Playing with workshop dynamics

Workshop dynamics and using speed

I’m having a lot of great experiences consciously adjusting workshop dynamics to fit my objectives. Take a workshop recently carried out with about 180 managers of a large German bank: a net sum of 2 x 1 hour to work with them on their future within the context of a huge conference. Not much time really. And yet – as it proved – more than enough to get really meaningful results, as long as the dynamics carried us through. Let me describe the sort of dynamics I’m talking about and how I try and steer them when I want a large group of people to take over control and responsibility for coming up with results quickly and in multiple constellations. Let’s take a typical World Café setting, with about 20 tables of 8 participants each. Results are written real-time on pre-prepared “table cloths” and will be synthesised after the sessions:

1. Welcome participants warmly, moving through the room and slightly louder than usual as they enter the room, urging them to take a seat as quickly as possible.
2. Usher the last participants into the room at the same time as closing the door.
3. Start talking whilst walking towards the stage.
4. Use a microphone.
5. Your introduction reflects your excitement: this topic, these people, this context!
6. Your mimicry, gesticulation and tone is sightly more expressive than otherwise.
7. Participants have to know exactly what they are supposed to do NOW and why. Don’t overburden them with the detail of what they’ll be doing in the second and third steps. Assure them that you’ll give them all further information they’ll need when they need it.
8. You suddenly introduce a long pause, looking slowly at all participants…….and say something emotionally expressive and hard hitting (i. e. why it’s so important that this group is here today to discuss this topic).
9. Immediately afterwards you hold the silence…
10. …and then say something light, (i. e. gentle humour, which surprises) and send participants off to work with the following:
    1. clear and brief instructions (use visualisation – i. e. slide/flipchart)
    2. main question for discussion
    3. if relevant: main rule (i. e. no right or wrong)
    4. information that I’ll be walking around and am available for any questions at tables
    5. thanks, good luck, etc.
    6. main question for discussion (again)
11. When getting people to finish: provide a countdown (verbal: “another 5 minutes”…”2 more minutes – please make sure nothing gets lost”, etc. and/or visual with a conspicuous backward-running clock on the screen)
12. If getting participants to change tables and add to previous results, slightly change the focus/objective of each round, so the content is continuously built upon and develops not just in quantity, but also quality. Make sure participants are making decisions (i. e. to prioritise ideas) within a set amount of time.
13. The change itself can be crucial in getting people to really feel and enjoy the dynamics – a bit like a surfer on the crest of a wave. Let me give you my own words: “Think of the amount of ideas developed in the first round – the best way to share and multiply these is to change the constellation of the groups. You now have the opportunity to develop the discussion (on TOPIC) with a whole new group – look around the room and focus on one of the other tables – you know which one – and now don’t look back, don’t look left or right. Just walk straight over to your new table and make sure you take your seat before someone else does!”
14. Introduce brief and colourful water-testing rounds, in which you stick your microphone into 4-6 participants’ faces and ask for some authentic accounts of what’s going on and what’s surprised them during the discussion. Talk whilst walking – that increases the dynamics and focussed people’s attention.
15. Introduce competitive elements – preferably with reference to other groups “not there”, but also – gently – between tables.
16. Keep your closing words short and emotional. Use words like “Wow”, “amazing” and “really/very” if it’s authentic and justified. Take out the high speed for a sincere thanks and close with something either emotional or funny. The shared experience of the high-speed, dynamic workshop is the final note!

Perhaps it’s got something to do with adrenaline? Our ability, chased by dinosaurs, to quickly adapt, decide and motivate others to move. I’m sure it’s easier to play with dynamics in a fairly homogenous setting – more or less mono-cultural. As soon as we’re international, we have to deal with intercultural differences in time-feeling difficult to reconcile (i. e. Anglo-saxon participants are far less excited about working through the night than Danish. French far less willing to accept an 80% “good enough” solution than Dutch. Without wanting to over-generalise and stereotype, this observation has proven true over and over again.)

It also won’t do to over-do speed. That can be really annoying, stressful and counterproductive (“more haste, less speed”). It’s good for a brief period of time, but won’t do for a whole day, let alone a process. Introduce a space for something entirely different (i. e. a piece of theater or a volley ball match) if you have to rush. It’ll make people fitter for action!

More comments on speed and taking it slowly are appreciated!

Inspiration is just not enough

I was walking to a restaurant with an amazingly inspiring social entrepreneur from Brazil. And I told him what countless others had also told him on countless occasions: that he was so very inspiring. A nice friendly compliment and meant too. His reaction was extraordinary and taught me a lot about the responsibility associated with being inspiring. He told me he hated being inspiring. That being inspiring was just not enough. That he needed support, cash, contacts and other real things. That is’s a great cop out to just come up with the idle and selfish compliment that he has inspired one. Because all the responsibility and all the action remains with the inspiring guy. All the rest of us can lean back in our armchairs, be comfortably and even dramatically inspired, applaud, compliment, and go on leaving the dirty (but inspirational) work to others.

Inspiration is a bit like pornography. It’s not really a substitute for sex. We should stop just greedily and lewdly admiring others and being inspired and get out and do it ourselves. Being inspired should mean that we change something about how we do things and – at the end of the day – make ourselves and the world a better place.

What do you think?

Reflection on a most rewarding year 2010

2010 was a remarkable and rewarding year for me and I am very grateful.

I’ll start with the top private thing: I got married to the most marvelous man in the world on 11th September and managed to get 250 of the most wonderful people – friends and family (especially Grandma, aged 90) – to Heidelberg to party with us – some of them for nearly a week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now for the other stuff: the best job in the world:

Simple and effective ways to create ownership in a group 1

This is a series of practical tips for facilitators who want to pass on ownership for change to the group. Why? To strengthen responsibility and motivation for the group’s results and increase the likelihood that they’ll be implemented! And also to allow each and every participant to develop and grow through the experience of participation.

1) Who has the final word?

First things first: I think it’s very important for the person at the top of the organisation to introduce a meeting he’s invited participants to attend. He’s got to let everyone know – authentically – why he’s invited them and what he’s hoping to get out of the dialogue. And it’s also important to have him introduce me as facilitator – actively passing the baton of authority into my external hands.

However, in a participatory process, I like to delegate the final word (we’re talking about 2-3 minutes) of the meeting to one of the participants.

How?

It shouldn’t be a competition, where participants feel they have to show how superior they are. And it shouldn’t be forced on someone through peer-pressure or co-nomination.

It should be fun. And it should be a bit exciting.
I do it according to “luck of the draw” – somehow a mixture of random selection and a sort of intuitive self-selection (“Somehow I knew I’t'd be me”).
And it should be the same procedure each time. This makes participants see it as fair. And that’ll make them agree to play the game.

You pick up the mouth? Your's is the final word!

I do it like this:
1) everyone selects one of the cards I’ve placed on the floor before the meeting begins, one of which has a mouth printed on it, whereas all the rest show an ear.
2) Suspense.
3) The person with the mouth card is asked to own up!
4) I congratulate them and tell them we’re looking forward to hearing their final word (writing their name in the programme, so no one forgets!)
5) Right at the end, the mouth-card-holder gives the final word.

And that final word will be really really good. There’ll be a very personal note to it. And it’ll usually include a symbolic image. And the group will feel empowered.

The last word of a workshop on Tuesday was given by a participant something along these lines. I enjoyed it so much I’d like to share my recollection of it with you:

“I’ve experienced this meeting – and in fact the whole strategy process – as a hot-air balloon journey. At the beginning, we all packed ourselves and our precious and important belongings into the basket and used the great energy of the group to lift the balloon higher. But it was tough going: pushing that hot-air balloon higher was hard work and soon we started to lose height. So we all started thinking about ridding ourselves of some of the weight we were all carrying around with us. There was some discussion about what to throw out, but after a while we became more and more free and clear on what we needed to keep with us on our journey and what we could get rid of with no real lack of comfort. And I’d like to add that we never thought of resorting to throwing one of us out!
We’re moving fast now in our balloon with seemingly endless energy and I can enjoy the journey. I know exactly where we’re going. I feel safe and in good company. This journey will make a difference.”

“And the winner is…”

Facilitating a prize giving gala ceremony is not my usual line of business and I don’t think I’ll be donning the ball-frock and handing out ugly shiny mini-monuments to stars and starlets of showbiz too much. However, when we’re talking about the Essl Social Prize, the annual prize given by the Essl family (owners and ethical leaders at Austria’s BauMax – the largest DIY corporation), I think it’s a bit different and was more than happy to lend my hand in moderating it. Martin and Gerda Essl, a young couple with their 4 charming kids, started the prize 3 years ago. Each year, a million Euros goes to a social entrepreneur who can use the prize money to really effect change in his or her community. This year, the Essl prize went totally global and honoured Bill Drayton of Ashoka. The Essls don’t just want to chuck a load of cash in someone’s way and walk off, but enter into a collaboration with the prize-winner in order to increase the impact of their donation. In Ashoka’s case, the Essl Foundation have entered into a unique project – Globalizer – which matches 25 of those Ashoka’s Fellows with great global potential with 25 CEOs from around the world. In exchanging experience and expertise and letting Ashoka Fellows – social entrepreneurs working on innovative projects to reduce suffering and increase life’s value for all of society – in on the secrets of business success, the Ashoka Fellows’ innovations have more of a chance to move out of their microcosm and impact on the world.

It’s all inspiring stuff, and when you meet the Ashoka Fellows and hear of what they do and how they do it, you’re humbled and exhilarated and  you want to go out and become one of Ashoka’s so-called “Changemakers”. So anyway, it’s a backdrop more than interesting to be part of. The other backdrop, Vienna’s beautiful and impressive Hofburg is obviously “good enough” (Martin Essl) for an award ceremony of this repute.

Now of course this weekend was a time for people all over the globe – particularly in Europe – to recognise the limitations of globalisation: a volcano exploded and aeroplanes stayed put. No-one moved. Including most of the international guests of the Globalizer. Including Bill Drayton, who was stranded in UK. A last-minute favour by a camera and TV production company in Oxford provided the prize-giving ceremony with a short film in which Bill was able to thank his donors. And there was no further reason for the Award ceremony to be held in English. Luckily I speak German, and luckily too, I was co-facilitating with a charming and thoroughly professional Austrian TV-talkshow host: Barbara Stöckl, who mastered the spontaneous changes of plan and provided clear, sensible advice and directions behind the scenes, whilst I translated the text of the presentation into German!

As this is a blog on facilitation, let me try and leave the content and the global excitement of Ashoka, Essl and their causes. And focus on facilitating a live Award ceremony. It’s late, so I’ll sum up what I think is important:

1. Make sure your guests feel great. They need to know and feel comfortable in the whole framework of the ceremony – from dress-code and menu to seating plan and orientation.
2. Make sure you do your PR-homework. It’s not particularly sensible to hold an opulent Award ceremony and not broadcast the images (The Essl Foundation did this very well, by the way).
3. Create a water-tight choreography that looks easy. Use all the stage. Create a sense of harmony and balance through entrances made simultaneously from both sides of the stage. Create a sense of focus by standing in the middle of stage and stating your main message. And then shutting up for a few seconds.
4. Enjoy finding out about your talk-guests on stage. Don’t just ask them what you’ve practiced, but use the real situation and key words from the evening’s dialogue to pass the essence of the evening from guest to guest.
5. Don’t play about with your microphone, tapping it and asking if it’s working. If it doesn’t work, you’ll know soon enough.
6. Lead guests (literally) around the stage: don’t allow them to just mill around where they want. It’ll be messy and look uncomfortable. Provide tables and other pieces of furniture for stage guests to “hold on to”.
7. Verbalise what’s going on – even if it’s unplanned and a bit of a mess. Your verbalisation will stop messy stage situations becoming embarrassing and stop everyone frantically looking for a solution. You’re in control and everyone needs to feel they can rely on you.
8. Try and stimulate as many of the human senses as possible: use a (pompous) jingle to signalise a new chapter in the stage-show or a new entrance to that stage; allow people to eat and drink something during the ceremony…
9. Change peoples’ perspective: in a large hall with hundreds of people, use the middle and back of the room for some action if possible. This keeps people awake (main reason), is inclusive for people “at the back” and makes people rotate and swivel in their chairs – this will keep them supple and increase the blood supply to their organs (including the brain).
10. Be formal and natural. Enjoy speaking to the audience, allow them to feel they’re entering into your world, but retain your distance.
11. Smile a lot and use distinct mimicry and gesticulation. Remember though, it’s sometimes powerful to stand still for a moment and shut up.
12. Use a multi-tonal voice – particularly if you’re reading something out loud. Pretend you’re reading a story to children who don’t understand all the words and want to evoke particular feelings, such as fear, excitement, happiness or sadness just with the sound of your voice. Try and avoid ascending in tone at the end of your sentences. It can get annoying.
13. Be suitably dressed: not much is necessary – you’re on stage! No, I don’t mean you have to take your clothes off, but you should try and aim at least at elegance.
14. Prepare and rehearse with all involved (speakers, co-moderators, technicians, etc.). A professional team of technicians will demand that this happens.
15. Remember that you are creating images to be cemented in your audience’s minds and also in the newspapers/TV-reports. Don’t let a prize/certificate be presented or handed over without the image being photographed at length. And decide with the photographer beforehand where the photo should be shot.
16. Allow a lot of time at the end of the conference for lots of people to storm the stage, for hugs and kisses and use the chaos of a full stage to add music and light and end the ceremony on a high.
17. Remember that each prize has its mother and father and that the ceremony of handing over that prize should be personal and fit in with the prize-givers’ philosophy and style. Talk to the prize-givers and understand their motivation and aims. Respect them and make sure their individual touch is visible.

Here’s a link to the ORF-interview with Martin Essl on the Globalizer project: http://tvthek.orf.at/search?q=Ashoka&x=0&y=0

And here’s the ORF-report on the Award Ceremony: http://tvthek.orf.at/programs/70017-Niederoesterreich-heute/episodes/1355614-Niederoesterreich-heute/1356350-Mod–Essl-Sozialpreis

The Ronald Reagan Approach

Not necessarily my political hero, but one of the most popular leaders of the twentieth century with a great impact. Why? What’s the Ronald Reagan approach and what can leaders of today learn from him?

Ronald Reagan was an actor and concerned with creating a role, an impact. With creating an audience and steering that audience’s understanding of what is right and wrong and of what is real. Let’s not get tied up in the content and detail of WHAT he was preaching and representing, but with HOW he did it.

I’ve just come back from an interesting conference on facilitation, leadership and participation (I wish there were shorter, slightly less pretentious words for this concept of involving people who matter in solving questions that matter and creating new realities that work better). The issue we were dealing with, thanks to Dr. Raban Daniel Fuhrmann who coined the word “Profizität” (a rather messy mix of authenticity and professionalism) and posed the question, was “how much of me should I give light to in order to professionally lead a group to cooperation?” I was inspired by our conversations and some of the challenging inputs and, before we went to lunch on day 2, a small group of us summed up our thinking on this matter with the “Ronald Reagan Approach” to facilitation and leadership. If we agree with Dr. Eike Messow from the Jacobs University in Bremen, that a successful facilitator and leader aims to

1. reach an objective, which will improve the reality of a team/organisation,
2. build up a trusting environment for participation and evolution and
3. instill in the team a sense of responsibility for achieving their goals

then we might want to think about how Ronald Reagan did this.

Firstly, we have to rid ourselves of the idea that all leaders and facilitators are necessarily authentic. Who’s to decide who’s authentic or not? And why is it important whether a leader/facilitator is authentic? My example: it might be very authentic for a facilitator who’s grown up in protestant church group dynamics to ask a group of bankers to introduce themselves to each other by throwing a ball of wool from one to the other. Or for George W. Bush to be the cowboy (where’s the Marlboro?) whilst hosting international negotiations in Texas. All authentic stuff, but excruciatingly embarrassing, alienating and not at all conducive to dialogue and trust.

I think we can all accept that Ronald Reagan wasn’t necessarily authentic. I think most of us are pretty glad we have no idea of what really went on in his mind! He was an actor. And we, as his audience, as those who followed his lead (and most of the western world did, even with grit teeth, follow his lead), were led by his impact, by the way we perceived him to be. Whether a leader/facilitator is authentic, professional, “nice” or good depends on whether he’s perceived to be so. We, as an audience, want to believe we can see the man/woman behind the leader or facilitator. Whether we really can make out the genuine person below the surface of the iceberg, really have an inkling of the values, norms, intuition and emotions at the core, is irrelevant. We want to believe we’ve sussed him out. That we are able to judge. Reagan was an actor. Acting is art. Art demands our willing suspension of disbelief. Why do we want to suspend our disbelief? Why do we want to believe we know and understand the man/woman behind the role? Because we hunger for security. In “knowing” what makes a leader tick, we feel safe in their hands. In “knowing” what’s really driving a facilitator, we feel safe as a group.

(Again, please don’t think I’m the big Reagan fan. Sure, I grew up in the UK of Maggie T and am, most certainly, a “Thatcher-Baby”, but I shudder at the Star Wars plans of big Ron. I am repulsed by the neo-liberal attitude to society’s responsibility for itself. Sorry, had to throw that in.)

So let’s have a look at how Ronald Reagan used his power of impact (as an actor) to deliver messages and at what those messages were. I’m convinced that we should deliver the same messages when leading groups:

1. I’m listening.
2. I’ve understood you.
3. I’m interested (really burning to learn) in what you think and what you want.
4. I am in charge
5. I have everything under control (process, structures, culture, individuals)
6. I have a suggestion I really believe in, but am willing to adapt to suit you too
7. I am a human being, with values, strengths and weaknesses, experience (good and bad) and love
8. I am fair and will uphold what’s important for you and protect you and defend your process
9. I am fascinating (if only you knew all…), creative, unique and artistic
10. When utilising the wisdom of the group, I’ll subordinate my own position and opinions

Whether this is true or not; whether Ronald Reagan really thought this or not, is irrelevant for our relationship with him as leader. Whether Nancy did, is, as his wife, another matter… What matters for our relationship with him is whether we “buy” it, when he says:

“I know in my heart that man is good.
That what is right will always eventually triumph.
And there’s purpose and worth to each and every life.”

I don’t know Reagan’s heart. But I have the choice to decide. It’s the same story with any group I’m facilitating. Do they “buy” my words and actions? Do they believe that I mean it when I deliver the 10 messages above? If they do, we’re on to something and can achieve great results. If they don’t they’ll feel insecure, unmotivated and rebellious towards the process.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong in really meaning what you say. It would be wonderful if Reagan really did believe in his heart that man is good. Or if a facilitator really does believe in his heart that the group before him is capable of change when he tells them he does. We’ll never know as participants. We just need to believe we do.

It’s not about authenticity, but about professionalism. We’re playing a role and need to use our impact to inspire, motivate and empower people to change the world. That means we have to adapt the way we choose to appear in order to be “relatable to”. The 10 messages remain, but there’ll be different ways of telling them, depending on the group.

An afterthought. It’s not enough to be a good actor as a facilitator. Our deeds must follow our words. And our actions too. If our mimicry/stance tells a different story, or if we neglect to follow-up after a meeting, the group will be lost and our professionalism dead.

Citizens Conference in Germany – what a weekend!

40 strangers meet in one of Germany’s most distinctive cultural heritage sites: the Zeche Zollverein in Essen (http://www.zollverein.de/english/index.php?f_categoryId=3). It’s one of the world’s largest industrial monuments and beautiful in its way.

As I say, 40 strangers who were picked randomly from the telephone book meet for a weekend together. What for? To come up with a citizens’ declaration on the question “What should Germany’s future energy supply system be like?” Ring any bells? All my keen and loyal readers will recognise the topic: we’ve been there before. In Essen too. 20 citizens met in January/February for 3 consecutive weekends of dialogue and debate to implement one of Germany’s pioneer consensus conferences. Their result: a citizens’ expert paper, has been commented on by some of the leading researchers and scientists in Germany. It’s been admired and looked at keenly by energy experts from all areas of public life. And it’s impressed all those who may have thought randomly selected citizens incapable or unworthy of deliberating on complex scientific and contentious issues.

But I’m off track again. Let’s go back to our 40 randomly selected citizens. Some are pretty well informed and even work in the energy market. Others – most – have limited knowledge of the technologies and political complexity surrounding the various questions of energy supply, distribution, use and efficiency. Like most of us. They’re keen to give it a try, to discuss their questions and ideas with each other and with 10 experts from research institutes. This is where the 40 stop being like most of us. Because they’re willing to invest their weekend in something aimed at improving the “lot” of society. Most of us aren’t. Too busy.

So what did they do? There was lots of discussion in small groups with individual experts. Citizens focussed their attention initially on their desired future energy supply: renewable energy, better storage of electricity, atomic fusion, CO2-zero mobility, etc. Powerful images of an energy future based on economic, social, environmental and safety criteria. Next came the question of how to get there. In order to do that, it’s important to know where you’re coming from. Again, expert input was called for. This time to shed light on today’s level of knowledge and scientific research and practice. This really helped citizens come up with recommendations for science, politics and society on how the gap between reality and vision could be closed. Some answers were short-term, practical and local. Others more long-term and with global reference, calling on German scientists to work on ground-breaking research and up Germany’s export potential, for example with new technologies for renewable energy.

Photo thanks to Rüdiger Goldschmidt, ZIRN

TV-Talkshow 2050 with experts! Photo thanks to WiD, Silke Späth

36 recommendations developed by the citizens in small groups on the second day were put to the participants’ critical test. Some received broad support, others less. That’s good. It shows both scientists, politicians and citizens themselves how diversified the public views the issues. But what I think is also really good, is that participants, whatever their opinion on subjects such as atomic power or public/individual transportation (just to name 2 of the big conflict-ridden topics) were a) interested in hearing and understanding different opinions, b) civil in their criticism/opposition and c) constructive in building bridges between diverging viewpoints.

This was a process that needed time to grow, but not too much time (there wasn’t that much time available). It was a valuable and uplifting process at times, in which participants supported each other, upheld the rules of play and integrated those with difficulties entering the discussion. One thing that impressed me was the way participants dealt with criticism within their own circle: a) listen to critical voices carefully and show understanding, b) draw the critical voices into the discussion (“What would you need to make our discussion good?”) and c) hand over air-time and responsibility to critical participants – to integrate them. I love critical participants. They’re vital for a process. A dialogue process can only achieve its potential if critical participants are allowed to stir it up and force it to deal with its weaknesses, limitations and difficulties. Critical participants, when integrated, will help the dialogue process to create really good results. However, that takes open, responsible and “adult” groups (no matter what the age of the participants) to draw them in.

I am, again, proud and grateful to have worked with citizens in Essen. Keep an eye on the process and discussion that’s taking place (in German) in the whole of the country. If citizens are given a voice and access to knowledge, expertise and experience, they can play an active and responsible role in shaping society’s future.

What makes groups of people tick?

The word “tick” refers to several things: the sound a clock makes (just add “tock”), an uncontrollable spasm (tic without a k) – usually related to a nervous/brain-related disorder, a nasty insect (well, actually, a nasty bloodsucking acarid arachnid) that buries its head in you and sucks your blood, a sort of pillow-case, a mark showing you’ve done something properly (your maths teacher will have given you ticks when you did a sum correctly and a cross when you didn’t), and to the mechanical functioning of things. Things in this case can also refer to people or groups of people. And it’s my job as a facilitator to help make them tick.

However, people aren’t machines, and so I’m obviously refering to their ticking in a symbolic way!

 (Pic.: Katja Machill)

As it’s late, and I won’t be ticking much longer, I’ll keep this short. In an essence, you can make a group tick by giving them 3 things:

1) Make sure they know and are supportive of what they’re supposed to “tick” for (the objective and aim)

2) Make sure they know who they are – not just how important they are, but which personalities are there with all their weaknesses and strengths, their rationality and creativity (go beyond dealing with representatives of organisations and find the people)

3) Make sure they know exactly what they have to do and relate that continuously with why they should be doing it (see 1).

Methods should be offered as an effective/efficient way to reach goals and objectives. There may be better ways. Be open and excited about finding them.

Provide “ticking” groups of people with a bit of time towards the end of their “ticking” to reflect on it. What did they like, what didn’t they like? Ticking people can be trusted to uphold the dialogue process, so use their energy and “functioning” to transfer the responsibility for the process to them, increasing ownership.

And lastly, enjoy the ticking of a group. I don’t know whether you have a similar childhood love: I always remember enjoying the ticking of my grandparents’ grandfather clock. It’s safe, sustainable, reliable, provides orientation and brings forth chime-bursts of audible colour. Ticking groups are one of the most rewarding experiences I know.

Bridging the gap: Consensus Conference on Germany’s Energy Supply

Shut 20 “normal” (what’s that?!) citizens away for 3 weekends and get them to agree on a contentious and difficult question. What will happen? It’s easy to disagree, but how can they reach consensus on something as ideological and complex as Germany’s future energy supply concept?

And why should they invest about 60 hours of their lives in caring?

The 3 weekends we’re talking about are the ones between 23 January and 7 February. Imagine: you work all week and meet with a bunch of complete strangers in a conference room on 3 Saturdays and Sundays in a row. Sorry to harp on about this, but the commitment and stamina is extraordinary. I got paid for my bit of facilitation. The 20 citizens had to make do with food, drink and travel expenses. And yet they still came and they stuck it out. And in between the 3 weekends they chatted on the conference’s forum, they read up about the subject and they discussed the issues and questions with their friends, family and colleagues. So in fact, we’re looking at about 80 hours in total. Per person.

They weren’t alone. 3 experts – from universities in the area – accompanied them on their quest for consensus and decisions. They had never done anything so strenuous, but liked the thought of it and threw themselves into it with the right mixture of scepticism and excitement! Initially, the citizens viewed the experts with a distinct scepticism themselves, before the experts proved – through listening carefully and respectfully and offering information/advice rather than endorsing it – themselves trustworthy and valuable for the process. By the end, they were referred to as “our dear experts”.

What about the results? Can a bunch of citizens come up with anything interesting? They were randomly selected and asked if they would be interested in taking part. Their interests ranged from interests generated from professional knowledge (“I work in the energy industry”/”I teach technology at schools”) to interests based on a belief in grass-roots and societal change. And there were many more interests involved which impelled people to take part: engaging with others, getting out of the house, even a sort of missionary call to get people to save energy. And these interests crashed on each other, creating sympathy and antipathy initially. But then moving the group to an amazing joint learning crusade. They were intent on listening and opening their minds to opinions and views they had previously ignored or opposed. The interesting thing was, that they were as intrigued to hear other citizens’ opinions as they were to learn from the experts. Because this is not just a question of science, but one of politics and socio-ecological conscience.

The result is a citizens’ recommendation (“Bürgergutachten”), which can be read in German at www.buerger-debattieren.de and should be circulated to anyone interested in commenting on it and taking the dialogue further. The citizens in Essen are planning to do just that. They’re still using their closed online-platform to communicate and plan further dialogue amongst themselves and with others. A group are meeting tomorrow to attend a meeting in Essen on one of their main areas of recommendation. There’s another meeting in 2 weeks.

Essen is a wonderful place – this year it’s Europe’s capital city of culture. It’s home to a direct and hearty and wonderful people I’ve thoroughly enjoyed working with. Unlike the Danes, who apparently work on their consensus paper until the early hours, we were finished by 21.15 on Sunday night. It was really tough going though, but despite raw nerves there was never a moment of over-directness or rudeness or lack of respect and interest in each other. Priceless.

If you’re reading this and class yourself as an expert in any field, please take time to consider what “normal” citizens would recommend you to do and think if you provided them with information they call for and 3 weekends to debate and come to a consensus. It’d surprise you and you’d profit from it.

Taking the biodiversity dialogue further

Trondheim is cold. But people are talking here and energetically trying to move forward in preparing for the post 2010 targets. Maybe it’s thanks to the excellent Norwegan hosts, the great food and wonderful organ concert in the vast cathedral. The unique mix of policy makers from 96 countries, cutting edge scientists from all disciplines and NGO representatives has brought forward the urgency of action at all levels to stave off biodiversity loss.
I’m here to facilitate open discussions on 2 afternoons. People have listened to a wealth of presentations and need to let off steam at our round table dialogues: in form of questions, but mostly creative ideas and collaborative thoughts.
As always, the intercultural and international flavours add to the complexity of the talks, but also do the inate complexity of global conventions justice. How to create a consistency between biodiversity, climate change and millenium development goals? If these vital goals compete against each other – as they are inevitably doing without powerful coordination – at least one of them will fail. And mankind and our planet will not necessarily be able to cope and survive, if that happens.
Will biodiversity need to “get on the Climate Change bandwagon”, as one participant said? Participants are calling for a clear and powerful scientific basis, acceptable and communicable targets (how ambitious and achievable will the new strategic plan of the CBD be?) and mechanisms to implement the convention (conservation, preservation and access and benefit sharing).
Keep your eyes open in this Year of Biodiversity and let’s all of us do our best to support giving value to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

www.trondheimconference.org