Structuring for Collective Wisdom

By Jim Rough

Please note: this is a draft. Jim welcomes your feedback and comments! You can respond publicly by commenting on the blog posting, or contact Jim directly at 360-385-7118 or jim [@] dynamicfacilitation.com

Consider the ideal conversation of “Wise Democracy”—where all citizens work together with government, face the difficult problems collaboratively, understand the deep systemic nature of the issues, and create a clear mandate that everyone can get behind. If we could somehow structure this kind of public conversation, many seemingly impossible issues would go away. Plus, there would be radical new solutions, adequate funds, changes to the structure of the system, and people willing to help one another and collective effort.

Practical experience tells us this ideal is impossible. Consider these recent high profile attempts to transcend partisanship in the United States:

• President Barack Obama entered the Presidency with a strong mandate for change. His aim was to enact major health care revisions in a bi-partisan way using facilitative leadership. Result: The public conversation, especially on health care reform, became even more partisan.
• The citizen initiative process in California, theoretically a pure form of citizen involvement, has restricted legislators from enacting change and brought state government to its knees. Result: Special Interests and partisan battling dominate the process more than ever. There is an annual budget crisis accompanied by draconian cuts in basic services. The public is increasingly frustrated and California bonds are rated at near “junk” status.
• Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat describes the efforts at citizen involvement in his city: “We debated the monorail for ten years, deliberated the viaduct for nine, and discussed the 520 bridge for eight. Actual action so far: naught, nothing, and none.”

Fortunately, however, there are new social inventions that make the Wise Democracy ideal far more achievable with minimal risk and cost.

AN EXAMPLE

In Bregenz, Austria, on Lake Constance in the heart of Europe, there are often bitter battles over each new public development project. The mayor was concerned about a new project scheduled for the center of the city, near the lake. This time, however, Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the Director of the Department of Future Related Issues in the state of Vorarlberg, proposed holding a Creative Insight Council (CIC) and the mayor agreed.

Twelve citizens were randomly selected from the voter registration roles as a microcosm of the city, symbolizing all citizens of Bregenz. They met for two days. They listened to a description of the existing project proposal along with a range of different views about it. The group was facilitated using Dynamic Facilitation (DF) to address the issue in a creative way. The group had a breakthrough: They realized that this project offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city to link itself more closely to the lake. They suggested shifting the center of gravity to the second floor of the project instead of the first, by building a wide bridge over the railroad tracks rather than the underground tunnel that had originally been planned. Plus, to further connect the citizens with the lakefront, they suggested adding a sweeping set of steps on the side toward the lake. Adopting this new emphasis, linking the city to the lake, would be better for citizens and save money for the developers.

First, the CIC presented their unanimous perspective to the investors, architects, city planners and mayor. All were surprised by the depth of the group’s thinking and pleased with the result. The principal investor who had been working on the project for two years said, “We had been looking at the trees and had not seen the forest.”

A few weeks later the CIC, speaking as a symbolic “voice of the common good,” presented their insight and the story of how they arrived at it, to a community gathering with a large media presence. One at a time, each CIC member spoke about the Council’s findings and how enjoyable and rewarding the CIC experience had been. Also at this meeting the investors, mayor, and architects expressed their support. The audience listened to the presentations and then, using the World Café model for large group meetings, they talked about this new idea in small groups. The entire audience was inspired and enthusiastic about the outcome. Sponsored by government, this process helped the city bypass the usual partisan argument. It facilitated a new public conversation that was a creative quest for what’s best.

This same CIC process could be used to address the impossible-seeming issues mentioned earlier. It provides a way to overcome the usual partisan conversation in Congress, for instance, by creating a clear mandate from the people. It provides a way to bust through Constitutional roadblocks, and make necessary systemic changes that the people support.

WISE DEMOCRACY

To envisage how Wise Democracy might come into being imagine a device that when activated, sets up an energy field of listening and creative thinking. Any person in this field finds him or herself performing at a very high quality, interested in different viewpoints and seeking breakthrough answers that bridge those differences. Regardless of partisan beliefs, cultural backgrounds, or level of education each person feels fully heard and accepted by the group. This frees him or her to become curious, creative and collaborative. Breakthroughs and shifts occur naturally.

If you could buy one of these devices you might set it up in your house for your family, or in your organization for meetings. Or, governments might buy big versions that work for the whole city or the whole country. Just from turning on this device, there would be less partisan wrangling, more spirit of community, more trust in government, more sense of fairness, more citizen involvement, increased knowledge and empowerment, and better collective decisions.

Actually, in our society we already have this device in operation. But the dial has been set to facilitate a different field, one where we are all competitive, partisan, and self-interested. The public conversation is structured to be a political battle where collective decisions are viewed through the question, “How will it affect our bottom line?” Ordinary citizen involvement strategies operate within that larger field. The Wise Democracy approach is a deep systems adjustment to affect the overall field of thinking. It involves four social innovations:

1. Choice-creating: Choice-creating is the quality of thinking that our device seeks to facilitate. This quality should be at the core of democracy. It is where people face big issues creatively and collaboratively, and seek answers that work for everyone. Choice-creating is like dialogue because it is a heartfelt creative process except it leads to unanimous solution strategies. It is like deliberation because it reaches conclusions, but different because it relies on creativity more than judgment to reach those conclusions. Choice-creating is like what sometimes happens in a crisis, when everyone “gets it” that they have face the crisis and work together. Empowering shifts and insights arise as people accomplish more than they thought was possible. Since most people do not experience choice-creating regularly, they think of it as a fleeting and random spirit that happens only occasionally. They don’t imagine that it could be reliably evoked. But Dynamic Facilitation can assure choice-creating.
2. Dynamic Facilitation (DF): DF is the device we talked about earlier. It establishes the creative field where people face difficult issues, think at the level of choice-creating and create win/win solutions. The DF’er encourages people to select issues they care about, regardless of how impossible they may seem, and to speak from the heart. He or she welcomes divergent viewpoints and protects each participant from judgment. The DF’er asks simple questions like, “If you were in charge what would you do?” designed to draw out what each person is really thinking or feeling. She uses reflections to protect each person from judgment, clarify his thinking, and to help everyone understand and appreciate each contribution. Using four charts — Data, Solutions, Concerns and Problem-Statements —the value of each comment is brought forward, and the group tracks its progress. Participants enjoy this kind of meeting, finding it to be close in spirit to a natural conversation, except with exciting progress as the result. Since randomly selected participants speak only for themselves, with enough time they are able to put aside partisan positions and seek win/win answers.
3. The Creative Insight Council (CIC): The CIC was illustrated earlier. Just as Dynamic Facilitation establishes a field of choice-creating in a small group, the CIC extends that field of thinking to a large population. It begins with a difficult, impossible-seeming issue that needs addressing. Twelve people are selected randomly from voter registration roles to meet for a few days to address it. The group hears from experts and stakeholders, meets in the spirit of choice-creating, discovers new possibilities, and presents its unanimous conclusions to the community. With complex issues, a series of two or three CIC’s can be used. This way the larger community can become more involved and affect the public conversation more deeply. Each new CIC takes the issue forward another step.
4. The Wisdom Council Process (WCP): The Wisdom Council Process is like a CIC but ongoing. Every four months twelve citizens are randomly selected for a few days to engage in a creative exploration on issues of their choice. Each Council arrives at a shared outcome, which they present back to the community in large gatherings, like a “state of union” address. This ongoing process establishes the new public conversation and a new public entity: “We the People” — all of us together. We figure out what we want and provide responsible leadership to our system, which is currently in charge of both itself and us. In practice the conclusions of Wisdom Councils and Creative Insight Councils are thoughtful and innovative. At presentations most everyone who hears the results supports them. Also at these presentations, each Council tells its story. They talk about the awkward place they started, facing some issue they didn’t think they could address. They talk about insights along the way, and their excitement as they became clear on what the real problem is, what we really want, and how best to achieve it. It’s a heroic story that all of us are on together.

The usual methods of citizen involvement are arrayed on a spectrum from 1) informing citizens, to 2) finding out what they think, to 3) considering their ideas, to 4) partnering with them, to 5) turning over decision-making to the public. This sounds like the whole picture, but it doesn’t include the Wise Democracy ideal that we seek. Using the four tools of Wise Democracy facilitates the emergence of a clear, thoughtful, inclusive and powerful voice of “We the People.” To the extent that this voice of all-of-us-together emerges, We can change our system to provide more of what we want in ways that currently seem impossible.

These Wise Democracy tools were developed in the United States, but they have found a foothold internationally. In Victoria, British Columbia, for example, a citizens group has been experimenting with the WCP for a number of years. (See www.WiseDemocracyVictoria.org) In the State of Vorarlberg, Austria, different city governments have been working with the CIC and the WCP to stimulate citizen involvement and address important public issues

A SUGGESTED STRATEGY

Below is a suggested three-pronged strategy for how government might proceed.

1. Government uses CIC’s to address the BIG issues: When facing a difficult, ill-defined, complex, conflicted, or seemingly impossible issue, government now has a way out. It can convene a short series of Creative Insight Councils on the issue. Government can call “help!” to the citizens, saying “We don’t have enough money to provide the services we think you want?” or ask “What are your priorities about the environment?” The concept is simple: Gather twelve randomly selected citizens to meet over a few days on the issue. Being dynamically facilitated they will have shifts of insight and understanding and present a clear perspective of the public interest. Usually, they will reframe the problem in a new way and suggest some kind of solution strategy. When others hear the results, the story of how the results were developed, and the personal statements of CIC members, they resonate with the conclusions and support them. The trick is to structure things so that as many people as possible will hear the results.
2. Government (or a Citizen Group) builds Dynamic Facilitation capability in the community: Another starting place is to convene a four or five-day seminar aimed at developing Dynamic Facilitation skills and enthusiasm for Wise Democracy among citizens, consultants and government employees. This builds the overall capability throughout the system and establishes a core of people who understand the process, are excited about it, and who are skilled in taking it forward. It also improves the quality of life for individuals and makes many forms of meeting more effective.
3. Working with government a citizen group establishes the Wisdom Council Process (WCP): Wise Democracy is an ongoing process. It doesn’t work to have one high-trust public conversation using a CIC, followed by the normal partisan power struggles. This can cause hurt feelings and a sense of betrayal, and undermine the spirit of trust. The Wisdom Council Process is designed to transform the public conversation permanently, involve ever more people, and facilitate the emergence of “We the People.” Ideally, the WCP should be chartered into existence by “the people” through a vote, a citizens initiative, or constitutional amendment. But in practice, some organization can just start the process, by committing to a series of Wisdom Councils. At some point Wisdom Councils, which represent a voice of the people, unanimously say, “Hey, this is a great process. We need to keep it going.” This is a way that the WCP can charter itself into legitimacy.

CHOOSING WISE DEMOCRACY

Elected officials often respond to this out-of-the-box new approach not with excitement but concerned that twelve people can’t really transform the public conversation; that the effort to involve citizens will take extra time, cost more money, or will threaten a loss of status, control, or authority; and that the citizen voice will be critical of them, ask for more resources, advocate poor proposals (as often happens with citizen initiatives), or just state the obvious. The opposite is true.

Can twelve people really transform the public conversation?… This Wise Democracy strategy isn’t twelve people. It’s all of us. The process just uses an ongoing series of randomly selected groups of twelve to be the field-generating device. Key to understanding how this approach transform the public conversation lies in understanding and experiencing choice-creating. This is not the usual form of citizen involvement where the leaders talk and only the regulars come. Nor is it a deliberative process, where a random selection of people is presented with a problem and a set of options, and where they deliberate and vote hoping that elected officials will pay attention.

Instead, Wisdom Councils and Creative Insight Councils address a problem we all care about and determine a unanimous perspective. But this is not the same kind of unanimity that a jury reaches, where all consent to one position, like guilty, that we already know about. Nor is it the kind of negotiated consensus, where each person compromises what he or she really wants. Instead, this is a unanimous perspective that each person is excited about. It’s like what happens when people determine a win/win breakthrough, it’s a result that each of the twelve actively supports.

But the point of these Councils is not to present a position that elected officials should necessarily enact, Now, it’s our turn. The point of these Councils is to spark a new conversation. After the presentation comes the question, “What is your reaction to this symbolic statement of the people?.” If you or I disagree with what one Council presents—remember, few do—others are curious to know why. The Council is gone and we find ourselves in a conversation wanting to share our perspective with people who are interested in different views and seeking to bridge them. In a few months when the next random Council gathers, that group builds on what the last Council did and the response of the community

What’s the risk in this approach?… Not much. This process basically involves a random selection of people who meet for a short period of time, give a speech, and then disband. The Councils have no coercive authority. They “merely” express a view of “the common good.” It is not a new body, but a new conversation. The only power this group has is to the extent that you, I, and everyone else resonates with their perspectives.

How does action happen?… Through the usual means. Only now, elected officials, government agencies and community groups carry forward with a clear public mandate for intelligent action. After a CIC presentation there can be a “responders meeting” where different government agencies and nonprofit organizations meet to publicly coordinate a response to the voice of “the people.”

How much does it cost?… The immediate costs for implementing a CIC are small. There are fees for the dynamic facilitator, the venue for the community gatherings, and a web presence for extending the conversation to all (video, web, media, etc.). Convening the meetings might involve travel costs and a small daily stipend for those randomly selected.

The primary cost is to not choose this approach. Existing public battles are a waste of money and human resources. They spread distrust among citizens and government, keep us all in denial about the real problems, hold back the creative potential of citizens, and assure that special interests will triumph over the general interest.

Do we know this works?… Through experiments in different settings we know that randomly selected, diverse people in one system will come together, creatively tackle impossible-seeming issues, and generate thoughtful unanimous perspectives. We also know that those who hear the report of these groups support the answers and the process. And we know, at least within organizations, that this conversation spreads into the larger population, improving the spirit of community and generating new individual and group actions. We need more experience in public settings where the whole community is paying attention to the presentation of the Councils. Then we can see the extent to which this process can transform the public conversation and exert systemic leadership.

It’s common today for people to look at the big problems we face today in society and feel disempowered. But with these new Wise Democracy tools, there is a new approach available, particularly to government. This approach has immense benefit potential and miniscule risk. These ideas have been experimented with now for fifteen years and have proven they work. It’s commonsensical. The people have big problems. Government solutions are blocked. The people need to get involved, come together and start facing these issues in a spirit of respect and heartfelt collaboration. We the People need to provide clear intelligent direction about what we want and how to get there. Here’s a way to do this.