The term Design is all the rage.

Any professional in any field feels it imperative to add Design in the title.

Engineers, graphic professionals, photographers, dancers, environmentalists, climatologists, scientists… they all claim to be designers first.

And this is very refreshing.

Have you heard of this new field of Design Anthropology? http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/design-anthropology-why-are-there-designs-not-meant-for-human/

Dori Tunstall said in an interview with  Debbie Millman:

“Design translate values into tangible experiences…Design can help make values such as equality, democracy, fairness, integration, connection…(values that we have lost to some extent), more tangible and express how we can use them to make the world a better place…”

Looks like Tunstall expanded the term design to overlap with the political realm of Congress jobs, law makers, political parties, election laws…

It is about time that everyone “think design” when undertaking any project or program

Anything we do is basically designed, explicitly or implicitly: Either we are generating products and programs for mankind, or it is mankind who is in charge of executing, controlling and managing what has been conceived.

So long as human are directly involved in using a product or a program, any design must explicitly study and research the safety, health, and mistakes that the operators and users will encounter.

Must as well that the design be as explicit in the attributes of health, safe usage, errors that might generate serious consequences, materially, mentally or physically.

Four decade ago, there was a field of study called Human Factors.

The term Human Factors was considered too general to be taken seriously in Engineering.

The implicit understanding was that “Of course, when an engineer designs anything, it is the human who is targeted….”

However, besides applying standards and mathematical formulas, engineers are the least concerned directly with the safety, health of users: The standards are supposed to take care of these superfluous attributes…

And who are the people concerned in setting standards?

Standards are arrived at in a consensus process between the politicians and the business people, and rarely the concerned users and consumers are invited to participate in the debate, except in later sessions when standards are already drafted…

And how explicitly experiments were designed to allow users to test, and give feedback to any kinds of standards, handed down from successive standard sets…?

Countless engineers and scientists are directly engaged in putting rovers on Mars and launching shuttles and… and the human in the project is taken for granted…

If you ask them whether they have human factors engineers in their teams, they don’t understand what you mean.

The project is supposed to be an engineering project, and “where the hell did you bring this human thing in the picture?”

Anything that is designed must consider the health, safety, and how a person from various ages, genders, and ethnic idiosyncracies might use the product or the program…

Take all the time in design process. People are not supposed to be used as ginea pigs for any redesigned process… after countless lawsuits, pains, suffering…

This is a preliminary draft. Any input and replies?

Note: http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/whats-that-concept-of-human-factors-in-design/

Agenda:

Two Goals: Review template, plug ppl into facil roles

Intros

Denise, Colleen, Kat, Maggie, Jessie, Chelle, Nathanael

Facilitators

Notetaker – Maggie

Stack/Process Observer (keep an eye on time, process, and making sure ppl all get opportunity to speak) – Kat

Everyone is Vibes checker!

Facilitator – Nathanael

Parking Lot – Chelle

Go Over Hand Signals

Clarifying questions, Point of Information as an interrupt – vitally relevant question or information

Point of Process can also happen whenever it needs to happen – keep people from straying waaaaaay far away; keep group focused

Confusion about stack, CQ, POI and people get tripped up

POI – factual info being discussed

CQ – I don’t understand, can be answered, not vague hypothetical

Stack – opinion; I want to get on stack is five hand raise

Direct response – information that is not a point solely factual – only for small groups, not for large because it can be abused

It is all process, not content with hand signals

Agenda building exercise – 30 min

- Agenda Template

O4A has it’s own template, and based on OWS model [there are additional points brought to the table by Colleen]:

Introduction to Meeting:

We read our Call to Action, something to inspire people at beginning; CtA – focus energy of group onto task, a formal ritual that pulls process into place and peoples attention to the piece of the world we want them to focus on

Introduction of attendees, either with prompt or not; sometimes in small group that meets regularly, to help off-load energy, ask people what’s on their mind so they can express what their mental processes (where we come from)

Introduce Facilitation Team (after producing level playing field with previous introduction) how has Facil team been chosen? Outside – stranger in the group would disrupt energy, and so they would come in before Intros of Attendees;

Would it be a good idea to always intro Facil team before intros? It depends – if you self-select you can do it after, if you pre-select, there should be an intro before attendees

- Intro Agenda – O4A typically hands out agenda, rather than intro; in a more informal meeting it is more important for a vibes check/consensus, but in large scale it can really slow things down; O4A action assemblies are in a weird middle, generally small and informal, but up to 20 people; probably for speed and simplicity good to have it hammered out before hand;

- Perhaps just agree to a set template and if anyone wants to add anything, they can add it into agenda; Want attendees to buy-in to the agenda, keeps people on time, people will know how long things will take – and so we’ll help as a group keep things moving – as a good facilitator you want whole group to facilitate with you; get group buy-in say here’s tentative agenda, is there anything missing? Anything that shouldn’t be there? And then get agreement to amount of time – if you skip that, you will have people who haven’t bought-in and disagreements may arise

VIBES CHECK – ADDITIONAL 10 MINUTES ADDED FOR TOPIC

Buy-in gives sense of ownership, less dictatorial – people with important topics went to facli team and you were added; also added to stack – this was used for 100s of people, so smaller group

- Action assemblies have 20-30 people; so what are these good for in terms of the particular meeting this coming Thursday?

-       have a template to plug into; keep things as simple as possible for when people walk in; complications come from everyone, not just Facili Team; everything is simple, humans make it complicated

-       Consistently build an agenda from a template that everyone is familiar with from outset – present agenda with the understanding that it is only 75% complete – people know they can be added in appropriate places, then vibes check about schedule, times allotted etc

-       Once everyone knows the process/agenda, the review of it will be very short

Intro to Process

-Intro to Hand Signals if felt it necessary – especially important because each Occupation can use different hand signals; becomes like a ritual, an educational moment and a community bonding moment

-Agenda Review – 5 min

- Present it – get buy-in

- Show others where they can plug in information

- Vibes etc – this is a visual example of the Hand Signals, a good way to introduce and practice the hand signals; also a function of review

-       5 Min process discussion – meant to be educational; differences between hand signals, differences between committee and working groups etc – this is specific to O4A meetings : change perspectives through use of words

TIME BREAK – WHAT DO WE NEED BY THURSDAY? MOST IMPORTANT GOAL IS SOLID UNDERSTANDING OF AGENDA TEMPLATE GOING FORWARD

We have to break loose thought pattern of anonymous vote and change it; there will always be strangers with agendas, so you need process and consensus

– Take one min, either facil, or note taker to go over last meeting – we did ABC, and we achieved B and C and we’ll hear back from X groups about Y and Z – energy focusing technique, group memory – helpful to go over group memory; group history – review of minutes (group memory!) As simple as 5 min, 5 sentences – very simple

Action Group Report Backs

Have a plan, but can also be added on, plug-in (Stack should find out who wants to get in, esp. if they come in late) [questions: who wants to be on stack?...we are closing stack, who wants on?] good to have reserve place for it, so meeting doesn’t go on indefinitely; have set time and then consense on more time? Once process is working well for yourself, it can become more efficient as a whole

Short – typically 2 minutes each

Proposals – O4A doesn’t always have proposals set, usually ad hoc; we don’t have proposal section – typically after REPORT BACKS, we ususally place Specific Topics

Proposals usually come from RBs – but RBs are usually past oriented, and proposals are future oriented; Special Topics leaves it a little more open ended, caters to flexibility; what we have is a discussion and then action is planned, there isn’t much in terms of formal proposal – fundamental difference between action assembly vs a general assembly where we would have a set proposal section vs special topics; This is important flexible part of agenda – what will help us manage, each topic must have spokes person and time limit before it gets formally placed on agenda – pre-ID’d the spokes for that topic; this is a goal, not an event – as we create topics and allow freedom for ideas to pop up, this is a way to manage time, ID prior – if groups want action, then they need to present something; at some point we’ll need a grip on this section other wise it might just meander and there won’t have closure

What we’ve done is have topics before hand; inter occupational out reach, ID person to give report and make sure they have info and will speak about it; is this another instance to do group memory? It wouldn’t hurt to do more in depth about topics and say XX is going to do a report on what they did etc And again it is a review for those who come in late – ask people if they’re cool with being spokesman on a topic?

Announcements – something people get confused about a lot

Information about something that’s upcoming

Information about autonomous actions

Future activities/actions/stuff

Used at OWS – this is more autonomous (RB and Proposals are more group-oriented) – announcements are individual, no consensus or vibes check on this area – giving information, and these should be really quick, LESS than 2 minutes – if it doesn’t fit in here, then it will become working group or proposed next meeting

Announcement of WG

Next Steps

Somebody needs to review – note taker will take names and start “kicking ass” – XX said would do something, will you do that for next mtg? Action Group will do this – make people accountable for what they say they do – and then this is basis of next agenda; give people help  (FORMAL MANNER OF NOTE TAKING IN ORDER TO SIMPLIFY THIS PROCESS)

Closing

Perhaps next meeting discuss more thoroughly for Facil Roles?

Do we want to go more in depth in these for the next meeting? Perhaps just continue with what we’re doing for now and continue this discussion next time

Have different facilitators for next meeting, but people who are comfortable doing it

Facil Roles for meeting on Thursday:

Nathanael: stack

Kat and Chelle: facilitators

Maggie: note-taking

If we come to really good understanding of agenda template, plugging in will be very easy; most of our energies on template will be most productive thing

With a good enough template going on, a facil team could meet even 15 min prior to meeting

The community of occupiers at Liberty Plaza have sparked the process of building a movement that now transcends any one physical landmark. The tools to keep the movement alive belong to all of us.

Created by the Meerkat Media Collective. For the last 6 years we’ve been using consensus decision making in our filmmaking process – http://meerkatmedia.org

THE MOVEMENT:
http://www.OccupyTogether.org
http://www.OccupyWallSt.org
http://www.OccupyVideos.org

MORE ON CONSENSUS:
Top 10 Most Common Mistakes in Consensus Process and how to Avoid them: http://treegroup.info/topics/Top-10-Consensus-Mistakes.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/08/1022710/–occupywallstreet:-a-primer…

START YOUR OWN GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
http://nycga.cc/resources/general-assembly-guide/

_____

Mike Davis
No More Bubblegum
Los Angeles Review of Books
October 21, 2011

Who could have envisioned Occupy Wall Street and its sudden wildflower-like profusion in cities large and small?

John Carpenter could have, and did. Almost a quarter of a century ago (1988), the master of date-night terror (Halloween, The Thing), wrote and directed They Live, depicting the Age of Reagan as a catastrophic alien invasion. In one of the film’s brilliant early scenes, a huge third-world shantytown is reflected across the Hollywood Freeway in the sinister mirror-glass of Bunker Hill’s corporate skyscrapers.

They Live remains Carpenter’s subversive tour de force. Few who’ve seen it could forget his portrayal of billionaire bankers and evil mediacrats and their zombie-distant rule over a pulverized American working class living in tents on a rubble-strewn hillside and begging for jobs. From this negative equality of homelessness and despair, and thanks to the magic dark glasses found by the enigmatic Nada (played by “Rowdy” Roddy Piper), the proletariat finally achieves interracial unity, sees through the subliminal deceptions of capitalism, and gets angry.

Very angry.

Yes, I know, I’m reading ahead. The Occupy the World movement is still looking for its magic glasses (program, demands, strategy, and so on) and its anger remains on Gandhian low heat. But, as Carpenter foresaw, force enough Americans out of their homes and/or careers (or at least torment tens of millions with the possibility) and something new and huge will begin to slouch towards Goldman Sachs. And unlike the “Tea Party,” so far it has no puppet strings.

[...]

Back to strategy, though: what’s the next link in the chain (in Lenin’s sense) that needs to be grasped? How imperative is it for the wildflowers to hold a convention, adopt programmatic demands, and thereby put themselves up for bid on the auction block of the 2012 elections? Obama and the Democrats will desperately need their energy and authenticity. But the occupationistas are unlikely to put themselves or their extraordinary self-organizing process up for sale.

Personally I lean toward the anarchist position and its obvious imperatives.

First, expose the pain of the 99 percent; put Wall Street on trial. Bring Harrisburg, Loredo, Riverside, Camden, Flint, Gallup, and Holly Springs to downtown New York. Confront the predators with their victims — a national tribunal on economic mass murder.

Second, continue to democratize and productively occupy public space (i.e. reclaim the Commons). The veteran Bronx activist-historian Mark Naison has proposed a bold plan for converting the derelict and abandoned spaces of New York into survival resources (gardens, campsites, playgrounds) for the unsheltered and unemployed. The Occupy protestors across the country now know what it’s like to be homeless and banned from sleeping in parks or under a tent. All the more reason to break the locks and scale the fences that separate unused space from urgent human needs.

Third, keep our eyes on the real prize. The great issue is not raising taxes on the rich or achieving a better regulation of banks. It’s economic democracy: the right of ordinary people to make macro-decisions about social investment, interest rates, capital flows, job creation, and global warming. If the debate isn’t about economic power, it’s irrelevant.

Fourth, the movement must survive the winter in order to fight the power in the next spring. It’s cold on the street in January. Bloomberg and every other mayor and local ruler is counting on a hard winter to deplete the protests. It is thus all-important to reinforce the occupations over the long Christmas break. Put on your overcoats.

Finally, we must calm down — the itinerary of the current protest is totally unpredictable. But if one erects a lightning rod, we shouldn’t be surprised if lightning eventually strikes.

Bankers, recently interviewed in the New York Times, claim to find the Occupy protests little more than a nuisance arising from an unsophisticated understanding of the financial sector. They should be more careful. Indeed, they should probably quake before the image of the tumbrel.

Since 1987, African Americans have lost more than half of their net worth; Latinos, an incredible two-thirds. Five-and-a-half million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the United Sates since 2000, more than 42,000 factories closed, and an entire generation of college graduates now face the highest rate of downward mobility in American history.

Wreck the American dream and the common people will put on you some serious hurt. Or as Nada explains to his unwary assailants in Carpenter’s great film: “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass…. and I’m all out of bubblegum.”

• See also Mike Davis, “Ten immodest commandments,” The Rag Blog, November 17, 2011

Thanks to Comrade Agata and the NYC General Assembly Arts & Labor Working Group for the heads-up.

One of the central goals of the Occupy movement is to develop and promote direct-democratic processes. At today’s GA in Liberty Plaza, Occupy Ann Arbor engaged in a thought-provoking discussion on how to enact this radical democratic change of building community on the basis consensus and mutual cooperation.

Operating on consensus represents a radical change from the political status quo. For Americans, building consensus is likely to be a new, unfamiliar process. We tend to think of politics as a competitive, adversarial arena where opposing parties duke it out for supremacy. Politics in America is less about cooperatation and constructive dialogue and more promoting individual agendas and getting one’s own way.  One side always wins and one side always loses.

Consensus, on the other hand, is about cooperation, not competition. Make no mistake: enacting the shift from competitive politics to consensus-based politics is a huge task. Change will not happen over night. But Occupy Ann Arbor boldly took it upon itself today to build this change.

The GA began with smaller groups breaking out to discuss questions about the nature of consensus. With about 30 people in attendance, we were all asked to answer the following questions: “What kinds of action need consensus, particularly by the General Assembly?” and “Where is the line between consensus and autonomous action?”

The Occupy movement is attempting the balancing act of building consensus while encouraging autonomous action. If someone wants to start a working group, they are empowered start one autonomously without the prior consent of the GA. If someone sees a task that needs to be done, they are encouraged to form a group around the task. But the question is, when do these autonomous groups need to get consensus from the GA to carry out tasks? Occupy can only grow and thrive in an environment where self-motivated action is encouraged. But things get tricky when people acting autonomously do things that that the larger community might not necessarily approve of.

While it is impossible to answer these questions in the space of a single GA, these questions are important. In order to sort out these issues, those in attendance at today’s GA decided to form two new working groups: one devoted to drafting an Occupy Ann Arbor Principles and Goals document and the other devoted to resolving issues related to GA quorum  (quorum is the minimal number of people required at a GA for consensus to be reached on proposals).

In addition to discussing the consensus process, a number of working groups reported back on recent successes and future projects.

The education working group reported on the all-day Day of Activism conference that it is planning for December 11. Potential workshops and panels include ones on the history of revolutions, alternatives to capitalism, civil disobedience, and homelessness.

The community working group reported on Friday’s successful benefit for their Warming Shelters Project where they $685 raised for the warming shelter.

The direct action group reported on the special Black Friday action it is organizing. The action promises to be a rousing good time. While the group is keeping the details on the down-low, direct action is organizing a flash-mob style protest in a major big box store. The next planning meeting will be Tuesday 6pm at Cafe Ambrosia. For those who wish to be involved in the action, people will be meeting Friday at Veteran’s park  for rideshares (parking lot on Maple, across from Plum Market) in Ann Arbor, and leave to the action site promptly at 10:15am. The Action will bring awareness to shopping local verses supporting major corporations that have not only harmed the economy, but also have poor treatment of their workers.

Occupy U of M made its presence known at the GA. Their first GA will be on November 30. They will be organizing a practice GA to help develop process. The cool thing about Occupy UM is that anyone may get involved, whether or not affiliated with UM. Stay tuned for more details!

Big thanks to the fantastic facilitation team for all their hard work in fostering an open, cooperative space for conversation.

We’ll be covering information about consensus decision-making, meeting process, group facilitation skills, and how to help have a great General Assembly.

Please join us!

THE PEOPLE’S MIC: A helpful way to amplify one voice in a group of people. One person speaks in short phrases, and the group repeats so that others have a better chance of hearing the speaker. The People’s Mic, or Human Mic, takes some getting used to, but it works. Not only does it help people hear what’s being said, but it also helps people listen, helps speakers to be more concise, AND creates a sense of unity in our group.

CONSENSUS HAND SIGNALS: Rather than interrupt a conversation, people at the General Assemblies can express their support or disagreement with a speaker by using silent hand signals. Since applause can misrepresent the level of support for an idea, and because standard applauds don’t allow room for disapproval, facilitators may at times call for a consensus-check from the group. Hand signals are also used to communicate to the speaker or facilitators when you have a clarifying question, point of information, or if the speaker is off topic, etc.

• Jazz hands / twinkly fingers = I am supportive; I like what was just said; I agree.
• Flat hands = I have mixed feelings; I need more information to make a decision.
• Downward hands = I am not comfortable; I disagree.
• Make an “X” with your arms = I disagree and am choosing to BLOCK the decision; I am morally or ethically opposed or have safety concerns; I will leave the movement if this decision passes.
• Bicycle hands = Wrap it up, I hear what you’re saying, be more concise.
• Make a triangle with your fingers = Point of Process: speaker is off the agenda item, need to get back on track
• 1 finger UP = Point of Information: I have pertinent information directly related to what the speaker is talking about and I will share this information briefly, in ONE sentence, so that the original speaker can get back on track.
• Make a “C” with your hands = Clarifying Question: I would like to ask a clarifying question to the person speaking or about the subject we’re talking about to help me better understand the announcement, proposal, or decision.

OTHER HELPFUL INFORMATION: 

• Many Leaders – This is not a leaderless movement. And no charismatic leader or hero will save us. Rather, we are creating space for many leaders through a process of direct democracy.
• Many Voices – Be aware of the diversity of our group’s participation. Welcome new voices. Create space for many voices.
• Step Up / Step Back – If you tend to feel uncomfortable speaking, this is your time to step up! If you tend to talk a lot in groups, please make space for other voices and step back.
• Progressive Stack – Traditionally marginalized voices will get bumped to the top of the stack list if we’ve had a lot of white men speaking.
• Respect Stack – If you disagree with what someone is saying, then get on stack to speak. Don’t abuse Point of Information or Clarifying Question to interrupt process, or soapbox to make a counter point.

This guide was developed by the Rural Organizing Project, an organization aimed at advancing democracy in rural Oregon. It includes a sample opinion article, letter to the editor, social media resources, customizable informational flyer, information on general assemblies, tips on starting one in your community and more. Download it here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dtD8RnGaRQ&feature=player_embedded

About 300 people showed up to the first General Assembly meeting, where proposals were put forth, ideas shared and action steps were discussed in a consensus process.

People eventually decided to march through downtown Grand Rapids, since many people were walking about for the final days of ArtPrize. The group made its way to the Ah Nah Awen Park and decided to occupy space near the Ford Museum.

Over the next few days General Assembly meetings were held twice a day with some meetings involving over a hundred people. At times the consensus process seemed to struggle, in part due to the newness for many people and because of the size.

Lots of issues have been raised at these meetings and much of what has been discussed has been posted online at http://occupygrandrapids.wikispaces.com/.

There have also been a few skill share workshops offered for people, such as a Know Your Rights session that was held on Sunday, which provided people basic information on how to deal with cops.

On Monday, some members of the group decided to have a march in downtown Grand Rapids in the late afternoon with the intent of reaching out to more people. About 30 people marched for an hour, chanting and handing out flyers to people. At one point the group was chanting, “Banks Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out,” and a young man sitting on a park bench said to his friend, “They are pissed off about the taxpayer money the banks got. We got nothing. We just got screwed.”

During the 6pm General Assembly meeting there was word that the City would not allow the group to be at the park overnight, which was later confirmed when police showed up to tell everyone they had to leave. According to information on facebook the Occupy Grand Rapids group is not going to spend the night at the park, but will continue to hold meetings at both noon and 6pm at Ah Nah Awen Park until another location can be secured.

I once again want to thank the Shelby 912 Tea Party for allowing me to present my research on how the Sustainable Development agenda has crept its way into Cleveland County. Below are a couple of clips from Glenn’s show from Aug of 2010. (Archives provided by The Daily Beck website,click here to visit) In these clips Glenn shows some very disturbing video clips from Hillary Clinton, Obama, Al Gore, the UN, Soros, Andy Stern, and others speaking about the need for a “New Global Governance”.  Approx 6 minutes into the first clip is where it gets really pertinent to the discussion we had last night.

More importantly than the Beck clips, please go down further in this post and read the introduction to the article by Soverignty International.  A huge shout out to Cheryl Pass, one of my fellow researchers and activists on local sustainability efforts from the Gastonia area for sending me this!

I have provided a link to the entire article after the introduction. Once you go to the article, down at the very bottom there is a link to Soverignty International’s website. It is packed with resources that I believe our Commissioners need to see. The article is a little long, and some may struggle to get through it, but I am here to tell you, Soverignty International has the “Consensus Process” nailed.

For those of my local readers in Cleveland County, throughout the article simply replace the terms NGO and Stakeholder Council with any of the following: Lake Norman RPO, Centralina Council of Governments, Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life (SEQL), or the Sustainable Communities Task Force created by Section 13.5 of SB 897.

The ”Concensus Process” is what created Cleveland County’s current Land Use, and Comprehensive Transportation Plans.

Please consider joining me and other Tea Party Members at both the County School Board meetings, as well as the Commissioner meetings, and let’s begin devising a Transportation Plan that makes sence for Cleveland County.

The Consensus Process:

Developing an appropriate response

(from eco-logic, May/June, 1997)

In communities across America, “stakeholder” councils are being formed, or have already been formed, to advance Agenda 21 to transform cities and towns into “sustainable communities.” The “consensus process” is used to gain the appearance of public support for the principles of sustainability, applied to a particular community. The process is designed to take the public policy- making function away from elected officials and place it in the hands of professional bureaucrats, while giving the appearance of broad public input into the decision-making process.

Stakeholder councils are called by many names and are created for a variety of specific purposes. Whatever they are called, and whatever the stated purpose for which they are created, they all have several common characteristics, and all have a common objective: the implementation of some component of Agenda 21. To develop an effective local response, it is necessary to understand the objectives, the process, the techniques, and the players. While each community may experience a variety of different approaches, it is necessary to recognize the common principles that guide all such councils. (Click here to read full article.)

Sat am

STICK MAN MAGNIFYING GLASS FLIP

Individual needs and desires. How to come to consensus?

Need some shared goal/ common ground

Consensus as a way of striving to achieve fulfilment of everyone’s needs and desires.

STAGES OF CONSENSUS – BASIC OUTLINE

• Introduce Issue

• Express needs and desires (often we dont)

• Understand needs and desires (are we prepared to?)

• Integrate → look for solutions

• Agree solutions.

But people aren’t always used to talking about what they want, and need.

THE ONION FLIP

Positions – what we say that want

Interests – what we really want

Basic Needs – what we must have

Bearing these distinctions in mind can help us really listen to people, and try to understand where people’s positions are coming from.

What needs and desires are we prepared to really listen to and understand?

COMFORT ZONE FLIP

The further people’s positions/interests get from our own, we get out of our comfort zone. We pay attention to those we agree with, we close down, ignore, resist those we don’t.

We want to expand the limits of our tolerance towards more diversity of thought and expression.

So we need to pay a lot of attention to the DIVERGENT THINKING stage of Consensus process.

JAWS OF CONSENSUS FLIP – DIVERGENT – CONVERGENT THINKING

Business-as-usual/easy decision scenario: Diamond-shaped Jaws, with brief divergent phase.

BUT

More difficult decision/diverse group: Need a much more expanded divergent phase, so that there’s a bigger chance of getting to everyone’s needs, and having enough material to find things that work to address everyone’s needs and desires.

People need to be listened to & understood, and feel that they’ve been listened to and understood.

Striving to integrate phase: jagged, alternating between divergent and convergent.

We have to express views → understand others, listen properly by challenging assumptions.

Convergent phase: proposal which catches, works, addresses needs.

Narrowing down options acted on as a group. Can be high energy, exciting.

Anyone has any other models?

SAFE UNCERTAINTY FLIP

Often we’re trying to make change because we find ourselves in a position of unsafe uncertainty. Uncertainty makes us feel unsafe. The natural knee-jerk reaction then is to desire to get ourselves safe and certain. But safe certainty is a big ask, often impossible, unfluid. It can be better to work out what degree of uncertainty we can live and work with. Find our shared space of safe uncertainty.