Hope is Where You Find It
By Peter Block
I attended a meeting a few months ago that was quite
startling. It was a two day meeting convened by the Pacific Southwest
Region of the USDA Forest Service. The meeting was part of an effort to
find ways to engage new people and resources in the success of the
Forest Service ... a reinvention project, pardon the term.
--In the room there were some friends of the service and also
people who had spent a good part of their lives fighting it, plus
members of the Forest Service who had spent a lot of resources fighting
back. In addition to the Forest Service members, there were lumber
company owners, environmentalists, biologists, river guides, lawyers for
the lumber companies, a magazine publisher, federal policy leaders,
libertarians, a sports clothing manufacturer and an environmental law
policy professor. It was a group more used to confrontation than
conversation.
Enter High Interaction Strategy
The meeting was run by Gifford Pinchot, author, consultant, good soul
and his associates. Despite some concern, the tension they feared never
arrived. I think it was the structure of the event that allowed these
groups to talk in a different way.
--First, they were really invited, not sent or nominated. Each
could say no. They were invited with a phone call. Inefficient, but
human. And they were asked to help create a future, not to solve the
past. Plus a demand was made in the invitation: “You must come for two
days, and come to participate, not to present.”
--The structure of the meeting had everyone look at the Forest
Service as a whole. Everyone took the perspective of top management. We
discussed what was pressuring it, how it has been responding, what was
its history and what was our vision for the Service in 2020.
--Instead of one vision, we created five visions with different
themes. One was about saving the land and its ecology, another was the
land as an educational experience, another was about the spirituality of
the forest, another about the economy of the system and its water,
recreational and wood resources and finally there was a vision that the
service was a chance to build community. Why limit ourselves to only one
vision of what tomorrow can become?
Five Months Later
The effort continues. Many of the connections among unlikely suitors
made in the meeting have been sustained. The work has taken more focus
now aimed at the use and preservation of the water resources on forest
land. They are also planning to address this issue in a similar
high-engagement meeting. Some of the patterns remain unchanged, some of
the participants are probably still wary, but if nothing else, it has
infused some hope into the organization and started to change the
pattern that hung like a cloud for a long time.
The Point For Us
What was significant about this government meeting about a volatile
issue was:
- No legislation or new mandates were called for to pressure some other
group into falling into line with a future we had in mind.
- It was a meeting with no speeches or presentations. No keynote
address, no question and answer sessions where the person standing has
an answer and the audience only has questions.
- Five visions of the future were created. Each quite different with a
unique focus and set of values and concerns underlying it. No one
demanded that we have to decide, pick only one vision, make the tough
choices and make them now. The group recognized the legitimacy and
compatibility of alternative visions.
- It became a pluralistic society. Diversity of viewpoint was valued as
much as the diversity we all long for in our forests.
- The regional leadership of the Forest Service fully joined the
discussion as members. They were not silenced, but they did not drive
the discussion in some pre-planned direction. They were sponsors of the
meeting. They participated in the design of the meeting and the decision
about who would run the meeting. They provided insider knowledge when it
was required, but they had the faith that this group would define
directions that they could commit to.
- Forest Service employees from many levels were also participants:
middle and lower level managers, some workers. They all brought their
voice into the room. They were even selected because they would speak
up.
- There were no common vows of action and next steps. Each person
defined for themselves what a meaningful action would be. They made a
bet that it would be their emotional commitment and the healing
experience of the session that would drive follow-up. We did not go
through the motion of next steps, lists of actions and their measures.
We know by now that the traditional “day-timer” tactics have not
particularly worked in the past to bring about changes in attitude or
common cause.
- No electronic technology was required. We were able to meet without
the usual tools of persuasion: teleconferencing, leader videos, slides,
overhead projectors or PowerPoint. Y2K was no sword over our head.
- We were dependent on social technology. For example:
- Great attention was given to who was at each table. At times I sat
with strangers, other times with people of common perspective.
- Great attention was given to respecting the past. They created a
timeline with butcher paper across a long wall, marking the beginning of
the Forest Service all the way to the present. Then we were invited to
note on the timelines events we were a part of or events that were
profound. In silence, our history was written on the wall.
- Great attention was given to focusing on the future. What do we want
to create together? In pictures, in words, from small group to large.
- There was time for real conversation. Dialogue took precedence over
schedule. We spoke without negotiation, without final answers.
--For me personally, my mind was changed. I found lumber
company executives who cared about the environment. Environmental
activists who were reasonable and ate meat. Government employees and
executives who listened, made no speeches. A river guide who wanted to
make some real money. Academics that were deeply involved in their
community and cared more about learning than teaching. And one woman
whose family lumber business ended in the debris of the spotted owl
battle, and decided to give her life towards building a viable
community.
Leadership for a Change
The event was significant for more than its service to our national
forests. It demonstrated what leadership could be. The bosses convened
this group and then joined it. They decided to use their power for
dialogue and common cause rather than mandate and direction and more
policy. They were not a role model, they did not keep asking how to
measure progress, they knew change takes a while and each step has
value.
--They also held this conference on their own, indifferent to
how much support they got from their bosses. They did not defend their
past, and finally, they were personally and emotionally committed to the
purpose of the institution. This is what bosses should be doing. And
there must be more of them around.
--The experience also showed that we have all the social
technology and skill required to change our world. It was an example of
the power of a different language. One where forgiveness, calling,
choice and restoration were legal and present. For some reason we think
we need permission to build on language like this and design rooms where
it belongs.
--This meeting affirmed that we know what the new conversation
is and the outline of a new story. We know how to bring adversarial
parties together to create hope, how to create meetings where all voices
are heard, where listening is allowed. And where action follows
understanding and reflection rather than preceding it.
It is good to know that our government has the capacity to bring people
together in a way that supports connection and activism and common
interest. These stories of our government rarely get told.
This
article appeared in
News for a Change published by AQP in April 1999
|
