[Dialogue] ToP Methods

[Terry Bergdall]

Great. I think people will appreciate the discussion. Terry


On 19 Oct 2009, at 11:56, Wayne Nelson wrote:

>
> "Terry Bergdall"  wrote:
>
>> Wayne could post the thread on the Linked-In Group as it now stands  
>> and invite people to respond.
>>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> Done. It tool a lot of posts, but it’s there on Linked In.
>
> The name of the group on Linked In is “ToP Trainers Network”
>
> Try this:
>
> 	• Go to - http://www.linkedin.com/
> 	• Join or log in
> 	• Click “Groups” on the left menu
> 	• Click “Find a Group” in the “Groups Directory” on the right.
> 	• Enter ToP Trainers Network into the search field on the right –  
> under “Search Groups”
> 	• When you find it on the list, click the name.
> 	• Click “Join the group” and follow the instructions.
>
> I think it is a moderated group requiring permission to join. Bill  
> Davis set it up, I believe.
>
>
>
> I think the conversation can continue here as well.
>
>
>
> My summary of the conversation to date
>
>> To me, there are 2 key questions raised in this dialogue. Perhaps  
>> there are others, but these seem to be the primary threads. I think  
>> this conversation is more related to facilitation than training,  
>> but the membranes are somewhat porous.
>>
>> 1. How do we use the Existential – Experiential Aim in our ToP  
>> facilitation work?
>> 	• How do you determine it for a group?
>> 	• How do you use it in preparing to facilitate?
>> 	• How do you use it as the session is going on?
>> 	• How do you use it in assessing the effectiveness, results and  
>> impact of the event?
>>
>> 2. What is the impact of ToP methods on individual and organizations.
>>
>> 	• What is the “Existential” impact of ToP facilitation?
>> 	• Do people make basic changes in their relationship to the topic  
>> and to their group”
>> 	• Do ToP methods play a real role in making a culture change that  
>> is positive, progressive and leads to more human, humane,  
>> productive, healthy workplaces?
>
>
> A couple thoughts
>
> I did not intend to spark anything like or even close to a debate  
> when I asked my question about the origins of the Rational and  
> Existential Aims.  I’m asking the question in order to work it into  
> a paper on the foundations of ToP methodology. I’m trying to dig  
> down to the understandings and sources that led us to incorporate  
> these elements into our work.  I want to work how they can be best  
> articulated and used in the 21st century. I can and am reading the  
> sources I mentioned. I am forming my own theories as I dig around,  
> but I know there are people in this group with longer memories and  
> greater understanding than mine and I’d love to hear their wisdom. I  
> am deeply grateful for these comments, because they have all given  
> me clues.
>
> I’m not sure the comparison between RS1 and ToP facilitation is an  
> entirely appropriate one.  They are quite different things - -  born  
> in different times, developed out of different strategies and  
> created with different groups in mind.  They have very different  
> intents and making direct comparisons is, to me, quite dicey.  Some  
> connections do actually turn out to be invalid. To make value  
> judgments is certainly not my intent, nor do I think it it is really  
> in our interest. to do so. I remember Joe Slicker recently saying  
> something like, “Celebrate what has been and let it go – utterly and  
> completely. Live in the now and build for the future.”
>
> To me, if you’re teaching RS1, you have RS1 type existential  
> objectives.  If you’re facilitating a workshop designed to shape a  
> legislative / public policy framework for wildlife management or  
> create strategy for an assisted living project or design a distance  
> education program, your existential aim is going to be related to  
> the specifics of those situations  and the groups involved in those  
> inquiries – their reality – their history - their contradictions –  
> their opportunities – their mandates and intentions etc. What you  
> believe or pray to 5 times a day is irrelevant.
>
> To try to have people embrace RS1 type understanding in a ToP  
> facilitation event would be so far off target to be almost  
> laughable. If fact it would be truly sad. How do you work out the  
> existential questions your group is facing? To me, trying to squeeze  
> them into an RS1 mold would violate the very nature of the  
> understanding out of which the idea was created. It would be taking  
> an essentialistic approach - as if there were some eternal answers  
> somewhere and all people need to do is get in alignment with these  
> eternal truths. The approach we are working from is ontological. We  
> look at what is going on in the situation itself as it presents  
> itself and work from that point.
>
> I believe having access to the deep background of where these ideas  
> came from will help us do better work with our current clients. It  
> will help them address the “inescapable life questions” that will  
> make a difference for that group and will last for them. It will be  
> integrated into their work and their life together.  If the groups  
> we work with face the existential questions raised by their own life  
> situation in ways that are authentic and produce results that make  
> their workplace and the world they touch a more human place, I don’t  
> give a rat’s a** if they can recite the RS1 cannon or any other  
> philosophical – theological mumbo jumbo.
>
> \\/
>
> < >  < >  < >  < >  < >
> Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc
> ICA - 416-691-2316 - - - Cell – 647-229-6910
> http://ica-associates.ca
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net