Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

hina

User Profile Image hina
Member since : May-25-2009 (Verified)
3 Ideas, 18 Comments, 33 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

How do we get from Here to There? Transition: from Crisis to Resilience. I am suggesting that: 1- as a group of practitioners with so many techniques, methods, tools, the strongest, smartest position we could present to the Open Government initiative would be to create and infrastructure, a matrix which organizes the the various technologies as to when they are effective/appropriate, for whom.

The question we can address is: Where is There where is Here? "There" being Open Government-(participatory, self-organizing, self-reliant, resilient groups/ communities/ cities.) "Here," is where we start the process by considering the social climate, emotional states, skill level of the groups. Are they in Crisis or chaos or creating Security or Proactively coalescing in groups to work together or Resilient, self-organizing communities.

For example: A group in Crisis is not the best social setting for full participation dialog. People would need a more directed, tight, not too many, if any, choices, open ended processes. They could be very well supported by strong clear, simple visual graphics to direct people for what they need for survival and getting grounded. On the other end of the spectrum, when groups have good dialog skills, organized infrastructure and are more self-reliant, you would want social technologies to set a context for deepening their ongoing self-organizing. For resilient groups, highly directive technologies and structures would be resisted as not appropriate therefore ineffective.

The infrastructure/matrix could be a simple 4 stage approach. Some of the offerings could span all four stages, if it can be tailored to accommodate the stage of the population they are serving. eg. Open Space process would be designed very differently for a group in the crisis stage than one in the resilience stage.

2- Skills such as emergency response, dialog, deliberation, facilitation skills, Non-Violent Communication, various leadership knowledge.... could also be placed in the infrastructure matrix for the optimal stage for learning. Resources would be made available; books, research, webinars... to support learning.

3- We, in the field, facilitators/OD/coaches, knowing more about these offerings than Gov., would serve the project with a higher level of expertise for sorting out what can be done, when.

4. Infrastructure would also support scaling up or down. So many of us are single practitioners or have small orgs and associate with each other more in more of a network than a large company form. If we self-organize in a way that the Gov can easily utilize our knowledge of the field to contract with, we could get on the ground and engage quicker. (I think several of us are already doing and this suggestion could refine it to another level)

5. The basic 4 stages (Crisis, Security,Proactive, Resilient) are evolutionary therefore fluid and organic...groups/people can move backwards and forwards many times. It can also serve as a kind of curriculum.

6. We would have to work on developing, among other things;
-Assessment criteria for the Groups needing services, perhaps teams of Assessors;
-Gathering proposals & suggestions for each stage;
-Tracking results & stories from implementing various training or interventions
-Making the four stage definitions and criteria available for Managers, facilitators, OD, HR, and others

How do we get from Here to There? Transition: from Crisis to Resilience. I am suggesting that: 1- as a group of practitioners with so many techniques, methods, tools, the strongest, smartest position we could present to the Open Government initiative would be to create and infrastructure, a matrix which organizes the the various technologies as to when they are effective/appropriate, for whom.

The question we can address is: Where is There where is Here? "There" being Open Government-(participatory, self-organizing, self-reliant, resilient groups/ communities/ cities.) "Here," is where we start the process by considering the social climate, emotional states, skill level of the groups. Are they in Crisis or chaos or creating Security or Proactively coalescing in groups to work together or Resilient, self-organizing communities.

For example: A group in Crisis is not the best social setting for full participation dialog. People would need a more directed, tight, not too many, if any, choices, open ended processes. They could be very well supported by strong clear, simple visual graphics to direct people for what they need for survival and getting grounded. On the other end of the spectrum, when groups have good dialog skills, organized infrastructure and are more self-reliant, you would want social technologies to set a context for deepening their ongoing self-organizing. For resilient groups, highly directive technologies and structures would be resisted as not appropriate therefore ineffective.

The infrastructure/matrix could be a simple 4 stage approach. Some of the offerings could span all four stages, if it can be tailored to accommodate the stage of the population they are serving. eg. Open Space process would be designed very differently for a group in the crisis stage than one in the resilience stage.

2- Skills such as emergency response, dialog, deliberation, facilitation skills, Non-Violent Communication, various leadership knowledge.... could also be placed in the infrastructure matrix for the optimal stage for learning. Resources would be made available; books, research, webinars... to support learning.

3- We, in the field, facilitators/OD/coaches, knowing more about these offerings than Gov., would serve the project with a higher level of expertise for sorting out what can be done, when.

4. Infrastructure would also support scaling up or down. So many of us are single practitioners or have small orgs and associate with each other more in more of a network than a large company form. If we self-organize in a way that the Gov can easily utilize our knowledge of the field to contract with, we could get on the ground and engage quicker. (I think several of us are already doing and this suggestion could refine it to another level)

5. The basic 4 stages (Crisis, Security,Proactive, Resilient) are evolutionary therefore fluid and organic...groups/people can move backwards and forwards many times. It can also serve as a kind of curriculum.

6. We would have to work on developing, among other things;
-Assessment criteria for the Groups needing services, perhaps teams of Assessors;
-Gathering proposals & suggestions for each stage;
-Tracking results & stories from implementing various training or interventions
-Making the four stage definitions and criteria available for Managers, facilitators, OD, HR, and others

Many of the suggestions for creating Open Government advocate for open forums for dialog and deliberation. How do we get there from here?

Let's consider some of the factors that contribute to where we are before we can talk about where we're going: We are having a financial meltdown affecting every person, community and state in this country. We are spending at least half of our budget on war and all its components and don't have enough funds for domestic needs. Our schools and infrastructure are a huge mess, on the verge of disaster in many places. Climate change is causing more natural disasters. Our political system and its citizens are polarized. We are in crisis or heading that way. Another challenge to implementing Open Government is that our history and culture is one of domination, by class, by authority, by race, religion, gender. We don't have the cultural habits of mutual respect, working for mutual benefit, consideration, cooperation, inclusion, generosity, and kindness. All among the qualities needed for true democracy.

We will be more successful by approaching the transition to open government by understanding the stages of culture from a state of crisis to the potential of building a resilient true democracy. By learning to recognize the stage the group or individuals are in facilitators can use the most effective leadership strategies and support the needs of the situation.

We can expand the corps of leaders, public, government and private, knowledgeable in 1. crisis management, 2. creating security, 3. helping groups become proactive and 4. building resilience though dialog. Educating people to facilitate communities, organizations, business, and individuals to emerge from the trauma of crisis to becoming self-reliant, self-organizing, innovative and resilient are the building blocks of true democracy.

People often resist or ignore the effects of crisis or the need for transition until it becomes a no choice choice. They can become either helpless, a hindrance or helpful. Prepared facilitators, leaders, managers and citizens can guide the changes to move beyond crisis to becoming self-reliant and whole.

To guide the process it's helpful to:

• Know where you are:
Recognize the characteristics and objectives of each of the stages of transition from crisis to resilience.

• Know who you’re dealing with:
Identify psychological, social and behavioral profiles of the participants.

• Know what to do:
Learn the interventions and facilitation strategies that are most effective to meet needs.

• Know what NOT to do:
Avoid unintended consequences and misunderstandings and shift ineffective strategies.

• Know when to move on:
Learn the factors that signal optimal time to transition.

Being the Most Effective Together

This framework can be used to map a whole system of the many processes and tools presented in this forum and beyond— across four stages indicating when they can achieve optimal effectiveness. For example; Visual Recording would be very effective in Stage 1- Crisis, to make very clear, large visual aids for quick comprehension, and in Stage 2 - coordinating basic security for mapping services. Processes that create a context for dialog and deliberation could be used when people are in Stage 3 & 4- as they are ready to participate in groups.

This is from my experience as a facilitator and organizational development professional.

For more information http://crisis2resilience.com, feel free to contact me. Hina Pendle, PhD, Hina@uspartners.com
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas

Comments Posted

hina 9 months ago
Thanks Lisa for your great work and ideas. They very necessary for open government and a well functioning government to be possible. Dialog goes a long way to connect "strangers" and help them hear and see each other's uniqueness.
hina 9 months ago
Thanks for your question. I see true democracy as the process that inhabits the structure...the constitution, the government. The US already has the framework and has protocols built in for altering, amending itself. I am concerned with "who" inhabits the structure, the level of consciousness, the facility for including all the voices, that goes into self-reliance. Our 200 year old government has the opportunity to self-reflect, self-correct and refresh where needed to serve the greater whole. We have a lot of room to re-engage as citizens, to dialog, to design our future together. Not saying this is easy but when things breakdown, we have an unprecedented opportunity to break though to a new level of mutual benefit.
hina 9 months ago
I agree this is very important. Perhaps a curriculum a central resource of facilitator skills. Thanks fro your clarity and insight.
hina 9 months ago
Excellent!! Skills need all over the spectrum. I invite you to look at my idea under training & development. http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3757-4049

I outline a spectrum of situations from crisis to resilience. I think it's good to pay attention to where people are coming from to inform the dialog style and content. Also with the Open Space format. The crisis stage would work better with a tighter more directive format. As people gain skill and the ability to participate more fully, the format can be more self-organizing.
hina 9 months ago
Thank you. You put it very well. Our educational system is way out of date and purpose. It homogenizes learners with tests, rigid curriculums and too many in a classroom. Kids learn more before they go to school when their curiosity guides them. We all learn and process information differently, at different speeds at different times. Most schools are training industrial, obedient, conforming youths to follow an agreed track. It also ties teacher's hands. The world is changing. So must our education system. There are many examples of out-of-the-box approaches to education. But they are marginalized and privately funded.
hina 9 months ago
This is absolutely necessary for "equal opportunity." It's good for the community. The Nordic countries have been doing this very successfully with excellent results.
hina 9 months ago
This is a great topic for the Open Government process. Let's have a community conversation about upleveling our schools in every community. Thanks for bringing it up.
hina 9 months ago
I agree this is of paramount importance. Going from an authoritarian leadership paradigm of 5000+ years to a participatory paradigm involves different values, approaches and ways of thinking. This is a huge shift we have to make. Your questions are good and training facilitators is key.
hina 9 months ago
This can be a great supplement to face-to-face but not instead of. Dialog and deliberation are interactive processes and most valuable as such.
hina 9 months ago
Colleges and Universities are also great places to open learning forums to the public as well as to host dialogs. Often in college towns there is a city and gown split. Would be nice to be inclusive.
hina 9 months ago
Thanks for this. It's a lot and cover territory worthy of consideration and development.
hina 9 months ago
Many people say they hate meetings.

Visual recordings add another dimension and a validation that you've been heard and your idea is in the picture. It makes meetings more engaging, inclusive and fun. We all like to have fun, yes? More and better learning happens when we're having fun.
hina 9 months ago
This is a much more stimulating and imaginative approach to Strategic Planning. It lays the foundation for a unifying vision. Good work, glad you're doing it.
hina 9 months ago
I live in California. I know that it is all about by whom and how the initiative is written. We are an example of how NOT to do it. If the initiative could be composed in a dialogical, deliberative, diverse process then maybe.

It also may reduce the issue to narrower considerations. I would love to see us leave the "sound bite" mentality behind so we can honor the complexity in most issues.
hina 9 months ago
This proposal has wonderful elements of broadening the topics of conversation and sustaining the process over time. Supported by some of the process suggestions this is a great contribution.
hina 9 months ago
The NCDD is a great gathering of intelligence, openness, continuous learning devoted to creating contexts for mutually respectful and beneficially inclusive process. I am very grateful for the integrity I experience in our evolution. Thank you Sandy.
hina 9 months ago
One of the most powerful ideas in this proposal, which should be included in any design and discussion is the inclusion of intergenerational participation. I participated in a World Cafe experience with this theme and it expanded my consciousness immensely. It impacted my relationship with my children and the youth I worked with on other projects. The idea of the Girls Scouts at the route of this initiative is giving more that lip service to the"youth as our future."

This initiative speaks about creating a context for dialog and deliberation. The content, ideas and conversation come from the citizens involved. I don't see where the push back is. It is interesting that some of the objections concern money. We live in a country where it takes money to eat, put a roof over our heads and have creature comforts. I know that many of my colleagues contribute their talent for facilitating and advising on process for free many time in many ways, including myself. It would be fine to paid for mutually beneficial work that impacts the way we live together. Perhaps, we would no longer turn to war to resolve differences and design our future. What a concept. Pay the peacemakers.

Christina, I would be honored to join the growing list of facilitators and lovers of True Democracy.

Hina Pendle, Santa Cruz, CA
hina 9 months ago
I think the Principles submitted by Sandy and a great place to begin. I also echo the need to include a principle about self-reflection, self-responsibility. We have a culturally induced habit of starting from "no" and looking for the holes, disagreement and superior/inferior. Let's start from "Yes,...and" and see where we go-even in this process. True Democracy is a fluid, having the capacity to change organically as we expand our consciousness. These principles can morph, refine,re-define as we move forward. The challenge for us on the table is to practice these principles and fellowship as we develop these very processes of open government.

What an incredible opportunity to facilitate a change in paradigm from a domineering one into a partnering one (thank you Riane Eisler). There's lots of work to do and undo.