-----Original Message-----
From: David Grey [mailto:davidgrey@lesboel.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent:
03 November 2002 11:57
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: NI - sociopaths..and scapegoating

I think we need be careful about terms like sociopath, especially when the UK government is planning unique, precedent-setting legislation to be able to confine individuals who have not committed a crime.  And given psychiatrists' record of misdiagnosis (especially of those who are ethnically / culturally different).

 

The term sociopath, within psychiatric discourse, has always referred to a very tiny minority of the human population.  Whereas, at the risk of repeating myself, I think bullying is something that every human being is capable of given the right situations or group dynamics.  There is a difference between the chronic inability to empathise at the level of fundamental personality (sociopathy, or what is now referred to as asocial personality disorder), and the temporary withdrawal of empathy which characterises bullying, scapegoating etc.

 

When 800,000 people were murdered in Rwanda in 1994 there were no gas chambers:  only machetes and clubs were used, meaning an estimated average 5 to 20 killings per killer.  Which means at least 40,000 murderers, but probably far more.  These could not all have been sociopaths.  Analysis of Rwandan history and culture over the previous hundred years, but especially the previous 10 years in which radio stations were calling on the Hutu majority population to "get rid of the cockroaches" and "remove the weeds" etc., illustrates the sort of processes which can turn thousands of people into killers.

 

The de-humanisation of an "other" we wish to persecute or exclude is not limited to Jews, Tutsis etc. We can also do it to "sociopaths", paedophiles, bullies etc.

 

The same dynamics go on, at less murderous level, every day in families, groups, organisations and online discussion groups.  Pretending only small minorities contain the badness (a) misattributes the sources of human malice and (b) just sets up the next group for persecution ("lets go and kill all the sociopaths!").

 

The myth that problems in groups and organisations can be swiftly resolved as soon as we identify and remove the bad person(s) is one of the single biggest obstacles to solving the real problems in groups and organisastions.

 

David Grey

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tapelem [mailto:tapelem@yahoo.com]

Sent: 05 November 2002 23:05

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: NI - The Trouble With Troublemakers

 

 

..So how did it go and what did you learn?

 

 

_

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Maureen G [mailto:maureen48@hotmail.com]

Sent: 05 November 2002 23:54

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: NI - The Trouble With Troublemakers

 

 

Troublemakers..........My I have been called that the better part of my

life......all because I have the audacity to ask Why?  Being a non compliant

child....I always wanted more info.....I challenged the folks I

guess.....when all I wanted was more info.....see I have found that to solve

problems.....it is not about having all of the right answers but rather

posing the right questions....Hope there are other troublemakers on the

forum......Maureen

 

 

 

May God bless you always and in all ways

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard F Cooke [mailto:wholean@onetel.net.uk]
Sent:
07 November 2002 08:20
To: NI
Subject: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

Dear David, Fiona and other Troublemakers,

Many thanks for a stimulating day yesterday.  Another thought provoking day amongst interesting people.

On reflecting on the day I’m left with a few thoughts, and I don’t know if that is the germs of a second workshop, an online dialogue or just my stuff!

It seemed to me we spent most of the time discussing and exploring the role of being the troublemaker.  There was a general presumption that we were being constructive and creative in that position.  With the exception of the goldfish bowl dialogue we didn’t really look at what it was like to suffer troublemakers, or label someone as a troublemaker, or examine how we might creatively deal with them and their issues.  Having acknowledged that troublemakers have positive agendas, we didn’t seem to develop any strategies to help them deliver their positive contributions when we were being troubled.  Did I miss that part?

Another personal reflection (and I’m taking a risk here because I’m not sure that it was a shared one), was that our process did a lot to open things up, but little to close it down.  Maybe the group learning style is personal reflection, but as a lot of us seemed very stimulated by the discussion part. I would have valued some conclusions, and learnings (maybe you did that part after 4pm… in which case I’d love to hear them!) 

This leads me onto  something we did touch on yesterday, which does interest me, as a group of highly skilled facilitators we seem to be reluctant to take our own medicine, in anything other than homeopathic doses.  Is this because we feel  that we don’t need it, we don’t like it or that this is the most powerful dosage? 

I have been wondering for sometime if it would be interesting to do a day on the facilitation and what it means to us…. Is there any energy out there for doing this??

  Regards,

 

     Richard F Cooke

    

 

-----Original Message-----
From: tonypage [mailto:tony@pageconsulting.co.uk]
Sent:
07 November 2002 10:11
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

Dear Richard and the troublemakers and all

 

Just a few quick irresponsible reactions (.... imagine me standing at the bar end of our line up, extremely troublesome, furthest from compliance!).... just a blast of words that might be misinterpreted...

 

On your question about suffering trouble-makers, and your sense that we're reluctant to "take our own medicine", this has set me off.... into an idea....I wonder if you/we are reaching towards a new, post-authoritarian way of leading/facilitating that was demonstrated by David and Fiona in yesterday's session?

 

This way includes more than it controls, is very empathic, flexible, in the moment, sees itself, embraces paradoxes such as needing structure AND freedom, brings awareness, choice, stretches us, trusts us, lets each person find their voice, lets the group live on the edge between orderliness and chaos, makes "mistakes" and has built in capacity to recover, and is effective only through moving with the emerging collective energy/interest in the group. It enables the group to function as more than the sum of its parts. It enables people to grow.

 

It could on the one hand be seen as "shambolic" but also could be seen as "transparent and skilful".

 

Maybe this is a fantasy, but maybe its a way for people to be at their best with each other. I did not want conclusions made for me by the group ... but I found myself very stimulated and that's all I want.

 

I realise everyone wants different amounts of structure and we each have to have what's right for us to feel "enabled".

 

Maybe I'm just an ageing hippy maverick but I find I'm not so interested in re-experiencing "taking our own medicine" if that means "being controlled"!

 

I am interested in exploring the limits of this emerging post-authoritarian, disorderly facilitation/leadership model though if that's what you're proposing.

 

Tony

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard F Cooke [mailto:wholean@onetel.net.uk]
Sent:
07 November 2002 10:47
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

Tony,

(Turns on the Bob Dylan, dons caftan, lights joss-stick)

I can see a lot of merit in your suggestion and your take.  However, the thought that provoked me is how to get the benefits and stimulation that we experienced yesterday, AND the benefits of structure.  As I said, I’m very aware that others probably feel differently, but I felt that we had left good thoughts ungrounded and that this would be less likely to lead to change and action.

I’d also welcome your (and everyone else’s) reaction to the first part of my post about how we deal with troublemakers rather than how we become them…

  Regards,

 

     Richard F Cooke

        

 

-----Original Message-----

From: LouiseVanRhyn@partners-for-change.com [mailto:LouiseVanRhyn@partners-for-change.com]

Sent: 07 November 2002 11:18

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony (and Richard)

 

You've got me excited. Very excited.

 

I would love to explore the 'post-authoritarian, disorderly facilitation/leadership model' with you and anyone else who may be interested, as I am finding myself on this journey too.

 

I guess my dream would be for someone to describe me & my facilitation style in the way you described Fiona's & David's yesterday.

 

'This way includes more than it controls, is very empathic, flexible, in the moment, sees itself, embraces paradoxes such as needing structure AND freedom, brings awareness, choice, stretches us, trusts us, lets each person find their voice, lets the group live on the edge between orderliness and chaos, makes "mistakes" and has built in capacity to recover, and is effective only through moving with the emerging collective energy/interest in the group. It enables the group to function as more than the sum of its parts. It enables people to grow.'

 

Wow !!

 

But, I am also aware of the needs of others (in particular my clients). Although I would love to always work in the way described above, I know that they sometimes just want me to 'get on and facilitate them' (as Richard so eloquently put it yesterday). I am currently grappling with this and my intentions as facilitator. Wanting to take care / look after / make it OK for others has often got me in a very difficult spot and I am finding out that although I may have the best of intentions, my intentions are often (unconsciously) fed by my own needs to be perceived to be caring / entertaining / good-value facilitator etc. etc.

 

And who am I after all to decide (for others) that it is good for them to be facilitated in whatever style I choose to facilitate. Who knows whats 'best' / 'right' and on what grounds ?

 

I am also learning how much more it takes from me (as participant) to engage / participate / make sense / grapple / struggle / be confused when I am 'being facilitated' in the 'post-authoritarian' way. It feels as if it takes more from me (but it is infinitely more rewarding too !).

 

My challenge as facilitator is often to contract with clients in a way that allows me to work in the way described above. But I am not finding it easy and I find myself spending ages carefully designing agendas (meeting my own need to appear knowledgeable) to meet the client's need to be in control of the workshop (meeting my need to...)...[this can go on for days].....and at the same holding on to my emerging beliefs around the value of free-flowing conversation and emergent meaning !

 

I am delighted to be part of this conversation (and can't wait to talk about it face-to-face !). Richard & Tony - thanks for continuing yesterday's conversation on-line.

 

Louise

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jeremy Keeley [mailto:jeremykeeley@keeleycarlisle.co.uk]

Sent: 07 November 2002 11:41

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

I'm up for a session on facilitation and a good old healthy practice of lots of different ways of doing it!

 

J

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard F Cooke [mailto:wholean@onetel.net.uk]

Sent: 07 November 2002 11:48

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Great!

 

  Regards,

 

     Richard F Cooke

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tonypage [mailto:tony@pageconsulting.co.uk]

Sent: 07 November 2002 12:43

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

 

Looks like you've got a few of us excited now Richard - me, Louise, Jeremy...!!!

 

Like you Louise I would also value a kind of workshop in which we could practise, experience and richly describe different ways of facilitating... And maybe this will make it easier to contract with client too.

 

Regarding the first part of your question Richard (- are you being "troublesome" by bringing this back to us?!?!?!)how to deal with troublemakers was I felt touched on at different points yesterday from... throwing them out of the nightclub into the gutter to... Non-violently eliciting their observations-feelings-needs-requests a la Jo.

 

At this moment I'm interested in the notion that a "troublemaker", although disrupting a group from the boundary, is experiencing a question over whether they can contribute, influence and thus be part of a group. What do you do with them then? Freeing their voice, drawing out of them a previously inexpressible something, which is then heard and understood (as in Jo's non-violent communication) seems to me to be a pretty good way of resolving the issue.

 

You may be able to think of some other ways. Car parks, agendas, groundrules are I suppose all aimed in this direction.

 

Tony

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Caroline Flexman [mailto:caroline@f-c-s.co.uk]

Sent: 07 November 2002 13:07

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Hi there

I'm also interested in a day on facilitation - especially if we get the chance to try out new processes. Reading your point on trouble makers below Tony I was wondering if Nancy Kline's process described in her book "Time to Think" would be a good one for honouring a trouble makers positive intention and giving them the time, space and support to think things through. Has anyone else read Nancy's book or tried out her processes? I have only tried out her process in pairs - and not in a group. Caroline www.visionintoaction.co.uk 020 8741 1937

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard F Cooke [mailto:wholean@onetel.net.uk]

Sent: 07 November 2002 13:32

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

I agree that Jo's non-violent communication does hold some answers for this. I suspect that is what Caroline is also referring to.

 

I think what I was after was a range of strategies that perhaps start with dealing with my own reaction of shock, rage fear etc moving thro to helping them voice their honest concerns and ending up, as a last resort, with 'throwing them out of the (virtual) night club'

 

 

 

 

  Regards,

 

     Richard F Cooke

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tessa Bradon [mailto:asset.consulting@dial.pipex.com]
Sent:
07 November 2002 14:36
To: new Intermediaries
Subject: NI - Nancy Kline's work

Caroline & others

I was interested to hear you mention Nancy Kline.  I did her 4 day course - Leadership for a Thinking Environment, 4 years ago and I found it really helpful for facilitation & individual coaching.  The thinking rounds process (discussed in the book) works very well.

Her beliefs include the ideas that:

  • feelings need to be expressed & paid attention to for high quality thinking to happen
  • some of the blockages to high quality thinking are underlying assumptions
  • Our picture of reality tends to be distorted with a focus on the negative, balancing this provides better quality thinking.

Tessa Bradon

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: AmandaDudman@aol.com [mailto:AmandaDudman@aol.com]
Sent:
07 November 2002 16:55
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

A disorderly facilitation model is definitely a strong thread that emerged for me as I have reflected on yesterday.  It was indeed stimulating, and Tony, your paragraph of paradoxical descriptive words around non-authoritarian facilitation is great.  Working with an HR Team today in a very structured ordered way (their need to have rules, times, an agenda etc....) was in contrast to the risky floating but grounded process yesterday. 
It was stimulating and thought provoking, (thank you again David and Fiona).
Taking this and playing with it some more would be valuable.
Amanda

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tonypage [mailto:tony@pageconsulting.co.uk]

Sent: 07 November 2002 17:52

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Yep Richard Jo has more on your question - something like giving yourself empathy first so that you can go on and help the other person.

 

You could look at NI knowledge pool, index, Marshall Rosenberg article - this is covered in a fairly detailed account of one of his seminars on non-violent comm.... Or you could ask Jo.

 

Not sure when you stop trying and have to throw them out. More usually it goes like this for me - I feel disturbed, then snap back at someone who irritates me/threatens my "control" of a group, then they go quiet and sulk for a bit. I try to patch things up later. Interestingly a couple of my more troublesome participants have become clients later. I think some people just like to be handled more roughly - so they feel they've got a reaction, but some don't so mistakes are inevitable!!

 

I'm sure others have better ways.

 

Tony

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Julia Williams [mailto:julia@personalimpact.com]

Sent: 07 November 2002 20:36

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Not having had much experience of facilitating groups, but 20 years of individuals I would love to come to a workshop on facilitation - with some trepidation - but really willing to learn as I do from observing and participating as much as I dare. As everyone tends to offer mostly what they need and have personally valued, it should be a rich experience. Julia

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tapelem [mailto:tapelem@yahoo.com]

Sent: 07 November 2002 21:52

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: NI - Re: Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Folks,

 

Bear with me if I challenge you a little.

 

I sit here on the sidelines, reading with interest about your

day "Troublemaking".

 

I ask the question, what did you learn? did you come to any

conclusions? What did you discuss and how did it happen? Are you

willing to produce a paper on it? This may all sound like a very

basic request, but if you wish to share knowledge, then OK, to use

that wonderful buzzword please be transparent.

 

It is very hard to put "self" into troublemaking mode if that is not

within - so I ask how real was it? Is it possible to *be* a

troublemaker?

 

None of this is in any way written to denigate your day, it sounds

positive and fulfilling and I would love to hear more. Perhaps there

is more to be done on this issue, before sidetracking onto

facilitation...

 

..but that is your choice and this is only my observation.

 

love

 

steph

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: tonypage [mailto:tony@pageconsulting.co.uk]
Sent:
08 November 2002 08:34
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

Here's a bit of transparency Stef - sorry can't rise to a report though!

 

Thanks Amanda for the little gem you gave me at the end after the line-up ex where we experimented with how it feels to be more or less troublesome (by the way I felt strangely liberated when I became more troublesome!!!) - "edgework" was it?

 

Breaking out of the tight little circle of chairs is a very memorable image of troublemaking. It says to me: break out of your comfort zone, move into the space beyond to make contact with others, try not to frighten/harm others when you do this, but find and be true to your spirit even if this creates a bit of TROUBLE and disruption, understand that others might be trying to do this too PARTICULARLY when their chairs fall on you!

 

Some disturbance is inevitable and can be overcome if we can arrive at this boundary work with understanding, patience and strength. That's a trustful-generosity-lets-make-contact-messy mindset not a done-to-I've-got-rights-you-know-tidy one.

 

Political correctness breaks down here and I fear "rights oriented" lawyers could have a field day!

 

Tony 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tonypage [mailto:tony@pageconsulting.co.uk]

Sent: 08 November 2002 08:46

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - The Trouble With Troublemakers

 

 

Maureen

 

Thanks for your good wishes.

 

There were lots of troublemakers on Weds and when Fiona got us to line up the whole group naturally gravitated to the troublesome not the compliant end of the room! It's a calling I think! We discovered a v. high proportion of first children in the group. I'm a second child, felt more compliant than many but REALLY enjoyed being invited to stand in a more troublesome place!

 

Tony

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Edward Rowland [mailto:edrowland@compuserve.com]

Sent: 08 November 2002 11:59

To: INTERNET:newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Edward Rowland

Subject: RE: NI - The Trouble With Troublemakers

 

 

Message text written by INTERNET:newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

>It's a calling I think! We discovered a v.

high proportion of first children in the group<

 

Interesting, you mean you're stretching into the opposite (?) because as you doubtless know all the research goes the other way - that it's the laterborns who struggle against authority, identify with the underdogs, become innovators and satirise the dominant, Ralph Nader, Darwin, Voltaire, Charles Dickens etc.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tonypage [mailto:tony@pageconsulting.co.uk]

Sent: 08 November 2002 14:30

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - The Trouble With Troublemakers

 

 

Ed

 

Didn't know the theory of laterborns. Interesting. Not sure if stretching into "opposite" fully explains the pattern here. Seems we're all trying different places out for a while, inside and outside, compliant/holding space/troublesome, stabilising/disrupting.

 

Lots of places to stand, lots of boundaries, maybe we're spotting comfort zones and continually moving outside them?

 

I'm a second born who got promoted when my elder sister died and seem to swing from ultra responsible to maverick! Certainly I struggle with authority...this defines my life and work.

 

Tony

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Edward Rowland [mailto:edrowland@compuserve.com]

Sent: 08 November 2002 15:53

To: INTERNET:newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: NI - The Trouble With Troublemakers

 

 

Tony,

 

You can read more in Frank J Sulloway's BORN TO REBEL, the product of 20 years' work as a researcher at MIT. It's very interesting,

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0349111006/rev

iews/026-7936269-5802011

 

Best,

Ed

(youngest of 5)

 

 

From:  FionaCoffey@a...
Date:  Fri Nov 8, 2002  4:05 pm
Subject:  Re: NI - Re: Troublemakers-R-us

Dear all

To everyone who came to the workshop - thanks so much for a great day, and for all the comments and reflections afterwards. I appreciate you kicking off the feedback Richard, and acknowledge and respect your need for more structure/tangible outcomes. I'm chuffed by your comments on the mode of facilitation Tony, Louise, Amanda, and am glad it has sparked off wider interest in exploring facilitation further.

I'm not sure David and I were so conscious of our interaction or its impact, but reflecting on our conversations afterwards, it seems that we were holding a potential tension between us of a preference for structure/control and a preference for emergence, letting it happen, and wanting to be open about that, rather than attempting to resolve the conflict in our pre meetings, or pretending it didn't exist by letting one of us 'win' or control the other on the day.

I hope it is not too fanciful to suggest that our dilemma reflects, I think, the dynamic tension which is also at the heart of the challenge of responding to a so called 'troublemaker'. My sense is that we are served by being both realistic about the existence of conflict, and positive about the possiblity of transcending it, drawing upon approaches such as NVC, Nancy Kline, whatever, where they can help us move forward.  

Steph, I'd like to say that I was challenged by your challenge when I read it this morning. And what I've learned is that this kind of challenge can support clarity around one's own position and values. So, speaking for myself, my values around transparency and openness are:

- if I propose a workshop or event for NI, I usually want to make it open to anyone who wants to come, including friends, colleagues of NI members who hear of event

- during the workshop I want to try to be as open, transparent, authentic as I can be in my interactions with others, also to try to create a safe space for others to do the same

- after the workshop, I and others can choose whether or not to share their learning, what to share, when and with whom.  I don't have an additional responsibility to be 'transparent' to a wider group of individuals who, for whatever reason, chose not to participate in the event itself. This meets my need for a balance between openness and privacy and acknowledges that some of the learning in this kind of workshop can be quite personal.

With best wishes
Fiona

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Bickerton [mailto:Bick.partner@ukgateway.net]
Sent:
08 November 2002 20:07
To: newintermediaries
Subject: NI - personal relfections on troublemaking

Thank you to all who met and shared at the cricket club. I felt engaged and involved, supported and challenged, moved to speak up and moved to listen. David and Fiona I felt and appreciated your light touch.

Picking up the prompts from Steph and Richard -  what came out of the day from my perspective?

 

Some reminders

It's not what you say it's the way that you say it. The underlying motivation will reveal itself and in part invites the response

Not all trouble making is intended to be constructive

Content helps to ground.

 

Reflections

'That was not my intention' can  have the subtext- It was my intention but I didn't want you to react/respond the way that you have done.

Troublemaking can be triggered in me when I am bored, feel isolated or ignored feel I am being manipulated into agreeing with something I disagree with. In short when I am not OK. I am more likely to be perceived as catalytic, insightful, constructively challenging when I am OK and in touch with the OKness of the other.

If I want to stay connected with the trouble maker I need to challenge myself to look for the underlying need that they are trying to express and not to be deflected by the perhaps clumsy strategy for expressing that need.

E-mail could be the troublemakers new best friend

 

 

A realisation

When I look for trouble/threat I find it and create more for myself by neglecting to focus on my own power in the situation.

 

Tessa and Caroline thanks for the Nancy Kline references. An NI session to learn more about and experience other dialogue tools e.g thinking rounds, enabling processes to support the non-authoritarian etc. approach Tony described would be great.

 

All the best

Julie

Bick.partner@ukgateway.net

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tapelem [mailto:tapelem@yahoo.com]

Sent: 08 November 2002 20:49

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: NI - Re: Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Dear Fiona,

 

First let me explain my challenge. It was made in a spirit of lively

enquiry - not critical. Challenges are tough to make, I risk causing

*upset* and it seems I have managed unwittingly to have done so again. Therefore I feel angry with myself.

 

Responding personally to the comment concerning choices in attending

an event, yes I could choose so to do, but my leave is very precious

to me, my family comes before my needs, therefore weekdays are

difficult.

 

My understanding of the "rules" of this group were those which were

published namely...

 

"This is a community of practice; dedicated to knowledge sharing and

creation. It offers support, helping us all to find points of

leverage, to become distinctive, to communicate what we do in our

work and to a sense of pride/esprit"

 

I understand and totally accept your need to keep personal matters

private, I would not dream of overstepping that boundary, but if

there is learning to be had from this event, then I am hungry to

share it.

 

Someday you will meet me in person, though heaven knows when, and

maybe realise that I am not the bogeyman that sometimes I appear to

be!

 

take care

 

steph

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Julia Williams [mailto:julia@personalimpact.com]
Sent:
09 November 2002 20:28
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: NI - personal relfections on troublemaking

Julie

I found this clear, short, insightful and how i see things although i didnt attend the workshop.

Julia Williams

Julia Williams
Communications Coach
Personal Impact
www.personalimpact.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: helenamolyneux@compuserve.com [mailto:helenamolyneux@compuserve.com]
Sent:
16 November 2002 15:12
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

Belated response on the Trouble Maker workshop.  I got a lot out of it even though I had to leave after lunch and missed the afternoon session.  The benefit has come for me from being stimulated to think around the troublemakers issue beforehand, the workshop itself and the reflections subsequently.  So for those who were there and those who weren’t some reflections a week later. 

Now I realise what a minefield going into email writing can be, but here we go.

Troublemakers – constructive/destructive?

If I’d been there for the line up, I’d have been at the non-troublemaker end of the line up even though I am a youngest.  (I’ve ordered the book, Born to Rebel.  Thanks for the reference.  I’ve definitely always had the drive to strike out differently, though for some reason this hasn’t ended up as me being cast in the role of troublemaker.)  My perspective coming to the workshop was ‘how can you get the constructive benefit of troublemakers’.  My conclusion is that there’s a spectrum of trouble makers – TMs for short:

·         Look like TM but aren’t at all.  The TM may perceive themselves to be a TM.  Or the leader or others as recipients of the TMs action/words, “the troubled”, may initially perceive them to be a TM. But they are not, because unknown to them, their different viewpoint matches the leader’s view of what needs to change. In fact they’re in front of the wave and the leader is thrilled to find out they’re there.

·         The TM looks like trouble but their input is in fact very useful once leader/others realised what it was about, realised their positive intent etc.  Diversity of views can produce a better end result.

·         The TM is not really trouble but is very challenging and the leader/others have to work really hard to listen

·         TM is troubling but you’ll only find out whether they’re going to create real trouble/threaten the survival/thriving of the organisation or not by listening and finding out what’s behind and around what they’re doing/saying

·         Definitely trouble but listen and learn before responding

·         Definitely trouble and listening didn’t do much except help understand the lay of the land.

This echoes others comments about listening, exploring and assuming positive intent at the outset.  I totally agree with the comment that there’s a huge amount in “it’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it”. The potential TM will get the listening in ear of others a lot easier if they flag up at the outset that what’s coming might be difficult news, if need be flag up their positive intent and assume positive intent too. 

So it seems there’s a lot in this about ‘casting’ which creates the difficulty in the interactions – people being cast as trouble makers or casting themselves as troublemakers.  If something troubles me, I don’t think my response need be binary – either trouble making/voicing or compliant/silent.  I think there are lots of ways of voicing/behaving without necessarily being perceived as a trouble maker.  And varied influencing skills to use.  How I say it and to whom I say it matters.  Hence for example whistle blowing policies recognise that you need to have multiple access points to voice your concern right through to the board.  And like whistle blowing, organisational culture is a big issue for the way in which trouble making is perceived  - a culture that says it’s a good thing and not a bad one if the intent is positive makes the whole thing more constructive and easier to do and handle.  If the culture is “if you’re not with me, you’re against”, then it’s much, much tougher.

Curious isn’t it that both sides of the trouble maker interaction are ‘troubled’.

And I agree that there will be trouble makers who are trouble for the survival/thriving of the organisation and there will be troubled who are more concerned with the status quo or their own survival than organisational progress or the legitimate concerns of an individual member of staff, customer, supplier, pressure group etc.

Thanks for putting on the workshop NI. 

Helena

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: tapelem [mailto:tapelem@yahoo.com]

Sent: 17 November 2002 09:29

To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: NI - Re: Troublemakers-R-us

 

 

Helen,

 

Thank you so much for your reflections, they were so clearly

expressed, and rang so many bells in my head it was very hard to

ignore.

 

OK so lets try it...what I write next may be a little difficult to

read but its intent is positive and not critical, it is a cry for

help to "understand" the language of this forum. There was much

debate on the language of expert jargon, and I admit to sometimes

finding it almost impossible to follow some threads becuase the flow

of thought within although beautifully crafted is not aimed at the

widest possible readership. No, I do not have the "expertise of

practice" that comes with working in your area, but I also do have

more than a few brain cells which I dust off occasionally and use <joke???> and want to understand much more than I am able at present. That sometimes can be frustrating and rather excluding (feels like a

members only club?) - and yes that is as much to do with

my "feelings" and not to do with your intent.

Please feel free to come back at me, I am willing to listen.

 

And hey, if I had attended your TM day, I would probably have put

myself at the troublemaking end, only because of my "white knight"

attitude to life, (hating dishonesty\injustice\righting wrongs etc

etc!), trying to curb the rescuing that I seem to have spent much of

my life doing!! As the office I work in believe in the Margerisonn

McCann TMI system, I find I am an Upholder Maintainer - a role which

probably describes me to a T - though I realise that it isn't

supposed to be a "life script".

 

Enough me,

 

over to youse guys..

 

steph

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Garth Spiers [mailto:GarthSpiers@compuserve.com]

Sent: 17 November 2002 23:19

To: INTERNET:newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: NI - Re: Troublemakers - what happens online

 

 

Dear NI-ers

those who like trouble - have a look at

 

WWW.CLUETRAIN.COM

 

 

Here is what some people have said

 

The cluetrain is to marketing and communications what the open-source movement is to software development — anarchic, messy, rude, and vastly more powerful than the doomed bullshit that conventionally passes for wisdom

 

These troublemakers are going to get what they deserve — a huge and enthusiastic following!

 

The authors have written a must-read book for anyone who's been in business more than five years. The hardest thing for those of us in that category to understand is that the world does not revolve around whatever business we happen to be managing. The Cluetrain Manifesto has no respect for size, success or precedence. It reminds us that business is about people, not just commerce as such. Guaranteed to be utterly different from any business strategy book you've ever read

 

The following is a page of the first chapter of the book:

 

The Cluetrain Manifesto:

The End of Business as Usual

 

 

We die.

 

You will never hear those words spoken in a television ad. Yet this central fact of human existence colors our world and how we perceive ourselves within it.

 

"Life is too short," we say, and it is. Too short for office politics, for busywork and pointless paper chases, for jumping through hoops and covering our asses, for trying to please, to not offend, for constantly struggling to achieve some ever-receding definition of success. Too short as well for worrying whether we bought the right suit, the right breakfast cereal, the right laptop computer, the right brand of underarm deodorant.

 

Life is too short because we die. Alone with ourselves, we sometimes stop to wonder what's important, really. Our kids, our friends, our lovers, our losses? Things change and change is often painful. People get "downsized," move away, the old neighborhood isn't what it used to be. Children get sick, get better, get bored, get on our nerves. They grow up hearing news of a world more frightening than anything in ancient fairy tales. The wicked witch won't really push you into the oven, honey, but watch out for AK-47s at recess.

 

Amazingly, we learn to live with it. Human beings are incredibly resilient. We know it's all temporary, that we can't freeze the good times or hold back the bad. We roll with the punches, regroup, rebuild, pick up the pieces, take another shot. We come to understand that life is just like that. And this seemingly simple understanding is the seed of a profound wisdom.

 

It is also the source of a deep hunger that pervades modern life — a longing for something entirely different from the reality reinforced by everyday experience. We long for more connection between what we do for a living and what we genuinely care about, for work that's more than clock-watching drudgery. We long for release from anonymity, to be seen as who we feel ourselves to be rather than as the sum of abstract metrics and parameters. We long to be part of a world that makes sense rather than accept the accidental alienation imposed by market forces too large to grasp, to even contemplate.

 

And this longing is not mere wistful nostalgia, not just some unreconstructed adolescent dream. It is living evidence of heart, of what makes us most human.

 

But companies don't like us human. They leverage our longing for their own ends. If we feel inadequate, there's a product that will fill the hole, a bit of fetishistic magic that will make us complete. Perhaps a new car would do the trick. Maybe a trip to the Caribbean or that new CD or a nice shiny set of Ginsu steak knives. Anything, everything, just get more stuff. Our role is to consume.

 

Of course, the new car alone is not enough. It must be made to represent something larger. Much larger. The blonde draped over the hood looks so much better than the old lady bitching about the dishes. Surely she'd understand our secret needs. And if we showed up with her at the big golf game, wouldn't the guys be impressed! Yeah, gotta get one-a those babies. This isn't about sex, it's about power — the greatest bait there ever was to seduce the powerless.

 

Or take it one slice closer to the bone. Leverage care. For the cost of a jar of peanut butter, you can be a Great Mom, the kind every kid would love to have. You can look out on your happy kids playing in that perfect suburban backyard and breathe a little sigh of contentment that life's so good, with not a wicked witch in sight. Just like on television.

 

We die. And there's more than one way to get it over with. Advertising has some serving suggestions for your premature burial

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Grey [mailto:davidgrey@lesboel.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent:
18 November 2002 08:46
To: newintermediaries@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: NI - Troublemakers-R-us

Thanks for this Helena.  Lots for us all to think about, isn't there!

 

David