Loved this piece! I thank my friend @charliewood for sending it my way. I also wanted to ask, what logic drives this approach to group dynamics? What assumptions do we make about harm and care? How does an almost relentless focus on ‘harm’ affect how groups of people show up in these facilitated spaces? I reckon we have an immunity to change as Kegan and Lahey put it. What we say we want is ‘transformation’ but are less tolerant of transgressions so we end up with brittle containers that seem to crack with mild pressure. This piece is a wonderful start towards ‘antifragile’ facilitative practice.
Thank you, Kazu. Well into my 3+ decades facilitating groups, I stopped using ground rules for the same reason. I ask groups to consider accepting my 2 commitments plus whatever they want to put forward. My two are: silent disagreement is not helpful, and don't remove yourself from the group mentally, emotionally, or physically without saying what is going on inside you to help the group understand how we're (the collective we as you point out) not meeting your needs.
There's a lot of nuance and richness in this article, thank you Kazu!
One of the parts that really stands out to me is where the language of group agreements (or the formality of them) are used as a proxy for the shared practices in co-creating safety, bravery, grace, and any other values that feel important to a group process. I see agreements as living, breathing elements that help me and the groups I am a part of to co-create a more conscious container (vs. defaulting to the dominant container of our schooling/industrial/military/consumer experiences). And so I don't want to throw them out altogether.
And, I agree that naming the why / how behind them, and sharing the understanding that these are there to support us in staying in when inevitable conflict arises, is essential to their purpose/framing. Can agreements be seen as references/grounding/practices to meet discomfort, struggle, conflict, etc. in groups? Maybe that can bring fresh energy and more simplicity to them -- in our human-ing together. :)
thank you for putting this into words! it’s something I’ve felt in my own work and community spaces and had a hard time naming. this resonates. feeling grateful for you
I really love the “speaking from the we,” it’s a wording choice that I know I’ve chosen at times, but didn’t quite have the link to solidarity, that was behind it. I am currently coming through a difficult mediation process with a modality that I don’t vibe with at all. The mediator has spoken that some of our group are engaged in “group think” (while missing A LOT more context that led to the rupture), and now I’m realizing we’ve been using “we" because WE are in utter solidarity in this moment. I love the “we” because it also speaks of the interdependence that is intrinsic in conflict - WE are all in conflict because WE are intrinsically connected to each other. WE are calling ON each other to move through it together because WE are all impacted by it. It puts more of the onus of repair on the group and helps to minimize polarization.
Thank you so very much, Kazu! What a great description of how our teams, groups, and organizations can engage in dialogue about how we will handle the inevitable conflicts that must arise if we are to build the Beloved Community. I will share this with my organizations.
Loved this piece! I thank my friend @charliewood for sending it my way. I also wanted to ask, what logic drives this approach to group dynamics? What assumptions do we make about harm and care? How does an almost relentless focus on ‘harm’ affect how groups of people show up in these facilitated spaces? I reckon we have an immunity to change as Kegan and Lahey put it. What we say we want is ‘transformation’ but are less tolerant of transgressions so we end up with brittle containers that seem to crack with mild pressure. This piece is a wonderful start towards ‘antifragile’ facilitative practice.
Thank you, Kazu. Well into my 3+ decades facilitating groups, I stopped using ground rules for the same reason. I ask groups to consider accepting my 2 commitments plus whatever they want to put forward. My two are: silent disagreement is not helpful, and don't remove yourself from the group mentally, emotionally, or physically without saying what is going on inside you to help the group understand how we're (the collective we as you point out) not meeting your needs.
There's a lot of nuance and richness in this article, thank you Kazu!
One of the parts that really stands out to me is where the language of group agreements (or the formality of them) are used as a proxy for the shared practices in co-creating safety, bravery, grace, and any other values that feel important to a group process. I see agreements as living, breathing elements that help me and the groups I am a part of to co-create a more conscious container (vs. defaulting to the dominant container of our schooling/industrial/military/consumer experiences). And so I don't want to throw them out altogether.
And, I agree that naming the why / how behind them, and sharing the understanding that these are there to support us in staying in when inevitable conflict arises, is essential to their purpose/framing. Can agreements be seen as references/grounding/practices to meet discomfort, struggle, conflict, etc. in groups? Maybe that can bring fresh energy and more simplicity to them -- in our human-ing together. :)
thank you for putting this into words! it’s something I’ve felt in my own work and community spaces and had a hard time naming. this resonates. feeling grateful for you
I really love the “speaking from the we,” it’s a wording choice that I know I’ve chosen at times, but didn’t quite have the link to solidarity, that was behind it. I am currently coming through a difficult mediation process with a modality that I don’t vibe with at all. The mediator has spoken that some of our group are engaged in “group think” (while missing A LOT more context that led to the rupture), and now I’m realizing we’ve been using “we" because WE are in utter solidarity in this moment. I love the “we” because it also speaks of the interdependence that is intrinsic in conflict - WE are all in conflict because WE are intrinsically connected to each other. WE are calling ON each other to move through it together because WE are all impacted by it. It puts more of the onus of repair on the group and helps to minimize polarization.
Thank you so very much, Kazu! What a great description of how our teams, groups, and organizations can engage in dialogue about how we will handle the inevitable conflicts that must arise if we are to build the Beloved Community. I will share this with my organizations.