[Oe List ...] [Dialogue] ToP Methods
W. J.
synergi at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 19 01:01:18 CDT 2009
Margaret, thank you profoundly for this. I worked on the Blue LENS manual, which has receded far into the past of my core memory, and you have reminded me that LENS was originally about experiencing the Word about life in totally secular form as a life address grounded in eliciting corporate (group) awareness of the specific 'gifts' of inescapable limits, possibilities, and decisions.
Talk about 'contextual drift' -- I don't exactly know how 'we' got to where we are today. To me it feels more like 'contextual unmooring.'
How does that show up in my life? Recently I suffered through a church workshop on team leadership in co-facilitating small groups that was led by a professional 'coach' with an MBA and a corporate consulting practice.
Despite having embraced in theory all the 'right' facilitation practices --
(see the following quote from her website:
Compiling input from all team members creates a compelling course of action for growing in the areas that will maximize the team's effectiveness. Team members recognize the validity of the assessment results because they are based on the team's input, not an outside source.)
-- she proceeded to constrain the group by taking the 'expert' position, failed to elicit group experience/wisdom, and didn't tap into the group's excitement/struggles or elicit a consensus on what the group needed to focus on or what really needed to happen. Instead she imposed her timeline to walk through her predetermined talking points, offered technical rather than organic/creative solutions, failed to ask for evaluation, and ended early rather than use the available time to push for more depth. Based on that experience, the group was not enthusiastic about meeting again.
Stylistically, she embodied a kind of cockiness around being the expert and thus 'right' or having the final authority. I was able to carefully drop in just a few choice words here and there -- such as 'developing trust' -- that were picked up and repeated by other group members.
But, ya know, you can't finally overcome the disadvantage of the reality that the 'designated leader' didn't have a clue about 'servant leadership' -- the kind of transparent style that we tried to embody at our best.
But what was most interesting to me was the oblique perception of "deja vu all over again". It's like I'd been there B4 with other agenda-driven professional corporate 'facilitators' -- maybe through the IAF -- in contrast to how our 'outfit' operates, and could see clearly what those 'other guys' just don't get with all their professionalism.
I think that people who run into 'us' at our best intuitively 'get' that we're coming from a very different, Trans-establishment place.
I just don't know how we imagined we could capture that in a bottle, sell it, and make money off the transaction. Not that we didn't try -- like with ToP, etc. But it seems like a long way from Tipperary. Or Tippecanoe.
More later,
Marshall Jones
________________________________
From: Margaret Helen Aiseayew <aiseayew at netins.net>
To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:00:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] ToP Methods
I have been watching this conversation with interest and
much sorrow. I was delighted by Lynn's reflection. The original
LENS was just as much an altar call to ethical business and business
relationships (living radically out of a clear understanding of final reality)
as was RS-I. The LENS tutorial (to teach people how to teach the course)
presumed that everyone had experienced RS-I and used much of its insight to
explain the big/little things, like why we used which forms of gestalt in which
sessions and how those reflected the difference between our experience of
up-against-ness and our experience of freedom. It also discussed how
the different chart forms pushed us back through the awareness created by each
of the previous sessions. It was as long as it was in the making because
it had the same zippered design as RS-I. I personally considered all of
that comparable and saw lives radically changed in the process. It seems
much has been lost and it seems to me to be to the disavantage of the
participants. Are people still being called to their fullest possibility?
to their freedom? to their responsibility within the context of community?
I have to wonder. Margaret
----- Original Message -----
>From: Susan Fertig
>To: 'Order Ecumenical Community' ; 'Colleague
> Dialogue'
>Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:13
> PM
>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] ToP
> Methods
>
>
>The problem, as I see it, is that where RS-I was an altar
> call -- a blatant demand to commit your life to something larger than yourself
> and your organization and the problem you are solving in a workshop,
> there is nothing comparable to connect to the methods in a purely secular
> situation.
>
>Susan
>
>
>
________________________________
From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net > [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Bill
> Parker
>Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 1:23 AM
>To: Order
> Ecumenical Community; Colleague Dialogue
>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...]
> [Dialogue] ToP Methods
>
>
>Wayne, don't take this personally.
> I am actually addressing all of us, myself included.
>
>I simply must ask these questions
> in light of Jim's point about RSI and Joe's impact, plus Dick's question
> about making the buck. Also, after reading this listserve for a long time, it
> might be a good idea for us to practice saying what we actually mean
> rather than depend on the broad abstractions jargon produces.. If we are
> as in tune with those whom we facilitate as we imply, then this
> should not be a problem.
>
>What is that life address when the
> methods are used well? To which methods are you referring? What
> sustainable change have you seen in any organizational culture as a result of
> only those methods? How have companies changed their
> operations soley based on these methods? How do we know there
> is a life address inherent in our facilitation processes, and what is it? How
> do you know when you see it? And how do we put language on it that is not
> 40 years old. Is it not the case that we have all experienced many
> manifestations of the methods that does not have a life address even with good
> facilitators doing the work? Have we not see, regardless of who is leading the
> session a very abstract set of platitudes with which no one can
> disagree? Or maybe you have seen our methods, used well, yet create
> an elaborate 30,000 foot level picture of superficiality. Has anyone sat with
> facilitators who use the methods well yet inspite of the energy produce a
> boring experience, leaving people wondering whether the time was worth it?
>
>
>Making money employing these
> methods does not seem to be an issue. However, these methods were
> created by many people over a 20 year timeframe for the purpose of giving the
> world methods for sustainable development, for the sake of the earth and
> its people. When these same methods are made proprietary,
> trademarked intellectual properties and with distribution being controlled,
> the resulting image shows not such a high purpose
> regardless of the language surrounding it. It could be difficult to
> reverse the notion that these methods are being driven by authoritarian
> and monetary purposes at the expense of changing lives, communities,
> or corporations. Joseph would probably puke, as Salinger stated it.
>
>
>Now, what are we about? How
> is what we are about with these methods different from what we were about when
> the methods were created and refined? Do we need new thinking about
> this? Have we just gone too far down the road, or have we become a
> little bit too comfortable, to rethink what changes we might need to
> consider. One of the underlying, unstated, statements in the above set of
> questions is that methods alone do not bring about all this transformation. It
> still requires someone to put their life into the change and transformation
> beyond the methods; someone who will risk their life if necessary; someone who
> is will stay on that transformation over the long haul. Otherwise,
> we can use those methods, or any other method, all we want and nothing will
> change. It certainly does not happen with methods alone, even when used by
> facilitation experts, nor by spending a few days developing a report. So, how
> does that happen?
>
>Just asking.
>
>Bill
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Wayne Nelson
>>To: Colleague Dialogue
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:09
>> AM
>>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP
>> Methods
>>
>>Without
>> question, there is a life address – in individuals and in whole groups -
>> when ToP methods are used well. It’s transparent, as I believe it should be.
>> People’s individual lives and organizational cultures do change.
>> People and organizations make substantial changes in the way they operate.
>> We’ve seen it all over the place. We see it happen in training event
>> and in facilitated events.
>>
>>My memory and theory - - -
>>As I
>> recall, the substitution of “Experiential” for “Existential happened when we
>> began formally teaching ToP methods. Existential is not a term in
>> common parlance. We know there’s a life address inherent in our facilitation
>> processes. We want to include it and use it with intentionality,
>> because we want to make an impact. My guess is that those who designed the
>> first courses thought through the terminology very carefully. Experiential
>> is a term that can be grasped by those who want to facilitate and do
>> training. It’s easier to swallow.
>>
>>I do think a couple of things have
>> happened I feel we have lost some of he edge simply from contextual drift
>> over time. The more psychological meaning of experiential is easier for many
>> to grasp than the original philosophical intent; so there’s a tendency in
>> that direction. I’ve heard people substitute “visceral” for this aim.. There
>> are also those who use that aim to refer to the quality of experience they
>> want people to have during the session. That’s what I think is meant by
>> “watering down.”
>>
>>I also think there are those who want
>> the deeper intents to be more obvious. We want people to face reality, grasp
>> their possibility and act out of a posture of responsibility etc.
>> To me this leads to using the Existential / Experiential
>> objective as a kind of “hidden agenda.” As if we have something to teach
>> when we are facilitating. As if there is some subtle content “message” we
>> want them to get. As if a facilitated event should be an RS1. Obviously,
>> that’s an exaggeration, but I’ve seen some hints of it. It makes people
>> scratch their heads about us.
>>
>>My question has to do with what we
>> really mean and intend with these parts of our design process. I believe we
>> need both of these dimension in our methodology. I know I struggle to
>> communicate the real intent behind them in ways that real people can
>> understand, integrate and use.
>>
>>We do make money doing this. We’ve
>> always dreamed about the ability to earn a decent living doing what we do
>> best. It has to do with being sustainable in the fullest sense of the term.
>> Superficial use of our methods will damage our reputation, dampen our
>> impact and lose us money.
>>
>>\\/
>>
>>"Richard Alton"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Great QUESTION,
>>> Jim! Are we changing lives or just making a 'fast buck' in the market? I
>>> struggle with the question of evangelism, but like the
>>> WORD.
>>>Dick
>>>
>>>Richard H.T. Alton International Consultants and
>>> Associates 'building global bridges' 166 N. Humphrey Ave, Apt, 1N Oak
>>> Park, IL 60302 T:1.773.344.7172 richard.alton at gmail.com Don't let the fear
>>> of striking out hold you back Babe Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 05:26:50 -0700
>>>From: jfwiegel at yahoo.com
>>>To:
>>> dialogue at wedgeblade.net; oe at wedgeblade.net
>>>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP
>>> Methods
>>>
>>>So, here is my question: Looking at facilitation as
>>> we developed it and compared to address your life pedagogy like in RS-1
>>> and then compared to the impact which Joe could generate on individuals
>>> and groups -- are these all the same thing, or quite different
>>> things?
>>>
>>>If more or less the same, how would you describe this at
>>> its best? Has this style of evangelism evolved and become refined or
>>> has it gotten watered down?
>>>
>>>If different, how, and which are needed
>>> these days?
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>Coincidence is the spiritual
>>> equivalent of a pun. G. K. Chesterton
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim Wiegel
>>>401
>>> North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
>>>+1 623-936-8671
>>> +1 623-363-3277
>>> jfwiegel at yahoo.com
>>> www.partnersinparticipation.com <http://www.partnersinparticipation.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
From: W. J. <synergi at yahoo.com>
>>>To: Order
>>> Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>;
>>> dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>>Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 7:17:03
>>> PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] ToP Methods
>>>
>>>You can see why there were different Gospels in the Bible,
>>> and that was long before Wiegel was summoned to the Holy Land to preach
>>> his revised standard version of the Facilitator's Gospel. "Experiential
>>> Aim"? Where did that come from? Isn't that the new Liberalism creeping in
>>> to dilute the authentic EI Orthodoxy? Everybody who knew JWM knows it is
>>> "Existential Aim" -- and you better believe it really addressed your
>>> existence just to be around the Old Man.
>>>And the "O" in ORID -- wasn't
>>> that originally just "Impressionistic"? And wasn't "R" originally
>>> "Subjective"? And wasn't "D" originally "Theological"? So ORID =
>>> ISIT?
>>>Ah, the problems of generational transmission of the authentic
>>> received canonical tradition! (Big Clue: I'm
>>> laughing!)
>>>
>>>Marshall
>>>
>>>>From where I sit, ORID reminds
>>> me of King Henry's death sentence pronounced on Thomas Becket: "Will no
>>> One RID me of this meddlesome priest?" Or something like
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
________________________________
From: James Wiegel <jfwiegel at yahoo.com>
>>>To: Order
>>> Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>; Colleague Dialogue
>>> <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009
>>> 3:33:45 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] ToP
>>> Methods
>>>
>>>As I recall, these were an old, old
>>> idea. When we were putting together the ToP curriculum with those
>>> horizontal bubble tables we added in Rational Objective and Experiential
>>> objective to the manuals -- after 3 or 4 years someone expressed confusion
>>> between Rational "Objective" and Experiential "Objective" and "Objective"
>>> as in ORID, so when the manual was redone we changed to Rational Aim and
>>> Experiential Aim.
>>>
>>>In actuality, though, there is a very rich and
>>> wise diversity in the ways by which ToP facilitators actually focus and
>>> prepare themselves. It would be a great contribution to our craft to
>>> hear from many people how they do this . .
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>Coincidence is the spiritual equivalent of a pun.
>>> G. K. Chesterton
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim Wiegel
>>>401 North Beverly Way,
>>> Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
>>>+1 623-936-8671 +1
>>> 623-363-3277
>>> jfwiegel at yahoo.com
>>> www.partnersinparticipation.com <http://www.partnersinparticipation.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________
From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson at ica-associates.ca>
>>>To: >>> Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>; Order Ecumenical
>>> <oe at wedgeblade.net>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 3:23:46
>>> PM
>>>Subject: [Oe List ...] ToP Methods
>>>
>>>Here’s a memory question – maybe something you
>>> heard.
>>>
>>>When, how and why did we introduce the ideas of using
>>> Rational and Existential aims when we prepare for a facilitated event or a
>>> training event?
>>>
>>>Does anyone know that history? I’m
>>> curious.
>>>
>>>
>>>\\/
>>>< > < >
>>> < > < > < >
>>>Wayne Nelson -
>>> ICA Associates Inc
>>>ICA - 416-691-2316 - - - Cell – 647-229-6910
>>>http://ica-associates.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
>>> now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/>
>>>________________________________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>Dialogue mailing
>>> list
>>>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>>>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>>>
>>
>><
>> > < > < > < > < >
>>
>>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
>>
________________________________
> _______________________________________________
>OE mailing
> list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20091018/ae0e128f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OE
mailing list