- Within oneself, centred on our perspective and position. This finds people knowing all the answers, uninterested in hearing other perspectives. "Listening to confirm what we already know."
- Within oneself, considering the perspectives of others. This opens the door to debate. "Listening outside of our own projections. Attending to what's happening outside".
- In the shoes of others. Truly empathizing, experiencing situations from the perspective of others. "Operating outside of where we exist".
- In the realm of future possibilities. Connecting with others and attending to the emerging future.
Otto and his vast, vast following submit that we should aim to operate in the fourth phase. To collaborate with others by existing in the field of emerging futures with them. It's difficult to challenge someone so clearly brilliant who I'm so humbled to have met and experienced, but here goes anyway...
Last night was my first real experience, but I think participating in presencing exercises with others can be extremely valuable. Trying to occupy the field of possibilities is something we should consider. However, diversity is a critical component of effective collaboration and of accessing and harnessing collective intelligence. Cultural diversity, diversity of expertise, generational, etc, etc. If there isn't even diversity in the way that we are thinking, then aren't we limiting perspectives? I don't see a lot of value in the stagnant first phase, but the person listening in the second mode that is open to new ideas but also challenges and debates items seems like a pretty critical component of an effective dynamic for innovation or collaboration of any kind.
Meeting Otto afterwards and seeing his genuine interest in the work we are doing was a something I won't forget. What an experience. Thank you Susan!
2 comments:
As the colleague and friend that joined you on this venture, I too was humbled by the presence in the room that evening and grateful to our host for such an invitation.
As you are well aware, our opinions sometimes differ and this would be one of those times. I agree that diversity is imperative but why do you assume that because the group is connecting with others and attending to the emerging futures, this eliminates diversity? Every persons perspective is different, the goal may be similar but the result will never be the same.
The difference, ever less friendly colleague(I would include a winking emoticon here if I did that sort of thing), is that if we are attending to different perspectives and never representing or challenging any one in particular, then we are channelled down a path of harmony.
Who asks the question: "does this really satisfy our objectives?" Or better still: "wait a second, isn't this idea contrary to law?"
I suppose I need a better understanding of the theory and process before adequately challenging you here babs. It may be that diversity and debate do have a place that I'm unaware of. I accept that diversity would occur in insights, but does diversity occur in levels of conformity? It all seems like an excercise in Group Think to me.
Post a Comment