Check it out, join us. Here is what we have outlined so far. Any additions??
- CONTEXT: Helen Wythe posted a blog referring to the book on her website. Jim Wiegel saw it via LinkedIn and sent it to Gordon Harper. A couple of emails and a brief visit to Amazon for the Kindle version (also available in paperback) and we were off.
- WHY/PURPOSE Margaret Wheatley’s reflections in So Far From Home call us to a deeper exploratory conversation of what is happening in our lives, our world and our work — a conversation we need to have. Hopefully by listening to her together and seeing how what she says speaks to our experience, we will create a common framework for a productive examination of our own deeper sense of what is going on, and our response.
- PARTICIPANTS: We want YOU to join us. Gordon Harper, Jim Wiegel, Helen Wythe are coordinating this at present. So far, Leah Early, Maureen Jenkins have expressed some interest in participating. We are inviting participation from a wide circle including (but not limited to) longtime facilitators and change agents we know, ToP practitioners and other facilitation practitioners, ICA leadership, partners and alumni and other change agents. All ages / generations are welcome.
- WEEKLY ONLINE CONVERSATIONS: We will start with two online sessions: Tuesday, February 3 and Tuesday, February 10 starting at 5 pm Seattle time (Pacific time zone). That should give us time and opportunity to get into the book and get organized. Helen has offered her GoToMeeting account for these first two sessions. These will be recorded or summarized for any who cannot attend. We will arrange other opportunities as needed.
- METHOD: Start with a couple of overview sessions. Each participant might introduce her or himself in several sentences and express their interest in the study, perhaps even posting a rough overall chart of what he/she sees the book to be about. Our first focus will be on actively “listening together” to hear what the author has to say, probably section by section or chapter by chapter. Later on we may branch out to follow questions and implications that might come up out of our study. Hopefully, small groups will self organize to produce summaries (like the book charting sessions at ToP Network gatherings) or follow productive threads. We will reserve the last 5-10 minutes of each session to harvest what was worth articulating (go around, each person one insight, question or implication you are taking away? Any additions? – record this or document? Announce the next chapter, what to look forward to) Someone would be assigned to list the group’s key insights and implications of that chapter / section so those not able to be in that session can pick up on it later
- LEADERSHIP/FACILITATION / PEDAGOGY: we suggest rotating session leadership, with 1 or 2 people organizing and guiding each session. Session leading learners would a) be responsible to conduct some sort of conversation to give a clear sense of the section being covered, and b) pointing the rest of us to place in chapter (a paragraph or so) where most profound questions or address are found and helping the rest of us to go into some depth, and c) focus the last 5-10 minutes to pull out key insights to harvest and share.
- TECHNOLOGY: We will create an accessible online study space including a) a simple website as an easy landing point, b) google docs for collecting some of our thoughts, scribbles, charts, rambles, etc. as the study goes forward. c) collective emails to stay in touch, and d) skype or free conference call, google hangouts, or GoToMeeting . . for online sessions (will depend in part on the tech skills in the group). When the study is complete, we clean up the website and Docs page and invite others to visit it who weren’t involved in the study.
- COORDINATION: We will coordinate briefly via Google Hangout on Wednesday mornings.
IMPROVING OUR METHOD OF APPROACH. comments from Randy, Steve, Gordon and Jim
Our conversation this afternoon is what I aspire to for our Tuesday evening sessions. That may be happening, but to the degree that it’s not, maybe we’re too attached to some of our old pedagogical methods and doing what Wheatley says is impossible–use a highly structured process to reach predetermined outcomes.
Randy
I agree that figuring out a way to sort this kind of thing out with a group is what I am after as well . . . I like these email exchanges / dialogues like this, though my sense is they don’t necessarily change anyone’s identity or image or behavior, let alone be applicable broadly to say, a group of ICA staff or execs or board members or ToP leadership, or all of them together.
and I can’t say what would . . . Margaret seems to focus on the “person at the top” and getting them to do something . . . she had 3 items in that video clip, a personal practice, focus on relationships and . . . I forgot the third one . . .
Steve Harrington has expressed interest in some better way of doing this sort of thing. GORDON — any thoughts from you?
Jim Wiegel
Just getting in —
Near midnight here as I get home, first chance to catch up on my load of emails today and this conversation. One accomplishment this afternoon, though–got several colleagues out here to contribute to Terry’s send off in some rather delightful ways.
I find I like a fair amount of what Meg says, and much of that is by way of reminding me of things rather than breaking new ground. She’s sharing her discernment of contemporary global trends and finding them very bleak indeed. Good bit of truth in the dark picture she paints. My old friend, Thomas Hardy, comes to mind: “If way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst.”
It also strikes me as good to challenge the belief that we should expect what we do to change large systems for the better–though even she seems to leave room for the possibility that our small actions may somehow participate in what she calls emergence. Just not something whose nature we can predict or pin our hopes to. She’s with Kaz on conquering hope.
Where I experience irritation is in what you call her “either/or” way of putting things, Jim. She seems to feel (and I have to confess I haven’t finished the book yet) that we have to choose, either on the one hand to go after transforming organizations or addressing systems of oppression and injustice–and thereby wind up in despair and failure–or on the other hand to work pretty much exclusively at the individual, inner and interpersonal levels. I guess I see this as a false dichotomy, but I’m still keen to see where she winds up in the book.
Liked the piece you linked to, Randy; I think people in the study group would appreciate it.
I have some scratchy thoughts on how we might support these conversations beyond email exchanges, but it’s a little late tonight to get into that. We’re heading off for a long weekend with friends and colleagues in Portland, our excuse being the memorial service for Marcus Borg on Sunday, so I’m hitting the sack at this point.
Let’s keep it going —
Gordon Harper
Gordon,
Just a quick thought on Wheatley’s either/or dilemma–I don’t think she’s saying you couldn’t take a run at both systems and individuals at the same time. I think what she is saying is that, after 22 years of disappointment, she has discerned that systems cannot be changed and therefore she no longer intends to try. That’s a bitter pill for us “structural revolutionaries” and is likely to be our main point of contention as a group. If we were to get into it with her she would probably just ask us to share what our track record has been. That might be a great inventory for us to take. I can readily point to the individual lives that have been changed, starting with my own, but when the focus shifts to systems and structures the going gets a little tougher. Example–in 1972 we proclaimed “the church has been renewed.” I still don’t know what we did or would point to in the institutional church to justify that claim. I understand the old cliche about how revolutionaries always define winning on there own terms and therefore they never lose, but in today’s environment that’s a little harder to get by with.
Randy
As for me I’m getting impatient with 2 things in the study:
Each session is organized as a 1 time season, no thought to re-use, sharing the model with a different group, Doesn’t work like a research PSU with an outcome to accomplish. The inquiry serves no stated or shared intention or vision like: What addre we trying to accomplish with this study and who is the “we”.
It feels like I’m going to class like a student to “get a good set of class notes” from the teacher who studied the chapter, constructed the chart, manages the questions and my contribution is by comparison, is incidental. The pedagogical approach is teacher oriented not learner oriented.
Steve Harrington
In our first session last night, we talked some about the Charting Method which is an approach developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs/Ecumenical Institute for quickly and effectively engaging a meaningful dialogue with a book, paper, or chapter.
Originally developed in the mid 1960’s based on a variety of scientific and academic disciplines, the method is still in use today in a variety of settings. See for yourself.
https://top.memberclicks.net/book-charting
Please count me in for the first session and send me the link for connecting. Feb. 8 is not a Tuesday — Tuesday is Feb. 10. I have a conflict on Feb. 10, but I might be able to do Sunday Feb. 8.
My bad, Jo. It is the Tuesday’s . . . However, we don’t want to restrict participation, so we can check for other times and days that might enable folks to join in.