the next level or a whole new game?

The most recent addition (in process) to my collection of concepts and tools for change is 'Action Science', as based on the book by Argyris et al (1985). The first song of praise is that this book provides the most lucid articulation of how to engage in a change process at the inter-subjective level that I have yet come across. Putting it into practice of course is likely to be an immense challenge at the level of the practioner because it demands subjecting onself to profound and systematic scrutiny (apparently something that gets easier with practice). The second is that it is availble for free download from the internet at http://www.actiondesign.com.

Meanwhile my experiences in Delwara have been interesting, challenging and exciting. Some key events included (i) a mini-workshop with the core members of the project team focusing on objectives, roles and funcioning of the team; (ii) a mini-workshop with the youth team focusing on both self and group assessment. The key issues surfacing in both groups were around the issue of coordination, communication and reporting though the particulars of the problem appear to be quite different in both contexts for a number of reasons. For example, in the context of the whole project team there are many different activities and functions that operate almost independently yet have to be synchronised (synergised?) in order to contribute to the common goal in the most effective manner. At this level, I have not been able to identify interpersonal issues as a major source of problems. On the other hand, in the three-person group of the youth team, interpersonal issues constitute the core of the problem. One importantissue that surfaced during this meeting (beyond the three major issues identified earlier) was 'understanding the other person'. Both groups were involved in a reflection and sharing process to identify purpose, strengths and enabling factors, weaknesses and constraining factors, things that could be changed at the group level and things that could be changed at the individual level to contribute to this change. Both groups succeeded in describing what they felt should change and there was broad agreement on this by all involved. Articulating change at the group level proved much easier than locating individual responsibility: in the large group all but one of the desired changes was at the group level rather than the individual level and in the small group participants initially felt that being asked to identify their own weaknesses was unfair or somehow not right: "how can we know our weaknesses? That is for others to judege."

Both discussions ended in a collective pledge to make the necessary changes (communicating more and more effectively, having more regular meetings, reporting more systematically, etc.) by the various participants involved. However, it remains to be seen whether these commitments are adequate to bring about the desired changes and the presumed resulting improvements in the functionality of the project and youth teams. My hunch is that the answer is: only to a very limited extent. If I take the youth team as an example, I see the problem as being entrenched more profoundly in inter-personal interactions based on people's theories-in-use (i.e. the tacit logic that informs the way they act as opposed to the theory that they claim to uphold). One of the key issues here is that espousing (or being able to articulate) a certain logic does not equate to being able to put it into practice. This is something that has to be learned through a process of collaborative inquiry into these theories and I hope that this is something I will be able to facilitate in the coming weeks (unless it is not necessary in which case I would also be quite happy)!

Some reflections that came about while reading Action Science and thinking back over the discussion with the youth team include:

(1) I have to learn how to use the group dialogue process more effectively to get deeper into the issue in question and to engage the participants in a more reflective process. I think this probably means I have to identify what it is that I am doing that prevents this from happening as I am in the position of facilitator and therefore it is up to me to intervene to help probe these areas.

(2) I should be more systematic about introducing hypotheses into the discussion process. For example, by making statements such as: "based on what you said [blah blah blah], i get the impression that you are trying to [blah blah blah blah] in order to [blah blah blah]." I should then invite people to inquire into this matter or try to disprove it. "What do you think?" More generally, I should perhaps be more explicit about patterns that I feel I can observe in the functioning of the group: "Things you have said [e.g. blah blah blah] have indicated to me that you do not really acknowledge each other's skills or competencies and that you are not making the necessary efforts to get to know each other, to learn from each other. I further believe that this makes it difficult for you to work together and achieve the kinds of results that you say you want to achieve. What do you feel about this statement?"

(3) I should be more explicit about the purpose of the session and the norms that I am trying to apply and should invite discussion on this.

(4) I should go more with the flow and probe into people's reactions more systematically. E.g. if the response appears negative, explain why I feel their response is negative (cite what they said), see whether the response can be taken as negative and ask for their feedback. I should also make more of an effort to ask participants if they want to try out or propose alternative ways of exploring the issue in front of us. For example, when people said that self-criticism was too difficult (implying something along the lines of 'we are unable to judge ourselves' or 'we do not want to do so publicly') and that others are better placed to make these criticisms, I could have proposed something along the lines of: "If you would prefer to discuss each other's weaknesses rather than identify your own, I do not have a problem with this. What do you think, shall we do this instead?" This may have led to some other interesting discussions.

(5) I should try to find out what about my own behaviour may be making it difficult for other people to say what they want to say. Hopefully doing some of the aforementioned steps will contribute to this but I should be busy trying to explore my own 'theories-in-use'.

(6) I should look for ways of reframing people's experiences without failing to acknowledge the significance of what they feel or experience in order to help the discussion or participants get out of ruts. The idea here is to help address a situation that is being constructed in an unhelpful frame (i.e. one that is not conducive to learning) by presenting the same situation in a new frame that adds more meaning and opens doors of possibility. For example, when one participants says: "Person X doesn't know anything about activity Y" this could be presented to people as a less extreme and more balanced perspective on the situation: "I think it would be fairer to present an assessment of the situation in this manner: Both you and person X look at activity Y in different ways. By finding out what each of you knows and doesn't know about activity Y you may both be able to learn something that will help you do activity Y in a more collaborative, complete and better manner. What do you think?"

These reflections are only really hypotheses that remain to be tested in a range of situations. Reading Action Science helped to put some of these thoughts into perspective. For one thing, I feel that I would be better able to deal with the kind of tension that surfacing inter-personal, work-related issues might unleash because I think I am more equipped with knowledge that could be applied to prevent unjustified statements from being exchanged and to facilitate the collaborative inquiry process. So perhaps there will be some news on this shortly...?

Other than this, the good news (latest, albeit brief and potentially incomplete feedback) is that the outcomes of the visioning workshop (for the state level network working on youth issues) were well appreciated at the national level where they were shared along with the outputs of 7 other states. My co-worker in this matter attended the national level general meeting and reported that everything went well and that everyone has basically agreed to what we came up with (although the vision and mission statements have undergone some kind of transformation) and also that the other states really had rather little to contribute on the matter. So, I can breathe a little easier. Upcoming workshops on strategies, monitoring and evaluation and proposal preparation are now also on the agenda so perhaps I can look forward to frequent and exciting interruptions to my regular work! I still need to do a comprehensive review of the last workshop to cull out important lessons that can be taken forwards to the next one.

Thank you and good day!

today's stew

In my new position I find myself doing a lot of hopping between themes and projects. This gives me a sometimes fascinating and sometimes bewildering opportunity to connect together different sets of concepts in different parts of my brain. For example, one minute I am finding spaces for the application of elements of social network theory to community development and linking this with theories of empowerment, leadership, social change and even monitoring and evaluation; the next i am trying to figure out how an editorial team for a local newspaper can function better, or youth can be enticed to get involved in a youth resource centre without us having to sell the place as a career service centre; then I am making a comment about why prohibition of alcohol will not cause an end to violence (especially against women) - a decision taken by a committee of elders in a tribal village; or trying to figure out what threats are being faced by the Balwadi (full day pre-school centre) progamme and how we can start acting today to address them whilst simultaneously enhancing our contribution to the programme's vision; or maybe trying to help a 6 year old state-level network (working on young people's sexual and reproductive health - and now several other issues) articulate its vision and strategies for the next 5 years...

Today out of the general muddy puddle, the following thoughts and questions bubbled to the surface:

1. Use the connectors that are available in the optimal way
2. The most powerful change force is the inter-personal socialisation process based on values that connect and strengthen common aspirations (this doesn't always have to be 'positive' change)
   
3. How does one draw the line between commitment and foolishness?
4. How does one identify the optimal balance between local and global (distant) in one's interactions with others in order to secure high quality understanding of the totality of things?
5. There is a very big difference between providing people with a set of options and enabling people to formulate new options themselves

Fantastic. I also really enjoyed sharing some issues of leadership that have been nagging me for a while. Leadership can be looked at in two ways (or rather, I'm only going to mention two). One is about a person, an individual; the other is about a process involving people. Leadership is about finding a road that leads to common aspirations, making that road visible and walkable by many people and helping them travel it together. Why should responsibility for finding this road be placed in the hands of any select group of individuals? Would it not make more sense to systematically create space for all those who are motivated and able to contribute to finding the road so that they could all participate in the leadership process? The reaction was positive. I think it struck chords with a lot of latent thinking amongst the people present. Now how to operationalise this concept through a workshop? That will be another major challenge, if it is possible... For some reason I get the feeling that it can't be an easy job to work in a profound way on process-oriented localised connective leadership in a workshop conducted in a non-local place. Then again, this might have to be the challenge. Time to think of some fun games!

It would obviously have to be at the level of values - how does one person convince someone of something else... how does one person identify connectors (things, events, concepts, emtions, world-views, tastes, etc.) in another person and use these to establish a relationsihp upon which collaboration in achievement of goals can be based? Hmmm... my next personal research topic?!

Hmmm... i now return to the puddle; a small dilemma aluded to in the first paragraph of today's blog. The context is a 'youth resource centre' whose objectives remain imprecise but broadly relate to providing youth with the skills, capabilities and attitudes required for them to be able to look after themselves and also to contribute to the development process as responsible citizens so that they can secure a better future/society for their own children. This overarching aim is to be unpacked and applied in myriad ways according to the particular opportunities and constraints being offered in different locations/contexts. In this sense, the project is highly innovative because it is designed to be locally adapted. However, the balance between adaptation vs. conformity is something to be considered across various levels. Perhaps the deepest and most fundamental level is that of the values upon which the project is based.

I won't be cryptic any more. The idea that is being put forwards is to provide computer trainings (including provision of a diploma) at the centre as a means for getting youth to come on a regular basis. Despite the logistical limitations (waaaay to few computers) there is a more fundamental objection (on behalf of several key stakeholders within the project) to the idea as it would project an image of the centre as a place for youth to get employment skills and it is feaed that this would cause its deeper social objectives to become obscured. For the person running the centre, this is ok because it will get people coming (the logistical issues don't seem to be getting full attention) - social objectives can be introduced later - and anyway, the youth in the area are demanding computer training. The alternative strategy instead aims to get the youth using the computer as a means for preparing all kinds of work (reports, research, stories, etc.) that would form part of a deeper social learning and transformation process more fully integrated into the other development objectives of the project of which the YRC is a part. The youth will learn but only on condition of participating in 'plus' activities that add value to the overall village development process. The question before us then is whether the youth will get involved without the promise of a diploma (although we can, of course, offer them a certificate)... Personally, I don't see why not. But today left me with the funny feeling of having burst someone's bubble by arguing on the basis of a value-system or set of principles that were not their own. I may be a fool but I still believe that patience is a virtue (albeit a very complex one).

Good night and thank you!

i's a-muggin', we's a-muggin'

Very much a-muggin'. With some more clarity on what lies before us, our humble network has decided to go for a fairly profound revamp and is now looking to contribute to something that I would call a youth movement - but right now it's couched in the rather PC garb of a youth forum... All issues (from sexual and reproductive health, through livelihoods to drugs and violence) now become means of connecting with the youth to enable them to make informed decisions to secure their own well-being and to create a series of forums at various levels from the block to the state. These forums are means too, as they will enable the youth to influence the government and society at large through advocacy and engaging with the media. Rather grand really - but also really, really cool :) We also seem to have most of the participants on just about the same page - no objectors... and a committed chair. Pukka strategies remain to be consolidated but are definately within grasp. Unity in diversity could be our little mantra as we abandon the 'one-issue-based-campaign-a-year' approach and launch into an effort at systemic transformation.

Weasling a bit of outcome mapping (only at the intentional design phase so far - and even then rather partially) into the process has proved both positive and not without challenges. Our next workshop will aim to consolidate strategies so this will be the time to finish off the strategies in an OM-ish sort of way. Yet another workshop will be required for PME and learning... So, no rest for the wicked.

But of course, without the requisite moral dilemma, such a peachy picture would not be complete (or at least not a reasonable reflection of reality). So tonight I battle with the question of whether to share knowledge freely (something I've always considered my responsibility as a human being) or permit interpersonal feuds (not involving me) to get in the way. The problem is presented partly as one of loyalty but with a bit of 'why help someone who has been rude and uncooperative in the past?' thrown in. 'Turn the other cheek' or an 'eye for an eye'? Teachings on this matter throw new against old. Some modern sources might point to the fact that adhering to only one of these strategies may not be the best option, but rather that a careful balance between the two is required to send the right signals to the right places at the right time. As I have trouble seeing how my knowledge can be put to a use any worse than what would be done without it, a powerful urge drives me to share it. Apologies to anyone I disappoint or any loyalties I disturb. It is not my intention to do wrong or harm but to spread a message of collaboration and openness, to nurture damaged relationships and create healthy synergetic linkages between those who could be working towards the same goals.

Thank you and good night!

spasmodic update

Hmmm... Feel like i've been here before. I think this time it will not vanish from under my nose... that just wouldn't be right!

I am right now in the middle of a workshop (actually it is the end of the first day of a three day workshop) that I am supposed to be facilitating... Somehow I end up feeling that the workshop is facilitating me and not the other way round... How very distressing. A god night sleep is now required really badly. Tomorrow may be a long and harrowing day...

Good night :)