Tony Goodson found this article and Facebooked it: Terrorism, Trauma and the Search for Redemption. It’s the remarkable story of Silke Maier-Witt, her traumatic upbringing, how she ended up in the Baader-Meinhof gang – and how she now devotes her life to working with victims of trauma in Serbia.
Trying to regain some kind of control over life in these circumstances is tough. I think it stands in stark contrast to so many of the formulae we see put forward for changing whole organisations, as if somehow that is easier than just person changing.
This idea particularly caught my eye.
Maier-Witt explains that according to trauma psychology, people tell three stories to explain their lives and make sense of their experience. There’s the victim story, which is the favorite. People love to see themselves as victims. There is the hero story. But trauma sufferers seldom cast themselves in the role of someone who has triumphed over adversity. And there is the epic, which is the healthiest story.
In an epic tale, life unfolds as an adventure. Every day you make the choice to accept your fate without trying to change everything about it. Your role is not to fight or to fix; it is to see and to experience. The goal is to become more aware and more sensitive. You change things by the example of how you live each day.
This makes enormous sense to me. We tend to use the word “epic” as if it’s a synonym for marvellous. Clearly that’s not what Maier-Witt has in mind here. It’s really about dealing with reality, day-by-day, without overdramatising, however tempting.
Here’s the next video in my series reflecting on working with people and groups:
It’s about the way we sometimes talk about Talk and Action as if they are separate, even opposite, things. It’s inspired by this classic Monty Python clip:
I’ve been doing some coaching work with facilitators lately and I found myself talking about group size. The short version is that I often find groups of over five people tend to have relatively stilted conversations, which at their worst become what I call a plenary vortex: the fight for attention starts to diminish the quality of conversation.
David Gurteen dug out a piece of research related to this, contrasting the conversations in five-person groups with the serial monologues in ten-person groups. It doesn’t prove that five is a threshold, but it helps make the general point about larger groups.
It’s also worth six minutes to hear Chris Corrigan on this topic, as captured by Nancy Dixon. He points to the value of groups of one as well as pairs and threes. Not sure about his ideas about odds and even sizes but worth thinking about. He also makes some points at the end about how smaller group conversations create a more active kind of engagement than just shoving ideas up on post its.
This shades into a wider point about the value of allowing lots of social interaction between people and not over-controlling or rushing it. For more on that, check out Keith de la Rue‘s article on the art of conversation.
Finally, I think that some really amazing things can happen in larger group conversations… but this usually requires breaking out of some fairly well-ingrained habits, and that’s a post for another day…
Chris Mowles has a great post about his experience at a strategy presentation. He highlights the contrast between the presenter’s idealised abstractions and what is actually going on in the room. This bit captures that distinction:
As he proceeded to explain in rather Jesuitical fashion how he and his team had worried about the order of the words in the vision statement, whether it should be ‘internationally renowned for being the leading X’, or rather ‘renowned internationally for being the leading X’ he failed to notice how many people in the audience, either literally or metaphorically, were sitting with their heads in their hands.
The whole thing is well worth your time. This is not so much a post about a dull presentation – we all know about those. The deeper point is about how management so easily gets caught up in abstraction and misses the actual life going on before it.
I feel another video coming on…
My next reflections video is about the difference between Big M Meetings and little m meetings. I hope you enjoy it.
Chris Rodgers has written a couple of related posts, on management as “muddling through” and the “beautiful ugly truth” of management. As usual, I find myself nodding in agreement.
I’ve been thinking lately about the status we play when we use different kinds of language. In management, there’s a tendency to favour high status language because it sounds more important. This creates the kind of jargon most of us secretly dislike. So on the whole, I’m in favour of more of the lower status language. In my own line of work I often realise there’s a lot of muddling through or “making it up as I go along”.
But supposedly low status language carries its own baggage too.
I may think by saying I make it up as I go along, I am merely being honest and not making myself seem too important. However, it can be interpreted as suggesting more than this.. perhaps suggesting I am just carefree, or flippant, or disrespectful of the participants and what is at stake. When I am muddling through as a facilitator, I hope I am not just being casual, but doing something sensible and considered in the light of all the information I am receiving.
It’s a tricky business, describing what you do…
Another day, another reflections video. This one is about why I love Monty Python, and how I think it connects to working with people. There will be more to follow.
And here’s the Silly Walks sketch, as if you need reminding.
Another short video in my reflections series.
People think facilitation is about making things easy. I’m not so sure. Warning: skinny man attempts yoga in this clip.
Jill Lepore has a thought-provoking article challenging the thinking behind the Innovators Dilemma. She questions the glibness with which people champion disruptive innovation.
I like a bit of contrarian thinking, and this scratches a familiar itch I feel about many conversations about innovation. Lepore seems to argue that case studies about breakthrough innovation are ignoring some longer term things that don’t change so much.
We often think of continuity and change as opposites, each to be confronted or challenged or (unconsciously) denied.
Don’t know why I didn’t mention this before, but Viv is doing two workshops in Amsterdam this week.
Thursday’s is called Bring Your Meetings to LIfe – I think of it as the basics of Viv’s and my approach to facilitation.
Friday’s is called Survival Skills for Facilitators. This one focuses on what to do when things go wrong. To be honest, I think the essence of facilitation is the ability to live the stage fright, the feeling of being an imposter, and keep going when things appear to be on the brink of going awry.
Each one is 145 Euros for companies, 95 Euros for independents. In a last minute change of plan, I’m actually going to join Viv on Friday. But don’t let that put you off!
Blurb here. And big thanks to our friend Raymond van Driel for hosting.