For the past three years (ever since attending “The Underlying Dynamics of Conversations that Matter”, a most excellent pre-conference workshop with Tom Atlee and Peggy Holman at NCDD 2008 in Austin, TX), I’ve been following the Group Pattern Language Project, a very exciting endeavor led by Tree Bressen, Sue Woehrlin and Dave Pollard and involving dozens of contributors from a variety of backgrounds, that aims to build — you guessed it — a pattern language of group processes.

Here’s how they describe the concept:

A Pattern Language is an attempt to express the deeper wisdom of what brings aliveness within a particular field of human endeavor, through a set of interconnected expressions arising from that wisdom. Aliveness is one placeholder term for “the quality that has no name”: a sense of wholeness, spirit, or grace, that while of varying form, is precise and empirically verifiable.

The term was originally coined by architect Christopher Alexander, who, together with five colleagues, published A Pattern Language for building in 1977. Others have since applied the term to economics, software design, liberatory communication, wikis and more.

The intention behind this ambitious project is to share knowledge that goes to the “deeper core of what brings a group conversation alive”. Their goals include:

1. To support Purpose-driven design. Form should follow function. The most important part of any meeting planning is to get clear on why you are having the meeting. That choice drives all subsequent choices for that event.
2. To deepen the skills of those who serve as group process guides, leaders, hosts, and facilitators. To assist with their learning in how to do design. To help them choose among many possible processes to create something that will be the best possible fit for their situation at a given time. [...]
3. To serve as a resource for those who are teaching others to design, lead, facilitate group process.
4. To increase process literacy among people who are users of process(es)–which is all of us. Our world needs us to wake up and get more savvy about this.

Throughout the three-year period, progress was documented on a public wiki, as new patterns were identified and went from seed stage to full maturity.

Yesterday, the group launched the Group Works Card Deck, a collection of 91 cards to help facilitators and participants make their group process work more effective:

The Group Works card deck is designed to support your process as a group convenor, planner, facilitator, or participant. The people who developed this deck spent several years pooling our knowledge of the best group events we had ever witnessed. We looked at meetings, conferences, retreats, town halls, and other sessions that give organizations life, solve a longstanding dilemma, get stuck relationships flowing, result in clear decisions with wide support, and make a lasting difference. We also looked at routine, well-run meetings that simply bring people together and get lots of stuff done.

More from the about page:

About the Group Pattern Language Project and the Card Deck

Why are we doing this? Our world is, to a very real extent, based on dialogue. Every action taken that involves more than one person arises from conversation that generates, coordinates, and reflects those actions. Those actions have impact. If our human world is based on conversations, then the work of creating and supporting those conversations is central to shaping a world that works. Designing and conducting meetings and other group sessions well is vital to determining our common future. This project grew around a shared understanding that in an urgent way, our survival depends on our ability to work and play well together, and on discovering and creating group processes which are at the same time effective and life-affirming. Because this is easier said than done, we wanted to deepen and spread the insights, skills, and capacity to make that promise real.

The following core beliefs guide our work:

• Seeing a world in flux and deep need, we believe the work of facilitators, both formal and informal, can make a significant difference to the quality and outcomes of essential conversations. Thus we accept a responsibility, as facilitators and participants in group process, to act for the common good.
• We expect convenors of group process to act with full transparency regarding the motives and expected results of the sessions we organize and run. With honesty and humility, we strive to continuously improve the calibre of our work.
• We choose to assume the best of people. We believe people flourish when entrusted with the opportunity to authentically self-manage, collaborate, and make decisions collectively, as true respected equals. Because the most critical issues facing us in the world and in our organizations are complex and interconnected, we need each other to do this—the challenges we face are beyond solving by leaders or experts in isolation. We believe in sharing power, that we are wiser when we work together.
• We believe that effective group processes are clearly driven by the purpose for which they are called. We respect participants’ life energy by invoking processes that productively use their time, resulting in cooperative sessions that meet a high standard in engagement, achievement and connection. We draw on experience and knowledge to create elegant designs with great care, yet remain flexible and open to change as the circumstances, will of participants and flow of events may dictate.
• Good process builds strong communities. Our work is an act of love in service to the world.

The  print version of the deck can be purchased for $25. A PDF is available for download free of charge.

While this marks a major milestone in the project’s history, the work is not done yet:

Because of space limitations, each card aims only to name the essential What and Why of that particular element. In order to actually use the patterns, you’ll need to come up with the How. A lot of Hows are supplied on our website, where you will find a growing pool of information about the patterns represented in this deck. Some cards have plenty of resources already on the website, while others remain to be fleshed out. Over fifty people were involved in the creation of this card deck, and we’d be delighted for you to join the circle by helping explain how to apply the patterns—see more on this below.

It will be fun to watch how this work evolves next.

And to everyone who played a role in this: Congratulations!

The following appeared in Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources (PDF, pages 265-270), a collection of articles on public involvement from 1983, prepared by James L. Creighton, Jerome Delli Priscoli and C. Mark Dunning for the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

The Samoan Circle: A Small Group Process for Discussing Controversial Subjects

by Lorenz Aggens

Public officials or agency staff often need to hear from concerned publics about their problems, needs, fears and values before a decision is made on an issue of controversy in the community. People with opposing views will often fill a large meeting room, their mood charged with emotion. Many people in the room may hope to influence the decision by their cheers, or booing. Because each person is likely to get only one chance to speak, statements may have been written out for reading, or some especially articulate person will have been chosen to speak for a group of citizens. That responsibility, and the size and temperament of the audience, promotes oration by speakers and the use of words more designed to stir emotions than to share personal opinions and feelings about the subject at issue.

The person responsible for conducting such a meeting usually feels great personal stress over the need to ”control” the meeting and insure that the discussion is equitable and moderate. In attempting to be “in charge” while being fair and neutral, the person presiding over the meeting will often use tactics that will be seen as capricious or arbitrary by those vying for special recognition and influence. If the Chairman of the meeting is from the staff or policy board that will be making a decision on the issue under discussion, he or she is likely to become the target for stern admonitions, emotional appeals, and even threats. The people running, or the panel of decision makers sitting in the front of the room “hearing” from their publics, often feel that THEY have become the subject of the meeting. Instead of being able to listen carefully to what is being said, the chairman or meeting sponsors find themselves in the position of having to answer (or decline to answer) rhetorical questions and challenges.

It was after just such a meeting that the idea of the Samoan Circle was born. The staff of the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (the regional planning agency for the Chicago metropolitan area) were ”debriefing”–otherwise known as licking your wounds–after a particularly abusive “meeting” between war parties in a land use dispute. Our discussions quickly turned to whether there was a better way to hear from both sides of an argument without being accused of being the “other side” by both sides.

One of the staff reported that, in some Pacific island communities he had read about (and Samoa might not be one of them), issues were debated, in years gone by, by calling together all interested parties to share their views in an open and equitable discussion format. After several days of feasting and drinking together, those who still felt there was an issue gathered in a circle to discuss the matter. No one was in charge of the meeting. Anyone spoke out who was stirred by the discussion. The more interested participants moved closer to the center of the discussion circle. The less interested remained on the fringe of the circle, or drifted away. The discussion went on and on until those most concerned in the outcome of the matter could arrive at some agreement. Then they all had a final drink together and went home.

With little to lose, the staff agreed that something like this should be tried, although we agreed that–despite their similarities to extracurricular activities at national political conventions–some features of the meeting process would have to be omitted.

Something like the process described in the accompanying article was tried, first on a group of about 30 people, and then with larger groups. At one of these meetings, someone asked for the name of the meeting process. The meeting facilitator, in a momentary flash of alliteration said, “Call it the Samoan Circle!” Efforts to retract that christening have failed. Most people who have used the Samoan Circle process more than once have called it something like a “discussion circle”, or omitted any title, as a means of saving a lot of time explaining something that may be anthropological baloney. [Although the process may not have its origins in Samoa, it has now been used there. However, a report by a government agency staff member notes that after the elders gather to discuss proposals by his agency, a drink is passed around among participants, the effect of which is to paralyze the vocal cords of all "off-islanders."]

[...]

The article goes on to describe the Samoan Circle in more detail and how it has evolved since inception.

Lorenz Aggens is a founding member of IAP2 whom I had the pleasure to meet at the IAP2 USA Great Lakes chapter reception in Pewaukee, Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago.

Earlier last month, New York City saw the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement. What started out as a small group of people camping out at a local park in downtown Manhattan has since gained a lot of momentum and spread to dozens of cities across the US. From Wikipedia:

Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing series of demonstrations in New York City based in Zuccotti Park, formerly “Liberty Plaza Park”. The protest was originally called for by the Canadian activist group Adbusters; some compare the activity to the Arab Spring movement (particularly the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo, which initiated the 2011 Egyptian revolution) and the Spanish Indignants.

The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns. By October 9, similar demonstrations had been held or were ongoing in over 70 cities.

For anyone interested in things such as democratic process, group decision making, or dialogue, I recommend you follow these developments closely. There’s lots to learn as things unfold!

Of particular interest to me is the use of consensus decision-making as a core design principle to guide the local general assembly meetings that, in most locations, are held daily or even twice daily. Again, Wikipedia:

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together. It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process.

In the words of the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly Guide (PDF):

NYC GENERAL ASSEMBLY | HOW IT WORKS

The General Assembly is a gathering of people committed to making decisions based upon a collective agreement or “consensus.”

There is no single leader or governing body of the General Assembly – everyone’s voice is equal. Anyone is free to propose an idea or express an opinion as part of the General Assembly.

Each proposal follows the same basic format – an individual shares what is being proposed, why it is being proposed, and, if there is enough agreement, how it can be carried out.

The Assembly will express its opinion for each proposal through a series of hand gestures (see next panel).  If there is positive consensus for a proposal – meaning no outright opposition – then it is accepted and direct action begins.

If there is not consensus, the responsible group or individual is asked to revise the proposal and submit again at the following General Assembly until a majority consensus is achieved.

I was able to stop by the Occupy San José camp site a few times over the past ten days to experience first-hand how this process works in practice.

In general, I’ve been quite impressed with the quality of listening that I’ve encountered on site so far. Both during the general assemblies, which have attracted groups of more than 100 people here in San José, as well as throughout the day, when protesters and campers mingle with regular citizens and passers-by, I’ve noticed an overall dialogic atmosphere that brings together people from various backgrounds to engage passionately, yet civilly in deep conversations around the future of society and their community.

People will share personal stories, air their grievances, ask tough questions, brainstorm solutions. They may agree or disagree, but most seem to be able and willing to listen carefully and patiently. And so they connect and support each other. From a civic standpoint this is quite refreshing to see, to say the least.

So far, the consensus model used during the general assemblies seems to be working well overall. From what I’ve seen, the process is very inclusive in that it actively encourages participants who disagree to share their opinions and concerns so that they can be discussed with the larger group.

However, I did noticed a few issues as well. For example, getting the group to reach unanimous consent can be painstakingly slow. Even a three-hour meeting may not get you past a handful of issues. A couple of times, the facilitator could have been more precise in describing the various options that were under consideration. And the fact that the group may be composed of different people day-to-day and a lack of an overarching (multi-day) agenda pose additional challenges.

Most importantly, though, participants seem to genuinely enjoy the approach despite the occasional messiness. It will be very interesting to watch how the model evolves and how the group will adapt as it grows in size.

To help people involved with organizing these grassroots meetings, facilitator and group process expert Tree Bressen just published a handout on consensus decision-making that’s worth sharing in this context. In an email, she writes:

I was inspired to write this especially in support of the current Occupy movement, which has bunches of people participating in consensus decision-making who may not be experienced. A two-page quick handout can’t replace a training, but it can help in the meantime.”

Here they are (please download the document to read the full text): The Top 10 Most Common Mistakes in Consensus Process and How to Avoid Them (PDF)

1. Inappropriate blocks
2. Enabling bad behavior
3. Poorly planned agendas
4. Having the same person facilitate and present topics
5. Starting from a proposal, instead of an issue
6. Too many details
7. Rushing the process
8. Spending all your meeting time in open discussion
9. Attaching proposals to people
10. Fuzzy minutes

I’d be interested to learn how protests in other cities are setting up their decision making infrastructure. If you have first-hand experience or know of any references, please share in the comments. Thanks!

The newly-announced We The People e-petition initiative by the White House has been getting a lot of coverage (for example, see here, here, here, here, here).

I spent Saturday reading through comment threads on various sites to look for additional feedback, criticisms and concerns related to the public participation process, some of which I’m listing below. Try if you can spot any themes.

1. Youtube: A Big Change Coming to WhiteHouse.Gov

• Will they actually listen, or is this something to distract people?
• This could be totally amazing or totally useless, depending on how the petitions work and if anything is done because of the most popular ones.
• Sounds like a good idea to give people another way to try to influence govt besides rants, blogs, complaining letters, etc. Will attention really be paid to a good idea coming from outside DC?
• Is this just a mechanism by which tax dollars will be used to pay for the collection of information about “likely voters” in preparation for the 2012 campaign?
• The biggest hole in this idea is that because it’s based online, completely public, foreigners can create and sign petitions. This negates the opinions of the true citizens of this country whose government’s policies affects the greatest.
• … and even if they redirect IP’s, it won’t stop those who are not citizens of the US inside of this country who are using the computers to get access to the site. (illegal immigrants for instance).
• A new way to voice your concerns or a new way for the govt. to data mine? [...]
• [...] We found yet another way to spend your money on useless programs. [...]
• trying to gain respect back from the american people eh… AIN’T GONNA WORK!!!!
• ….so Obama is so scared of what the unfiltered (in person) American people will say! He has created an online filter system. Who monitors this? Van Jones?The whole thing will be a liberal lie. Producing Liberal mcfacts.

2. Hotair: White House introduces new online petition website for some reason

The post itself gives this assessment:

If, as I suspect, the site is really just a ploy for his campaign so that they can direct Obama donors there and crank out talking-point petitions for him about how “the people” demand tax hikes on the rich or whatever, then it’s very much true to form. Petitions are supposed to be grassroots populist measures aimed at getting the government to act; if this is a campaign device then it’s really the opposite, a way for the head of government to get his supporters to act on his behalf so that he can get reelected. In fact, tea-party groups are already looking into this as a type of lobbying venture paid for with taxpayer money. I doubt it’s illegal, but it tells you a lot about how far the 2008 magic has faded that Captain Charisma might now be relying on Internet petitions to try to influence Congress.

A few comments head in the same general direction:

• Depending on whether they like the petition or not, you end up on one of two lists: “donors” or “enemies”.
• Or, it could be an email harvesting platform… it needs to be looked out how the information submitted is used… will his campaign cross reference email addresses with his campaign?
• Exactly, how will the email addresses who petition on something like Fast and Furious be used? Just look at what is happened to Gibson Guitars… I would be afraid to petition against Obama with my real email address…
• Time to collect email addresses for the 2012 campaign I guess.
• This is another example of Obama trying to make Congress seem irrelevant to the masses.
• [...] if you go through the site and to the email link page you’ll see there is no privacy policy (they ask for your email address & zip code). Looks like another DNC data-mining operation….
• [...] Astroblogging on the taxpayers’ dime.
• I always thought the government organized things called elections to see what the people wanted. So if requiring an ID disenfranchises poor citizens, what does needed a computer and an internet connection do?
• This has nothing to do with “petitions”. This is social media networking/marketing gathering as many emails and names as possible and using those lists for fund raising. Pretty obvious just like those GOP “surveys” I chuck in the trash every other week.

3. Politico: White House: Send us your petitions

The article quotes a number of people in the government, politics & technology space:

• Joe Newman (a spokesman for the Project On Government Oversight): “Encouraging citizens’ participation is never a bad thing, [b]ut part of me is very skeptical that they’ll be able to handle the number of petitions that come in and give it any sort of thorough review.”
• Patrice McDermott (director Open The Government): “The other test is that range of issues [...] Is it going to be only issues that are only of political benefit to the White House, or — who designs that, and how’s it going to be limited, and will it change over time?”
• Patrick Ruffini (a partner at the Republican-leaning digital media firm Engage): “It’s just more people that they can communicate with [...] It’s the government equivalent of, ‘you may win an iPad,’”
• Kirsten Kukowski (RNC spokeswoman): “[...] more campaign tactics coming out from the official White House”

Again, a few comments:

• [...] Who in the right mind would ever believe for a “NewYork Second” that this Administration would pay attention to anything that any non Ivy League educated American would put forward to them. [...]
• [...] Pure gimmick. For one, they are not going to “consider” ANYTHING that they would rather avoid for political reasons [...] Besides, these “petitions” are so easy to fake and rig”. [...]
• You can bet your bottom dollar that this is just a political gimmick to make the public feel better. So, it’s my opinion, that you would be wasting time in participating.
• A symbolic gesture at best, even if a few coherent petitions with enough genuine signatures are selected for “action”.

* * *

Despite the fact that many of these comments are buried in a sea of noise (follow the links to Youtube or Hotair to appreciate first-hand the quality and tone of the conversation), I believe that most of the concerns expressed are very valid indeed and that they deserve to be addressed by the White House, ideally in the same venues where they’ve been raised.

In public participation, so much depends on trust. Just looking over this small and non-representative sample of comments, it’s obvious that the White House lacks trust among many citizens and potential participants. In order to increase trust, difficult as that may seem, the White House is well-advised to not let these comments go unchallenged or unanswered.

There are a number of recurring themes (with regard to impact, privacy, ethics etc.), so answers to those comments should probably be added to the official FAQ I suggested on Friday.

Adriano Pianesi and Amy Lenzo just released a short guide to online hosting (published in the March issue of The Systems Thinker): The Art of Online Hosting: From Powerpoint to Powerful (PDF).

From the paper:

The key to online hosting is simple—deep listening. When it comes to using online tools, people are often distracted by technology, and distracted people don’t listen well. But we know that the best teachers in the world hear, support, challenge, and engage learners’ thinking.

Here’s the challenge: Listening online has a different quality than listening in a classroom. There are no visual clues to guide us: no eager eyes, no furrowed brows, no yawns, no raised hands. Because you can’t see participants in a virtual setting, it’s an almost Zen capacity to “lean in” to what would otherwise appear to be silence.

Deep listening in an online environment comes from a stance of deep caring. You have to give a damn. Unless you nurture a true connection with other human beings, no matter how proficient you are with the technology, your online sessions will hardly shine. Using a whimsical comparison, online hosts are like Luke Skywalker of Star Wars: with all the technology at their disposal, they still trust the “force” of their trained intuition to make things happen.

A helpful answer to a question I asked a little while ago.

The article also states that “the online space is sometimes actually a better—-and on occasion the only—-option for learning or gathering collaboratively,” especially when the audience is:

• geographically dispersed
• interested in germinating ideas collectively, over time
• resource-conscious and focused on convenience
• made up of mainly introverts
• concerned with environmental conservation

Obviously, the same applies to online consultations as well. Worth a read!

Stephen Whitehead, researcher at London, UK-based New Economics Foundation (nef), recently alerted me to a new paper of theirs: Connected Conversations

Reflecting on nef’s decade of experience in democracy and participation, this pamphlet argues that tackling the biggest issues, from climate change to social inequality, needs to start with small conversations between friends and neighbours. By linking these small groups together we can sow the seeds for new social movements.

From the executive summary:

Meeting future challenges

The UK faces an interlinked set of economic, environmental and political challenges that have led nef to call for a ‘great transition’ – a fundamental shift to a more sustainable, socially just way of living. But transition cannot be achieved from the top down. It will require central and local government, businesses, communities and individuals to develop their own understandings of sustainability and social justice and to debate and negotiate with each other about the way forward.

At the moment, however, there is no easy way to get this kind of debate to happen. Our social fabric is fragmented, and opportunities for debate are few and far between. There is little space for groups to deliberate about complex, pressing issues and even less space for them to share their views with each other. The internet is at best a partial solution: there is no substitute for face to face discussion.

Processes such as Who Sees What offer a clue as to how problems like this can be overcome. We call this kind of approach ‘connected conversations’. Unlike many forms of public engagement, connected conversations are not about settling issues or reaching consensus. They simply let citizens engage in public discussion with friends, family or colleagues in their existing networks and then link these discussions together. Rather than seeking to generate a collective decision, they reflect that tackling the biggest issues means making many small decisions and then finding the links between them. They are, in effect, talking shops – and we are proud to describe them as such.

Democs, their process for self-facilitated small-group conversations, is outlined on the Who Sees What website:

Democs (Deliberative Meeting of Citizens) is a discussion tool developed by the New Economics Foundation to help ordinary people discover, discuss and decide about complex political issues. Democs comes in the form of a conversation kit which breaks down all the key points about a topic into discrete information cards. Players sort through the cards, choose the ones that they think are important and identify the themes that link them. At the end of the process, participants are asked how they would like policy in this area to work.

[...]

Democs ‘games’ are played by 6-8 people and take up to an hour and a half. Because all the information needed is on the cards, anyone can organise a Democs game and play it at home, at work or even down the pub! When the kit is launched this Autumn, you’ll be able to request a hard copy of the kit free of charge, or download it and print it out and run your own game. Afterwards, you can send us your results so we can include them in the survey.

Very nice! Watch this 10-minute video to see Democs in action:

Who Sees What – discussion game from Stephen Whitehead on Vimeo.

Small-group processes are essential to dialogue and deliberation, yet often neglected or underutilized online. With the first few basic elements of our small-group functionality now in place on Zilino, we can’t wait to explore and emulate some of the many different flavors of these kinds of processes, including such inspiring examples as World Cafe or Democs.