We often apply methodologies such as socio-metric line-ups and intra-group conversations to surface diverse views, whilst at the same time allowing for differentiating and integrating views to emerge. When it comes to decision-making time, we assist the group in establishing its common ground from which to move forward. There are occasions though, on which agreement on some issues that are crucial to progress cannot be reached. So, what to do with those issues within a group process about which there is no natural consensus and that cannot simply not be agreed upon? Or those issues around which there is a lot of (potential for) conflict?

I recently participated in the Deep Democracy Foundation Course under the impressive guidance and mentorship of Myrna Lewis, one of the founding developers of Deep Democracy and author of “Inside the No: Five Steps to Decisions that Last”. It has taken more than fifteen years of intensive work to hone Deep Democracy into the straightforward, five-step methodology used in all sectors of society and in over 20 countries worldwide. This transformative facilitation methodology is designed for anybody who works with groups and relationships. Rooted in insights from process-oriented psychology, it offers tools to improve the ways in which people work together in complex and sometimes turbulent situations.

Deep Democracy goes beyond more conventional group decision making processes such as compromising or majority rule. Instead it recognizes and effectively integrates minority voices, thus creating wiser, more sustainable agreements, with full participant buy-in. Applying the Deep Democracy model allows us to do justice to and accommodate the minority voices, i.e. those in a group or system, who are usually defeated in a majority process (either by numbers or weight of other votes). Finding the so-called “wisdom of the No” and including it in the “Yes” allows us to get the best of both worlds and avoid the so-called “terrorist line” that so often obstructs change processes, to gain strength.

In addition to Collaborative Decision Making, Deep Democracy is also enables us to work with interpersonal and group dynamics in that it enables effective interpretation of what is actually at play in groups and relationships. It allows for seeing through what is being said, recognizing unspoken emotional issues that block progress, and suggesting ways to work with them. Lastly, Deep Democracy recognizes and works with the creative tension that is present in every conflict. It offers a safe way to engage with strong views and emotions, leading to innovative solutions and strengthened relationships, and thereby becoming a powerful conflict resolution tool.

I got much more than what I bargained for initially by taking part in the Foundation Course, in that I also learned a great deal about my own “role anatomy” and how it impacts on others. I feel inspired and challenged by the power of Deep Democracy as a facilitation methodology that allows for the wisdom of the minority voices to not only be surfaced, but also integrated in the majority decisions. The Deep Democracy tools are surprisingly simple, but their sheer power may blast you away if you come unprepared to acknowledge your own polarity…

Visit www.deep-democracy.net to find out more about Deep Democracy.

The Emergence Phase lies at the heart of a change process and is key to enabling something new (or existing but reaffirmed, and hence from a different quality) to surface, based on peer-to-peer learning and insights gained. Allowing for sufficient time and an appropriate space that is safe, not too prescriptive, yet contained enough, we enable a group to come up with innovative ways forward, rather than rushing into finding (the same or slightly different) solutions based on the same old perceptions or paradigm (i.e. doing what hasn’t worked so far differently). We thus refer to Emergence to describe the pivotal moment in a transformative event.

I was very fortunate to attend the Presencing Foundation Programme in Cape Town recently under the very capable and most inspiring guidance of the wonderfully mutually complementing female trio: Marian Goodman, Beth Jandernoa and Kassee Mhoney. The theoretical foundation of this programme is Otto Scharmer’s “Theory U”.  We spent three and a half days in a learning community of about 45 participants. It was an amazing journey that allowed me to gain clarity and reassurance on my own Self, my Purpose and Work; and find great inspiration to further improve our Emergence Practice.

Most importantly, I experienced the power of Emergence or rather, in the Theory U terminology, “Presencing” – “going to the place of silence and allowing the inner knowing to emerge”. In the U jargon the sequence of change events is referred to as follows: Co-intiating (uncover common intent), Co-sensing (observe, observe, observe), Presencing (connect to the source of inspiration and will), Co-creating (prototype the new) and Co-evolving (embody the new in ecosystems).
“Presencing,” a blend of the words “presence” and “sensing,” refers to the ability to sense and bring into the present one’s highest future potential—as an individual and as a group. Theory U offers both a new theoretical perspective and a practical social technology. As a theoretical perspective, Theory U suggests that the way in which we attend to a situation determines how a situation unfolds: I attend this way, therefore it emerges that way. As a practical social technology, Theory U offers a set of principles and practices for collectively creating the future that wants to emerge (following the movements of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and co-evolving).

The Presencing Process is a journey that connects us more deeply both to what wants to emerge in the world and to our emerging, higher self. I-P-K is now represented in the Global Presencing Institute Community as well as the local Cape Town Theory U Practitioner Group. I look forward to applying my learning and insight around Theory U and Presencing and sharing as I go along with all of you!

For more information you might also want to visit www.presencing.com. The Presencing Institute (PI) is a global awareness based action research community for profound societal innovation and change. The PI community focuses on advancing presencing and related awareness based social technologies and making them available to change makers, innovators, and communities around the world.

Download Our Company Profile 2010

More information on “It’s Nice That“.

I realised that although I had a sense that there is something like a red thread that runs through our facilitation and change work, I constantly tried to avoid spelling it out in explicit and clear manner. What ensued was a debate, whether it was an “approach” in the first place – or rather a method, a style, a worldview, a set of principles? But since our handbook is in the making, I no longer had a choice. Or rather a good invitation to get to terms with it. I gave it a try. Read on here:

The Approach of IngeniousPeoplesKnowledge

My initial answer to the question of how transformative momentum is sustained was the following: momentum cannot be sustained through internal or even less external interventions, but rather sustains itself if the platforms for collective conversations are present and accessible to all within the organisation at all times, i.e. if the organizational culture is one of learning in which knowledge sharing and change management strategies become second nature and all members/employees learn and practice this way of thinking and engaging with each other. So training in such methodologies could be a very useful way of making an organisation ‘fit’ for ongoing transformation in a complex and rapidly changing world.

I attended a Peter Block Community Building event last week that has inspired me greatly and also raised a new question: What if the transformation of large numbers of individuals within a system (i.e. its members being trained in various knowledge sharing and change management methodologies) does not lead to an organisational culture that is conducive to ongoing transformation? How and when does momentum last?

And I might just have found an answer to these questions in the form of further questions.  How do you create a sense of community amongst a group of people? How do you connect them to a common task/bigger purpose? Because only when people feel that they belong to a community will they also care about this community that they belong to and that belongs to them (Peter Block). So people care about what they create (Margaret Wheatley), but they carry on caring about what they create because they belong to a community that at the same time belongs to them (and that they carry on creating). So when and how do such transforming communities emerge…?

Catherine Widrig Jenkins