Greater Freedom, Integrity and Meaningful Engagement |
Back to Contemplative Dialogue Page
|
Greater Freedom, Integrity and Meaningful Engagement
As you begin to embrace Contemplative Dialogue skills they are open to reflecting on what my real choices are and the implications of those choices. You begin measuring your choices against the values you aspire to and espouse and have an authentic concern for the legacy of your choices and actions. Organizationally there is a growing appreciation of ‘collective learning’ and a broader engagement of a range of stakeholders “Moving beyond our silos” and a growing openness to other perceptions. Paradigms / approaches are held lightly and become gauged by their effectiveness. You and others in the organization being to practice these sets of skills with greater frequency and proficiency
As you begin to embrace Contemplative Dialogue skills they are open to reflecting on what my real choices are and the implications of those choices. You begin measuring your choices against the values you aspire to and espouse and have an authentic concern for the legacy of your choices and actions. Organizationally there is a growing appreciation of ‘collective learning’ and a broader engagement of a range of stakeholders “Moving beyond our silos” and a growing openness to other perceptions. Paradigms / approaches are held lightly and become gauged by their effectiveness. You and others in the organization being to practice these sets of skills with greater frequency and proficiency
Non Defended Learning
Chris Argyris suggests that we universally learn these strategies for protecting ourselves in childhood. Although we ‘espouse’ elegant theories and reasons for our actions, when you notice the essential actions and strategies used, they more commonly reflect the two Defended Learning approaches that are jointly identified as Model I in Argyris jargon. ‘Strong’ Model I may be stereotypically identified with the masculine ‘Executive’ persona. ‘Nice’ or ‘Pastoral’ Model I is stereotypically thought of as a caring feminine approach. In reality, both genders employ both approaches, and alternate in their use of them as a situation may warrant.
Defended Learning Behaviors and Strategies
issues, and they may work with great effort to correct situations that can’t be hidden. They are
unable to create solutions that involve questioning or changing underlying values. Often, they
spin out elaborate webs of camouflage and members engage in "CYA" (Cover your ---) behaviors. All of this creates intolerable binds on the individuals affected by such organizations.
Non Defended Learning differs from Defended Learning in that it is committed to collective learning and honesty. It is based in whole systems awareness, as such it is non-violent, inclusive, and capable of great effectiveness in organizational practice. It also reflects some of the highest values of the Contemplative traditions.
Non Defended Learning Guiding Values
The Defended Learning is the typical method in which people behave. The genuine Non Defended Learning is a learned behavior which is not often taught and the benefits may not be appreciated by those participating. Without a Commitment to engage in this new way it would be easy for people to get back to their habitual (Defended) methods of interaction.
Chris Argyris suggests that we universally learn these strategies for protecting ourselves in childhood. Although we ‘espouse’ elegant theories and reasons for our actions, when you notice the essential actions and strategies used, they more commonly reflect the two Defended Learning approaches that are jointly identified as Model I in Argyris jargon. ‘Strong’ Model I may be stereotypically identified with the masculine ‘Executive’ persona. ‘Nice’ or ‘Pastoral’ Model I is stereotypically thought of as a caring feminine approach. In reality, both genders employ both approaches, and alternate in their use of them as a situation may warrant.
Defended Learning Behaviors and Strategies
- Control the relevant environment and tasks unilaterally, for example: Making unillustrated attributions and evaluations, advocating courses of action in ways that discourage inquiry, treating one's own views as obviously correct.
- Own and control the task (claim ownership of the task, be guardian of defining and executing the task).
- Protect yourself unilaterally – ‘on your own’ – ‘Strong’ Model I (Speak with more authority or certainty than you really have; ignore the impact of what you’re doing on others; ignore the gap between what you say and what you do; if necessary, hide this inconsistency by blaming and stereotyping others, or rationalizing; hide your feelings of doubt, hurt, or fear).
- Take it upon yourself to protect others from being hurt – ‘Nice’ Model I (hide disturbing information; create social rules to censor information and behavior, “Now don’t go bringing that up again, we’ve already talked about it”; hold private meetings with those who see things as you do).
- Defensive interpersonal and group relationships.
- Low freedom of choice.
- Reduced production of valid information. "We collectively no longer know the truth."
- Negative consequences for learning because nobody publicly tests ideas.
- Hypotheses or assumptions that people generate become self-sealing.
- Learning that does occur remains within the bounds of what's acceptable.
- Double-loop learning does not tend to occur, Key issues become undiscussable, Self-fulfilling prophecies abound (“I told you that’s what he’d say!”), Self-sealing and dead-end communication patterns develop (“No use telling Miss Knowit-all about it.”). This in return creates win-lose group dynamics, conformity, polarization between groups, and organizational games of deception.These patterns feed on each other and create an atmosphere of cynicism and hopelessness.
issues, and they may work with great effort to correct situations that can’t be hidden. They are
unable to create solutions that involve questioning or changing underlying values. Often, they
spin out elaborate webs of camouflage and members engage in "CYA" (Cover your ---) behaviors. All of this creates intolerable binds on the individuals affected by such organizations.
Non Defended Learning differs from Defended Learning in that it is committed to collective learning and honesty. It is based in whole systems awareness, as such it is non-violent, inclusive, and capable of great effectiveness in organizational practice. It also reflects some of the highest values of the Contemplative traditions.
Non Defended Learning Guiding Values
- Share valid information. Tell the truth with compassion.
- Support free and informed choice.
- The group maintains an internal commitment to the choice, and shares responsibility for monitoring its implementation.
- Continually create environments in which members are supported in authentically engaging the issues before them.
- Share control with those who have competence and who are involved in the issue. Realistic joint control allows less defensive interpersonal and group dynamics.
- Combine advocacy and inquiry, rather than one-sided advocacy (‘Strong’ Model I) or polite inquiry that conceals one's own views (‘Nice’ Model I).
- When you speak, work to clearly reveal your own assumptions and information sources.
- Work together to reduce your own blind spots and inconsistencies. Encourage the group to surface conflicting viewpoints in order to openly explore and test them.
- Protection of each person is a joint enterprise, and is oriented toward growth.
- Individuals and organizations are better able to deal with threatening or embarrassing situations.
- Previously undiscussable issues can be brought to the surface, assumptions will be tested and improved, and "dead-end" self-sealing patterns begin to be rooted out.
- Both single-loop and double-loop learning can occur.
- Dysfunctional group and inter-group dynamics decrease, and there is less need for camouflage and games of deception
The Defended Learning is the typical method in which people behave. The genuine Non Defended Learning is a learned behavior which is not often taught and the benefits may not be appreciated by those participating. Without a Commitment to engage in this new way it would be easy for people to get back to their habitual (Defended) methods of interaction.
Life Frame Arenas
The Life Frame is a tool for noticing more of the reality around us. It distinguishes between different arenas’ of focus. An arena is a place where things happen. Depending on the particular focus we use to notice, we may see and interpret reality with profoundly different vantage points. Often we develop a preferred frame or lens through which we learn to successfully notice and filter our experience. Based on the success it brings us, we instinctively trust and rely on this particular way of noticing increasingly.
We may even strive to ‘deepen’ our ability to notice, choosing tools or frameworks that increase the depth with which we work in our ‘arena’ of preference. Though I may have a secondary filter that life has led me to develop, I often find one to two of the other arenas feel foreign and untrustworthy. The 4 Life Frame arenas and examples follow:.
Individual (our own inner reality)
The Individual Arena encompasses all of that which is our inner experience. It includes such things as: the running 'stream of ‘self-talk’ conversation in our heads; our nighttime dreams; the personal history, stories, and "tapes" we've learned or experienced; our bodies and the attitudes with which we relate to them; our sexuality and orientation (as it exists distinct from those moments in which we are acting it out with another); the private judgments and assumptions we make that influence our choices or behaviors; and often the feelings we notice during moments of turning inward.
Structural / Communal (the arena in which we have formal roles)
The Structural or Communal Arena encompasses the social element of our human experience. A "structure" or community is any social unit that exists for a particular purpose, and has defined rules and expectations, written or unwritten. Structures in which we all participate include: family, nuclear and extended; work, both our immediate staff and as a larger organization; local church; religious community; committees; civic organizations, and as a citizen participant in government at all levels, etc.
Interpersonal (the arena in which we relate directly to others as persons)
The Interpersonal Arena is the sphere in which we relate with others largely outside of the limitations imposed by structural roles. This arena is most obvious when we relate with others as friends or casually as neighbors. Its focus is primarily in one to one, or informal small group involvements.
Think of how dramatically a couple changes from the time they're dating compared to the married state. Wives and husbands will often comment on "How simple things used to be before we had to worry about kids, finances, and juggling work schedules....” This reveals the shifting complexity from the interpersonal experience of dating, to the structural experience of marriage and the roles of spouse or parent. Certainly, marriage doesn't preclude the friendship aspect of a couple's relationship, but most of us recognize that it adds a large layer of complexity.
Environmental (how I fit into the biggest picture possible and how I see my relation to it.)
The Environmental Arena is the realm of culture and history, biology and anthropology. It is where the systems of life impact us on some of the broadest scales. The experience of this arena consists of widely held assumptions, values, and understandings of behavior, shared experiences, and processes and influences which are commonly not something we notice. Initially this may appear to be the least clear of the four arenas, because so much of what it points to is out of our normal range of awareness
With an awareness of different lenses we have more choices over how we notice.
The Life Frame is a tool for noticing more of the reality around us. It distinguishes between different arenas’ of focus. An arena is a place where things happen. Depending on the particular focus we use to notice, we may see and interpret reality with profoundly different vantage points. Often we develop a preferred frame or lens through which we learn to successfully notice and filter our experience. Based on the success it brings us, we instinctively trust and rely on this particular way of noticing increasingly.
We may even strive to ‘deepen’ our ability to notice, choosing tools or frameworks that increase the depth with which we work in our ‘arena’ of preference. Though I may have a secondary filter that life has led me to develop, I often find one to two of the other arenas feel foreign and untrustworthy. The 4 Life Frame arenas and examples follow:.
Individual (our own inner reality)
The Individual Arena encompasses all of that which is our inner experience. It includes such things as: the running 'stream of ‘self-talk’ conversation in our heads; our nighttime dreams; the personal history, stories, and "tapes" we've learned or experienced; our bodies and the attitudes with which we relate to them; our sexuality and orientation (as it exists distinct from those moments in which we are acting it out with another); the private judgments and assumptions we make that influence our choices or behaviors; and often the feelings we notice during moments of turning inward.
Structural / Communal (the arena in which we have formal roles)
The Structural or Communal Arena encompasses the social element of our human experience. A "structure" or community is any social unit that exists for a particular purpose, and has defined rules and expectations, written or unwritten. Structures in which we all participate include: family, nuclear and extended; work, both our immediate staff and as a larger organization; local church; religious community; committees; civic organizations, and as a citizen participant in government at all levels, etc.
Interpersonal (the arena in which we relate directly to others as persons)
The Interpersonal Arena is the sphere in which we relate with others largely outside of the limitations imposed by structural roles. This arena is most obvious when we relate with others as friends or casually as neighbors. Its focus is primarily in one to one, or informal small group involvements.
Think of how dramatically a couple changes from the time they're dating compared to the married state. Wives and husbands will often comment on "How simple things used to be before we had to worry about kids, finances, and juggling work schedules....” This reveals the shifting complexity from the interpersonal experience of dating, to the structural experience of marriage and the roles of spouse or parent. Certainly, marriage doesn't preclude the friendship aspect of a couple's relationship, but most of us recognize that it adds a large layer of complexity.
Environmental (how I fit into the biggest picture possible and how I see my relation to it.)
The Environmental Arena is the realm of culture and history, biology and anthropology. It is where the systems of life impact us on some of the broadest scales. The experience of this arena consists of widely held assumptions, values, and understandings of behavior, shared experiences, and processes and influences which are commonly not something we notice. Initially this may appear to be the least clear of the four arenas, because so much of what it points to is out of our normal range of awareness
With an awareness of different lenses we have more choices over how we notice.
Non Violent / Whole System Engagement
Nonviolent Engagement assumes that we are deeply interdependent, and have an effect on one another. It assumes that in organizations and communities actions that undercut or damage portions of the organization have a detrimental effect on the full capacity of the system to perform well and achieve their missions.
Nonviolent Engagement assumes that we are deeply interdependent, and have an effect on one another. It assumes that in organizations and communities actions that undercut or damage portions of the organization have a detrimental effect on the full capacity of the system to perform well and achieve their missions.
Foundational Dialogue Skills
- Combine advocacy with inquiry. Don't just ask questions or just try to persuade others. Invite others into your viewpoint and let them explore and try to understand it. What's trustworthy or accurate should be able to stand on its merits.
- Illustrate your interpretations with concrete information. When you make a claim, provide the information upon which you base it. This could be for example, factual data, recounting an event, or even a role-play of what you mean.
- Share your thought process and check for agreement at each "ladder of inference" step. This skill helps others understand your conclusions. It helps a group explore and negotiate different interpretations. Describe and share each step that led you to your conclusion. Check for agreement at each step. Move back a step when meanings conflict. Describe why you drew certain conclusions. Together we can notice where we make "abstract leaps" ('He was rude, so I assumed everybody here would be.') This way we can be more certain we understand each other and ourselves.
- Look for contradicting data and alternative explanations. One common mistake in everyday practice is to look for reasons that agree with our position. This skill on the other hand encourages seeking out possible contradictions, so that a "tested" conclusion may be reached.
- Support making mistakes in the service of learning. Illustrating your views, sharing one's thought process, and looking for contradicting data puts us at risk of discovering we're wrong. This tends to make us defensive. By supporting and encouraging each other to risk learning, we can overcome the temptation to get defensive.
- Notice your own impact on a situation. Notice and check out the possible ways in which our different roles or communication styles affect the dialogue process. "Does my position make this awkward to talk about? I would feel awkward if you all were my boss...."
- Experiment to test different views. Use surveys, role-plays, trial runs, or whatever seems appropriate to test out possible explanations. "Let's try it your way for a week and see if any problems come up."