Musings on law, tech, chess & other topics by a geek

Today I am attending a meeting of the Washington State Supreme Court Boards and Commissions visioning Process.  The meeting is facilitated Bill Grace of CommonGoodWorks.com.  Bill is a strong story teller who starts sessions by creating a space, Gracious Space, for the discussion of diverse ideas.  Gracious space was described a place with respect, openness, free giving, head/heart, opportunity, listening, Cultural Competence. This idea was meet with at least some resistance.   There were both concerns that the Gracious Space would create a wowo space of ideals but not action and that it would discourage open discussions that may have elements of conflict.  I hear these concerns and am a little skeptical at the framing of a meeting as a gracious space.

How you describe a place sets the tone for the discussion.  As a techie I value several things that are not usually considered gracious; failure, innovation, radical chance and relative truth.   After getting into the meeting I understand a bit better why the analogy of a gracious space was used.  One of the focal points of the meeting was creating a better system that takes into account Efficiency & Justice.  There is a lot of concern that the process that today is part of could lead to commissions being combined or cut in a way that would result in loss of staff jobs or changes to those jobs.  To be clear the committee was not formed with a mandate to cut expensiveness. My understanding is that the focus is on creating a commission system that works better and all ideas welcome.  Change scares people and the Gracious Space is designed to place a value focus on the process of change. In retrospect I see value in the focusing of the meeting as a Gracious Space, but this space may limit the options available.

There are several things I could learn from Bill Grace as a facilitator:

#1 Use personal stories that paint the speak in both a positive light and stories that admit personal mistakes.

#2 Ask value questions to focus views Here is one example: What is the common good? A: Barn Raising A: Utilitarianism A: Veil of Ignorance A: Sidewalks or communal goods. These questions let the group form their values together.

Although I think the moderation was generally helpful to quell tensions, there was one area that I did not find helpful.  Bill tried to focuse the group to help them find their individual core values.  This was accomplished by handing out a sheet of core values with 22 preprinted values and 5 open lines.  Each person was asked to find the 10 values they believed in most and they could fill in  additional values.  Then we, individually, were asked to limit the list to 5 and then 3.   Theoretically this values assessment focused people on finding their three core values.  Most people choose 2 or 3 of their core values from the preprinted values. We were then asked to share our core values and it was then pointed out how similar those values where.   I did not find this to be very values as it biased people to the values on the list.  If we had started with a blank sheet the diversity of the group would have shone through.  My core values included Rashomon & Failure these were not held in common with others. The exercise created artificial unity at the cost of diversity & creativity.

I am very curious to see where this process leads.  We need an integrated strategy that shares best practices and serves more people effectively.  We have a ways to go.

Best Quote of the day:

“We must speak the truth in love to power“, Dr. Cornell West