If you are new to this blog....

Welcome! The primary purpose of this blog is to explore and encourage around what it means to be winsome and sent into the world for God's glory. If you are new here, the definition of "lighthouse-searchlight" or our missional journey is a good place to start. Come peruse the blog and add me to your RSS feed!

Thursday, March 01, 2012

nextchurch, pt 3 - open sourcing

I want to reflect on the alternative models of discernment that were used at the NEXT conference.  And let me say up front that while this is a general critique, I do mean it to be a friendly critique.  I am interested and fascinated by these models, and saw how much energy and involvement and creativity they unleashed.

BUT... I don't believe that they were an expression of true community.  And I think if you asked anyone involved, whether in planning or participating, experiencing true community would be a very high value in these processes.  So, why do I say this?

On Tuesday morning we engaged in a large-scale open source (corrected - thanks MMD) model in which people were invited to name (actually to "shout out") topics around which each was willing to host a conversation.  The leadership indicated that there were some "plants" (ok, I guess, if it's to get the ball rolling; at a certain point, too many plants kind of bypasses the open-ness... but we didn't know whether there were 3 plants or 23; in hindsight, I might have suggested to the leadership that they risk not priming the pump or saying, "We'll suggest 2 to get us started, but are looking to you to fill this out.")

About 1 second after they announced this method of topic-naming, I tweeted something like, "I'll be interested to see how this works out between the extroverts and the introverts."  Now, I'm not super-shy, and will speak up when needed, but with very little notice, it would be highly unusual for me to stand up and shout anything in a room of 600 people.  What WAS helpful is that this process went on for some time, with perhaps 40 topics named.  I did finally reach a point where I felt like everyone who had even a small desire to name a topic probably could have.

So I chose a topic (which I shall not name)... and went to find the group.  And the leader had moved from the identified location.  So by the time I located the group, the circle was closed and conversation had been going in earnest.  They invited me in and I listened hard to figure out exactly what the topic was and where the conversation was.  Enter extrovert/introvert dynamic #2... for the most part, three folks in a group of eight dominated the conversation, including steering it in a pretty narrowly focused direction that was a lot of "here's what I'm doing at my church."

So here's what's going through my mind...
  1. I'm white-male clergy in a mostly female group; I've learned to listen first and talk second 
  2. I am fairly introverted and am not prone to blurting out my thoughts ahead of others
  3. I was really not interested in a "and here's what's going on in my church" repartee (that was distinctly off-topic even though the process wasn't rigidly topical; I was going to do my part not to take us further in a direction I wasn't interested in going)
The 'host' jumped in a few times to broaden/redirect the topic, but did nothing in terms of inviting conversation from the quieter members of the group.  And I guess, who could blame him; the parameters of "hosting a conversation" were not really defined other than the initial naming of a topic.  I suppose some are more effective hosts than others.  I did appreciate that the two quietest members of the group (other than me) did invite my comment at the very end, and I thanked them, but I wasn't looking for a last word; rather a better opportunity to participate throughout.  (And honestly, I'll take some responsibility here; I wasn't interested in the direction the conversation took and I got a little distracted thinking about the whole group dynamic.)

I don't share this to say, "poor me."  In fact, I was fine and appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this process.  Rather, I'm thinking through the strengths and weaknesses of models like this and wondering if:

a) other more introverted folks had similar experiences and;
b) if there are strategies in such a model to include more of the community rather than give the vocal/engaging people priority

One such model of inclusion might be to integrate Twitter or (old-school) written comments/questions into the process so that "speaking up" isn't the only way to participate.  Or perhaps at the beginning; invite EVERYONE to write a topic on a card and then share it with two neighbors.  If you are fired up about your topic, then shout it out.  If you aren't that vocal but one of your neighbors is; maybe they'd jump up and shout on your behalf.  I don't know... this is new to me and I'm thinking out loud.  But I look forward to checking it out some more.

Finally, I will add this observation.  In 2008, I was a commissioner to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.  Part of that process is being assigned to a committee and I was assigned to an "experimental committee" on using a consensus model for decision-making.  It was a (widely noted) disaster.  In trying to offer constructive feedback, I suggested that such models (and I'd extend this somewhat to the model at NEXT) works best with smaller groups who have established some trust.  That General Assembly committee not only didn't have trust, but was struggling with distrust of each other and the process.  At NEXT, there was a much higher trust level, so I found the extrovert/introvert dynamic more prominent.  I wrote to the GA committee chair that I could well envision using such a model with my session or another church group where we had high trust, personal relationships, etc...   I think in settings with relative strangers, additional preparation or strategies need to be used to make the open discernment models more effective than what I have experienced so far.


Adam Copeland said...

Thanks, Robert. I really appreciate the comments. My fallback is definitely to a more traditionalist process, I suppose, but I really liked how the open source process went (and, honestly, had low expectations for it).

I liked that we were invited to take a walk or leave the room if that's what we felt we needed as well (I had some wonderful one-on-one conversations by the coffee.)

My thought for the next NEXT re the process was perhaps to have breakout rooms to take the conversations to, and have trained/aware leaders that would consider your introvert/extrovert points. Overall, though, as a small part of a conference I really appreciated the time--and just hearing the topics shouted-out was pretty cool.

MaryAnn said...

Thanks for this "friendly critique" Robert!

A couple of notes--

The approach you describe is actually Open Space. World Cafe was the approach described by Theresa in her presentation--chart paper at each table with questions and people rotate around.

You're right that the location presented challenges. I know another person couldn't find his group either. That's one of the risks of sampling a new thing in such a space. Same goes with the trust/knowing each other thing. Your point about consensus/trust is a good one. Know that Open Space is not a model for decision making. It is an opportunity for people to gather around topics of common interest for conversation, idea sharing and potential partnership as Spirit leads.

One other thing. I can't remember how explicit Jud was about this, but in Open Space, you "vote with your feet." If you're not getting something out of it or putting something into it, it is more than OK to go elsewhere. This doesn't let a facilitator off the hook on his/her job. Just to say that you own the experience that you have in OS.

Thanks for all of your thoughtful posts.

robert austell said...

Adam, I agree with everything you said... and I hope I'm coming across not as tearing down the process, but suggesting ways to strengthen and build it up further. That's my intent, at least.

I was fascinated with it, but was aware that not everyone who wanted to enter in was doing so as fully as they might have hoped.

I did see you once or twice across the room or hallway - I'm sorry I didn't come over; I would have like to reconnect in person.

Kathy Larson said...

Now see, I would have loved a forum like that, but I am an extrovert! Sounds creative and stimulating. It is an excellent point, though that you must have skilled leaders to guide a discussion or brainstorming session - perhaps a predetermined group of 40 leaders, each of whom get assigned to a topic on the fly. Then the person who shouted out the topic isn't leading the group and just guiding the conversation in the way they want it to go.

Like Us!