|
|
Deeper Inquiry Group
The group is operating as a team with rotating facilitation. An e-group is used for administration; membership in it is open to all Learning Group members who would like to participate. The next meeting will be October 7, 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM, at the offices of MetaView Consulting and Coaching, at 7 Mystic Street, Room 200, Arlington Center. Judy Wallace will facilitate, using Dialogue, on an as yet to emerge topic. To
RSVP for this meeting or find out more information about the
Deep Group, write to to deep@learninggroup.org.
However, members should feel free to come even if circumstances do
not permit sending advance notice. Nonmembers may join at the
meeting; for membership information, click
here. Past Deep Group participation is not necessary to be
part of out presencing experiment. All one needs is an open heart,
open mind, and one's personal truth.
We will have notes on the June 10, July 1, August 5 and September 2 meetings soon. Prior Meeting notes Almost by its very nature, the subject matter of the Deeper Inquiry Group (sometimes nicknamed DIG SIG) is not easy to describe. Likewise, discussion has been free-flowing and note-taking is somewhat like writing on the wind. Nevertheless, we are trying to capture some of the flavor of the meetings here, with "back-sequenced" reports. However, the following can at least give some idea of the nature of the Deep Group discussions. The topic for our May 6 meeting, facilitated by Malaena Nahmias and Gillian Orlinksky. was accessing and integrating one's "shadow side" to bring us into deeper collective awareness and presence. Our facilitators offered the following definition of "shadow side," based on the writing of Debby Ford:
They all cited the following poem by Rumi:
We began with an exercise in which we wrote words descriptive of our own personal shadow side on pieces of paper. This were mixed together and in rotation we drew out and commented on these descriptions. Some of the issue and ideas that arose from the subsequent discussion were as follows:
These questions proved both complex and interesting, with some points being rather controversial. We thus decided to follow up on this topic at our next meeting. - - - Our April 8 meeting was co-facilitated by Jiahong Juda and Judy Wallace will following up on a question from our March 4 meeting on whether co-facilitation is better than solo facilitation, with the topic continuing our consideration of "use of self" approach as a mean to promote deeper conversation. We began with a check-in describing our present state of mind. "Excitement" was the most commonly cited feeling about the meeting, but joy, anticipation, peacefulness, openness, curiosity, a "state of calling," hopefulness, caution, and nervousness were also mentioned. Paper and stickies were put on the table, with participants urged to write down any thoughts they had during the discussion. Later we would "harvest" these to create a shared sense of the meeting. Our facilitators then put forth two question for the discussion: (1) Is there an experience that you would be willing to share in which you applied use of self to be an instrument of change? (2) How is use of self helpful to groups? Jiahong Juda compiled the harvest into a document she called the "random list". It is an interesting method to record the spirit of and learning from the meeting. A few "thoughts" or "themes" that survived onto other paper notes from the discussion:
- - - The March 4 meeting continued with facilitated discussion, with Marci Shaffer leading us as we further considered use of self as a means for deep organizational change. We began by summarizing our last meeting, noting the importance of the "container" and the role of OD practitioners in enabling discussion not to yield to the "default container" but rather take a deeper direction. We also noted again the Deep Group itself as an experiment in such conversations. And a connection was noted to Otto Scharmer's ideas concerning how we can get out of the "blind spot" and move toward deep innovation and change. Some ideas emanating from the the subsequent discussion on use of self and deep change were as follows:
One question that came up was whether co-facilitation may be more effective. We accordingly decided to experiment by continuing this discussion at our next meeting with two facilitators. - - - Our February 5 meeting was facilitated by Jim Ritscher and continued with the “safe container” theme from our previous meeting. The group applauded Jim’s efforts at creating an excellent, reflective summary of his definition of a container, which as he sees it, is the core organization developmental skill. According
to Jim, ‘the container refers to the set of forces, agreements and
interactions that bind and control a group or organization. It is
the boundary that expresses what is and is not acceptable for the
group.” He cited, and we discussed, the following nine areas as tools for shaping the container:
Jim
also presented some suggested guidelines, which we dialogued about
for most off the session. Strong feelings emerged around the use of
first person (e.g., I agree to participate and to make sure
other people participate). In terms of our group, the consensus was
that individual participants should be considering as having
responsibility for other's behavior. The meeting evoked much divergent conversation. While some of the participants viewed the session as informational and, therefore, not an entry point into “deep” conversations, others chose to reflect on the experience as that’s what emerged and felt accepting of the result. As in all meetings, participants strive to remain open to what comes up in the moment, and the core group seems to have developed its own safe container through unspoken guidelines. - - - At our January 8 2008 meeting we discussed what proved to be the selected topic for our next meeting: how can a "container" be created for deep change. Often, it was noted, a container is seen as providing a "safe place" for open discussion, but paradoxically change may not occur unless people are willing to take "dangerous" risks. We also put that question into the context of our meetings: What is enabling for some people (e.g., candles) may make other uncomfortable. We talked about how we can honestly fact up to personal issues such as that, using the Deep Group as a "laboratory" for human interaction. This discussion related to the ongoing theme of what we are creating and exploring in these meetings. There was some feeling that to get better in focus the "no topic" parameter should be abandoned, though we felt that self-facilitation was still appropriate. We used a one work check-out to capture attendees' feeling about the meeting, with the following list ensuing:
At our November and December meetings we continued with the visualization and meditation processes employed in October. At the former, we reached a very "metalogic" state in which those present felt having received deep insight into to question of what the group is accomplishing, without being able to "name" the experience. We decide to try to pick up exactly where we left off and continue with self-facilitation. The "where we left" experiment had a mixed success, perhaps in part due to a slightly changing composition of the group. We tried to start with a recent member's experience but got somewhat "stuck" before resuming the quest. However, there was agreement that it was a valuable experience and that participants had been able to state their feelings and understanding in a reciprocally respectful way. So we again decide to continue the same "undefined process" next time, again using self-facilitation. At our October 2 meeting, Michele Simos and Paul Weisman facilitated, showing us a device for "Brilliant Decision-Making," as developed by Ron W. Jue, Ph.D. and Volker Schad. We began by formulating an opening question of "What are we exploring and creating through the Deep Group?" Each of us formed a visual image of the group, the following list emerging:
- - - Judy Wallace facilitated our September 11 meeting, in which used dialogue, this to discuss the U-process. Judy's handouts are available in the Deep Group e-group. In a variant of a talking stick, Judy set out various objects on the table for us to take indicating our willingness to speak and (from our choices) as an indication of our current state of mind. We discussed each of the stages of the U process and the role of dialogue at each. Those attending again found the dialogue methodology very helpful for the discussion. Our August 7 meeting continued our exploration of Dialogue and was facilitated by Allyn Bradford (the coordinator of out Dialogue Group). Following a check-in, Allyn explained the use of a talking stick and asked us to create the dialogue container by following these principles:
In a rather free-flowing discussion, we touched many topics. Some ideas that were expressed were as follows:
In a concluding check-out, we compared our experiences with using dialogue. In particular, whether a talking stick is helpful and how silence for reflection can be promoted were discussed. But overall there was a consensus to keep using dialogue as the format for these meetings. Some books that were cited in the discussion:
- - - Our July 10 session was on the role of Dialogue in presencing and in the Deep Group and was facilitated by Jim Murphy. Note taker was Judy Wallace. In part, this topic was selected because at our June 5 meeting that has been some feeling that the nature of our conversations should be reviewed. After some introduction about dialogue from Jim and discussion among the group, the evening’s topic seemed to hold the questions
This became the guiding topic/question for the evening’s discussion. After the opening of the space with the reminder that silence is OK, we moved into dialogue around a "sample" list of dialogue guidelines, viz.:
It was later commented that this permission to have silence seemed to relax the conversation, slow the pace compared to previous times. The guideline that seemed to bring out the most questions or comments was “Speak to the group”. There was a tendency for open interpretation on this and others, but the group agreed in principal to the guidelines and moved into the broader dialogue with these in mind. Lots
of very rich thoughts were expressed about how these guidelines in
organizational conversations and contexts might make a difference.
There was also the sense that the individual’s role in relation to
the group would be more one of less focus on self and one’s own
ideas and identity and more openness to other’s ideas and seeing
the bigger what might benefit the group or the organization. One line of inquiry that guided our conversation honed in on the very results and competitive orientation of most organizations that we might have as clients. It was also mentioned that innovation is seen to come out of competition. Could dialogue produce these kinds of results? Could the cultures of dialogue and competition be compatible? Could there be a “both and” way forward? Another expressed the fast paced atmosphere and sense of urgency around time, how things need to happen at a speed that requires meeting deadlines with no time for slowing down. So this whole question of how dialogue practices could be effective or even introduced into the organizational context where competition, results, deadlines, efficiency, egos, and action-orientation predominate became part of our conversation. It also seemed to point to further conversations. Along with this were ideas expressed about how dialogue might actually produce more long term productivity, quality, and employee satisfaction. It was pointed out that most organizations in our culture are so good as “doing” or “taking action” and not good at “being” or “stillness” or “slowing down”. We are good at talking and not so good at listening. It was said that “silence can be the connective tissue of collaboration”. It was also pointed out that science and the need to control, to predict, to replicate results has influenced our culture. In quantum physics that all got thrown up in the air as the outcome could not be known or predicted; so is the case with dialogue. We concluded by reflecting the process we had just experience and comparing the conversion/dialogue of this evening with those of previous meetings. These were some of the thoughts put forward:
It was agreed that the group would continue with dialogue as the process, at least for the next meeting. It was suggested that the evening’s facilitator provide context or guidelines for each evening. - - - On June 5, our facilitator was Tom Matera, with the topic being whether presencing is an evolutionary or a transformational process. We began with a round of introductions and why we were drawn to the Deep Group, producing some of the following comments:
Tom the suggested that, while at first that difference between "evolution" and transformation" might seem abstract or semantic, examining our view on these concept could help us better understand presencing. Some thoughts that came up in this first part of the discussion were as follows:
We then made a pause for reflection and resumed the discussion by considering what gets in the way of transformation. Some of the points raised were as follows:
We finished with a debrief. There was consensus that the session has been very valuable. Some admitted that the topic had seemed "academic" but that the flow of ideas showed that in fact it led to fruitful discussion. Some concerns were raised over "process" issues such as more equal participation and the use of silence for reflection. It was suggested that the topic of dialogue for next week might help the group not only to continue learning about presencing but also to make another periodic check on its operating principles. - - - The May 1, 2007 meeting was facilitated by Peter Kouzmov. Extending the theme previously discussed of how our own emotions affect the results of our work in organizations, Peter compared the Presencing model with that of Use of Self. We began with an ice-breaker in which we instructed to maintain eye contact with another person or persons for two minutes. We then reported our feelings, generating the following comments:
Next, we reviewed the Presencing/Theory U model, commenting on our understanding and experience of each of the steps (consciousness and awareness of the present moment; being open beyond one’s perceptions and historical ways of making sense; "letting go" of the need to control; readiness to "let come"; shifting from re-creating the past to realizing an emerging future; consciously participating in a larger field for change). Some remarks from this section included the following:
|
