Some observations from recently harvesting for a group. The harvest artifact above is a sketch I did on a flipchart in the middle of a group last week who were debriefing conversations they were having about power. In the course of a 40 minute conversation, the group raised a number of types of power they perceived, based on stories they were telling and insights that were coming up.
I was reflecting afterwards with my colleague Ginny Belden-Charles on types of typologies. There are two kinds of categorization we were exploring and it is important not to confuse them, but to use them usefully. One is the typical piece of typology used as a meaning making scheme or categorization. In Cynefin terms this is the categorization scheme for simple decision making. In nominal group technique it is the categories. It could alos be the taxonomic ranking system in biology where an agreed upon set of categories is very important. In this case I think the categorization scheme matters as much as the content. For example, if we are solving a mechanical problem, we need to know which causes arise from materials, from human intervention, from fluids and so on. The categorization scheme matters.
The harvest above is an example of a categorization scheme that is a mnemonic, and is purely subjective. It is my own way of perceiving and remembering the conversation, and in that respect it can evoke the quality of the conversation as well as the points of content that were touched upon, but the meaning making scheme is not necessarily important. It is not always important that we check out the categorization scheme with the group (although it might be). It is useful to have the group add to a graphic like this.
Both of these schemes are important, and it is important to be conscious of how a harvester is using them.
A colleague emailed today and asked me this question: “which tool do you use when you have to analyse the content of your harvest with groups?”
My answer was that it depends on so much. Which means there is no one rule or tool but rather a principle. The principle would be this: “Participatory process, participatory harvest, simple process, simple harvest” The primary tool I use in complex decision making domains is diversity.
A story. Once, working with the harvest of a a series of 4 world cafes that had about 100 people in each, I ended up with 400 index cards, each containing a single insight which we later transcribed. It would be folly for me to work with a taxonomy of my own design, so I invited eight people to help me make sense of the work. We all read the 18 peages of raw data and noticed what spoke to us. From there we created a conversation that drew forth those insights and organized them into patterns. The final result was a report to the 400 people that had gathered that was rich and diverse and as complex as the group itself without being overly complicated to implement.
So it depends. If you use the Cynefin framework, which I have been studying and using a lot lately, you will see that different domains of action require different harvesting and sense making tools. So be careful, use what is appropriate and try to never have a place where one point of view dominates the meaning making if you are indeed operating the realms of complexity, chaos or disorder..
Back in November, I worked with my mate Teresa Posakony on a two day gathering the object of which was to work to apply brain science to policy questions on the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. On the first day I facilitated an Open Space event that brought together reserachers and brain scientists to discuss their findings and on the second day, we had panelists and Teresa ran a half day cafe to look at the implications of the research for policy making. I composed a poem at the end of the day.
As a part of the experience, we were shown a powerful video of the still face experiment, a test to see how infants respond when their care givers break the connection with them. It is very very powerful. Here it is:
Later in the day one of the panelists, Jennifer Rodriguez, referred to this video by saying that collectively, “society is the still face” when it comes to our children and youth.
That was the hook I needed for the poem, which was also informed by the words I saw and heard during the cafe. I read the poem and got a generous standing ovation.
Today I got an email from our clients which was sent by the researcher you see in the video, Dr. Ed. Tronick. Dr. Tronick was responding to our client, who sent him the poem and the recording of me reading it:
I really am quite moved by the poem and your comment about how much impact it has. When I began this work in my lab I had no idea that it might one day be so useful in getting children and families what they so desperately need. I love the poem – I will get it up in my office somewhere, especially what it brings together and the rhythm of it. Please tell Chris how much I appreciate it. It is just amazing. And more important than the SF or the poem is the work you and everyone at the conference are doing.
It is not enough to do work in the world without adding as much beauty as we can. The power resides in the songs, the poems, the images that we use to capture our collective experiences and to throw a light on how important they are to us as human beings.
Enjoy the harvest.
One of the things I love about my mate Geoff Brown who lives in the lovely Airey’s Inlet, Australia, is his incredible willingness to be playful and creative in his facilitation work and especially in his harvesting work. He is one of the few that gets how important the harvest is – at least as important as the hosting. In this great post, Geoff shares his recent experience with Open Space and with a fantastic harvest that captures that creative brilliance of the group he was working with: The day after Open Space
From our recent Art of Hosting on the banks of the Ottawa River, in Arnprior Ontario.