The last couple of days were spent with about 100 people from Seva Mandir's blocks (geographical units) and programme-units at Kaya (the organisation's rural training centre). Each block was to present its assessment and thinking on what the next three years was asking of them. The idea of having such a session was not actually mine. The organisation had come up with this idea itself, stating that it did not feel confident about the idea of presenting its strategies at the annual camp (now planned for the following month) without discussing them at least once before then.
When this decision was made, I had qualms because it clashed with what I had been proposing. In particular, it seemed like a way of 'fixing' things before the annual camp... such that the camp itself would merely be a kind of 'presentation' of what we had already decided with limited space for the manthan, or churning, that I felt was called for. In particular, I felt that it undermined the idea of using the annual camp as a kind of no-holds-barred, open forum for people to question and dialogue with the 'whole system in the room'...
It was tough letting go of that vision but I soon realised that there was not much hope of it working out - especially as the annual camp had already been postponed to the third quarter of the time-bound process of consultations (which itself had bothered me since I felt this reduced the scope for building whatever emerged from the camp back into the planning process). So, I set about visiting all the blocks, organising mini-workshops, or simply listening to their own dialogues, discoveries and internal churnings. My main and simple tool for engaging with the groups was to ask those difficult questions that force people to confront things that are easier avoided and to weave in anecdotes from all of the conversations that I had been a part of over the last few months. This often sparked discussions that got to, if not close to, the heart of things on a number of occasions.
It is almost entirely impossible for me to really know what my contribution to the outcome has been so far. What kind indicators can be used to gauge this. Perhaps it is naieve or self-aggrandising to even try?
Back at the block gathering, I had mentioned, the blocks were busy presenting their contexts, achievements, challenges, strategies and questions. I kept myself as tiny and out of the way as possible throughout the whole gathering. Indeed, I said but a few words, busying myself instead with the task of documenting all the discussions. Part of my withdrawal was triggered by a little conflict that took place at the end of the first day. The presentations for the day had finished earlier than usual and it had been proposed that we use some of the remaining time to digest some of what was emerging.
I had, without giving it great consideration, assumed that a fairly open and flexible approach could be used to get this done. I hadn't really been troubled by the structure, the format or the question of how we would identify our issues. It just seemed to me that things would flow and we would soon be able to organise ourselves in the best possible way. I was also not sure of how long the participants were eager to stay and thought that I would simply be able to find this out by putting the question out there. This seemed to worry the Chief Executive who thought I was being 'too process-oriented'... I didn't really get the space to articulate myself much more and felt pushed to the side by the CE's concern that things had not been fully planned out. I got the feeling the CE wanted to take the reins and decide on the structure herself. I have had experiences in the past where my facilitating gets disturbed by someone external who is feeling edgy - and I find it hard to keep my cool. This usually doesn't bode well for the facilitation process. My instinctive reaction is to withdraw. I retract into my shell and say to myself... "pass on this." I think, at times, this can be the best thing to do.
Perhaps this is something taoist in me? Perhaps not? At one level I made a good choice. There was energy present, eager to give 'constructive' direction and it was 'the organisation' itself (or at least someone from it) who was taking up the yoke. I left the room to let the CE and my co-facilitator figure things out themselves... which they did...
For some reason, this experience left me bubbling with resentment. I felt disrespected and violated at that moment; unfairly treated even. From this moment on, I remained concerned only with my documentation. I let the process be taken over by the CE and my co-facilitator. All in all, it worked quite well. Given the awkward timing schedule, we got a good amount of fairly constructive matter out of the discussions that ensued. I was still at war with my ego though.
Where is this going? Well, this morning I read an article from Consulting Today: Seniors of Organization Development, I came across several quotes which were rather timely, one of which, (by Kathie Dannemiller) I include below:
The biggest clue that I am inappropriately "taking over" is when I get irritated at my client for not doing the 'right' thing.
If this isn't medicine, then what else is? In the context of my earlier blog postings on the dilemma between 'me and the organisation', this puts things (I feel) in their rightful place.
At the same time, of course, it is unavoidable (for me, now), that these moments of tension will occur. Especially, when I feel that some kind of rich opportunity for meaningful dialogue has the risk of getting bypassed! All the more so when this is my first time doing this kind of work! I would still far prefer to spend a few moments dealing with a messy situation so that we could get some genuine dialogue going rather than simply allowing existing power dynamics and inequalities to get re-enacted. I suppose, at times, one has to make these kind of compromises. Not having something up my sleeve that I could just present at that moment - a kind of "hey! don't worry, it's all under control, this is how we'll do it!" lost me the space that I needed. This is no doubt a lesson for me...
On this note, I end with a little quote from Lao Tse whose words have helped me feel that everything is fine when any 'normal' person would clearly think the opposite:
To give birth and to nourish,
to give birth without taking possession,
to act without obligation,
to lead without dominating---
this is mystical power.
to give birth without taking possession,
to act without obligation,
to lead without dominating---
this is mystical power.
Amen to that! This is, i think, my pet obsession. How to do this? How can I genuinely nurture the organisation itself, address what I perceive to be entrenched power inequities and still try to stop myself from trying to lead the process? Does this even make sense? Ooooooh!
No comments:
Post a Comment