[Oe List ...] [Dialogue] ToP Methods

Sat Oct 24 11:33:29 CDT 2009

Ironic isn't it?

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of George Holcombe
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:08 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] ToP Methods

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but since this onslaught of church
consultants took off in the late 80's, the church's growth record has
accelerated in the downward trend while these outfits have proliferated.

George Holcombe

14900 Yellowleaf Tr.

Austin, TX 78728

Home: 512/252-2756

Mobile 512/294-5952

geowanda at earthlink.net

On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Clare Whitney wrote:

Thanks for that analysis of church-hired "experienced facilitators".  We
have reached the point where we just don't go to any of these any more, we
are so offended.  Irony is that if one of us is asked to facilitate a group,
the whole group has a great participatory experience, but still the church
hires these clueless outsiders with great? resumes.  We're not surprised,
businesses do the same thing, right?  Clare W.

----- Original Message -----

From: W. J. <mailto:synergi at yahoo.com> 

To: Order Ecumenical Community <mailto:oe at wedgeblade.net> 

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:01 AM

Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] ToP Methods

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 <mailto:susan at gmdtech.com>  Fertig

To: 'Order <mailto:oe at wedgeblade.net>  Ecumenical Community' ; 'Colleague
<mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>  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 <mailto:wnelson at ica-associates.ca>  Nelson

To: Colleague <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>  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.  

\\/ <smb://> 

"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.comDon'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>
<http://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>
<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.

\\/ <smb://> 
< >  < >  < >  < >  < > 
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/>
<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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_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/20091024/887b22f5/attachment-0001.html>