The same issues or topics keep coming up-but without resolution?
The conversations in the corridors or at tea are not being held in the meetings?
The leadership and project teams try and progress but get stuck as the real issues are avoided?
Whether you are a leader, a coach, a facilitator, a consultant or simply a member of a team – Deep Democracy offers both a set of innovative tools and a world view that will enhance your effectiveness across all dimensions.
Deep Democracy is based on the work of psychologist and physicist, Arnold Mindell, whose concepts and principals have been demystified and adapted for laymen by clinical psychologists Myrna Lewis and her late husband Greg.
On a practical level Deep Democracy is an advanced form of facilitation that can be used by in a variety of ways to help both groups and individuals.
The Deep Democracy process differs from traditional problem-resolution techniques and classic (majority wins) democracy in that it doesn’t strive for compromise. Instead, it aims to build a real consensus across a group – a consensus which recognizes and takes note of the wisdom inherent in the minority’s viewpoint(s), rather than simply ignoring it or overriding it. Different too, from the main emphasis of large group intervention methodologies, in that it focuses heavily on the emotional, rather than rational level and aims to heighten awareness at an individual and group level of the secondary, or unconscious, processes occurring, as these more often than not hold the key to real progress.
Through a highly experiential approach you will gain awareness and experience of group dynamics and decision-making in groups.
Goals of the White and Yellow Belt training
The White and Yellow belt is the first level of training and provides the foundation for using this methodology.
Although each course follows its own unique path, you will learn how to:
Ø Improve group decision making and buy-in
Ø Read the dynamics affecting group interactions
Ø Inspire participation from everyone in your group
Ø Engage a group to create better quality decisions and reduce the ‘terrorist activity’ of disaffected group members, undermining the effectiveness of the group
Ø Recognise when there are underlying tensions and issues in the group that are getting in the way, and how to deal with them
Ø Gain the hidden wisdom of the minority
Ø Bring new creativity into your business, family and social circle
Ø Uncover inner resources you never knew you had
Who will benefit from attending?
This course is intended for consultants, coaches, managers, leaders and others who are interested in developing their skills in dealing with groups, making decisions and resolving conflict in order to promote change and transformation.
Deep Democracy is based on U.S. psychologist Arnold Mindell’s innovative work in Process Orientated Psychology. Myrna Lewis and her late husband, Greg, trained with Mindell in the early 1990s and as corporate consultants, they applied what they had learned to a unique situation: South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy in 1994.
The Lewises responded to these enormous challenges by adapting the complex science of Mindell’s Process Orientated Psychology and applying it to help a large national utility company make the leap into the New South Africa.
After Greg died in 2002, Myrna continued to refine the techniques they had created together to hone Deep Democracy into the straightforward, five-step methodology it is today.
In 2007 Deep Democracy was one of the 80 innovations show-cased in a United Nations publication “Africa Leads” as one of the innovations coming out of Africa.
Deep Democracy spread very quickly to other South African companies and beyond the South African borders. In 2007, Capgemini UK, one of the top 4 consulting firms consisting of over 50 000 consultants worldwide, incorporated Deep Democracy in their training technology. Today Deep Democracy is being used in 20 different countries from South Africa to Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and India – from boardroom to classroom.
About the course instructor
Myrna Lewis has a B.A. degree in Social Work, Honours in Psychology and Masters Degree in Clinical Psychology. In 2001 Myrna received the Ashoka award from Ashoka Washington, USA. Ashoka recognises individuals who through their personal endeavours, uplift communities and facilitate social change. In 2008, Myrna was a finalist in the South African Women of the Year award and she also published her book “Inside the NO – Five Steps to Decisions that Last”.
by Ron Bauer - Tuesday, 15 December 2009, 03:10 PM
Anyone in the world
I am a Change Management consultant. I work with individuals, teams and organizations helping to co-create dynamic teams and active leadership developoment for lasting change. www.bauer@bauerchangemanagement.com
According to conventional wisdom the world is changing at an ever faster rate, organizations must adapt to this change in order to survive, and management’s prime responsibility is to avoid impending doom by making these changes happen.
Just about any book on management written since the seventies (and possibly before, I didn’t check) asserts this doctrine - usually somewhere near page one - providing convenient context and suitable concern to compel the reader to digest the rest of the oeuvre (which they presumably ignore at their peril).
We hear that “the extent, type and pace of change are breathtaking as well as terrifying.” Or: “The amount of significant, often traumatic, change in organizations has grown tremendously over the past two decades”. Sometimes very specific, like: “The advertising industry is passing through one of the most disorienting periods in its history”. Or a little broader in scope: “The planet has seen unprecedented change”.
This meta-narrative of “unprecedented change” is believed by scholars, written down by their students, regurgitated in the media, and gladly picked up by executives to provide justification for specific change efforts (aka “corporate transformations”). Politicians are not immune to this affliction either, as demonstrated by the apparent addiction of the Obama administration to employing the word “unprecedented” with the fervor of a teenager’s use of “like”.
Never, however, is there any proof offered that the speed of change has increased, or that the changes we experience have more dramatic implications than in other times.
Authors claiming “unprecedented change” typically refer to something like the last 30 years and cite, depending on their particular field of interest: the internet, mobile communications, the end of the Cold War, AIDS, September 11 and the war on terror, globalization, or the series of financial busts ranging from the ‘87 crash, to the internet bubble and the current financial crisis.
Granted – that is impressive! But have anterior periods been any less fraught with change?
Let’s have a look. The period of the 50s, 60s and 70s presents us with (in no particular order): de-colonization, sexual revolution, Civil Rights and Women’s Lib, baby boom, Vietnam and Watergate, Rock & Roll and Woodstock generation, oil shocks, mass consumerism, the rush to the suburbs, Cold War, proliferation of computers, and the space race. Not exactly small feats either.
So perhaps is this transformational expediency a phenomenon that has been going on for a little longer than we first thought? Looking another thirty-odd years back we encounter the automobile, Total War and atom bomb, the Jazz age and the roaring 20s, communism and fascism, depression, moving pictures, radio, television, holocaust and mass migration, the airplane, modern art.
Ok, at this point we may concede that the whole last century has been pretty changy. But surely we must find the serenity of the olden days, when mankind was innocently wallowing in complacency, somewhere?
The late 18th century perhaps? Not really: Enlightenment, secularization, American Revolution, French revolution, abolishment of slavery (in Europe, that is), in fact the 18th century is frequently labeled the “age of Reason and Change [sic]”.
Way back then, for example the early 16th century? No such luck: colonization of America (and other places), protestant reformation, Renaissance culture, the discovery that the Earth moves around the sun, first flush toilets (!)…
None of this is to deny that change occurs. Of course it does - already more than 2,500 years ago the Greek philosopher Heraclitus developed a doctrine of change being central to the universe: “Everything flows, nothing stands still. The only thing that doesn’t change and perish is change itself”.
In fact, that change is a key topic echoing throughout the ages is proof to the point that this is by no means a recent phenomenon, nor accelerating in a way that “is not even linear[1]” as some scholars like to put it.
Unprecedented change is just a myth.
But we still use it as a comforting ritual chant – something to cling to, that sounds familiar – when we do the magic that is managing people and organizations.
[1] e.g. John Kotter, in an August2008 interview with Harvard Business Publishing editor Paul Michelman
by Ivan Overton - Friday, 9 October 2009, 03:50 AM
Anyone in the world
We often use the metaphor of stakeholders “being on board”. However, how communication is managed on large projects may not always lead to this outcome.
If you want all of your stakeholders to come on board, your train must depart from where the stakeholders are. This seems so obvious, yet it is one of the most common mistakes made in change projects. We all approach life from within our own perspective – each of us have a unique set of knowledge, assumptions, beliefs, values, habits, norms, personality traits, perceptions, fears, hopes, quirks, strengths and weaknesses. Perspectives can differ so greatly that it can be extremely difficult (or even sometimes virtually impossible) for us to understand the perspectives that others have.
When a project team works together, there are strong influences at play that serve to at least partially align perspectives. Team members often spend significant amounts of time together, sometimes under rather difficult conditions. They usually come to realise that they have to depend on each other and that their destinies are linked. Because they are so intimately involved in the process, they usually “buy in” to the project very strongly and at an early stage. A project team therefore tends to develop overlapping areas of shared perspective, and also advances quite rapidly ahead of where the bulk of stakeholders are, creating a large gap in relative understanding and relative acceptance with regard to the project.
This might make it very difficult for the project team to effectively engage with stakeholders:
Project teams tend to be passionate (and therefore to communicate) about what is important to them (the business case, project phases and key milestones, the composition of the project team, the importance of buy in and support from stakeholders) instead of what is important to stakeholders (how will this affect me, when will I need to do what, how does this relate to everything else happening in the company).
Most project teams rapidly develop a specialised “language” which is different to what most stakeholders are used to. Acromyms and specialised terminology present a significant barrier to stakeholders who are not part of the project team and therefore have not learnt to the new “language”.
The attitudes of project team members toward the project are usually very different to the attitudes that most stakeholders have. Project team members may overestimate the extent to which stakeholders will support the project, and may feel resentful when stakeholders assign a low priority to the project, show poor support and commitment or even resist the project. From the stakeholder point of view, project team members might appear to be unrealistically optimistic, to act in their own self-interest or as if they have a hidden agenda, and be regarded as being manipulative.
The project world is very different to the “business as usual” world. In the project world there is greater urgency: Plans change often and with little notice, it is taken for granted that people will go to extraordinary effort to get things done in time, and it is acceptable to schedule meetings after hours and at the last minute. This same behaviour in the “business as usual” world is regarded as being inconsiderate and disruptive. This may result in a situation where project members see business resources as being lazy, uncaring and uncooperative, and business resources see project members as being arrogant, pushy, rude and self-important.
The challenge is not only that there tends to be a large gap between the point of departure of the project team and the point of departure of stakeholders who are not part of the project team – a further complication is that perspectives will change over time, and what might be an entirely appropriate strategy for stakeholder engagement at one point in time may not be appropriate two months later. As stakeholders progress with regard to their understanding of the project and its consequences, their information needs will change and they will require increasing amounts of personal interaction.
In a classic psychology experiment, Elizabeth Newton asked college students to participate in an experiment in one of two roles: “tappers” and “listeners.” Tappers received a list of 25 well-known songs and were asked to tap out the rhythm of one song. Listeners had to try to guess the song from the taps. Each tapper reported that he/she could clearly discern which song they were tapping. When they were asked to predict how many songs listeners would correctly identify, they predicted 50 percent. However, listeners had a much harder time than predicted – to them what was being tapped was not at all obvious. Of all the songs tapped out, listeners correctly guessed only 3 percent. Communicators tend to grossly overestimate the clarity of their message – because they already “got it”, it makes the task of “getting it” seem easier than it really is.
The obstacles listed here can be partially overcome by addressing them directly – for example, by reminding the project team not to use acronyms and unknown terminology when dealing with stakeholders, or by ensuring that more time is spent in understanding the perspective of the recipients of project communication. However, this is like dealing with a leaking roof by placing buckets under the leak rather than simply fixing the leak. A more effective primary approach is to ensure that there is truly effective dialogue between the project and its stakeholders, and then to assist the project team in responding appropriately to the feedback they receive. If listeners in the experiment related above were allowed to provide feedback to the tappers as they were tapping, it is likely that the number of listeners who “got it” would have been much higher, provided that the tappers were willing and able to modify how they were communicating (by also humming or whistling, for example).
With this article, I start a series about change models (which has originally been published on the Change Management Blog).
Background:
The 4-D Model is based on Appreciative Inquiry (AI) which is a larger framework for human or organizational change. Like AI itself, it is based on a shift in paradigms on human interaction. The core can be captured in the idea that we create the world as we describe it. If many people in an organization think that this is a torture chamber, they will feel physical pain when they enter the door of this organization. If the same people think this is a great place to work, it will be.
Alana Karran writes about the difference between problem and outcome orientation approaches:
The other primary orientation is the Outcome Orientation, also known as the Collaborative-Creating Orientation. The focus of this orientation is the vision of the organization. What is focused on has a great impact on the emergent experience. Focus, or intention evokes an emotional response that drives behavior. This behavior reinforces the intention. Because systems are circular and feedback loops return to their point of orientation, this cycle continues indefinitely unless there is a change of focus. The principle of feedforward also applies, as the focus influences the future.
In the Collaborative-Creating Orientation, focusing on the vision engages passion and desire to manifest the intended outcome. When members of an organization have a shared vision and shared meaning this passion infuses the entire system because what affects a part, affects the whole. Biological systems are creative in nature and creativity happens collaboratively, most often in some form of community. Highly functioning organizations with a deep sense of community thrive from this orientation as the vision sparks passion, which creates authentic action moving the whole system closer to the vision exponentially.
Creators of the Model: Suresh Srivastva, Ron Fry, and David Cooperrider, 1990 Phases of the Change Process: (taken from new-paradigm.co.uk) Discover—people talk to one another, often via structured interviews, to discover the times when the organisation is at its best. These stories are told as richly as possible. Dream—the dream phase is often run as a large group conference where people are encouraged to envision the organisation as if the peak moments discovered in the ‘discover’ phase were the norm rather than exceptional. Design—a small team is empowered to go away and design ways of creating the organisation dreamed in the conference(s). Destiny—the final phase is to implement the changes.
Does the Model Relate to Complexity Theory? AI and the 4D-Model are deeply rooted in complexity theory. The underlying principle of simultaneity (change of mind and change of organizations happen at the same time) and the principle of poetry (the story of organizations can be recreated in conversations) relate to a basic systemic process: organizations can not be described as the sum of its parts but only as a whole. Applicability: The model has been applied to many different kind of organizations, from the profit (e.g., British Airways) and non-profit (United Nations) sectors. It is suitable for a wide range of transformation processes, including quality management, vision/mission/value creation, improvement of collaboration, etc. Strengths:
The 4D-model works with what exists already in organizations. People can easily relate to their past success stories and link them to what they want for the future.
It is highly participatory and inclusive and respects different views and values.
The results of a 4D process are directly action oriented.
It creates energy and enhances motivation of people involved.
Weaknesses:
The model is more related to the past and present than to the future.
It does not include a wake-up call. Problems and challenges, although not denied, do not receive the same attention than visions.
The quality of results varies and depends on many factors. AI requires a highly skilled facilitator to make sure that the output of the process satisfies the expectations of the process owner.
by Ivan Overton - Wednesday, 2 September 2009, 05:53 AM
Anyone in the world
I am a dyed-in-the-wool change consultant. This is what I’ve chosen to do some 15 years ago, and I’ve stuck to it ever since. I have some opinions on the art and science of change management, and while I would never call myself an expert (or heavens forbid, a guru) at anything, I know I’ve paid enough dues to feel that I’m no longer a beginner at this.
The nice thing about being where I am now in my career is that I have a sense of calmness about the work I do, a quiet confidence that developed over time. Of course, that’s not to say I don’t sometimes feel stressed out by sheer volume of work or crazy timelines, or that I’ve managed to find an antidote to all of the normal frustrations that beset the lives of all change managers. I suppose that the key thing I’ve learnt with regard to the latter is that it is about winning, not about being right.
On the inevitable other side of the coin, the drawback of where I find myself now in my career is that there is a danger of an increasing sense of “been there done that” creeping in. The patterns become familiar, the work less challenging and “exciting” than it used to be on the steeper part of the learning curve.
I think the challenge is to keep on reinventing, to always strive to do the work better and better, and never to settle for “this is the best and only way to do things”. It’s almost like playing a video game all the way up to the top level, and then creating 10 more levels above that, and ten more above that, ad infinitum. You are never finished with learning and improving, and that keeps things interesting.
To be able to create those extra 10 levels, you have to open your mind to the possibility, you have to be willing to take the risk and put in the extra effort, and you have to retain a realistic sense of humility about it all. For this reason I feel some pity for those who proclaim themselves to be “experts” and believe that they know most of what there is to know in any particular discipline. For them it must be like playing the same video game over and over and over.
While “Change management” is still the most commonly used term to describe our field of practice, there are many practitioners and scholars who object to this, pointing out that “change cannot be managed”, and insisting on alternative terms such as “facilitation of change” or “change leadership”.
Of course, these practitioners and scholars have a valid point – the emergence of new paradigms in science (notably quantum physics and chaos theory, which actually have roots that date back to the 1800’s), have increasingly made the limitations of Newtonian cause and effect thinking apparent. Even change in relatively simple systems (such a bowl of water into which a stone is dropped) exhibits unpredictable, chaotic patterns.
In the infinitely more complex systems of human society, change always has outcomes that were not predictable and hence could not be managed in the direct sense. If one conceives of “change management” as a means by which change and change outcomes can be managed in a direct sense, it would be a fallacy with potentially disappointing consequences for those who set forth to achieve this. It is not the change that is managed in change management, but the process of change - this is a very significant distinction.
Human psychology seems to have a great affinity for predictable patterns, for the security of cause and effect. It is very hard for us to accept that, despite our most earnest efforts, in reality we are bobbing along a turbulent river of unforeseen events that flows where it will. To quote the character Dr. Claire Lewicki in the movie Days of Thunder (for me fiction often seems to illuminate real life with greater clarity than scholarly work): “Control is an illusion, you infantile ego-maniac. Nobody knows what's gonna happen next: not on a freeway, not in an airplane, not inside our own bodies and certainly not on a racetrack with 40 other infantile egomaniacs”. Indeed. We also don’t really know what will happen next on our implementation projects, corporate restructurings, mergers, or productivity improvement initiatives. Because of the unpredictability associated with any complex change initiative, we have to ensure that we manage the process of change appropriately - above all, this implies that we need to remain eminently flexible.
Yet we seem to keep on diving into the spin dryer headfirst, armed with neat change methodologies, comprehensive theories, consult-by-numbers approaches (in this case only some of us, thankfully!), clever tools, 400 line project plans and detailed budgets. Behind the reasssuring facade of predictability and certainty created by these artifacts, we change practitioners then have to face the chaos and simply must make do, with no small measure of quiet desperation. The really good change practitioners are able to create some sense of rhythm and structure amidst the chaos, and can rapidly accommodate changing circumstances by changing their approaches. Less experienced and/or talented change practitioners (or those unfortunate enough to be working within strict cookie-cutter frameworks imposed by their firms) are doomed to mechanically plod through an increasingly irrelevant change approach determined by the original proposal (which ironically was developed when the least information was available about the initiative).
If a change methodology or approach becomes fixed at the level of execution (i.e. the typical level of detail that would appear in a project plan), it will rapidly become irrelevant. We must allow for ongoing dynamic change in our approaches to change management to accommodate the inevitable turbulence. This does not mean we don’t have to plan. It just means we have to plan appropriately.
Before I explain what “planning appropriately” means for me, let’s consider Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 – widely regarded to be one of his finest works and written in 1788 (bear with me on this, it does go somewhere!). Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 has been performed again and again by different orchestras over hundreds of years with only relatively small differences in interpretation. As they start with the very first note of the first movement, each player in the orchestra already have mapped out in their minds how the entire performance will play out. This would make a very poor metaphor for change management. A far more appropriate metaphor would be a game of chess: The chess pieces do have specific ways of moving, there are rules governing the game and you can learn different strategies to employ in different situations. However, you only plan a few moves ahead (with your immediate next move being fairly certain and succeeding moves decreasing in certainty). Every time your opponent makes a move, you re-evaluate and possibly re-plan.
For me, planning appropriately therefore means
Having a clearly defined and simple overall approach (which describes at a high level what you are trying to achieve – Kotter’s 8 Steps would be a good example of this). Ideally, you should not only have one approach, but should rather be able to select from a number of proven approaches to obtain the best fit for the client. If the client already has a workable approach that is well embedded in the organisation, this should be adopted – insisting on using your own approach in such circumstances is to my mind incredibly arrogant and doubtlessly not in the client’s interests.
Translating this approach into a more specific (but still high level) plan that relates to the unique circumstances of the initiative you are planning for. This could be represented on a single PowerPoint slide where the major change management activities and outcomes are mapped to the initiative timeline.
Developing a “bare bones” project plan that will allow for progress tracking and easy updating but does not fix activities at the execution level. How much value is there in a detailed project plan that specifies that the change practitioner will spend next Thursday afternoon between 12h00 and 16h00 drafting an article for the company newsletter? If change practitioners are truly in step with what is happening on the change initiative, it is a certainty that such very detailed project plans will have to change very frequently. Project plans are usually baselined and subjected to change control that makes frequent changes quite onerous if not impossible. If you plan change management activities at a very detailed level in the formal project plan you will be wasting precious time that could have been better utilized in delivering real value to the client, but far worse, you could limit your flexibility.
Having a short-term (two to four weeks) detailed action plan that can be quickly and easily updated following at least weekly reviews. This action plan is used by the change management team and can be managed in a desktop application like Excel (not my first prize) or on an online web-based system (far more effective). It relates to the higher-level detail captured in the “bare bones” project plan and facilitates easy updating of status reports and progress statistics, assigns responsibility and due dates and tracks progress against this but allows significant flexibility in detailed change management planning.
I work as a Change Control Coordinator for a tier one automotive company. Our change management system is based on excel sheets and e-mails. It is very hard to keep track of all changes and their progression through the system we have. I was looking for any webbased database system to support this. Any one has any experience in this matter ? If you do, please share.
Deep Democracy White & Yellow Belt
