In one mediation, I used the imagery of sine and cosine waves to show not only information processing, but as a visual way of encouraging alignment without toooo much objective compromise.

That’s why I call what I do “Human Trigonometry,” but I won’t go into that here other than to leave the example!

The reality is that when anyone (myself included) who knows more than someone else has a responsibility to accept that he/she doesn’t know it all and be willing to accept that there are times that the professor becomes the student.

Like most others, I welcome honest and open dialog when the time is appropriate and the intent is sincere. The problem is, there are often times when others attempt to take advantage of a) inopportune timing, or insincerity. In my work, I’m asking to be able to help fix real problems while being able to continuing being effective at doing my job.

My challenge has been managing my effectiveness in coaching others while getting my job done. Coaching is something that I need to do so I have more time to coach. Getting my job done isn’t always the most effective use of my time. It’s another “give the person a fish or teach them how to fish” kind of thing. The problem is, my “students” often would often rather I just grab a fish for them by fixing the problem at hand.

Once again, I apologize for my lack of visibility in this conversation. I am heartened by the number of people adding further meat to the “dialogue bone”. Recognizing the value of positive conflict through dialogue versus the downward spiral of destructive conflict is a crucial point here. Collaboration and growth invite conflict. I would not want anyone to misconstrue my comments as being anti-conflict or an attempt to encourage conflict avoidance. Rather, I seek growth through the dialogue around divergent perspectives. Divergence is critical in our work. I AM asking for a positive approach to divergence. I am asking that we actively seek MORE insights versus attacking differing insights.

Remember, escalation is: “My fix is your nightmare and you have to lose in order for me to win.” This is a broken system. I can’t support a continued embrace of a broken system.

Finally, I am writing a follow-up post to this one to provide some further thoughts on systems thinking and the escalation model in particular.

Thanks,
Jean

We can all lose, right now, by participating in total de-stablization and self-destruction at the level of “system” (aka “community” or “group”)

Alternately, we can face reality and make changes to it, by participating in the shaping of something new and great.

Those are the two choices we face now.

Jean calls this out; Jean is a real leader.

I like Jean’s vision and I sign up now with her to advance the work. The actions I take now are listed here:

Group Relations Note dated 10/24/2009
http://www.newtechusa.com/agileboston/notes/GroupRelations.htm

This is a note regarding my strong interest in focusing the attention of the Agile/Scrum community towards Group Relations theory, practice and conferences.

I believe if enough Agile/Scrum leaders simply do some preparation and actually attend a Group Relations conference, we can advance the Agile/Scrum work. This is achievable by raising awareness of how we act and react in often completely unconscious ways as we participate in group life.

I wanted to talk about the research of John Gottman and the importance of positivity in a community and on a team, to which your post seems to point. It was way too long for this forum, so it became its own blog post at: http://collectiveedgecoaching.com/2009/10/conflict-diversity-appreciation/ .

Thanks to all the thoughtful comments from others as well. This is a very varied community!

Jean specifically pointed out valuing “dialogue over debate”. I often start retrospectives with a Focus On/Off exercise from Diana and Esther’s Retro book, in which we help participants think through how their own behavior and words might change if they agree to value dialogue over debate.

Meanwhile, in these comments, I read lots of people discussing the merits of “good” debate and “bad” debate. What if we don’t debate at all? (Picture high school debate society, and the focus on “winning”.) What if we have a dialogue, with a goal of improving our collective knowledge and understanding and a goal of each having more agile practices to offer our teams? How would that change the way we conducted these exchanges?