peggyh
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 2 |  |
Karma: 0
|
Invitation to the Conversation - 2006/12/10 07:29
From Chapter One of The Change Handbook
The Big Picture: Making Sense of Over Sixty Methods
A Tale of Multiple Intelligences
Non-fiction, even books about process, benefit from a little drama. We invite you into a behind-the-scenes story with a cliff-hanger ending.
As we searched for how to communicate the qualitative distinctions among the methods in the book, educator Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences 1 offered an exciting possibility. Drawing from neurophysiology, Gardner identified the site location in the brain that correlates with each of the intelligences. Just as people have natural gifts in different areas – art, math, music, etc. – we thought, “why not approach these processes by considering their different emphases among the intelligences?” Characterizing the methods this way could open the door to rich conversations about the relationships among the processes and their fit with the purpose of an initiative or the culture of the organization or community. We could also see the intelligences as useful to practitioners in discerning what methods resonated with their skills and talents.
Excited by the idea, we asked the contributing authors to identify the three most dominant intelligences (in order of dominance) for their method. One or two told us they liked the idea and others told us that they didn’t.. Most just responded with an answer. A few identified four or more intelligences and were a bit frustrated that we asked them to limit their choice to the dominant three. And then, as our due date for delivering the manuscript neared, three elders of the field weighed in, flatly refusing to play. Merrelyn Emery put it this way, “I object to it [multiple intelligences] being applied to Open Systems Theory methods because whether you like it or not, it is the human implications that will be drawn from the entry and these methods have been designed to be as non discriminating as possible.”
In a separate conversation, Sandra Janoff and Marv Weisbord said, “There is equal opportunity to access all the intelligences in future search. Future Search is like an empty bottle. People pour in their experiences, history, aspirations, then seek common ground and act based upon it. What is key is to get the right diversity into the room, that’s what gives the event its rich character. Not the method, nor the facilitator.”
It was the 11th hour and we faced a dilemma. Include the intelligences or drop them from the book? After our initial consternation, we realized that we were in a situation that brings many people to whole systems change methods – a complex subject, deeply held beliefs, and the need to find an answer – fast! We faced a consultant’s worst nightmare: the need to practice our own teachings! Taking a deep breath, we embraced the controversy, knowing that disturbances are a doorway to learning and an opportunity for something innovative to emerge. We then did what we advise our clients to do and revisited our purpose: to support readers in discerning enough about the processes to make useful choices.
We discussed the value of the intelligences in meeting this purpose, and specifically how this lens of the intelligences had already benefited our own work. For example, we realized that the book did not have a single process with rhythmic intelligence among the three most dominant. Steve went searching and found two gems: JazzLab and with the help of a reviewer, Drum Café.
Peggy talked about how awareness of the intelligences had immediately affected a gathering she did with Juanita Brown, using both The World Café and Open Space. Together, they consciously brought all seven intelligences into play, creating a powerful, rich experience that continues to ripple in its effect on participants. Did bringing music and movement – intelligences that we might not have otherwise incorporated – matter? It is difficult to say; we do know it accessed parts of ourselves and participants that might not have been otherwise present.
As we reflected, Tom pointed out that our use of the intelligences had morphed. We didn’t use them to classify, rather, they served a higher purpose, consciously inviting more of ourselves and our participants into the work.
Yes, we concluded, the intelligences had something valuable to add but perhaps not in the way we had originally envisioned. And not without more in-depth exploration among the contributing authors; we felt that would be a disservice to them, the field, and our readers. How can we bring the value, give it the time needed to “simmer,”, and meet our publication deadline?
As often happens when we embrace rather than resist disturbances, we found an innovative answer that we believe accomplishes far more than we originally envisioned. We are convening a conversation at www.thechangehandbook.com among the contributing authors! Our 11th hour monkey wrench became an opportunity to meet another desire we had: to create an online space to grow a vibrant community of practice across the many process disciplines. What better way to start than with a meaty, substantive issue? We invite you to come visit, see how the story is unfolding, and join in the continuing conversation.
|
Discussion Forum 
