Replying to LO24798 --
This whole thread has had an undertone of balance: what is balance, is it
important, and how do we achieve it? I think that's important to talk
about.
If I were actively facilitating this group in an inperson meeting, I'd
likely be working hard to ensure we all had equal opportunity for air time
(this is not a hidden slam against Rick's good work). With 10 people,
that's doable. With 1,000 (or whatever we have), that probably would
require splitting the group, gathering information, and having each
subgroup report back to the main group. I'd do that, because it's been my
experience that the group will achieve more and better when all have
roughly equal opportunity to provide input, and because my model of
facilitation presumes it would be my role to compensate for any
inhibitions some people might feel about contributing, perhaps based on
shyness about the quality of their ideas or the effort involved to jump
in.
We haven't done that here. To some degree, a virtual group is different
(http://facilitatedsystems.com/onlinefac.pdf): we can all talk at the same
time, if we wish, and it's (at least theoretically, if we have the time)
possible to follow all the threads. But even in an online group, I'd
almost surely intervene to draw out the silent ones, if I were hired to
get a group to work together towards an end.
I realize that mailing lists and USENET have a time-honored tradition of
lurkers and activists. That's okay; I'm not trying to change that
culture.
But I've recently noticed one problem in an inperson group that might
provide a lesson here. In that case, I was the more introspective, quiet
person next to a much more loquacious sort. If we both had been equally
loquacious (or quiet), then we could "compete" for equal air time.
Assuming we were both somewhat polite, we'd probably settle it well
enough.
But when one thinks more talking is appropriate and the other thinks
silence is needed (for drawing out a third or for reflection), the
"competition" becomes more challenging. If I compete by being _more_
silent, I lose. If I compete by raising the issue vocally, I will
probably (at least in the short term) lose, because I'll have further
destroyed the silence I was trying to create.
As facilitator, I know what I'd do, and I think I have shown in inperson
work that I can do it without shutting down either the quiet or the
loquacious. As a participant in the middle, I admit it sometimes feels
different. It's easier for me to lose the independence of the facilitator
and worry that my interventions might be seen as biased and thus
offensive.
So, here's a learning question for the group, both the lurkers and the
loquacious. What's an effective way to raise this issue from inside
(i.e., not depending upon Rick) and then to determine how we move forward?
How do we self-regulate so that we don't quash good ideas from the few
while also not quashing other good ideas from the many?
Bill
-- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.