Over the last month I have been working with this diagram that depicts the architecture of held space. You can read much more detail about this at the post I wrote earlier in the month, including some of the comments that helped me to think it through a little more.
One very helpful set of comments from Corina Enache came during a good discussion at LinkedIn. I’d like to quote them at length so they are preserved here. Her main point was clear. If I’m trying to get the facilitator out of the centre, I’m doing what I want to do if I give the facilitator a specific place of their own in the diagram. Corina argued that the facilitator’s power can already be understood by the expression of Interaction and structure, and that the facilitator can be seen a a thick node or connections in that space. We both agree that power and authority are inevitable and potentially useful aspects of group work. We shouldn’t ignore or try to transcend them, but make them visible.
These are great points and I found that what I really needed was some field testing. Since that discussion took place I have worked with two clients in teaching and hosting retreats, and have brought a set of observations to this work. I promised Corina a reply and here it is.
The triangle helps us to understand the source of constraints in hosted spaces. The first observation is that this triangle is not a claim about the reality (ontology) of social fields. I agree with her that social fields can be described sufficiently with the structure – interaction axis. The triangle is however a way of looking at what I call dialogic containers (or “hosted spaces), and the three corners are sources of constraints on those spaces. Structure is a source of inherited constraints. Interactions are a source of emergent constraints. And Design is a source of intentional constraints. So I’m not looking to develop a new theory of social fields. I’m looking at creating a way of accounting for what happens in a field when someone says “Welcome” or “we’re here for…” or “This is what will happen next…” That could be anything from a courtroom to a party to a conversation to a pub, to a public meeting, a strategy session or a workshop.
The role of the facilitator should be visible. As a person who has worked for decades in facilitation, I think it’s important that we bring our attention to the practice of hosting but also the way in which we affect social fields. In my work with the Evans School of Public Policy last week, the director of the Evans Policy Innovation Collaborative (EPIC), Amanda Bankston, mentioned to me that there is very little in the literature on public policy that describes the role of the facilitator on policy making or democracy. This is an astonishing fact to me, and so true. For decades I have helped design and facilitate hosted spaces that have had impacts on policy issues like health care, fisheries, child and family services, Indigenous rights and title, poverty, forestry. marine stewardship and other issues. And in not one case can I ever remember that the design choices we made, and the facilitation itself being named as a source of what happened. Adam Kahane in particular writes about this function a lot and is always careful to say that the involvement of the facilitation team in his work, while important, must be held up against many other things that are happening in the social fields in which the process is located. He wisely guards against facilitators taking his own observations as universal truths about “how to do it.” Instead his books are about the thorny challenges of how to do it, and how to make some sense of what has been done. I appreciate his work so much, because he is one of the most honest voices in thinking about the role of facilitation in public policy and social change, especially at the scales at which he and his teams work.
Of course, it is impossible to assign any single cause to any single effect in a policy initiative. But the absence of the host and the process design in any kind of analysis about public policy making means that consulting firms, and facilitators become invisible in the work. Furthermore, the host isn’t the only source of intentional constraints, but is most often the vector through which other intentional constraints arrive in the room. The power and privilege behind the shaping of the process can enter a hosted container through design differently from the way they enter through structures that authorize them or interactions that change when leaders are in the room. I think this deserves to be distinguished in our work.
In complex work we are asked to be responsible for the foreseen and unforeseen outcomes of our choices. We need a way of seeing and accounting for this effect. Hence, the third corner of this triangle, one which lifts the hosted container out of the social field and provides a lens through which we can interrogate and understand what intentional constraints that are brought to the work.
Design is not sovereign. It exists in relationship with Structure and Interaction. So the Design corner of this triangle is not “the facilitator” per se, but rather represents the choices that are made in crafting a process. When I work with a client, I always try to learn as much as possible about the existing social field we are working with. What structures are already in place? What are the interactions that are important to understand? In long-term initiatives, especially those related to issues of culture, conflict or leadership development, we use detailed narrative captures before entering into the substantive work, and we continue to use narrative capture so the group can make sense of it’s own reality. At some point, we make a choice. We design a workshop. We make a proposal. The leadership makes a decision. A hosted space becomes a part of the work and what happens there collapses the potential of the social field into a dialogic container, one in which intention is introduced and which works with and influences structure and interaction.
The choice of how much or how little constraint in a container is brought to bear on this situation is an important ethical consideration. If I come into an organization or community with “a great meeting method that will solve all your problems” my intention may colonize the very real capacity in the room that could emerge from the interactions between people. A lecture delivered on how an organization’s culture should change will have a particular effect. Many leaders, consultants and facilitators may see the Design corner as a way to get their own way and introduce power and influence into a room backed by some amount of authority that comes from their role, positionally or privilege. The “dense node” or Corina’s observation has history to it, and I think that needs to be accounted for.
The triangle therefore gives us a diagnostic tool in which we can honestly weigh the sources of constraint in a hosted space.
The triangle as a diagnostic tool. By diagnosis here I don’t mean a tool that helps us somehow patholigize and organization before we set to work solving a problem. I mean the practice. Diagnosis is useful when it helps us see differences that matter. And so the triangle does that.
It makes a set of questions visible to practitioners to help understand what is needed and what is going on in a dialogic container. If a process is stuck or failing, it might not be sufficient to blame the people or the room or the agenda or the relationships. We can also ask what is shaping the conversation. This helps us to shine a light on some of less visible aspect of what is at play.
This is what I got to field test last week in Seattle. I convened a breakout session on working with the power that exists in the fields in which we are hosting. I didn’t draw the triangle. Instead we had a participant offer up a case – a long term and highly distributed culture change initiative she and her team were asked to lead. It was struggling and so we explored the different sources of constraints in the initiative to see what ways the work might be changed. The overwhelming thought was that “it’s just too hard to change people’s behaviour.” I thought this was a good observation! The question is why are we trying to do that?
I asked questions, informed by the triangle. These included questions like this:
- What is fixed or given in this process. What can’t you actually change?
- What does the mandate holder need to hold? Why?
- What does the mandate holder need to let go of to open this space up?
- What is genuinely open in the work?
- Who can say no to what you are doing?
- What can people in the work influence?
- What are you trying to do?
- What do you condor a good outcome?
I think the main learning was that the group was able to examine to role of the mandate holder – in this case a committee doing the work of a senior leader through the responsible implementation team – and see it both with empathy and curiosity. The mandate comes strongly through design and provides a massive amount of influence on a process. With something as significant as culture change, the mandate holder can be holding a very tight set of constraints that are impossible to deliver on and that rob the people of their own agency in creating and sustaining the kind of culture that is desired. In fact, in the absence of a decent narrative collection from the field it can be hard to know if the mandate is even an appropriate response to the situation. Are there NO examples in the field that prove the exception to what people think is going on?
The triangle is an instrument of attention, not a map of reality. So, this little triangle, at the end of the day, is a way to guide attention to what is already shaping a container, what is happening between people inside it and what is being deliberately introduced through the design. It might seem like overkill to spend so many words and thoughts on this, but the challenge that I have been grappling with over the past year is trying to figure out a way to honestly account for the influence of the host.
Facilitators, hosts, designers and leaders are not neutral participants in a dialogic containers. They are in fact the reason why a hosted dialogic container exists. Without their injection of constants on a social field, we don not have a hosted space. A leader does not just show up in a room and “hide in the corner.” Open Space Technology is not a value-free method that refreshingly makes everything possible. A desired outcome for a process narrows what can be observed and requires those holding power to scaffold their attention open so that they do not foreclose the work of the work of group.
This is my attempt to offer something to our field of practice to help us see the way a dialogic container arises from the different weights of constraint on a field. There is no ideal place for a process to live within this triangle. There is only the question of what is needed now. And now. And now.
Thoughts, comments, critiques and questions all welcome.
Corina’s comments in full:
…structure and interaction are group processes, they belong to no one but design, as you’ve drawn it, is a role held by a person. So the triad puts two field-level phenomena and one individual actor at the same altitude, and I don’t think that holds… The facilitator’s power isn’t a third source of constraint entering from its own corner, it’s already expressed in structure (the chairs in a circle) and interaction (naming the method). Giving it a separate spot double-counts it, and might do the thing you say you want to avoid: it puts the facilitator back at the centre.. i look at it as one field of structure and interaction in which power is unevenly distributed, and the facilitator is just a dense node in it, to be named and tracked, not given its own axis…
… I think we both want the same thing: power made visible and accountable. Where we might diverge – and tell me if I’ve got you wrong – is in the underlying stance. I read the post as treating authority as presumptively suspect, something to be caught before it does harm. I look at authority as a natural feature of any field, something to be held well rather than guarded against. – for example I really like your threshold idea and once the crossing can be held by a compelling shared purpose, or what lingers after the host goes invisible in Open Space you’ve stopped describing a role and started describing something already in the field because uneven influence is what fields do. Someone becomes a dense node long before any facilitator arrives; the facilitator is just a dense node who came on purpose…
For me the absence of explicit authority isn’t neutrality. When a facilitator disowns their power, “I’m only holding space” , it doesn’t leave the room. It flows to whoever was already dense in the field, now the least accountable authority present. Disavowed authority is the most dangerous kind, because you can’t track what insists it isn’t there…Which is uncomfortable because if power is in the chairs and the invitation, there’s no outside. Self-effacement is a technique. Even “stewardship” is a form of power, maybe the most effective, because it works while feeling like care. So if I can’t purify my way out 🙂 [then] the question is, given that uneven power is unavoidable and productive, the medium, not the contaminant, what distribution do we want, and by what criteria do we judge it?
…one more reflection on your triangle coming from our exchange. For me structure and interaction are what a container is made of. They’re always fully there, even your pub group, with no design at all, has both. But intention isn’t like that. Its weight varies with the work and sometimes it’s near zero. That’s not a third thing the container is made of, it’s a way the made-of-stuff can be oriented, a direction the field leans, not a substance alongside the two others. And every case you reach for to justify the pole dissolves back into the two, when I let power sit unevenly across them. The threshold is the field reconfiguring, structure and interaction shifting as people cross into “being in something.” The Open Space is persistent structure: patterns that outlast the people. The leader’s intention is a dense node bending interaction. None of them is a third kind of thing, each is the existing field, unevenly weighted and pointed somewhere. So I don’t think intention needs a corner but what it does need is to be named. A corner says it’s a different dimension but i dont think it is. It’s the direction I’m leaning a field I’m already standing inside. And I think the corner actually works against the intention you named in our exchange because it gives the facilitator a place to stand. A clean, legitimate-looking spot off to the side, as if design were something I bring to the room rather than something I’m doing to it from within. That’s the separation you rejected, “design acts upon the field”, but the geometry actually reproduces it if you add it as a third pillar. draw intention as its own pole and I get to mistake my lean for a location…
One of the abiding problems in working on strategy is that people like to set goals for complex problems. In my experience the hardest part about accepting complexity as a real thing to be wrestled with, is that one really, truly doesn’t get to set goals.
What happens instead, is that one can decide on a direction of travel and then look for the different ways one might move in that direction. It’s deceptively simple, and the hardest part is stopping oneself from measuring progress against goals!
Today, as part of a post that aims to distinguish different kinds of systems thinking from anthro-complexity, Dave Snowden posts a useful summary of this approach, in answer to the question, does anthro-complexity have goals? (I’ve added links to anchor the references):
Yes, but not in the Senge sense. In complexity, you look for the adjacent possible: the next move or moves that are available from where you are, and that requires mapping at some scale first, understanding the terrain as it currently is, not designing what you’d like it to be. [Viable Systems Models] and System Dynamics both seek to understand context, too (Beer’s diagnosis, Forrester’s and Senge’s leverage points), but they do so by imposing their map on the situation rather than surveying it. They arrive with the five-system architecture, or the causal loop diagram, already built, and then locate the organisation’s pathology or leverage point inside categories that were fixed before anyone looked. That’s imposing a map, not doing cartography. [Michael C. Jackson’s] own move with [Critical Systems Thinking] is better: the lens is built from how the people actually in the situation perceive it, not from a pre-specified causal structure. But it’s still a lens rather than a map, assembled once in a workshop and treated as sufficient thereafter, which is exactly where the perception/reality problem and the scale problem both bite.
So there are goals in a complexity account of change, but they are just adjacent possibles, what the map shows is actually reachable from here, rather than targets set independently of, or prior to, the map. The goal is downstream of the cartography, not upstream of it.
That still leaves Jussi Mäkelä’s follow-up question from the comments: if “good” means “preserves future optionality,” isn’t the evaluation circular, optionality judging itself? It would be, if you were running one probe and checking it against one criterion. But that’s not the unit of analysis in a complex adaptive system. You run parallel probes around any coherent hypothesis, several small, safe-to-fail moves at once, not one big bet – which is also where the plural in the title comes from. It’s the next right things, not thing, because in a complex adaptive system you never do this one probe at a time; you do it several at once, deliberately redundant, so that no single move is carrying the whole bet. And in combination, the substrate they’re all running on changes. The landscape isn’t fixed while you sample it; your own probes are altering it as they go. So you’re never judging one probe against a static rule. You’re comparing how a set of variants performs against each other, on a landscape they’re reshaping. That’s not circular; it’s relative and comparative, which is a different thing. Optionality isn’t a yardstick applied from outside the process; it’s a property of the parallel set as a whole, visible only after you’ve run it.
That’s also the answer to the scale problem CST runs into. A workshop needs everyone in one room, at one time, which is exactly what doesn’t scale. Parallel probing doesn’t: mapping becomes continuous and distributed, run through far more human sensors, spread across an organisation, than any workshop could ever seat.
There’s also room for something like a north star: a long-range navigational aid, not a destination coordinate. Kennedy’s “put a man on the moon by the end of the decade” is the standard example, and it’s instructive for what it actually required. It left enormous room; it specified neither the rocket, the trajectory, nor the method of landing, only a direction and a deadline. And it was set only after considerable pre-work by von Braun and others to establish that it was technically feasible, not merely inspiring. A north star that skips that pre-work, or that closes down the room it needs to leave, turns back into a fixed goal wearing a nicer name.
The last piece is path dependency, and it’s where the two accounts diverge the most. Ours takes it as a first-order constraint: where you can go next depends on the specific history of how you got here, and the map has to represent that history rather than abstract away from it. Systems thinking, across the traditions in this exchange, mostly doesn’t. Idealised design brackets history out by assumption. VSM and SD build a causal architecture that’s meant to hold regardless of a particular organisation’s history. Even CST’s workshop, for all its attention to perception, produces a lens for the room on the day, not an account of how that room’s perceptions became path-dependent in the first place.
That’s the argument in outline. How you actually build the map, the mechanics of adjacent possibles, how probes get chosen, how a north star’s pre-work gets done without smuggling a fixed destination back in. I’ve written it up in multiple posts and need to summarise them at some stage in the future.
The post is useful because it traces the distinctions between different kinds of cause and effect assumptions behind different schools of thought that try to address the complexity problem. To most of us, this doesn’t appear obvious on the face of it, but it is really important to understand.
To wit, the important lessons I take from anthro-complexity, and from this post in particular are:
- Causality is not knowable in advance, so we cannot know what will take us from “here” to “there”
- We can find Our way with multiple safe-to-fail probes that help us understand what the “next right thing” to do is.
- Our current state matters, as does the context in which our work is embedded. That will make something more possible in this moment than others (and conversely “we’ve tried that before” might not be an accurate reflection of whether something will work now). This is called “path-dependency” in complexity.
- Data precedes the framework. If I bring a model of change to the work, then everything channels itself into that map or framework. Instead it’s best to start out looking at the current state of things through narratives and to make sense of that current situation together in order to give us a better chance to see different ways of moving in the direction we want to go.
- “Alignment” – traditionally speaking – is not desirable in complexity. Orientation to our direction of travel is useful. When we don’t know where we are going, having everyone pull together in the same direction introduces a tremendous amount of risk. We risk closing off our awareness of possibilities that might emerge along the way.
I’m curious about the ways in which you encounter “goals” in doing truly complex work.
Chris Mowles reflects on the question of whether the consultant/leader is a healer or revealer and offers his thoughts that the second position is better:
To take the second position is to work alongside the client/team in a way which is open to exploring what might be going on in the team, where the consultant/leader also considers themselves to be a part of the inquiry. This is an acknowledgement that the consultant/leader is unlikely to have special insight into the truth, may or may not have specialist knowledge or wisdom, along with everyone else in the team. In the words of the psychotherapist Donald Winnicott, the aim is to show the limits of the consultant/leader’s understanding, but still to encourage exploration and interpretation, to try and make some kind of sense together about what might be going on. The principal value of the consultant in particular is that they bring difference: they only have a temporary stake in the game. To inquire together is to do so speculatively and fallibly and the method is to work with grain of the dynamics of the team. Whatever insight emerges is the responsibility of everyone to do something about. Or not. There are always power relationships, but the idea is to lessen dependency on the consultant/leader and to support the group in becoming more mature.
My posts of the last few days on the sources of constraints that define the field of dialogic containers are leading me to see these questions everywhere. There is a reaching for what the right role should be. That depends on what is needed, what is being asked, and what is ethically demanded of the practitioner. But the question persists and the role of the practitioner is the one which folks are asking account of.
You might have been following along as I have been playing with this triangle over the past few weeks. This is a version that I think I am happier with for now and it’s already helping me and others to understand a few things. First, what is the influence of a facilitator into the complex system of a group of people. Second, what is a dialogic container thought about in terms of anthro-complexity. And third, what is the role of a facilitator, and what are some of the capacities and moves one can play.
I’ll introduce this in stages, and use language that speaks to facilitators, hosts, participatory leaders. Folks who read this blog, who practice the Art of Hosting, Liberating Structures or other forms facilitation that treats groups as complex. I want this framework to help us inquire into some of things we take for granted such as the role of the host, the helpfulness of methods. the belief in the collective capacity of the group, and in the notion and idea of what a container is and how to work with it.
The title of this post is a nod to Mark Downham’s long treatise The Architecture of Held Space, which is a very generous discussion of these questions too and which deserves a full response on it’s own. But his work and Snowden’s work previously pointed at in this series ask the questions that I am trying to answer here. Here’s a post that links to those writings.
Starting with basics.
Let’s start here. Groups of people are constantly meeting, working, talking and living their lives without the role of a facilitator. Most of human history, historically and in the present day has unfolded without facilitators and consultant working with groups of people to optimize processes, introduce new ways of working together or saving people from the everyday chaos of their lives. I say this in a tongue-in-cheek way, but it’s a serious observation. We – the consulting industry, the hosting world, the facilitation community – are a lot less necessary than we believe.
So we start with the above polarity. There are interactions and there is structure. Pause for a moment and think about where you live. It could be a village, and island, a neighbourhood, a building or a city. Think of ways that people have problems solved together, introduced new ideas, created new things. How neighbours are helped when a new child is born. Or how conflicts arise in the public conversation and how they are resolved or how they cage over time. Novelty in societies and groups springs from interactions between people. They come out of who knows whom, who is connected or not, what gets talked about. Communities and groups are bubbling cauldrons of connections and exchanges. You can never fully understand them, you can never fully see what they are capable of. But beautiful things emerge.
Interactions between people do not happen randomly however. Thing of the place you live and think of the built environment. Think of how folks get around, where they meet and where they don’t meet. Think about the “way we always do things” the traditions, languages, and implicit ways of being that are unique to each place. Think of what it feels like to visit a new place and know that you don’t completely belong there. There are structural elements that shape humans experiences. These structures are physical, psychological, social, and cultural. They are patterns that persist over time that makes some things more likely to happen than other things. These structures can change, but the do so slowly.
The structures and the interactions are continually in relationship. The structure influences what’s easy for people to do wan what is hard for them to do. In complexity, we call these affordances. People who are skilled at working within their own environments often have a good understanding of some of these structures and affordances are are able to work with them in a way that makes things happen. Others might have great ideas, but they always seem to get nowhere. Structures can provide resistance – “that’s not how we do things around here” – or they can provide hard boundaries – “you can’t walk from Bowen Island to the mainland, no matter how much you want to.”
SO the question to ask when learning about a group of people, or when a group of people is learning about themselves is “How do enduring structures shape interactions and how to repeated interactions become structural?”
If you are coming into a community or organization to do work and you don’t start here you are treating each group as a blank canvas upon which your influence can be exerted. This applies especially to consultants but it alos applies to leaders who “drop in” to their teams or departments without any understanding of what is really happening. The field of pre-existing interactions, the ways that people respond to change or generate it, and the pre-existing structures – physical and cultural, immutable and changeable – provide the landscape inside of which any intervention takes place.
Take a breath while I tell you why three is better than two.
Pause here. I’m going to tell you why I’m going to make the next move.
A favoured tool of many consultants is working with polarities. I use them all the time to look at things. Structure and Interaction is a classic polarity. Both exist at the same time, both are helpful, positive states. In the Art of Hosting work we use Chaos and Order. I’ve also used others like Individual and Team, and Organization and Stakeholders. Often conflicts in organizations are about contested ends of a polarity. That’s helpful to see.
But the problem with polarities is that it places a situation on a scale and asks us to maybe balance the upsides of both or do things that will slide the problem more towards on end or the other.
The bigger PROBLEM with pairs like this is that it tends to introduce either/or thinking. Even if we are using a tool like polarity management (which promotes Both/And thinking) we are still highly entrained to see the ends as more important than the middle. That can have the effect of embedding the conflict even deeper and make it feel like maximizing the upsides of one is a compromise or a value tradeoff for people that prefer the other.
And so, what about three?
Snowden has written recently on this, but for decades he has used triads in sense-making in a way that helps us see that a complex situation exists in a space that is influenced by multiple sources of constraints that make some things more possible than others. Triads are a feature of his software, SenseMaker and although they are sometimes hard to understand, I find them helpful for getting beyond simple dichotomies.
And so the next section of this essay will be about the third part of this system, the one that turns a group of people into a facilitated group, a led group, a team, an organization. It is the acknowledgement of an intention, backed with privileged power, that provides an important source of constraints.
The designer
In a recent LinkedIn post responding to an earlier blog post in this series, Natalia Treninya offers a gentle disagreement with my offering of this third source of constraints. She writes: “I find it hard to accept that the design of a dialogue, or of any other creative process, stands as an equal third vertex of the trialectic. Stability and emergence describe the state of the field, whereas design acts upon the field, so to me it belongs to a different level.” (translation from Ukrainian provided by LinkedIn).
I get that, but I don’t agree. The whole point of introducing this third corner is to be honest about the work that intention does when it is coupled with a position of privileged power in a pre-existing field of interactions and structure. Snowden’s constant challenge to the Art of Hosting community, let alone the broader facilitation community as a whole, is to get the facilitator out of the centre of the work. But the facilitator is never removed from the work. That is exactly another problem: cloaking the role of power in good intentions, or a wonderful design, or a set of brilliant exercises.
Even in “complex facilitation“, which is the approach to methods used by the Cynefin community, the role of the facilitator has to be accounted for. Methods are used, each with an intention. Interactions are shaped. Strutures and patterns appear and the facilitator manages the process.
But how and why is the facilitator able to “manage the process?” Because the position comes with the power to do so. That power is accorded by the consent of the group (or not, in which case something else takes over). “Yes, we will do the Future Backwards exercise or the Word Cafe or the Circle or the Paired Walk or the 1-2-4-All” is what the group says to the facilitator, but never completely.. There is always someone in the room who thinks this is bullshit, or who has to suspend their scepticism to go along with the group. We all carry memories of being told what to do that elicit responses ranging from compliance and approval seeking to outright rebellion.
So the unique position of the facilitator influences both the structure of the moment and the interactions. In complex facilitation approaches, the facilitator/host does not get involved in the content of the work, but only manages the interactions between people in the space. That is an important and influential role and so it has to be accounted for.
Time for a break
Let’s watch a video together. Let’s see what happens when the person with the power to shape the process comes into a room ignoring the structures and interactions that are already present in the group and imposes a his own ideas about what should happen. This is a scene from West Side Story where Glad Hand, the community social worker, embodies the bumbling leadership role we have probably all occupied at one time or another. You can read my commentary on this scene here.
Poor Glad Hand. He was convicted that this new method of his would break the group up, introduce new relationships and solve the gang problem. My favourite part of the scene happens after the group rebels and becomes even more entrenched. The police officer makes a bee line for Glad Hand and desperately points out to him how bad he has just made the situation.
Answering the challenge
There are groups interacting in the present moment. There are pre-existing structures that embed and embody the residue and habits of historical practice. And there is the p[ractitioner, the consultant, the teacher, the facilitator, the leader. The one who holds the design that is accompanied by an intention that speaks to a preferred future.
So let’s explore this third point in the triangle in relation to the other two.
Now we are looking at a dynamic space bounded by three sides inside of which dialogic containers exist and move. The Design point can be occupied by a facilitator who brings a method, or a leader, or an authority, or anyone else who has the power and ability to enter the space with intention that can shape the space. The introduction of this third point introduces two new tensions and space in which we can map what emerges from these three tensions.
From a facilitation perspective, the left hand side asks the question of how the method or intention being brought relates to the existing patterns at play. Anyone who has set the chairs up in a circle, while working with an organization used to sitting around a table, will be familiar with this questions. There are ways of doing things. If you are going to be introducing a new intention that results in a new structure, something interesting will happen in contact with the pre-existing structures.
On the other side, the tension is between the intention of the facilitator and what the group is attending to. The group holds the capability for designing and choosing change and a design and intention introduced on top of them runs the risk of being patronizing, disempowering or colonizing in its effect. In complexity, It is not methods or good facilitation or leadership that creates novelty or good responses to the problem at hand but rather the distributed knowledge, capability and capacity of the group itself to address its conditions. This has important implications for what we choose to do. As a facilitator when I am too in love with my method, I impose it in a way that disables the group’s capacity, even while I speak praises to the group’s collective intelligence and capacity.
The space
So this diagram is finally a space represented by three distinct source of constraint that affect and influence the dialogic container. The facilitator’s role then is to constantly attend to the work of the container within this space. In an expert driven process, where for example an engineer is directing a team to install a building system, the interactions of the team members are highly controlled. The engineer might need a detail or two from the front line, but in general, the design and implementation of a knowable system will proceed very close to the left hand edge of the triangle.
On the other hand, a group that is trying to design a new organizational structure for itself might not need any facilitation or design at all beyond an agreement to meet in a pub and kick around answers to the question “how should we make decisions together?” It doesn’t need facilitation, and the intention and design can be entirely co-owned by the group itself. The pub provides a structure, especially if said pub is a part of the ritual space in which the group often decamps to consider the bigger questions in life.
On yet another hand, a consulting intervention for a strategic plan might start with an intention from the Board and quickly move to a narrative capture of the staff, clients and partners of the organization, followed by collective sense-making. This immediately works with the capability of the group to sense opportunities, to name the structural affordances and blockages for development of change and to change the interactions from “working together” to “planning together” which wakes up the latent capacity to a group to make collective decisions and choose pathways forward into the unknown. The consultant becomes responsible for hosting the methods to do that, paying attention all the time to the preferred direction of travel introduced and held by the Board as an intention (“we need a plan to help us move into the future and we need everyone to be involved”). The consultant’s role is to constantly work to attend to and shape the interactions, with consent, with transparency and with accountability.
Dialogic containers arise all the time. As each of the points in the triangle take on great or lesser effect on that container, the container’s life can be mapped in this space. The lifecycle of a container is not linear, it’s not universal and it is context free. Each one appears from the interactions of these constraints and is shifted and influenced over time until it dissolves again. While it exists, the facilitator continually attends to the changing relationship between Design, Structure and Interactions. When the work is done, to put it in Taoist terms, the facilitator disappears along with the container and the people see that they did it themselves.
So play with this a little. Tell me what it evokes in you. I am especially interested in how this challenges your practice, rather than how it validates it? What question for yourself does this open up?
This triad has turned out to be surprisingly helpful. I’ve been thinking about it ever since I posted it a few days ago, because it answers some questions that have been bothering me for a long time. So here’s an attempt to capture where the idea is leading. Think of this as watching it evolve in real time. Read on…