Here's a thought: What if every human being planted one tree each year? What kind of effect might this have on sequestering carbon and stabilizing our global climate?
The commitment would be to care for and nurture that tree through one's lifetime and the tree's lifetime, rather than using it for construction or firewood.
What a lovely new tradition this would be for celebrating one's birthday!
And for celebrating one's Earth home.
And what if we did this together, as the human race, and celebrated our shared stewardship of the planet? How might this develop our sense of community with other human beings, and with all life?
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Assumption 11: "I can't do anything about it," or "We can do it together."
We are so often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems around us, and we therefore decide to do nothing. Think about something else. Feel bad about it occasionally. There is the continuing tragedy of Darfur, and the ineptness of the UN or the African Union in doing something about it. There is the inexorable, accelerating warming trend in the global climate that is melting our polar ice and will soon disrupt ocean currents. And the startling collapse of the world economy, and its terrible consequences for human beings. And so much else…
"What can I do about it?" Nothing, it seems. The problems are so big. So we shift our focus down to the narrower scope of everyday concerns and activities. We make breakfast, take the kids to school, call Aunt May, respond to email. We can check off items on our do-list, and derive some satisfaction; some sense of accomplishment.
Watching cable news and the public station keeps us abreast of developments on that larger scale, the worrisome ones, but in a protected way, as spectators. It helps to know there are people out there tracking all these developments, or arguing about them (senselessly), or affirming our reasons to feel concerned. So we're not crazy.
"But what can I do?"
Everything. As human beings, we have evolved a capacity and a need for social interaction. We are fundamentally herd animals—we prefer to be with others, and have survived through our compulsion and genius to communicate, collaborate, and co-create. Together we have created cities, laws, science, corporations, the Internet, and baseball. There is individual effort and genius involved in all this, but it is based on what others have done and taught us, and is useful only through mutual support and teamwork.
Together we have accomplished a lot, both good and bad. As human beings and as a society we are slowly, perhaps just in time, learning to consider consequences beyond the immediate gain. We are definitely slow learners about all this, but we learn. And we learn together. Like ants touching fellow ants to exchange scents of newly discovered food, we avidly communicate about individual discoveries, questions, conjectures.
As we consider the overwhelming circumstances we find ourselves in as a global society, as nations and states, as communities and families, it is useful to remember occasionally that we have a choice: We can hide from ourselves in our imaginary isolation, or we can embrace our human and social power to make a difference, for ourselves, our dear ones, our society.
The first step is simple, though difficult: We can choose to talk with each other about these larger challenges. Talk seems useless, unless it leads to action, but concerted action that makes a difference begins with talk. We don't need to convince anyone to do anything they don't want to do. What is most useful is to express one's own concerns and aspirations, and to ask others about theirs. The rest emerges by the human magic of creative initiative and collaboration.
We can do it, together.
I look forward to your thoughts in the Comments section.
"What can I do about it?" Nothing, it seems. The problems are so big. So we shift our focus down to the narrower scope of everyday concerns and activities. We make breakfast, take the kids to school, call Aunt May, respond to email. We can check off items on our do-list, and derive some satisfaction; some sense of accomplishment.
Watching cable news and the public station keeps us abreast of developments on that larger scale, the worrisome ones, but in a protected way, as spectators. It helps to know there are people out there tracking all these developments, or arguing about them (senselessly), or affirming our reasons to feel concerned. So we're not crazy.
"But what can I do?"
Everything. As human beings, we have evolved a capacity and a need for social interaction. We are fundamentally herd animals—we prefer to be with others, and have survived through our compulsion and genius to communicate, collaborate, and co-create. Together we have created cities, laws, science, corporations, the Internet, and baseball. There is individual effort and genius involved in all this, but it is based on what others have done and taught us, and is useful only through mutual support and teamwork.
Together we have accomplished a lot, both good and bad. As human beings and as a society we are slowly, perhaps just in time, learning to consider consequences beyond the immediate gain. We are definitely slow learners about all this, but we learn. And we learn together. Like ants touching fellow ants to exchange scents of newly discovered food, we avidly communicate about individual discoveries, questions, conjectures.
As we consider the overwhelming circumstances we find ourselves in as a global society, as nations and states, as communities and families, it is useful to remember occasionally that we have a choice: We can hide from ourselves in our imaginary isolation, or we can embrace our human and social power to make a difference, for ourselves, our dear ones, our society.
The first step is simple, though difficult: We can choose to talk with each other about these larger challenges. Talk seems useless, unless it leads to action, but concerted action that makes a difference begins with talk. We don't need to convince anyone to do anything they don't want to do. What is most useful is to express one's own concerns and aspirations, and to ask others about theirs. The rest emerges by the human magic of creative initiative and collaboration.
We can do it, together.
I look forward to your thoughts in the Comments section.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Workshop on Human Systems Coaching
Human Systems Coaching
Using the Self-Empowerment Sequence
With Saul Eisen, Ph.D.
• Are you caught in a vicious cycle, or not sure what to do next?
• Do your clients keep getting in their own way but can't see it?
• Is your group paralyzed and unable to move forward?
• Are people stuck in scapegoating and feeling powerless?
Discover the transformational power of the Self-Empowerment Sequence (SES) for catalyzing significant shifts in your own understanding and effectiveness. Explore the application of this perspective to the human systems in your life, including key interpersonal relationships, teams, families, the work setting and organizations, communities, and the global society.
The Self-Empowerment Sequence is a seven-stage road map for working through any concern, problem, goal, or aspiration. Action steps for implementation emerge naturally, along with the clarity and commitment for following through with one's own decisions.
Who will benefit:
• External and Internal Organization Development practitioners
• Executive coaches
• Group facilitators
• HR Training and Development professionals
• Managers and team leaders
Upon completion, you will:
• Have direct experience with the effectiveness of the Self-Empowerment Sequence
• Have used the SES to work through personally-relevant topics in three or more human systems
• Have developed skill in working through the task presented by each stage of the SES
• Have developed skill in facilitating and coaching others through the Self-Empowerment Sequence
Location:
Sebastopol, CA
Dates and Times: Four consecutive Wednesdays:
April 22 & 29, May 6 & 13, 2009.
We meet from 5:30 to 9:00 pm.
Program Fee: $250
Light dinner food will be catered, and is included in the fee.
Registration: Space at this facility is limited.
Contact Saul Eisen for registration form.
Using the Self-Empowerment Sequence
With Saul Eisen, Ph.D.
• Are you caught in a vicious cycle, or not sure what to do next?
• Do your clients keep getting in their own way but can't see it?
• Is your group paralyzed and unable to move forward?
• Are people stuck in scapegoating and feeling powerless?
Discover the transformational power of the Self-Empowerment Sequence (SES) for catalyzing significant shifts in your own understanding and effectiveness. Explore the application of this perspective to the human systems in your life, including key interpersonal relationships, teams, families, the work setting and organizations, communities, and the global society.
The Self-Empowerment Sequence is a seven-stage road map for working through any concern, problem, goal, or aspiration. Action steps for implementation emerge naturally, along with the clarity and commitment for following through with one's own decisions.
Who will benefit:
• External and Internal Organization Development practitioners
• Executive coaches
• Group facilitators
• HR Training and Development professionals
• Managers and team leaders
Upon completion, you will:
• Have direct experience with the effectiveness of the Self-Empowerment Sequence
• Have used the SES to work through personally-relevant topics in three or more human systems
• Have developed skill in working through the task presented by each stage of the SES
• Have developed skill in facilitating and coaching others through the Self-Empowerment Sequence
Location:
Sebastopol, CA
Dates and Times: Four consecutive Wednesdays:
April 22 & 29, May 6 & 13, 2009.
We meet from 5:30 to 9:00 pm.
Program Fee: $250
Light dinner food will be catered, and is included in the fee.
Registration: Space at this facility is limited.
Contact Saul Eisen for registration form.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Reality 10: "There will be surprises!"
So there you have it: I promised to tell you about nine assumptions and ten realities. We have considered nine sets of assumptions that make a difference in how we live our lives; nine choices in how we think, which have consequences for what we experience:
1. Stable Growth, or Discontinuous Change
2. Rationality, or Unconscious Reactiveness
3. Competition, or Collaboration
4. Scarcity, or Abundance
5. Abundance, or Ecological Limits
6. Coercion, or Community
7. Information, or Interaction
8. Vertical, or Horizontal Coordination
9. "Someone's in charge," or "Yes—We are!"
There are other sets of assumptions and other topics I plan to explore here, but for now let's pause and consider what this is about: We are attracted to the comfort of certainty, especially in difficult times, and about that which is dear to us. But certainty is elusive, especially about the important questions.
So we make some educated guesses about how things are, and what is likely to happen, and then we choose our behavior accordingly. Years ago, George Kelly wrote brilliantly about this in The Psychology of Personal Constructs. We are all scientists, he told us, continually developing hypotheses and then acting on them. But competent scientists remember that these are hypotheses—best guesses—and that emergent data and experience can be used to confirm, disprove, or modify them. That is the scientific process, and more generally it is the learning process, which helps us to function effectively and happily as human beings.
We get in trouble when we forget that these are assumptions, tentatively held, pending further information. Blind certainty is at the core of much injustice, cruelty, and human folly. But when we follow the discipline of constant inquiry, we have the opportunity to do what we do best as human beings and as a society—we learn, we improve, we develop, and we grow.
What assumptions have you modified lately?
1. Stable Growth, or Discontinuous Change
2. Rationality, or Unconscious Reactiveness
3. Competition, or Collaboration
4. Scarcity, or Abundance
5. Abundance, or Ecological Limits
6. Coercion, or Community
7. Information, or Interaction
8. Vertical, or Horizontal Coordination
9. "Someone's in charge," or "Yes—We are!"
There are other sets of assumptions and other topics I plan to explore here, but for now let's pause and consider what this is about: We are attracted to the comfort of certainty, especially in difficult times, and about that which is dear to us. But certainty is elusive, especially about the important questions.
So we make some educated guesses about how things are, and what is likely to happen, and then we choose our behavior accordingly. Years ago, George Kelly wrote brilliantly about this in The Psychology of Personal Constructs. We are all scientists, he told us, continually developing hypotheses and then acting on them. But competent scientists remember that these are hypotheses—best guesses—and that emergent data and experience can be used to confirm, disprove, or modify them. That is the scientific process, and more generally it is the learning process, which helps us to function effectively and happily as human beings.
We get in trouble when we forget that these are assumptions, tentatively held, pending further information. Blind certainty is at the core of much injustice, cruelty, and human folly. But when we follow the discipline of constant inquiry, we have the opportunity to do what we do best as human beings and as a society—we learn, we improve, we develop, and we grow.
What assumptions have you modified lately?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Assumption 9: "Someone's in Charge," or "Yes--We Are!"
In what may come to be called "the Katrina effect," we often see a tendency to assume that someone's in charge, and will make sure that needed steps will be taken to deal with problems. This assumption emerges directly from our experience in schools and jobs that are organized as authority hierarchies (see Design Principle One in my previous post). As noted earlier, most of us have been implicitly trained to be passive and well-behaved. Performance reviews consider whether a person is a "team-player," which usually means s/he does what s/he's told and doesn't make trouble, especially by asking unpleasant questions.
The lesson of the Katrina disaster, of course, is that the person in charge at FEMA did not do what was needed, nor did he make sure it was done. As one of many examples, out of 25,000 mobile homes the agency purchased for disaster refugee housing, only 1200 were actually used. Once the magnitude of this second disaster (the agency's tragic ineptness) became known, non-government relief efforts accelerated into action.
In a more recent disaster of a different kind, executives at financial institutions did not consider the untenable risks involved in extending mortgage credit to buyers who could not afford the payments. And the government regulators charged with overseeing the credit markets did not maintain control of those dangerous lending practices. Once the financial house of cards began to fall, the persons in charge stepped in with hundreds of billions of dollars to prop them up, but without oversight or conditions. At this writing, little or none of that money has gone to deal with the cause of the disaster, the high rate of housing foreclosures. Throughout all this, the rest of us watch the news reports, appalled. Where are the people in charge, and why are they not dealing with all this effectively?
A friend has pointed out that this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect: Their research on incompetent people demonstrated that they "reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it".
I have suggested, too, that such people tend to develop a kind of naïve arrogance, which often gets them elected or selected to leadership positions. Not a good combination when the times get tough, as they obviously have been! And more challenging conditions are on the way.
So what's to be done?
It seems clear from this perspective that none of us can any longer rest on the assumption that someone's in charge and will take care of things. The reality is that, actively or passively, we are all in charge. Each one of us has the responsibility to think about these questions, to talk with others about them, to learn what we need to about what is involved, and to engage in appropriate changes. This involves more horizontal coordination—among peers, friends, strangers, stake-holders. It's not easy. We haven't been educated or trained to work this way. But instead of being unconsciously incompetent, we are fully aware of the steep learning curve we are on. This is our strategic advantage.
Ironically, the person who will take on a position of authority in the US on January 20 seems to be a different kind of leader. He is very competent, but in a different, important way. He doesn't work from preconceived solutions and policies as much as from a commitment to bringing together the full range of relevant views, and working out together the best way to proceed.
Based on his very different orientation to leadership, his election appears to be sparking a spontaneous interest, an excitement, really, among people in organizations and communities throughout the US and also abroad. People seem to be thinking, "What can I do to be part of this? How can I start working with others in a different way?"
We may look back on this time and realize that we were part of the Obama Tipping Point—the fundamental shift from top-down politics and structures, to working together toward shared visions and goals. But is this really possible? As Barack Obama would say, "Yes, we can!"
The lesson of the Katrina disaster, of course, is that the person in charge at FEMA did not do what was needed, nor did he make sure it was done. As one of many examples, out of 25,000 mobile homes the agency purchased for disaster refugee housing, only 1200 were actually used. Once the magnitude of this second disaster (the agency's tragic ineptness) became known, non-government relief efforts accelerated into action.
In a more recent disaster of a different kind, executives at financial institutions did not consider the untenable risks involved in extending mortgage credit to buyers who could not afford the payments. And the government regulators charged with overseeing the credit markets did not maintain control of those dangerous lending practices. Once the financial house of cards began to fall, the persons in charge stepped in with hundreds of billions of dollars to prop them up, but without oversight or conditions. At this writing, little or none of that money has gone to deal with the cause of the disaster, the high rate of housing foreclosures. Throughout all this, the rest of us watch the news reports, appalled. Where are the people in charge, and why are they not dealing with all this effectively?
A friend has pointed out that this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect: Their research on incompetent people demonstrated that they "reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it".
I have suggested, too, that such people tend to develop a kind of naïve arrogance, which often gets them elected or selected to leadership positions. Not a good combination when the times get tough, as they obviously have been! And more challenging conditions are on the way.
So what's to be done?
It seems clear from this perspective that none of us can any longer rest on the assumption that someone's in charge and will take care of things. The reality is that, actively or passively, we are all in charge. Each one of us has the responsibility to think about these questions, to talk with others about them, to learn what we need to about what is involved, and to engage in appropriate changes. This involves more horizontal coordination—among peers, friends, strangers, stake-holders. It's not easy. We haven't been educated or trained to work this way. But instead of being unconsciously incompetent, we are fully aware of the steep learning curve we are on. This is our strategic advantage.
Ironically, the person who will take on a position of authority in the US on January 20 seems to be a different kind of leader. He is very competent, but in a different, important way. He doesn't work from preconceived solutions and policies as much as from a commitment to bringing together the full range of relevant views, and working out together the best way to proceed.
Based on his very different orientation to leadership, his election appears to be sparking a spontaneous interest, an excitement, really, among people in organizations and communities throughout the US and also abroad. People seem to be thinking, "What can I do to be part of this? How can I start working with others in a different way?"
We may look back on this time and realize that we were part of the Obama Tipping Point—the fundamental shift from top-down politics and structures, to working together toward shared visions and goals. But is this really possible? As Barack Obama would say, "Yes, we can!"
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Assumption 8: Vertical or Horizontal Coordination
As you know, our world is primarily organized in ways that rely on vertical coordination. Someone with greater authority makes decisions, and others follow. And if two or more people disagree on anything, they take the question to someone "above" them, to avoid conflict by deciding for them.
Business organizations are generally structured as hierarchies of authority, with a CEO at the top directing an executive management group. Each of them, in turn, directs a group of middle managers, who direct groups below them, all the way down to supervisors and team leaders, who direct the people "on the shop floor" who actually "do the work." Everyone understands that managing is work too, but common usage is that people are either managers or workers. Still, managers understand all too well that managing is hard work. And it's getting harder.
As our world has accelerated, managers no longer have all the answers, and their direction tends to ignore or suppress the knowledge and information of group members who are doing the work. This sub-optimizes the potential for shared judgment and the effectiveness of the work group. It's the work group as a whole that can best generate the required information about needs and problems, and possible solutions. "No one knows as much as all of us."
But since our shared mindset has not yet changed, managers still get paid for deciding and directing, even though in most circumstances the consequences of their decisions are not easily evaluated. So, many managers cultivate the habit of hiding their confusion, and at least looking decisive. Decisiveness in a complex organizational environment is highly valued, and leads to promotions—all the way to the top. But decisiveness does not necessarily equate with good judgment, or wisdom. To make things worse, most people habitually collude in avoiding their own insecurity generated by complex, ambiguous situations by passively delegating upward to "the person in charge."
Public and not-for-profit organizations use the same framework, and generally try to emulate what they imagine is the efficiency and orderliness of business organizations. This, unfortunately, often leads them to become more "businesslike" and rule-bound, rather than more responsive and effective. Government organizations thus tend to be the most bureaucratic (that's where the word comes from—"we'll have to refer your request to the Bureau of Endless Red Tape.")
Schools and colleges have similar administrative structures, and also use this model within the classroom. The teacher or the professor knows more than the students, and conveys that information, usually via lectures, then verifies that students have acquired the requisite knowledge. The implicit learning that is transmitted, of course, is that the world functions as a hierarchy, and that those with more knowledge and authority direct the rest. Most schools thus prepare people to become passive factory workers—at least the factories of the past.
This vertical coordination model and its underlying assumptions have been termed "Design Principle One" by Fred Emery, Eric Trist, and others. In a ground-breaking study they discovered that teams of workers in a coal mine had developed a horizontal coordination approach. Without the help—or hindrance—of a supervisor, they worked out with each other how the day's work could best be done, and by whom. Rather than relying on skill specialization and division of labor among various team members, they learned continually from each other, and could perform most of the required functions as needed. When managers tried to return them to a "well organized" way of working directed by a supervisor, both their efficiency and morale declined markedly. Allowed to return to their own team-based approach, they regained their high performance.
Emery and Trist described this as the use of self-managed cross-functional teams, and termed the horizontal coordination approach "Design Principle Two." They discovered that it was based on both a high degree of teamwork and on the more effective task methods such teams devised, and continually improved. They termed these two components the social system (teamwork) and the technical system (work methods). Since the two elements were clearly interdependent, they coined the term socio-technical systems. They then found that they could engender change toward Design Principle Two by involving members of other organizations in a process they called Socio-Technic Systems Redesign.
Since that time, many successful STS Redesign projects have been carried out. At an auto assembly plant, for example, a whole team of workers rides on the assembly line and puts a car together from beginning to end. Then they proudly engrave their names on the engine block. Some businesses have derived such great improvements that they consider the new methods a significant competitive advantage, and are reluctant to allow visitors to their production facilities.
There have been relatively fewer applications in public and not-for-profit settings, though the potential benefit is great there, too. And educational institutions lag behind in this respect as well. What would happen, do you think, if a college emphasized collaborative shared learning among students—and among professors?
And what might emerge in a municipality, or a government agency such as, say, the FDA or FEMA, if it shifted away from vertical control and toward an approach of horizontal collaborative community, including employees, service recipients, and stake-holders?
One could say, in fact, that in some ways the National election we have been engaged in is about a choice between Design Principles One and Two.
Click on Comments to let us know what you think. This is a DP Two blog.
(If this note arrived in your email inbox, go to the blog site to post your comment.)
Business organizations are generally structured as hierarchies of authority, with a CEO at the top directing an executive management group. Each of them, in turn, directs a group of middle managers, who direct groups below them, all the way down to supervisors and team leaders, who direct the people "on the shop floor" who actually "do the work." Everyone understands that managing is work too, but common usage is that people are either managers or workers. Still, managers understand all too well that managing is hard work. And it's getting harder.
As our world has accelerated, managers no longer have all the answers, and their direction tends to ignore or suppress the knowledge and information of group members who are doing the work. This sub-optimizes the potential for shared judgment and the effectiveness of the work group. It's the work group as a whole that can best generate the required information about needs and problems, and possible solutions. "No one knows as much as all of us."
But since our shared mindset has not yet changed, managers still get paid for deciding and directing, even though in most circumstances the consequences of their decisions are not easily evaluated. So, many managers cultivate the habit of hiding their confusion, and at least looking decisive. Decisiveness in a complex organizational environment is highly valued, and leads to promotions—all the way to the top. But decisiveness does not necessarily equate with good judgment, or wisdom. To make things worse, most people habitually collude in avoiding their own insecurity generated by complex, ambiguous situations by passively delegating upward to "the person in charge."
Public and not-for-profit organizations use the same framework, and generally try to emulate what they imagine is the efficiency and orderliness of business organizations. This, unfortunately, often leads them to become more "businesslike" and rule-bound, rather than more responsive and effective. Government organizations thus tend to be the most bureaucratic (that's where the word comes from—"we'll have to refer your request to the Bureau of Endless Red Tape.")
Schools and colleges have similar administrative structures, and also use this model within the classroom. The teacher or the professor knows more than the students, and conveys that information, usually via lectures, then verifies that students have acquired the requisite knowledge. The implicit learning that is transmitted, of course, is that the world functions as a hierarchy, and that those with more knowledge and authority direct the rest. Most schools thus prepare people to become passive factory workers—at least the factories of the past.
This vertical coordination model and its underlying assumptions have been termed "Design Principle One" by Fred Emery, Eric Trist, and others. In a ground-breaking study they discovered that teams of workers in a coal mine had developed a horizontal coordination approach. Without the help—or hindrance—of a supervisor, they worked out with each other how the day's work could best be done, and by whom. Rather than relying on skill specialization and division of labor among various team members, they learned continually from each other, and could perform most of the required functions as needed. When managers tried to return them to a "well organized" way of working directed by a supervisor, both their efficiency and morale declined markedly. Allowed to return to their own team-based approach, they regained their high performance.
Emery and Trist described this as the use of self-managed cross-functional teams, and termed the horizontal coordination approach "Design Principle Two." They discovered that it was based on both a high degree of teamwork and on the more effective task methods such teams devised, and continually improved. They termed these two components the social system (teamwork) and the technical system (work methods). Since the two elements were clearly interdependent, they coined the term socio-technical systems. They then found that they could engender change toward Design Principle Two by involving members of other organizations in a process they called Socio-Technic Systems Redesign.
Since that time, many successful STS Redesign projects have been carried out. At an auto assembly plant, for example, a whole team of workers rides on the assembly line and puts a car together from beginning to end. Then they proudly engrave their names on the engine block. Some businesses have derived such great improvements that they consider the new methods a significant competitive advantage, and are reluctant to allow visitors to their production facilities.
There have been relatively fewer applications in public and not-for-profit settings, though the potential benefit is great there, too. And educational institutions lag behind in this respect as well. What would happen, do you think, if a college emphasized collaborative shared learning among students—and among professors?
And what might emerge in a municipality, or a government agency such as, say, the FDA or FEMA, if it shifted away from vertical control and toward an approach of horizontal collaborative community, including employees, service recipients, and stake-holders?
One could say, in fact, that in some ways the National election we have been engaged in is about a choice between Design Principles One and Two.
Click on Comments to let us know what you think. This is a DP Two blog.
(If this note arrived in your email inbox, go to the blog site to post your comment.)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Assumption 7: Information or Interaction
I was glad to be invited a couple of months ago to a half-day forum about climate change, convened at a friend's house. I didn't know most of the other participants, but I looked forward to getting acquainted, and perhaps finding ways we could join together to do what we could about this issue.
We convened in the large living room, and the two presenters sat on stools at the front of the room, near the large screen TV. They each had a music stand, with a many-page notebook on it. I began to sense I was watching a performance. One of the presenters had a remote control, with which he turned on the TV and cued a program, evidently on a DVD recording.
The video program had high production values--music, narration, etc. After showing a few minutes of the video, the presenter clicked off the program, and talked about the topic, turning the pages on his notebook as he went along. He and his co-presenter took turns reading and talking to us, and showing video segments about the growing problems of climate change, for about two hours. Then it was time for our break.
I was glad for the break. I was feeling pretty depressed about all the problems, and the growing dangers of climate change. And it was a relief to talk with others for a few minutes, instead of just listening passively. The second half of the program was more upbeat. Now we learned about people around the world who are working on ways to deal with the problems of global warming. The format of the session continued as before--mostly presentation of material, supported by video segments. Actually, I realized, we were primarily watching a well-produced video, with each segment being introduced by the presenters. The first half was the bad stuff, and the second half the good. A rational structure.
In this half of the program there were also a few activities. For example, we were invited to speak for five minutes with one or two people seated near us about our own assumptions and beliefs, and to report them out to the presenters and the group. Then we watched more video. Mostly we watched the video. Near the end, we received hand-made bracelets we could wear, signifying our commitment to a sustainable planet. And we got printed forms on which we could give feedback about the program by checking boxes, and writing a brief comment. Then it was over, and we adjourned to another room to enjoy refreshments and informal conversation.
After that I left, realizing I felt disappointed. I had received a lot of information about the growing problems of climate change, and about what many people and organizations are trying to do about it. I realized the material had been organized to convince participants that this is a serious problem, and to provide exemplary information about what they could and should do about it. But I already knew this is a problem. I think other participants did, too. And none of the examples of good programs gave me any sense of what I could do--on my own, or with others in the room. And we never got to talk about that with each other.
What I got from the session was a sense of affirmation--that I'm one of the good people who take this problem seriously, though I already knew that. I learned about some interesting Web sites, for further information. I felt a certain emptiness, though; a sense of disappointment. My brain had been engaged, but not my heart. And I had not connected with others in the group about how we might work together in our own communities to make a meaningful difference, at least locally. What a missed opportunity.
I was glad to learn that there are 108,000 Web sites on the net with material about climate change and sustainability, though I later looked briefly at only one of them. I did wear my bracelet a few times.
I wished we had spent one hour watching video material, and three hours talking with each other about our shared concerns, about our relevant talents and skills, and about how we could develop working relationships among us for taking constructive action in our community.
Why does this happen so often? People who are very intelligent and well educated make this kind of wrong choice--to present information, rather than to create meaningful interactive experiences. Our society seems to have a shared, unexamined assumption that problems are caused by a lack of information, and that therefore they can be solved by providing that information to people in a rational, well-produced program, with a logical structure.
Some of this probably comes from our early experience in school and college, where the emphasis has been on transmitting information from teacher to student, more than on supporting the learning process--the natural, genuine interest we have as human beings to learn about our world and to become relevant to it. Teaching methods have begun to change, at least at the edges, toward participative, interactive learning. But we have generations of people who grew up in the information-based paradigm (ok; I used the P word) whose orientation is still to transmit content, rather than to create a learning process.
The information overload we received as students only made us feel overwhelmed and stupid, but the teachers seemed so powerful and confident. So we go into meetings armed with PowerPoint presentations, with 72 slides and 12 bullet points on each one. We no longer expect real change from this information transmittal, but at least we feel more confident in the knowledge that we compiled all the data and presented it in a way that seemed professional.
We already have too much information. What gives me hope for improvement and motivates me to change my behavior is not information, but a sense of engagement, along with people I feel connected to. Not information, but interaction.
So I'm inviting your interaction about these questions. I hope you'll click on Comments and participate in this shared learning.
We convened in the large living room, and the two presenters sat on stools at the front of the room, near the large screen TV. They each had a music stand, with a many-page notebook on it. I began to sense I was watching a performance. One of the presenters had a remote control, with which he turned on the TV and cued a program, evidently on a DVD recording.
The video program had high production values--music, narration, etc. After showing a few minutes of the video, the presenter clicked off the program, and talked about the topic, turning the pages on his notebook as he went along. He and his co-presenter took turns reading and talking to us, and showing video segments about the growing problems of climate change, for about two hours. Then it was time for our break.
I was glad for the break. I was feeling pretty depressed about all the problems, and the growing dangers of climate change. And it was a relief to talk with others for a few minutes, instead of just listening passively. The second half of the program was more upbeat. Now we learned about people around the world who are working on ways to deal with the problems of global warming. The format of the session continued as before--mostly presentation of material, supported by video segments. Actually, I realized, we were primarily watching a well-produced video, with each segment being introduced by the presenters. The first half was the bad stuff, and the second half the good. A rational structure.
In this half of the program there were also a few activities. For example, we were invited to speak for five minutes with one or two people seated near us about our own assumptions and beliefs, and to report them out to the presenters and the group. Then we watched more video. Mostly we watched the video. Near the end, we received hand-made bracelets we could wear, signifying our commitment to a sustainable planet. And we got printed forms on which we could give feedback about the program by checking boxes, and writing a brief comment. Then it was over, and we adjourned to another room to enjoy refreshments and informal conversation.
After that I left, realizing I felt disappointed. I had received a lot of information about the growing problems of climate change, and about what many people and organizations are trying to do about it. I realized the material had been organized to convince participants that this is a serious problem, and to provide exemplary information about what they could and should do about it. But I already knew this is a problem. I think other participants did, too. And none of the examples of good programs gave me any sense of what I could do--on my own, or with others in the room. And we never got to talk about that with each other.
What I got from the session was a sense of affirmation--that I'm one of the good people who take this problem seriously, though I already knew that. I learned about some interesting Web sites, for further information. I felt a certain emptiness, though; a sense of disappointment. My brain had been engaged, but not my heart. And I had not connected with others in the group about how we might work together in our own communities to make a meaningful difference, at least locally. What a missed opportunity.
I was glad to learn that there are 108,000 Web sites on the net with material about climate change and sustainability, though I later looked briefly at only one of them. I did wear my bracelet a few times.
I wished we had spent one hour watching video material, and three hours talking with each other about our shared concerns, about our relevant talents and skills, and about how we could develop working relationships among us for taking constructive action in our community.
Why does this happen so often? People who are very intelligent and well educated make this kind of wrong choice--to present information, rather than to create meaningful interactive experiences. Our society seems to have a shared, unexamined assumption that problems are caused by a lack of information, and that therefore they can be solved by providing that information to people in a rational, well-produced program, with a logical structure.
Some of this probably comes from our early experience in school and college, where the emphasis has been on transmitting information from teacher to student, more than on supporting the learning process--the natural, genuine interest we have as human beings to learn about our world and to become relevant to it. Teaching methods have begun to change, at least at the edges, toward participative, interactive learning. But we have generations of people who grew up in the information-based paradigm (ok; I used the P word) whose orientation is still to transmit content, rather than to create a learning process.
The information overload we received as students only made us feel overwhelmed and stupid, but the teachers seemed so powerful and confident. So we go into meetings armed with PowerPoint presentations, with 72 slides and 12 bullet points on each one. We no longer expect real change from this information transmittal, but at least we feel more confident in the knowledge that we compiled all the data and presented it in a way that seemed professional.
We already have too much information. What gives me hope for improvement and motivates me to change my behavior is not information, but a sense of engagement, along with people I feel connected to. Not information, but interaction.
So I'm inviting your interaction about these questions. I hope you'll click on Comments and participate in this shared learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
