Feed aggregator
Energy Fair attracts record number of next-generation energy leaders - Republican Journal (subscription)
Republican Journal (subscription)
Energy Fair attracts record number of next-generation energy leaders
Republican Journal (subscription)
While some students went on a home tour at the Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage led by Geoffrey Gilchrist of Belfast Cohousing, others learned how to advise their parents on home efficiency from Paul Shepherd of Penobscot Home Performance.
Categories: News
'Sociable' housing helps older people remain in the community - The Guardian
The Guardian
'Sociable' housing helps older people remain in the community
The Guardian
Cohousing is a form of "intentional community" created and run by its residents. It consists of private houses or flats with shared facilities, such as communal cooking and washing areas, and the residents offer mutual support. Homeshare matches ...
Revolution needed to stop 'ghettoisation' of older people, says think tank24dash (press release)
all 2 news articles »
Categories: News
Society daily 21.05.13 - The Guardian
The Guardian
Society daily 21.05.13
The Guardian
Cohousing and Homeshare can be ideal for older people who want a wider social life than care homes can provide, says Jo Salter • Witnessing blatant police cruelty convinced award-winning lawyer Leslie Thomas to make deaths in custody his life's work ...
Categories: News
Revolution needed to stop 'ghettoisation' of older people, says think tank - 24dash (press release)
Revolution needed to stop 'ghettoisation' of older people, says think tank
24dash (press release)
The organisation is now urging ministers, councils and housing providers to encourage 'sociable housing' models that reduce isolation and loneliness, such as Homeshare and cohousing. In a paper published as part of the Hanover@50 Debate, the think ...
Categories: News
Community Leadership and Lessons from the Hive
In order for
honeybees to survive cold winters, the workers surround the queen in a
ball, conserving heat by dense packing. When the bees on the outside of
the ball get cold, they rotate positions with those on the inside, so
that all can survive. Although operating on a different time scale,
healthy communities are rather like healthy hives.
If you conceive of a community as a living organism there is a core of committed individuals that collectively comprise the heart, and I want to write about the relationship of the heart to the whole, and what it takes to maintain a vibrant heart.
In a healthy beehive there is exactly one queen at the center. If there are ever two they will fight until one dies or is driven out. If a hive loses its queen it will try to make a new one (by feeding larva royal jelly); if the larva are too advanced to make this adjustment, the hive will die—unless the apiarist is able to requeen it in time.
Communities, however, are more nuanced on the matter of leadership. To be sure, some have a single charismatic and inspirational leader, a la the beehive. While there is definitely trickiness in such groups to pulling off leadership succession without loss of vitality or dynamism—partly because strong queens tend to suppress the development of queen-like qualities among worker bees—it can be done if the reigning queen has sufficient awareness of the need to groom a successor, and there is enough quality material to work with among the disciples.
While the charismatic leader model is historically the most stable and long-lived in the sweep of the Communities Movement—think Oneida (John Humphrey Noyes), the Shakers (Anna Lee), and even Kerista (Jud Jerome)—most groups listed in FIC's Communities Directory today make decisions collectively, depending on the group's wisdom, rather than on the wisdom of any single individual. This model (which is almost the exact opposite of the charismatic leader model) relates to the beehive in that there is a cadre of members who hold the leadership center, and in a healthy group the composition of the cadre rotates over time.
Further, it is the responsibility of those in the heart to judiciously invite the outer bees into the center, rather than expecting them to fight their way in, or to wait until the inner bees die off. Thus, a healthy heart will not only pump a steady supply of nourishing blood to the entire corpus of the group, it will offer a permeable membrane such that there is a clear pathway by which newbies (new bees) are able to become the heart.
Like with a hive, in a healthy community every bee need not be highly skilled, fully integrated into the group's culture, or equally capable of leadership—they just need enough members with those qualities to establish a strong enough flywheel that the rest of the hive is pulled along. The leadership cadre, or heart of the group, needs to consistently articulate the community's common values and be walking their talk—incorporating those values into their everyday lives. The core sets a tone. If the note sounded is clear and melodious, harmony ensues, creativity flourishes, and joy abounds. Friction leads to compassion and resolution; rather than brittleness and divisiveness. Newer folks will respond to the positive modeling like, well, a bee to nectar.
The key here is that in a healthy hive the core bees take the initiative in welcoming the outer bees into the opportunity to serve in the core—not to be drones (or clones), but to make their own choices about what frequency to buzz at and what flowers to frequent in service to the hive.
In community, it behooves us to be all we can bee.
If you conceive of a community as a living organism there is a core of committed individuals that collectively comprise the heart, and I want to write about the relationship of the heart to the whole, and what it takes to maintain a vibrant heart.
In a healthy beehive there is exactly one queen at the center. If there are ever two they will fight until one dies or is driven out. If a hive loses its queen it will try to make a new one (by feeding larva royal jelly); if the larva are too advanced to make this adjustment, the hive will die—unless the apiarist is able to requeen it in time.
Communities, however, are more nuanced on the matter of leadership. To be sure, some have a single charismatic and inspirational leader, a la the beehive. While there is definitely trickiness in such groups to pulling off leadership succession without loss of vitality or dynamism—partly because strong queens tend to suppress the development of queen-like qualities among worker bees—it can be done if the reigning queen has sufficient awareness of the need to groom a successor, and there is enough quality material to work with among the disciples.
While the charismatic leader model is historically the most stable and long-lived in the sweep of the Communities Movement—think Oneida (John Humphrey Noyes), the Shakers (Anna Lee), and even Kerista (Jud Jerome)—most groups listed in FIC's Communities Directory today make decisions collectively, depending on the group's wisdom, rather than on the wisdom of any single individual. This model (which is almost the exact opposite of the charismatic leader model) relates to the beehive in that there is a cadre of members who hold the leadership center, and in a healthy group the composition of the cadre rotates over time.
Further, it is the responsibility of those in the heart to judiciously invite the outer bees into the center, rather than expecting them to fight their way in, or to wait until the inner bees die off. Thus, a healthy heart will not only pump a steady supply of nourishing blood to the entire corpus of the group, it will offer a permeable membrane such that there is a clear pathway by which newbies (new bees) are able to become the heart.
Like with a hive, in a healthy community every bee need not be highly skilled, fully integrated into the group's culture, or equally capable of leadership—they just need enough members with those qualities to establish a strong enough flywheel that the rest of the hive is pulled along. The leadership cadre, or heart of the group, needs to consistently articulate the community's common values and be walking their talk—incorporating those values into their everyday lives. The core sets a tone. If the note sounded is clear and melodious, harmony ensues, creativity flourishes, and joy abounds. Friction leads to compassion and resolution; rather than brittleness and divisiveness. Newer folks will respond to the positive modeling like, well, a bee to nectar.
The key here is that in a healthy hive the core bees take the initiative in welcoming the outer bees into the opportunity to serve in the core—not to be drones (or clones), but to make their own choices about what frequency to buzz at and what flowers to frequent in service to the hive.
In community, it behooves us to be all we can bee.
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Money Power: Creative housing for seniors Money Power: Cohousing combines ... - Tulsa World
Money Power: Creative housing for seniors Money Power: Cohousing combines ...
Tulsa World
Takoma Village, a cohousing community in Washington, D.C., not far from my neighborhood, might be the solution. Among its features: condos clustered around a central courtyard, a common house where residents can socialize and share meals if they want ...
Categories: News
Findhorn Ecovillage to host Global Sustainability Event - The Caledonian Mercury
The Caledonian Mercury
Findhorn Ecovillage to host Global Sustainability Event
The Caledonian Mercury
The conference and associated events offer a rare opportunity, in a unique communal setting, to share academic research and lived experience of life in intentional communities such as ecovillages, cohousing projects, communes, kibbutzim, sectarian ...
Categories: News
Worldwide Release of WITHIN REACH, is Announced - Broadway World
Worldwide Release of WITHIN REACH, is Announced
Broadway World
Their journey and film answer the question so many are asking: Is it possible for Americans to live in a sustainable way? The film explores the inner workings of Cohousing neighborhoods designed to maximize positive social interaction, Ecovillages with ...
Categories: News
DILBEEK - Cohousing Pajottenland zoekt naar kandidaat cohousers - Editiepajot
Editiepajot
DILBEEK - Cohousing Pajottenland zoekt naar kandidaat cohousers
Editiepajot
Cohousing Pajottenland is een vzw met het doel een samenhuisproject te realiseren in het Pajottenland. Hiertoe is de vzw op zoek naar zowel geïnteresseerde leden, als naar potentiële sites. Vandaag telt de vzw 16 leden en kandidaat-leden (goed voor 11 ...
and more »
Categories: News
Group Works: History and Context
This entry continues a series in which I'm exploring concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Context segment there are eight cards. The keystone pattern in this segment is labeled History and Context, so that's where I'll begin. Here is the image and text from that card:
History and Context hugely influence how the rest of the patterns are invoked. Pay attention to why things are the way they are and what the people coming expect. Tune in to discern when to respect the existing culture vs. when it benefits to stretch toward something new.
People see reality through the lens of their experience. If the topics to be addressed have had a rocky history, then loins will be girded when revisiting them. If the group has not had success dealing with distress, than you can expect there to be tension whenever there is tension.
Sometimes change (in formats, facilitation style, setting, time of day, etc.) will help a group open up to new possibilities—while the past is prologue, it need not be fate. Sometimes change will be unsettling, and you can ask the group to swallow too many new things at once. You must gauge the group's range and resilience. Does it slant more toward risk tolerant or risk averse? Sometimes the group will be ready for a change out of frustration (we've been stuck for a while; what have we got to lose?); sometimes the group will open up to experimenting from a sense of security (we trust our base and the strength of our connections; if this doesn't work we can always return to what has served us well in the past). More, you need to be sensitive to how you are perceived by the group and its willingness to trust you.
The image that accompanies this pattern is evocative. Where one remembers flood, another—perhaps someone who has never known high water—sees only dry ground. Neither is wrong, yet it may require a strong construct to bridge the swirling eddies that separate these realities. Unexamined, imagine how differently these two people would respond to a proposal to purchase a boat? What would be prudent to one would be paranoid to the other.
Context comes in many flavors. Let's walk down the aisles of your local Context Mart and peek at what's on the shelves:
o Relationship to Cooperative Culture
In the mainstream culture, meetings are a civilized battle (at least they're civilized most of the time; sometimes they're vicious). The dominant society is competitive, hierarchic, and adversarial. If you're operating in a cooperative group, there is an attempt being made to turn those things around—to think and act collaboratively instead of competitively; to be curious when people disagree with you, rather than combative. While the cooperative theory isn't that hard to lay out, it ain't easy undoing a lifetime of conditioning and living up to cooperative ideals in the dynamic moment—especially if it's about something close to the bone.
Hardest of all to navigate is the situation where Person A is being enthusiastically cooperative and Person B is being defensively reactive. On the one hand, you want to honor B's viewpoint and make sure the train doesn't pull out of the station with them still standing on the platform. On the other, you want to object to their uncooperative energy and reestablish a collegial and creative atmosphere to continue the examination.
o Relationship to Meetings
As a professional facilitator, I believe that practicing one's craft is an important step in getting better. When I work with students learning this skill I urge them to be brave and volunteer often to run meetings, so that they'll get this practice. I tell them, "Hey, the bar is really low. Most meetings are just awful and you almost can't help but offer a better experience, even if you're just a beginner. While your performance may have been only so-so, most participants will think it was fine."
For the most part, people in Western society think of meetings as a necessary evil, as something you try to survive—certainly not something to look forward to. Even if your cooperative group is trying to do better in this regard, you need to be aware of the possibility that meeting participants are at different places along the journey to rehabilitating meetings as an opportunity for celebration, connection, and collaboration.
If one participant dreads meetings, while another squirms in their seat in anticipation, you have a decided gap in context that you'll need to navigate.
o Relationship to the Topic
Not everyone identifies as a stakeholder on every issue (thank God), and people tend to behave differently based on how much they care about the outcome. More nuanced still, people will behave differently based on whether prior engagements with that topic have gone well (by their lights) or gone poorly. If it went well last time, then it will probably be smooth sailing again. If it was tough sledding last time, then it will likely be a slog.
Unconsciously, we tend to expect that future engagements on a given topic will be a continuation of past engagements. While that may not be good thinking, it's human nature, and we're better prepared for meetings when we have a sense of participants' personal history with the topics queued up for consideration. It's especially useful to know if there's been what Yoda might describe as "a disturbance in the Force."
o Relationship to Other Stakeholders
Sometimes the trickiest dynamics are not the identification and balancing of values underlying positions, but the damaged connections and/or low trust between the people active in the consideration.
This can play out in a number of ways:
—Personality clash, where one person's behavior is found irritating, independently of what they're saying.
—Unresolved tension, where an unhealed prior hurt leaks into the current situation.
—Poor track record, where there is skepticism about the reliability of a person's commitments to a project because they've flaked out or under-performed in the past.
—History of selfishness, where there is low trust in the speaker's ability to think in terms of what's best for the whole.
—Power imbalances, where there is a reaction to strong statements from someone too new to the group to have established credentials. Or, going in the other direction, a reaction to a well-established member who appears to expect deference by virtue of their years in service, rather than because of the strength of their thinking.
o Relationship to the Facilitator
While the ideal facilitator for cooperative meetings is skilled, neutral on the topics, and well prepared, sometimes you have to settle for less than that. Participants can have doubts about the facilitator in any of these respects and that perception can undermine the facilitator's effectiveness just as surely as their making poor choices.
o Relationship to the Setting
The size and shape of the room; lighting; time of day; quality, variety, and arrangement of seating; acoustics; and presence or lack of visual aids all have an impact on the atmosphere and energy of the meeting. Good facilitators give conscious thought to these factors in setting things up to create an environment congruent with the kind of meeting desired, and in a way known to be conducive to productive engagement based on knowledge of the group. (Heart sharing tends to go better in the evening, with the chairs in a circle and soft lighting. Business meetings typically benefit from a morning slot, with good natural lighting, and the chairs arranged to focus attention on a projector screen, flip chart, or easel.)
o Relationship to the Format
Even though people always bring their emotional and intuitive selves to meetings (just try checking them at the door and see how that goes), that part of our humanness is not always welcome. Lacking agreement about whether to work emotionally at all—and most groups do not have explicit agreements about this—there will be predictable tension between the "Product People" who believe that meetings should be principally focused on addressing issues and solving problems, and the "Process People" who believe that meetings should only proceed in ways that enhance relationships among members.
While these two views are not inherently inimical, and can learn to play nice together, you can usually witness a manifestation of the awkwardness between them whenever there is a request to have a sharing circle, where people are given the opportunity to use valuable plenary time to speak from their heart, perhaps to clear the air or to establish the breadth of the environment in which an issue will be considered. It is expressly not a time for problem solving. What may be pejoratively styled as woo-woo navel gazing by the Product folks may be considered the gem of the meeting by the Process contingent, and this conextual gap will need careful navigation.
o Relationship to Speaking in Group
If you take into account that many fear public speaking more than death, it's hardly surprising that in any normal group you'll have members who find it awkward to state their views in front of everyone. What's show time for some is no-go time for those whose tongues are frozen with fear. Thus, you need to think about how to make input giving more accessible. (Small group breakouts can help, as can a culture of responding first with what you like about hat was just said, rather than with "but… ")
o Relationship to Stamina and How Long the Group's Been Sitting
There's an art to managing the group energy and sequencing agenda items such that the heavy lifting (when the need for high focus and resiliency is greatest) is attempted when the group's energy tank is closer to F, rather than edging toward E.
Most people need blood flowing to their brain to do their best thinking (duh), and that translates into avoiding heavy agenda right after a meal (when blood is otherwise busy in the stomach) and getting traction on tough topics within 30 minutes of people sitting down. By and large it's unproductive to ask a group to sit longer than 90 minutes without a break or a movement exercise, so a good facilitator won't open up a large can of complication unless there's enough of the 90 minutes left to get the worms back in the can, or at least well tagged and into holding pens before it's time for a break.
• • • As you can see, context and history have a lot to say about what gets said and how it's heard. Flying blind, or worse, simply assuming that others will relate to topics and the meeting environment in the same way that you do, is sure to lead to unpleasant surprises. There might be a flash flood coming at you out of a clear blue sky.
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Context segment there are eight cards. The keystone pattern in this segment is labeled History and Context, so that's where I'll begin. Here is the image and text from that card:
History and Context hugely influence how the rest of the patterns are invoked. Pay attention to why things are the way they are and what the people coming expect. Tune in to discern when to respect the existing culture vs. when it benefits to stretch toward something new.
People see reality through the lens of their experience. If the topics to be addressed have had a rocky history, then loins will be girded when revisiting them. If the group has not had success dealing with distress, than you can expect there to be tension whenever there is tension.
Sometimes change (in formats, facilitation style, setting, time of day, etc.) will help a group open up to new possibilities—while the past is prologue, it need not be fate. Sometimes change will be unsettling, and you can ask the group to swallow too many new things at once. You must gauge the group's range and resilience. Does it slant more toward risk tolerant or risk averse? Sometimes the group will be ready for a change out of frustration (we've been stuck for a while; what have we got to lose?); sometimes the group will open up to experimenting from a sense of security (we trust our base and the strength of our connections; if this doesn't work we can always return to what has served us well in the past). More, you need to be sensitive to how you are perceived by the group and its willingness to trust you.
The image that accompanies this pattern is evocative. Where one remembers flood, another—perhaps someone who has never known high water—sees only dry ground. Neither is wrong, yet it may require a strong construct to bridge the swirling eddies that separate these realities. Unexamined, imagine how differently these two people would respond to a proposal to purchase a boat? What would be prudent to one would be paranoid to the other.
Context comes in many flavors. Let's walk down the aisles of your local Context Mart and peek at what's on the shelves:
o Relationship to Cooperative Culture
In the mainstream culture, meetings are a civilized battle (at least they're civilized most of the time; sometimes they're vicious). The dominant society is competitive, hierarchic, and adversarial. If you're operating in a cooperative group, there is an attempt being made to turn those things around—to think and act collaboratively instead of competitively; to be curious when people disagree with you, rather than combative. While the cooperative theory isn't that hard to lay out, it ain't easy undoing a lifetime of conditioning and living up to cooperative ideals in the dynamic moment—especially if it's about something close to the bone.
Hardest of all to navigate is the situation where Person A is being enthusiastically cooperative and Person B is being defensively reactive. On the one hand, you want to honor B's viewpoint and make sure the train doesn't pull out of the station with them still standing on the platform. On the other, you want to object to their uncooperative energy and reestablish a collegial and creative atmosphere to continue the examination.
o Relationship to Meetings
As a professional facilitator, I believe that practicing one's craft is an important step in getting better. When I work with students learning this skill I urge them to be brave and volunteer often to run meetings, so that they'll get this practice. I tell them, "Hey, the bar is really low. Most meetings are just awful and you almost can't help but offer a better experience, even if you're just a beginner. While your performance may have been only so-so, most participants will think it was fine."
For the most part, people in Western society think of meetings as a necessary evil, as something you try to survive—certainly not something to look forward to. Even if your cooperative group is trying to do better in this regard, you need to be aware of the possibility that meeting participants are at different places along the journey to rehabilitating meetings as an opportunity for celebration, connection, and collaboration.
If one participant dreads meetings, while another squirms in their seat in anticipation, you have a decided gap in context that you'll need to navigate.
o Relationship to the Topic
Not everyone identifies as a stakeholder on every issue (thank God), and people tend to behave differently based on how much they care about the outcome. More nuanced still, people will behave differently based on whether prior engagements with that topic have gone well (by their lights) or gone poorly. If it went well last time, then it will probably be smooth sailing again. If it was tough sledding last time, then it will likely be a slog.
Unconsciously, we tend to expect that future engagements on a given topic will be a continuation of past engagements. While that may not be good thinking, it's human nature, and we're better prepared for meetings when we have a sense of participants' personal history with the topics queued up for consideration. It's especially useful to know if there's been what Yoda might describe as "a disturbance in the Force."
o Relationship to Other Stakeholders
Sometimes the trickiest dynamics are not the identification and balancing of values underlying positions, but the damaged connections and/or low trust between the people active in the consideration.
This can play out in a number of ways:
—Personality clash, where one person's behavior is found irritating, independently of what they're saying.
—Unresolved tension, where an unhealed prior hurt leaks into the current situation.
—Poor track record, where there is skepticism about the reliability of a person's commitments to a project because they've flaked out or under-performed in the past.
—History of selfishness, where there is low trust in the speaker's ability to think in terms of what's best for the whole.
—Power imbalances, where there is a reaction to strong statements from someone too new to the group to have established credentials. Or, going in the other direction, a reaction to a well-established member who appears to expect deference by virtue of their years in service, rather than because of the strength of their thinking.
o Relationship to the Facilitator
While the ideal facilitator for cooperative meetings is skilled, neutral on the topics, and well prepared, sometimes you have to settle for less than that. Participants can have doubts about the facilitator in any of these respects and that perception can undermine the facilitator's effectiveness just as surely as their making poor choices.
o Relationship to the Setting
The size and shape of the room; lighting; time of day; quality, variety, and arrangement of seating; acoustics; and presence or lack of visual aids all have an impact on the atmosphere and energy of the meeting. Good facilitators give conscious thought to these factors in setting things up to create an environment congruent with the kind of meeting desired, and in a way known to be conducive to productive engagement based on knowledge of the group. (Heart sharing tends to go better in the evening, with the chairs in a circle and soft lighting. Business meetings typically benefit from a morning slot, with good natural lighting, and the chairs arranged to focus attention on a projector screen, flip chart, or easel.)
o Relationship to the Format
Even though people always bring their emotional and intuitive selves to meetings (just try checking them at the door and see how that goes), that part of our humanness is not always welcome. Lacking agreement about whether to work emotionally at all—and most groups do not have explicit agreements about this—there will be predictable tension between the "Product People" who believe that meetings should be principally focused on addressing issues and solving problems, and the "Process People" who believe that meetings should only proceed in ways that enhance relationships among members.
While these two views are not inherently inimical, and can learn to play nice together, you can usually witness a manifestation of the awkwardness between them whenever there is a request to have a sharing circle, where people are given the opportunity to use valuable plenary time to speak from their heart, perhaps to clear the air or to establish the breadth of the environment in which an issue will be considered. It is expressly not a time for problem solving. What may be pejoratively styled as woo-woo navel gazing by the Product folks may be considered the gem of the meeting by the Process contingent, and this conextual gap will need careful navigation.
o Relationship to Speaking in Group
If you take into account that many fear public speaking more than death, it's hardly surprising that in any normal group you'll have members who find it awkward to state their views in front of everyone. What's show time for some is no-go time for those whose tongues are frozen with fear. Thus, you need to think about how to make input giving more accessible. (Small group breakouts can help, as can a culture of responding first with what you like about hat was just said, rather than with "but… ")
o Relationship to Stamina and How Long the Group's Been Sitting
There's an art to managing the group energy and sequencing agenda items such that the heavy lifting (when the need for high focus and resiliency is greatest) is attempted when the group's energy tank is closer to F, rather than edging toward E.
Most people need blood flowing to their brain to do their best thinking (duh), and that translates into avoiding heavy agenda right after a meal (when blood is otherwise busy in the stomach) and getting traction on tough topics within 30 minutes of people sitting down. By and large it's unproductive to ask a group to sit longer than 90 minutes without a break or a movement exercise, so a good facilitator won't open up a large can of complication unless there's enough of the 90 minutes left to get the worms back in the can, or at least well tagged and into holding pens before it's time for a break.
• • • As you can see, context and history have a lot to say about what gets said and how it's heard. Flying blind, or worse, simply assuming that others will relate to topics and the meeting environment in the same way that you do, is sure to lead to unpleasant surprises. There might be a flash flood coming at you out of a clear blue sky.
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Public weighs in on river race project - Goshen News
Public weighs in on river race project
Goshen News
The concept draws primarily from the idea of “cohousing”, a type of collaborative housing in which residents actively participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhoods. The concept keeps the proposed homes smaller and has a design that ...
Categories: News
Public weighs in on river race project - Goshen News
Public weighs in on river race project
Goshen News
The concept draws primarily from the idea of “cohousing”, a type of collaborative housing in which residents actively participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhoods. The concept keeps the proposed homes smaller and has a design that ...
Categories: News
Cohousing Modena: “una sperimentazione interessante” - Modena 2000
Cohousing Modena: “una sperimentazione interessante”
Modena 2000
L'approvazione della delibera che introduce a Modena una sperimentazione di cohousing nella zona di via Pergolesi, avvenuta nella seduta del Consiglio comunale di lunedì 13 maggio con il voto favorevole del Pd e l'astensione di Sel, Etica e legalità ...
and more »
Categories: News
Cohousing Modena: “una sperimentazione interessante” - Sassuolo 2000
Cohousing Modena: “una sperimentazione interessante”
Sassuolo 2000
L'approvazione della delibera che introduce a Modena una sperimentazione di cohousing nella zona di via Pergolesi, avvenuta nella seduta del Consiglio comunale di lunedì 13 maggio con il voto favorevole del Pd e l'astensione di Sel, Etica e legalità ...
Categories: News
Co-housing becoming the new norm in today's economy - KAIT
Co-housing becoming the new norm in today's economy
KAIT
... a space for the entire community to share. "Taking the stress off of parents in having to do everything for their kids and not sharing the load is really to me the heart of the American dream." said Rebecca Lane with the CoHousing Association of ...
and more »
Categories: News
Group Works: Purpose
Today I'm going to start a long series in which I'll explore concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me, as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is simply an amplification of what each pattern means to me. I am not intending to suggest a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order suggested in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
in the Intention segment there are five cards. The keystone pattern in this segment is labeled Purpose, so that's where I'll begin. Following is the image and text from that card:
Purpose is the destination we choose from a sea of possibilities. Shared purpose calls us together and focuses us, evolving as understanding deepens. It gives impetus and energy to our work—when we're connected with genuine purpose, energy flows and things happen. For me, the concept of purpose varies considerably by scope. I'll illuminate four, working from larger to smaller. —Purpose of the Group For groups to function well, it helps if everyone is mindful of the reason the groups exists; what it's trying to do in the world. This helps members shift perspective from what they'd like with respect to a given issue, to thinking about what's best for the group.
While holding the group's purpose clearly doesn't tend to be a problem when groups are first founded, there can be drift over time and occasionally groups are well advised to pause to reflect on whether their vision and/or mission statement are still valid or in need of adjustment.
When a group labors over how to respond to a given issue, it is often wise to refer to common values and purpose in order to build a solid foundation for a response.
Given the potency of purpose, it's important that groups do a solid job of inculcating in new members a sense of common values and mission. —Purpose of the Meeting In the sense of what you're hoping to get out of a particular meeting, purpose can be a synonym for "objectives"; what we want to get out of this time together. Lacking clarity about that can lead to considerable drift in how time is used.
For example, there is often tension between using plenaries to address issues and using plenaries to build relationships—which are different purposes. If half of the group is prioritizing the former and the other half the latter, it can lead to a train wreck when someone says something like, "I don't know, but there's something about this proposal that just doesn't sit well with me." The problem solvers will be ready to go on (until and unless the speaker can get less nebulous), while the relationship builders will want to hear more. Instant tension. —Purpose of a Format There are many ways in which to approach topics, and many factors that go into selecting which format to employ. In selecting how the group may most productively engage on a topic, a skilled facilitator will be weighing such things as whether the group needs: a) To move physically b) To change pace c) To work in small groups so that more people will get air time in a less daunting environment d) To share in such a way that everyone hears what's being said. e) To focus on feelings more than problem solving —Purpose of a Comment While you might think that statements are always self-explanatory, it's not at all unusual for a comment to be confusing, with the group not understanding why a person said what they did. It might appear to be off topic, it may make no sense, it may have been too rambling to follow accurately. In any event, if you don't understand where a comment is coming from, it's that much harder to know where it's going—or how to work with it constructively. • • • In sum, whenever purpose is unclear—at any scale—you need more information.
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me, as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is simply an amplification of what each pattern means to me. I am not intending to suggest a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order suggested in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
in the Intention segment there are five cards. The keystone pattern in this segment is labeled Purpose, so that's where I'll begin. Following is the image and text from that card:
Purpose is the destination we choose from a sea of possibilities. Shared purpose calls us together and focuses us, evolving as understanding deepens. It gives impetus and energy to our work—when we're connected with genuine purpose, energy flows and things happen. For me, the concept of purpose varies considerably by scope. I'll illuminate four, working from larger to smaller. —Purpose of the Group For groups to function well, it helps if everyone is mindful of the reason the groups exists; what it's trying to do in the world. This helps members shift perspective from what they'd like with respect to a given issue, to thinking about what's best for the group.
While holding the group's purpose clearly doesn't tend to be a problem when groups are first founded, there can be drift over time and occasionally groups are well advised to pause to reflect on whether their vision and/or mission statement are still valid or in need of adjustment.
When a group labors over how to respond to a given issue, it is often wise to refer to common values and purpose in order to build a solid foundation for a response.
Given the potency of purpose, it's important that groups do a solid job of inculcating in new members a sense of common values and mission. —Purpose of the Meeting In the sense of what you're hoping to get out of a particular meeting, purpose can be a synonym for "objectives"; what we want to get out of this time together. Lacking clarity about that can lead to considerable drift in how time is used.
For example, there is often tension between using plenaries to address issues and using plenaries to build relationships—which are different purposes. If half of the group is prioritizing the former and the other half the latter, it can lead to a train wreck when someone says something like, "I don't know, but there's something about this proposal that just doesn't sit well with me." The problem solvers will be ready to go on (until and unless the speaker can get less nebulous), while the relationship builders will want to hear more. Instant tension. —Purpose of a Format There are many ways in which to approach topics, and many factors that go into selecting which format to employ. In selecting how the group may most productively engage on a topic, a skilled facilitator will be weighing such things as whether the group needs: a) To move physically b) To change pace c) To work in small groups so that more people will get air time in a less daunting environment d) To share in such a way that everyone hears what's being said. e) To focus on feelings more than problem solving —Purpose of a Comment While you might think that statements are always self-explanatory, it's not at all unusual for a comment to be confusing, with the group not understanding why a person said what they did. It might appear to be off topic, it may make no sense, it may have been too rambling to follow accurately. In any event, if you don't understand where a comment is coming from, it's that much harder to know where it's going—or how to work with it constructively. • • • In sum, whenever purpose is unclear—at any scale—you need more information.
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Group Works: Commitment
This entry continues a long series in which I'm exploring concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The second pattern in this segment is labeled Commitment. Here is the image and text from that card:
A group dedicated to its work persists through obstacles, distractions, and lulls. Remind yourselves of your larger purpose and what you really care about. As the group moves toward action, support effectiveness by getting clear on who will do what by when and how to ensure it really happens. For me, commitment mainly distills into: a) dedication to cooperative process; b) persistence in working toward goals; c) steadfastness with respect to relationship; and d) integrity when acting and making decisions consistent with values. The challenges to commitment manifest as awkwardness, isolation, impatience, weariness, self-absorption, and distraction. There may be times when it's tempting to cut corners, give in, give up, settle for less, or otherwise weaken one's resolve, but committed people don't do those things; committed people stay the course. Finding the strength to sustain commitment (especially when one is tested) is often related to clarity of purpose and proximity to personal values (or identity). The closer to the bone, the firmer the resolve.
In cooperative groups (in contrast to competitive ones) it matters as much how you do things as what you do. Thus, I rank commitment to process equal to commitment to objectives. In cooperative settings you need to listen to both drumbeats, not just give obeisance to the god of product. While there's no question that attention to implementation is appropriate—the who does what when and with what resources—that's not where the heavy lifting of commitment is done. For my money, commitment is mainly tested in the trenches of discussion and proposal generation. For more on these concepts, see my blog of Jan 30, 2010, Nurturing the Culture of Collaboration and Curiosity.
All of that said, it can be an interesting nuance distinguishing commitment from stubbornness. When does dedication to principles degrade into pigheadedness? When does the gold of loyalty debase into the lead of chauvinism? I believe that the litmus test is whether there's curiosity and a willingness to be wrong. The love-it-or-leave-it folks have essentially checked their minds at the door (a mule has commitment, but who gives a shit?); while those who are prepared to seriously entertain opposing viewpoints are the one's whose dedication is inspiring. They are the ones who thoughtfully sort the wheat of principle from the chaff of casuistry, and the bread baked from that grain is both uplifting and nourishing. Wouldn't you like a thick slice of fresh-baked commitment right about now?
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The second pattern in this segment is labeled Commitment. Here is the image and text from that card:
A group dedicated to its work persists through obstacles, distractions, and lulls. Remind yourselves of your larger purpose and what you really care about. As the group moves toward action, support effectiveness by getting clear on who will do what by when and how to ensure it really happens. For me, commitment mainly distills into: a) dedication to cooperative process; b) persistence in working toward goals; c) steadfastness with respect to relationship; and d) integrity when acting and making decisions consistent with values. The challenges to commitment manifest as awkwardness, isolation, impatience, weariness, self-absorption, and distraction. There may be times when it's tempting to cut corners, give in, give up, settle for less, or otherwise weaken one's resolve, but committed people don't do those things; committed people stay the course. Finding the strength to sustain commitment (especially when one is tested) is often related to clarity of purpose and proximity to personal values (or identity). The closer to the bone, the firmer the resolve.
In cooperative groups (in contrast to competitive ones) it matters as much how you do things as what you do. Thus, I rank commitment to process equal to commitment to objectives. In cooperative settings you need to listen to both drumbeats, not just give obeisance to the god of product. While there's no question that attention to implementation is appropriate—the who does what when and with what resources—that's not where the heavy lifting of commitment is done. For my money, commitment is mainly tested in the trenches of discussion and proposal generation. For more on these concepts, see my blog of Jan 30, 2010, Nurturing the Culture of Collaboration and Curiosity.
All of that said, it can be an interesting nuance distinguishing commitment from stubbornness. When does dedication to principles degrade into pigheadedness? When does the gold of loyalty debase into the lead of chauvinism? I believe that the litmus test is whether there's curiosity and a willingness to be wrong. The love-it-or-leave-it folks have essentially checked their minds at the door (a mule has commitment, but who gives a shit?); while those who are prepared to seriously entertain opposing viewpoints are the one's whose dedication is inspiring. They are the ones who thoughtfully sort the wheat of principle from the chaff of casuistry, and the bread baked from that grain is both uplifting and nourishing. Wouldn't you like a thick slice of fresh-baked commitment right about now?
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Group Works: Invitation
This entry continues a series in which I'm exploring concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The third pattern in this segment is labeled Invitation. Here is the image and text from that card:
Bring people together by expressing a clear call toward shared purpose, tuned to getting the right people into the room with shared intent. Let people know why this is important and what to expect, while requesting the honor of their presence.
While the image and words on this card are elegant, they also tend toward the formal and come across as a bit too starched. To be fair, there are some gatherings in life freighted with sufficient ritual and weightiness to justify embossed letterhead and formal attire (a wedding?) but they are few.
Most meetings are come as you are, and the invitation (or reminder) will arrive electronically through a list serve. Or perhaps you'll get a postcard or a phone call.
Though I've begun this post by lampooning the tone of this card—all facilitators know you have to play the card you're dealt, and as the choice of words and image were made purposefully, I figure that affords me a free poke at formality, which I've mostly been allergic to in my life, and which I find often masks authenticity and stifles creativtity—I want to mine a few golden nuggets in the ore of Invitation.
1. Getting the Right People in the Room
For the most part, this translates into the stakeholders (those affected by an issue or the proposed responses to it) and the people with authority to do something about that issue. If we're talking large numbers then this almost certainly means representatives of stakeholder constituencies, rather than everyone.
When it's not possible to have all stakeholders represented, you can make sure that good minutes are taken, that they are disseminated to the missing folks as soon as possible afterwards, and that an effort is made to allow those folks an opportunity to offer delayed input.
2. Being Clear about Objectives
It's one thing to know what the agenda is before a meeting, it's another to have a clear and commonly held idea about what is expected to be accomplished by focusing on those topics.
Your answer here can vary widely depending on factors such as:
o Has there been prior work done on this issue or is this the first time ti's being tackled in plenary?
o Whether or not there are existing agreements that bear on this issue .
o Whether there are strong feelings evoked by this topic, and whether those feelings have been expressed and/or resolved.
o Are you ready to do problem solving?
o How much is this about addressing an issue, and how much about building relationships?
3. Doing Your Homework
Part of the reason for extending an Invitation is to give attendees the chance to get ready for the meeting. It's not just a matter of showing up; a prepared participant is an informed one who has read the background material, discussed the issue with his/her constituency, and taken the time to organize their thoughts and concerns ahead of time.
That said, there is a significant difference between coming into a meeting with an open mind and coming with an empty mind. While there may be a purity and innocence about an empty mind (in a tabula rasa kind of way) it is not honoring an Invitation to have skipped your homework, and then play catch-up in the meeting. (Hint: if you're reading a proposal for the first time in the meeting at which it will be discussed, somebody has fucked up: either the drafting person (or group) didn't circulate it far enough ahead of the session, or you misspent your time getting ready.)
Going the other way, it is abusing an Invitation to make up your mind about issues ahead of the meeting such that you are not available to be persuaded by what others say on the subject. In short, you want to cultivate curiosity and flexibility, while eschewing naiveté and unpreparedness.
Finally, there is a more subtle version of getting ready that entails getting centered, such that you are in a suitable psychic space to listen fully and think well. Arriving at a meeting late, frazzled, or distracted is not taking the Invitation seriously. Honoring an Invitation is much more than getting your body in the room and sitting quietly while others speak; you need to be energetically present as well.
4. Selecting Formats and Settings that are Inviting & Congruent with Objectives
One of the most delightful things about people is also the most maddening: we are all so different. While meetings (at least those conducted in a cooperative setting) are almost always meant to be equally welcoming to all participants, the truth is they aren't.
Not everyone is equally comfortable speaking in groups, not everyone takes the same amount of time to know their feelings or to know their mind (which are not at all the same thing), not everyone hears accurately, not everyone can sit for 90 minutes and remain focused and productive. If you want the meeting to be inviting to all participants, you need to give some thought to how best to do that, which almost certainly means variety—as there is no format or setting that works best all the time.
Your vocabulary here includes:
—Time of Day
Some people are like chickens—full of energy in the morning, and asleep when the sun goes down; others don't hit on all cylinders until the pm or after they've had at least two cups of coffee strong enough to float a spoon.
—Choice of Formats
The default format for most groups is open discussion, which is often the most expeditious way to tackle an issue, yet that choice inadvertently favors extroverts, the garrulous, and the quick. Sometimes you have to slow things down or make the setting more intimate (such as with small group work) in order to protect an ingress for the diffident.
—Working with the Whole Person
Almost all meetings are set up to work with ideas, yet people are much more complex than that. We "know" things emotionally, intuitively, spiritually, and kinesthetically as well as rationally. With consciousness of this richness, meetings can be structured to access these lesser honored forms of knowing, enhancing the quality of the consideration.
—Selection and Orientation of the Meeting Space
There is nuance to selecting a suitable place for a meeting and the orientation of people's attention. You want a room large enough that it's not crowded, yet small enough to contain the energy. The ceiling needs to be in proportion to the square footage (too low feels oppressive; too high dissipates the juju).
In most cases, you'll want a variety of seating choices. Some like well upholstered, cushy couches; some prefer straight backed chairs with firm seats; some will sit on the floor if that's an option.
Meetings tend to go better if there's natural lighting in the room (especially daytime meetings), but you want the main bank of windows behind participants rather in front of them, where outside activity will tend to distract. Windows, if they can be opened, will also help with ventilation and temperature control.
—Matching Ambience with Objectives
If you want a heartfelt meeting that emphasizes connection, then you'll want a softly lit, cozy environment—think floor lamps and candles—not harsh fluorescent lighting or a place where participants will have to compete with loud street traffic or raucous children to be heard.
If you will be tackling a complex topic where visuals will be relied on to convey important information you'll want a space with excellent lighting and either a flat wall for posting flip chart pages, a chalkboard, or a screen to project images and graphs onto.
If you want to do an exercise that involves movement, you'll need a space where the furniture can be moved in and out of the way easily, or have access to a nearby space that is sufficiently uncluttered.
Forcing activities into unsuitable spaces is not inviting.
• • • As you can see, there are many elements to a well-crafted Invitation. If you want to participants to feel truly invited, and to anticipate an experience of movement—meetings that are dynamic and not stationary—it requires much more than the right stationery.
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The third pattern in this segment is labeled Invitation. Here is the image and text from that card:
Bring people together by expressing a clear call toward shared purpose, tuned to getting the right people into the room with shared intent. Let people know why this is important and what to expect, while requesting the honor of their presence.
While the image and words on this card are elegant, they also tend toward the formal and come across as a bit too starched. To be fair, there are some gatherings in life freighted with sufficient ritual and weightiness to justify embossed letterhead and formal attire (a wedding?) but they are few.
Most meetings are come as you are, and the invitation (or reminder) will arrive electronically through a list serve. Or perhaps you'll get a postcard or a phone call.
Though I've begun this post by lampooning the tone of this card—all facilitators know you have to play the card you're dealt, and as the choice of words and image were made purposefully, I figure that affords me a free poke at formality, which I've mostly been allergic to in my life, and which I find often masks authenticity and stifles creativtity—I want to mine a few golden nuggets in the ore of Invitation.
1. Getting the Right People in the Room
For the most part, this translates into the stakeholders (those affected by an issue or the proposed responses to it) and the people with authority to do something about that issue. If we're talking large numbers then this almost certainly means representatives of stakeholder constituencies, rather than everyone.
When it's not possible to have all stakeholders represented, you can make sure that good minutes are taken, that they are disseminated to the missing folks as soon as possible afterwards, and that an effort is made to allow those folks an opportunity to offer delayed input.
2. Being Clear about Objectives
It's one thing to know what the agenda is before a meeting, it's another to have a clear and commonly held idea about what is expected to be accomplished by focusing on those topics.
Your answer here can vary widely depending on factors such as:
o Has there been prior work done on this issue or is this the first time ti's being tackled in plenary?
o Whether or not there are existing agreements that bear on this issue .
o Whether there are strong feelings evoked by this topic, and whether those feelings have been expressed and/or resolved.
o Are you ready to do problem solving?
o How much is this about addressing an issue, and how much about building relationships?
3. Doing Your Homework
Part of the reason for extending an Invitation is to give attendees the chance to get ready for the meeting. It's not just a matter of showing up; a prepared participant is an informed one who has read the background material, discussed the issue with his/her constituency, and taken the time to organize their thoughts and concerns ahead of time.
That said, there is a significant difference between coming into a meeting with an open mind and coming with an empty mind. While there may be a purity and innocence about an empty mind (in a tabula rasa kind of way) it is not honoring an Invitation to have skipped your homework, and then play catch-up in the meeting. (Hint: if you're reading a proposal for the first time in the meeting at which it will be discussed, somebody has fucked up: either the drafting person (or group) didn't circulate it far enough ahead of the session, or you misspent your time getting ready.)
Going the other way, it is abusing an Invitation to make up your mind about issues ahead of the meeting such that you are not available to be persuaded by what others say on the subject. In short, you want to cultivate curiosity and flexibility, while eschewing naiveté and unpreparedness.
Finally, there is a more subtle version of getting ready that entails getting centered, such that you are in a suitable psychic space to listen fully and think well. Arriving at a meeting late, frazzled, or distracted is not taking the Invitation seriously. Honoring an Invitation is much more than getting your body in the room and sitting quietly while others speak; you need to be energetically present as well.
4. Selecting Formats and Settings that are Inviting & Congruent with Objectives
One of the most delightful things about people is also the most maddening: we are all so different. While meetings (at least those conducted in a cooperative setting) are almost always meant to be equally welcoming to all participants, the truth is they aren't.
Not everyone is equally comfortable speaking in groups, not everyone takes the same amount of time to know their feelings or to know their mind (which are not at all the same thing), not everyone hears accurately, not everyone can sit for 90 minutes and remain focused and productive. If you want the meeting to be inviting to all participants, you need to give some thought to how best to do that, which almost certainly means variety—as there is no format or setting that works best all the time.
Your vocabulary here includes:
—Time of Day
Some people are like chickens—full of energy in the morning, and asleep when the sun goes down; others don't hit on all cylinders until the pm or after they've had at least two cups of coffee strong enough to float a spoon.
—Choice of Formats
The default format for most groups is open discussion, which is often the most expeditious way to tackle an issue, yet that choice inadvertently favors extroverts, the garrulous, and the quick. Sometimes you have to slow things down or make the setting more intimate (such as with small group work) in order to protect an ingress for the diffident.
—Working with the Whole Person
Almost all meetings are set up to work with ideas, yet people are much more complex than that. We "know" things emotionally, intuitively, spiritually, and kinesthetically as well as rationally. With consciousness of this richness, meetings can be structured to access these lesser honored forms of knowing, enhancing the quality of the consideration.
—Selection and Orientation of the Meeting Space
There is nuance to selecting a suitable place for a meeting and the orientation of people's attention. You want a room large enough that it's not crowded, yet small enough to contain the energy. The ceiling needs to be in proportion to the square footage (too low feels oppressive; too high dissipates the juju).
In most cases, you'll want a variety of seating choices. Some like well upholstered, cushy couches; some prefer straight backed chairs with firm seats; some will sit on the floor if that's an option.
Meetings tend to go better if there's natural lighting in the room (especially daytime meetings), but you want the main bank of windows behind participants rather in front of them, where outside activity will tend to distract. Windows, if they can be opened, will also help with ventilation and temperature control.
—Matching Ambience with Objectives
If you want a heartfelt meeting that emphasizes connection, then you'll want a softly lit, cozy environment—think floor lamps and candles—not harsh fluorescent lighting or a place where participants will have to compete with loud street traffic or raucous children to be heard.
If you will be tackling a complex topic where visuals will be relied on to convey important information you'll want a space with excellent lighting and either a flat wall for posting flip chart pages, a chalkboard, or a screen to project images and graphs onto.
If you want to do an exercise that involves movement, you'll need a space where the furniture can be moved in and out of the way easily, or have access to a nearby space that is sufficiently uncluttered.
Forcing activities into unsuitable spaces is not inviting.
• • • As you can see, there are many elements to a well-crafted Invitation. If you want to participants to feel truly invited, and to anticipate an experience of movement—meetings that are dynamic and not stationary—it requires much more than the right stationery.
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Group Works: Priority Focus
This entry continues a series in which I'm exploring concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The fourth pattern in this segment is labeled Priority Focus. Here is the image and text from that card:
Guide the group's energies, pace, and trajectory appropriately to achieve the stated intention and purpose. Help the group set and stick to priorities, recognizing that what's most important to the group sometimes shifts.
After a quarter century as a group process consultant, I've developed the following mantra for how people can best conduct themselves in a meeting: What does the group need to hear from me on this topic at this time?
There are a number of screens here, which illuminate what is meant by both focus and priority.
1. What are we talking about (what's the topic)?
Getting this right is everyone's responsibility: from the agenda drafters to the presenter; from the facilitator to the listener. This is a question of focus and discipline.
2. What do I have to say on this topic?
—Perhaps others have already said it. This is a mater of selflessness (ego management) and discipline.
—Perhaps the topic inspires you to make a comment about a related, yet different topic that is not appropriate for this moment. This is a matter of focus and discernment.
—Perhaps what you have to contribute is relatively minor. This is a matter of priority.
—Perhaps the setting does not feel safe. This is a matter of emotional discernment.
—Perhaps you have a way to bridge views expressed by people who are missing each other. This is a question of seeing the whole and not getting bogged down in personal attachment.
3. Is this the appropriate setting (plenary, committee, or one-on-one conversation) for your comment?
There is a time for giving input to a committee, and there is a time for giving comments in plenary. It requires focus to understand the most constructive context to offer input. If you withhold concerns until after a committee has developed a proposal, you are not respecting their need to know what factors they should be trying to address in their proposal.
4. Is this the appropriate timing to offer your views?
If you have a proposal, is it premature to offer it? If you have a background question is it too late for that? There is a normal sequence for addressing issues and if you offer comments out of sequence, you are not focusing well.
One of the nuances of making group decisions is deciding when you have enough information that it's time to stop exploring (the expansion phase) and begin problem solving (the contraction phase). What makes this tricky is that you never know everything. You have to make a judgment call on when you know enough and that delaying a decision to gather more data will have diminishing returns. You also have to weigh the cost of delay and possibility of lost opportunity.
If individuals are being asked to maintain focus in meetings, the group must accept a concomitant responsibility to be disciplined about what it tackles in plenary, being diligent about only allowing plenary worthy topics to come forward. It's harder to keep focused if the plenary drifts into committee micromanagement.
Once the group is demonstrated the ability to work only in the plenary worthy zone, each individual has a responsibility to maintain focus throughout the session. Even if a particular issue is not one you care about, you can play a valuable role as a safeguard of process; as a potential bridge builder. When you are not a stakeholder, you can care more about relationships and how you reach a decisions more than what decision you reach.
In my experience, when a group is spinning its wheels it's almost always traceable to one of four causes (singly or in combination): a) lack of clarity about the objectives for a given topic; b) lack of clearly defined priorities for using time wisely; c) lack of discipline to stay focused; or d) lack of ability to handle the dynamics that come up—which usually means working constructively with strong emotions. That said, it sometimes happens (as was mentioned in the text for the Priority Focus card) that priorities shift as a consequence of what emerges in the meeting, and then adjustments need to be made on the fly.
While not common, this definitely occurs, and it's a test of the group's sophistication and acumen that it can recognize and articulate those shifts when they arise. For the most part this is a matter of being able to read the energy in the room—being able to "hear" what's underneath the words. And that skill especially requires focus.
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The fourth pattern in this segment is labeled Priority Focus. Here is the image and text from that card:
Guide the group's energies, pace, and trajectory appropriately to achieve the stated intention and purpose. Help the group set and stick to priorities, recognizing that what's most important to the group sometimes shifts.
After a quarter century as a group process consultant, I've developed the following mantra for how people can best conduct themselves in a meeting: What does the group need to hear from me on this topic at this time?
There are a number of screens here, which illuminate what is meant by both focus and priority.
1. What are we talking about (what's the topic)?
Getting this right is everyone's responsibility: from the agenda drafters to the presenter; from the facilitator to the listener. This is a question of focus and discipline.
2. What do I have to say on this topic?
—Perhaps others have already said it. This is a mater of selflessness (ego management) and discipline.
—Perhaps the topic inspires you to make a comment about a related, yet different topic that is not appropriate for this moment. This is a matter of focus and discernment.
—Perhaps what you have to contribute is relatively minor. This is a matter of priority.
—Perhaps the setting does not feel safe. This is a matter of emotional discernment.
—Perhaps you have a way to bridge views expressed by people who are missing each other. This is a question of seeing the whole and not getting bogged down in personal attachment.
3. Is this the appropriate setting (plenary, committee, or one-on-one conversation) for your comment?
There is a time for giving input to a committee, and there is a time for giving comments in plenary. It requires focus to understand the most constructive context to offer input. If you withhold concerns until after a committee has developed a proposal, you are not respecting their need to know what factors they should be trying to address in their proposal.
4. Is this the appropriate timing to offer your views?
If you have a proposal, is it premature to offer it? If you have a background question is it too late for that? There is a normal sequence for addressing issues and if you offer comments out of sequence, you are not focusing well.
One of the nuances of making group decisions is deciding when you have enough information that it's time to stop exploring (the expansion phase) and begin problem solving (the contraction phase). What makes this tricky is that you never know everything. You have to make a judgment call on when you know enough and that delaying a decision to gather more data will have diminishing returns. You also have to weigh the cost of delay and possibility of lost opportunity.
If individuals are being asked to maintain focus in meetings, the group must accept a concomitant responsibility to be disciplined about what it tackles in plenary, being diligent about only allowing plenary worthy topics to come forward. It's harder to keep focused if the plenary drifts into committee micromanagement.
Once the group is demonstrated the ability to work only in the plenary worthy zone, each individual has a responsibility to maintain focus throughout the session. Even if a particular issue is not one you care about, you can play a valuable role as a safeguard of process; as a potential bridge builder. When you are not a stakeholder, you can care more about relationships and how you reach a decisions more than what decision you reach.
In my experience, when a group is spinning its wheels it's almost always traceable to one of four causes (singly or in combination): a) lack of clarity about the objectives for a given topic; b) lack of clearly defined priorities for using time wisely; c) lack of discipline to stay focused; or d) lack of ability to handle the dynamics that come up—which usually means working constructively with strong emotions. That said, it sometimes happens (as was mentioned in the text for the Priority Focus card) that priorities shift as a consequence of what emerges in the meeting, and then adjustments need to be made on the fly.
While not common, this definitely occurs, and it's a test of the group's sophistication and acumen that it can recognize and articulate those shifts when they arise. For the most part this is a matter of being able to read the energy in the room—being able to "hear" what's underneath the words. And that skill especially requires focus.
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Group Works: Setting Intention
This entry continues a series in which I'm exploring concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The fifth and final pattern in this segment is labeled Setting Intention. Here is the image and text from that card: Envision and name what will be done to reach toward or achieve the purpose of the group. Setting intention reminds us of our responsibilities, guiding us to actions that fulfill the reason for which a gathering was called.
The pivotal term here is setting. As the segment is labeled "Intention" and we already covered "Purpose," the focus here is on focusing—making a conscious choice about direction and scope.
The image conveys a sense of struggle (trudging uphill through the snow with a load on), which may or may not be the case (fortunately, all topics are not such a slog). Much depends on the group's clarity of purpose, a sense of where you are on the topics to be explored, and the discipline of participants to know how to use meeting time well.
The point of making a conscious choice is that you are much more likely to end up where you intend to be. While it's possible that focus can effectively be blinders that cripple creativity and prevent the group from seeing possibilities, solid focus generally helps the group stay on task and increases productivity.
There are two other points to make here: the value of agenda drafters articulating what they're trying to accomplish, and the importance of the facilitator reminding the group what it's doing.
1. A Clear Agenda
While it's likely that the folks responsible for crafting the agenda have a solid idea about why they've suggested what they've brought forward (at least I hope they do), often that's transmitted to the group in the truncated (and mysterious) form of a single line (sometimes only one or two words), leaving it up to the group to sort out what all lies behind the curtain. In most situations (especially if the group is rather large) it's a better idea to post the draft the agenda accompanied by a paragraph or two laying out the objective and relevant background on each item—rather than surprising folks with that information in the meeting.
While I'm all in favor of concision, the prime directive here is accurately conveying intention—not a contest to see how you can give the group a decent hint about what will be discussed with the fewest words possible.
2. Posting Road Signs Along the Way
There's a great story about veteran baseball announcer Jon Miller, who distinguished himself as a consummate play-by-play radio broadcaster toiling 14 years for the Baltimore Orioles (1983-96) before returning home to the Bay Area to announce Giants games. When working for the O's he used to keep an egg timer on the counter in front of him, as a reminder to announce the score every time the sand ran out. Even though he was fully absorbed in the game, he knew that: a) there were always people just tuning in who didn't know the score; and b) many who listen on radio are splitting their attention with other things and tend to lose their way without some help from the announcer.
In much the same way that Miller reminds listeners of the score, a good facilitator will periodically remind meeting participants what they're doing. While it probably doesn't need to be repeated every three minutes (the time it takes to soft boil an egg), it's much more helpful you may think, providing participants with regular signposts reminding them what road they're traveling. As a professional facilitator, I regularly take time, a la Miller, to remind groups what we're doing. Think of it as a preemptive strike on off-topic comments.
In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.
The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:
1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith
In the Intention segment there are five cards. The fifth and final pattern in this segment is labeled Setting Intention. Here is the image and text from that card: Envision and name what will be done to reach toward or achieve the purpose of the group. Setting intention reminds us of our responsibilities, guiding us to actions that fulfill the reason for which a gathering was called.
The pivotal term here is setting. As the segment is labeled "Intention" and we already covered "Purpose," the focus here is on focusing—making a conscious choice about direction and scope.
The image conveys a sense of struggle (trudging uphill through the snow with a load on), which may or may not be the case (fortunately, all topics are not such a slog). Much depends on the group's clarity of purpose, a sense of where you are on the topics to be explored, and the discipline of participants to know how to use meeting time well.
The point of making a conscious choice is that you are much more likely to end up where you intend to be. While it's possible that focus can effectively be blinders that cripple creativity and prevent the group from seeing possibilities, solid focus generally helps the group stay on task and increases productivity.
There are two other points to make here: the value of agenda drafters articulating what they're trying to accomplish, and the importance of the facilitator reminding the group what it's doing.
1. A Clear Agenda
While it's likely that the folks responsible for crafting the agenda have a solid idea about why they've suggested what they've brought forward (at least I hope they do), often that's transmitted to the group in the truncated (and mysterious) form of a single line (sometimes only one or two words), leaving it up to the group to sort out what all lies behind the curtain. In most situations (especially if the group is rather large) it's a better idea to post the draft the agenda accompanied by a paragraph or two laying out the objective and relevant background on each item—rather than surprising folks with that information in the meeting.
While I'm all in favor of concision, the prime directive here is accurately conveying intention—not a contest to see how you can give the group a decent hint about what will be discussed with the fewest words possible.
2. Posting Road Signs Along the Way
There's a great story about veteran baseball announcer Jon Miller, who distinguished himself as a consummate play-by-play radio broadcaster toiling 14 years for the Baltimore Orioles (1983-96) before returning home to the Bay Area to announce Giants games. When working for the O's he used to keep an egg timer on the counter in front of him, as a reminder to announce the score every time the sand ran out. Even though he was fully absorbed in the game, he knew that: a) there were always people just tuning in who didn't know the score; and b) many who listen on radio are splitting their attention with other things and tend to lose their way without some help from the announcer.
In much the same way that Miller reminds listeners of the score, a good facilitator will periodically remind meeting participants what they're doing. While it probably doesn't need to be repeated every three minutes (the time it takes to soft boil an egg), it's much more helpful you may think, providing participants with regular signposts reminding them what road they're traveling. As a professional facilitator, I regularly take time, a la Miller, to remind groups what we're doing. Think of it as a preemptive strike on off-topic comments.
Categories: Long Form Blogs
Print this page
Purchase an Email Broadcast
