – does not allow for or acknowledge a middle ground and prevents the development of thoughtful shared solutions to problems. Jo explained that a two-sided worldview is not all bad, after all the computer was developed from Is and 0s and turns off and on, but this view is currently blocking us from entering into authentic dialogues to find solutions to create a better future. When the underlying assumption is that reality only has two sides, it leads us to see alternative views as either with us or against us and stops us from considering a third way. Rumi is quoted as saying, “between right and wrong there is a field and I will meet you there.” Jo referred to this as the ethical space between different views. She talked about two people sitting on opposite ends of a park bench and viewing the scene in front of them in very different ways. Both people are seeing the same thing but viewing it very differently. The ethical space is the space on the bench between them. Like Rumi’s field, the ethical space is the open space between the different views, it is the space where we can explore options, opportunities, commonalities and differences, the space where we can find solutions. Jo reminded us that it is important to create a comfortable space (that mythical field or park bench) to hold the dialogue and that to address the adversarial mindset we should work from a place of curiosity. We need to ask questions like, ‘what if’, ‘I’d like to better understand your ideas’, ‘what information or thinking brought you to that idea’, ‘tell me more about your experiences’, ‘what do we have in common’, ‘where do we differ, ‘what might be a perspective on this that is different from either of ours’, ‘what can we learn from each other’, ‘what are we going to think about further after this conversation, given what we have said’. Holding authentic dialogues to explore the differences between views allows for a deepening of understanding and opens the way for exploration of a middle ground. Jo provided the image of a diamond, the more facets a diamond has the more valuable it is. Authentic dialogues are like a multi faceted diamond. The more facets or perspectives that are brought into the conversation the richer the dialogue and the better the results. After this thought-provoking introduction and imagery, participants went into small groups to discuss examples of where they have experienced an adversarial worldview. The groups were asked to discuss some things that in their experience sustain an adversarial worldview and block authentic dialogue and things we can do to address these blocks and increase our ability to have healing dialogues. The groups then shared their insights and thoughts and engaged in a reflective exercise to explore our collective learning. Some of the blocks identified by the groups were culture, core values, power and politics. It was suggested that these blockages are often deeply rooted, are often hard to remove and continue to sprout new growth, keeping the argumentative two-sided worldview alive. It was suggested that language often frames the conflict and establishes the patterns, assumptions and emotions around a conflict. One participant said, “naming something gives it power”. To address and remove the blockages we need to set a clear intention of curiosity. We need to be kind to ourselves and others. We need to share stories, not opinions. We need to carefully consider the language we are using. And most importantly we need to BREATHE – ask then breathe, listen then breathe, consider then breathe, respond then breathe. Sometimes all it takes is a calming breath before responding and continuously repeating the mantra I am curious to move an argument into a dialogue. The session concluded with participants sharing their insights and take-aways. We discussed the importance of remembering that we are all human and we need to continuously learn what it means to be a human being. We need to remember that dialogue is always available. As human beings we have more in common than we do differences, and we need to dare to speak and welcome those differences. Humanizing our dialogues, rather than demonizing each other is key. It is important to separate arrival from the conversation, we often enter a dialogue thinking we need to arrive at a decision, rather than deepening understanding. If we focus on expanding understanding rather than making a decision we can engage in a more authentic dialogue and move away from the adversarial worldview. |
I was honoured to be interviewed by Myriam Hadnes for a podcast about my experience of facilitation in May. The podcast was posted in mid-August. The overview:
This link is to the podcast itself (note: it is about 80 minutes long….). There are important nuggets in it about the development of the field of facilitation, my experience and learnings, and some very practical tools.
https://workshops.work/podcast/229/
And a YouTube version, in case you prefer visuals with your listening…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oFJ6yjA5s4
 | jofacilitator on My Working Assumptions as a… |
 | Min Kyu Chung on My Working Assumptions as a… |
| My Working Assumptio… on Working Assumptions | |
 | Kathy McGrane on Facilitating Your Family |
| Kathy McGrane on Reflecting on the Past Created… |
Jofacilitator 