Translating that antagonism and withdrawal as a concern involves simply saying something like, “Oh, ok, what’s your concern?” Then the person has to go into their internal response – into that felt sense of concern – and say what it is that’s going on that makes them so concerned. That brings that information up into the group consciousness for everyone to consider.
This approach releases adversarial energy, objection, disagreements – that adverserial, clashy, pulling apart kind of energy – and goes: “OK, let’s attend to this together and collaboratively address it“. If you can satisfy a concern – whatever its source – even if you just take it seriously and address it seriously – that makes the person with the concern feel heard. Even if their concern is not satisfied, if it is just addressed really well, if people take it seriously – there’s a deep shift that takes place. There is something about people psychologically identifying themselves with their concerns. Their concerns are part of who they legitimately think themselves to be – they see themselves as concerned because something good needs to happen and it isn’t going to happen unless their concern is taken care of. They are thinking of themselves as a good person and trying to speak for something that is trying to be good. All that psychological intensity is bound up with their concern.
Part of the power of all this is that a concern is fundamentally about caring. If you are concerned, you care. And if you have a concern about something it is because you care about the thing that the concern is attached to. So one of the most powerful things about concern – the term and the concept of concern and it’s role in generating wisdom – is that it is fundamentally about what people care about. That caring is a source of insight and collaborative power – if you can tap it.
So when someone’s concern is really heard by the group, there is tremendous validation and resurgence of life energy and renewed willingness to be absorbed into and move with the energy of the group. Each concern that somebody has is a piece of something that needs to be taken into account in order to have longterm broad benefit. It is a piece of the puzzle. So both from an informational perspective and a psychological perspective this is a really important phenomenon.
From my work so far in the last 20-30 years I’ve concluded that concerns hold a truly vital key. If we can focus on that, we’ll make progress. Unfortunately, I don’t know how it is in other languages, if they have a comparable word or concept. In English the word “concern“ and its usage – as described above – offers powerful leverage that covers a lot of ground. That is what I would say both in terms of the wisdom of the decision – how well we include different factors that need to be taken into account – AND the mustering of support for actually getting the decision implemented. If you really address concerns well, you will have better collaboration to implement a decision that is pretty wise to begin with.
My initial breakthrough insight into this came during a Dynamic Facilitation training I was part of in November 1999. We were practicing facilitating our feelings and ideas about the American health care system. This guy behind me started out by saying, “We’ve got to keep it out of the hands of the government, because the government ruins everything“ …and I turned around and told him, “You are full of shit!“
The facilitator immediately moved right up to me and said, with remarkable interest: “What is your concern? Give it to me“ – motioning with her hand, with a “give it to me” gesture. As I turned around to tell her what my concern was, I was very aware – watching myself and the guy and the facilitator in this interaction and process – that what she was doing was a brilliant Aikido move. All the energy I used to put this guy down instantly evaporated and she was simply gathering information that I had and that the group needed. Everybody was safe and the conversation flowed onward. Woo! I was blown away. I realized instantly that that way of handling things is incredibly potent.
I began to notice that phenomenon elsewhere. I noted its use in a simple consensus question that makes it unnecessary to vote. It is like the opposite of voting, the inside out of voting. Instead of unanimous voting, you arrive at the simple fact of unity. It goes like this: After much discussion the facilitator may notice that there seems to be a shared solution showing up. She will say something like, “It seems there’s some agreement emerging that we should handle the situation like X . . . . Does anybody have any concerns about that?“ This is not a rhetorical question. The facilitator is actually actively soliciting concerns, any concerns at all. If nobody has any concerns, then the group knows what its solution is. If there are concerns, they are addressed until there aren’t any more. This is such a beautiful and very smooth kind of move – and it doesn’t involve voting. So I think of Dynamic Facilitation and that kind of Consensus Process as particularly potent, using the same basic tool.
I also have proposal for a deliberative online game that is designed for diverse people who form into online teams. The members generate proposals to address an issue and then generate concerns about each other’s proposals and then work together to satisfy those concerns. The most diverse teams who come up with the most agreed-on proposals get the most points in the game. This hasn’t been tested yet, but I think it could be a powerful form of leverage to address concerns explicitly and show how diverse people could work together. It just might also generate solutions to social problems that people might want to organize around and actually get adopted in the real world!
I started with card one and your edited text to the video. framing objections expressions of caring is very meaningful to me. My typical reaction to objections is defensiveness. I am going to practice using the words caring and object as being synonymous. I will let you know if that helps.
I’m glad you are trying this out, Lou. Let me know how it goes. I find the word “concern” useful for translating their negatively expressed caring, as in (with real curiosity) “What’s your concern?” or “I’m interested in your concern here.”
WOW! What an amazing discussion. See what you have started Tom!
In some of my posting, I begin by working my way through specific cards. However, now, I simply started card 1. This is a vital starting point.
Points of view, leading to specific concerns means powerful listening. But if we expand this a bit, we might look beyond human concerns and explore (and welcome, if not embrace) planetary concerns.
The description above reads, ‘…Objections and disagreements usually arise from failure to take into account someone’s needs…’ But this would appear to limit such concerns to someONE. Can I construe this to refer to humans only?
If we link this in with card 57, Nature First, how might All Concerns Addressed apply to those on our planet without an explicit voice. Non-human species, all plant life, microscopic creatures of all varieties, soil and the remainder of the planet.
Can we seriously address the concerns of species going extinct through our species’ actions and lifestyles? We could link this is with card 4, Big Empathy. Might we learn some things from plant life (above as well as below ground) in line with card 63, the Power of Listening in different ways that include the more-than-human surrounding ourselves? How could we include microscopic creatures, if we not only cannot see them directly, but with card 46, we consider Inclusive Stakeholder (what stronger stakeholder than our gut biome?) Governance?
Wise democrary on planet earth should start taking non-human life on earth seriously. Otherwise, how can it truly be called ‘wise’?
brian
I love it, I love it, I love it! Thanks so much for this vitally creative weaving of patterns, Brian!! For totally human-centered people, this framing will be alien. But for an increasing number of people who see human-centric civilization as a dead-end street, this reframing will be a coming home to what’s really important. Many Native American tribes speak of “all my relations” – which includes the deer people, the fish people, the bird people, the tree people and reed people – even the rock people and river people – all are seen as alive, all are considered family. And then there are future generations: as William McDonough asks “How do we love all the children of all species for all time?” In a conversation today I wondered what would shift if we spoke of species extinctions as genocides (estimated at 10,000-100,000 every year!). We have so much to learn in order to “take into account what needs to be taken into account for long-term broad benefit”!
For years, I’ve told my mediation clients (no secrets) that often a first step in resolving a dispute can be simply getting everything (all concerns) out “on the table” (using a sketchy gesture to an actual table) so that we can all work on them together. Even if sometimes those concerns are identified with adversarial energy, they CAN get set up on the table and then worked on with all the cooperative tools and skills we can bring to bear. Also, with a little coaching, people often can begin to use the language of “from my perspective,” no matter what energy they are bringing. My practice has focused on interpersonal elements of disputes, but I’m looking forward in this class to exploring both interpersonal and larger scale situations by discovering how unfamiliar patterns work. Side note: You really need to trust that (all) people have it within them to do this work–and provide guidance and patience to help them discover that truth.
Right, Holly. And it reminds me that the WDPL prime directive – evoking and engaging the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole – contains within its phrasing the idea that most if not all of that wisdom and that resourcefulness are contained within the people, community, system, predicament, whatever – and just need to be evoked and engaged. Counter-intuitively enough, their concerns contain some of that wisdom and resource-full energy, waiting for us to unpack them!
I think that choosing to express and address concerns, as opposed to contributing to and disseminating adversarial energy, is another way of expressing love towards others and towards ourselves. That which is not in harmony with God’s love, must be faced, acknowledged and challenged, if we are to embrace truth in all things.
This is true from a personal perspective. AND, part of the power of good group process is that it will do that reframing or evocatively welcome that expression or guide that addressing, using the alchemical quality of “”concerns”. Since many times people won’t or feel they can’t do that reframing, expressing or addressing by themselves. Process, facilitation, and culture can make limited individuals in a group or community greater than the sum of its parts.
I also love the concept of taking energy that can be seen as adversarial and translating it into a “concern”; and that having a concern demonstrates “caring” about the issue. I also like the highlighting that the concern doesn’t need to be satisfied, which could take a long time. Acknowledging and voicing it into the room can re-connect the person with the rest of the group and the collaboration, even if it is not solved.
I like the picture with this pattern. I disagree with the notion that people pulling away from a group direction, due to an objection, believe what’s going on is full of crap. I think objections and concerns sometimes can be that strong, but can often be much more nuanced, so find that statement too strong and therefore not so helpful.
I appreciate your concern (! 🙂 ) that the articulation of this pattern can give the impression that only strong objections are covered by it. You are absolutely right that often very subtle concerns can and should qualify to be addressed in this way. In good consensus process even after broad agreement has been indicated by participants, those seeking collective wisdom will ask, with real and encouraging curiosity, “Are there any concerns about this?”, knowing that addressing those concern will not only leave all participants with clean alignment, but will allow a better solution to emerge. Of course this can take time, so the Enough Time pattern comes into play….
This works synergistically with the other patterns I have selected for this weeks work which are Feeling Heard and Story. The power of addressing concerns is key to the fundamental quality of people being heard, which Tom so eloquently expressed in this video. Or taking into account concerns, releases adversarial energy and transforms it; I love that.
Tom’s definition of addressing or satisfying a person’s concern is a fundamental quality of that person being heard. Again this dovetails so beautifully in the patterns I have chosen, first Feeling Heard, second Story and now All Concerns Addressed. This begins to move toward the group process rather than person to person.
Right, Susan. AND there’s a way in which this dynamic you name operates at EVERY scale level from the individual inner-psyche up to global relations (and with only a bit of a stretch into humanity’s relationship with nature). Can you feel how this manifests the wise democracy pattern language’s “prime directive” to evoke and engage the wisdom and resources of the whole on behalf of the whole?