Another example of the shadow conversation for Invitation is about what we can do on our own. We need to be careful about isolation and protectiveness as ways of limiting our resources and the possibilities of scale. Underutilized abundance exists in every community. Engaging it is a worthy conversation.
Archive for the 'Questions' Category
One of the theme of Radical Transitions that resonates with people that we share the model with is the realization that their process is stuck in what we refer to as a shadow conversation—conversations that can’t build community. Last night I was talking with someone whose group is bogged down trying to build consensus for a new logo and tagline that will be used to market a district. What to do about it? We propose:
The reality is that we don’t need to agree on everything for any of us to take action in the direction of our dreams. There are many small acts and invitations that do not require permission, support, or even interest from the whole.
Could that work for your group?
Not sure if Ed Morrison’s taken a look at this blog or the wiki, but he’s another practitioner who’s work can be described by AIM. These are comments from a post on my blog. From Jack Ricchiuto:
What is it, Ed, that distinguishes other regions and leaders who are further ahead in green policies and structures? Are they more knowledgeable about green, are they more connected to the green professionals in the community, do they have more of a personal passion for things green? Or something else? I ask because you have a perspective on other regions that many others don’t have here in this region. Most importantly, when I happen to have the attention of a policy maker here, or someone in their first circle, what can I say or ask that can shift consciousness?
Ed Morrison replies:
Jack, thanks for the question. As usual, you have provoked me to think.I would characterize the difference in regions as “the capacity to act”. Regions that are moving ahead with renewal have found the capacity to act. The capacity to act emerges from a widely shared responsibility to act and a an equally shared commitment to collaborate.
We’re all familiar with the “incapacity to act”. Organizations, communities, regions get stuck. Issues never seem to get resolved. Plans, often elaborate, get made but implementation fails. Action rarely follows. Worse still, we lose track of our priorities, and no one is quite able to explain why plans “sit on the shelf”.
The incapacity to act is characterized by several patterns. They include denial (we don’t have a problem), procrastination (this issue is not so important), suppression (the problem exists, but people are not able to share in finding solutions), complacency (leaders recognize the problem, but nobody believes it will change, so nothing is done), confusion (leaders are unable to pick among many competing priorities), blame (we tried our best, but someone else undercut our efforts)…
What questions are you asking that provoke transitions?
From these four observations:
1/ Until a community learns how to have new conversations together, it will act in fragmented ways
2/ Fragmentation is the source of most issues we call “problems” in a community
3/ New conversations do not depend on politics or economics, but rather on the willingness of people to have new conversations
4/ Conversations that create a new future together are conversations about our dreams, small acts, our gifts, and invitations
Questions emerge:
What are the old conversations in this community that have been unproductive or fragmenting for the community?
Why do you think these conversations have lacked power?
Who else’s dreams and gifts in the community have also not been engaged by these conversations?
Where is your community at discussing these questions?
Latest Comments