Huddled in bedrooms, sitting in kitchens and lounge rooms and on back verandas across the world are people who are more used to boardrooms, meeting rooms, wards and lecture halls. The power dresses and suits have given way to kids in the background and dogs on laps. People are getting a glimpse into the homes of bosses, colleagues and strangers.
 
| Welcome to the great COVID transparency.
 
There is something amazing to see, in real time, the degree to which individuals and organisations put into action all the rhetoric about work-life balance. Of course, there is no such thing as work-life balance, it’s about life-life balance, but let’s put that aside for a moment. The great COVID transparency is showing us the way we try to seek balance by compartmentalising our lives, we create neat boxes and for people and timelines to fit into and get stressed when they don’t!
 
The stress of this compartmentalisation is being reflected back to us in stark relief along with the different faces we show different people.
 
The Hawthorne effect is the principle that our behaviour changes when we know we are being observed. COVID is showing that this principle is at play every day when the home box and the work box get mashed together, not just for a few minutes, but for days on end.
 
At the playful end of the range of responses to these worlds colliding is a newfound insight into a doll collection a colleague has; at the darker end we have the furnace of family violence being given an extra dose of gasoline. 
 
The great COVID transparency is shining a spotlight to three things:

1. That a big part of our personal development comes through our interactions with other people;
2. That the life we have and the life we want people to see can be different;
3. That there are things in society that we would prefer to pretend didn’t exist.

It’s a long-established fact that we are social beings, but what seems to be less appreciated is the degree to which we each make a difference in each other’s lives, just through our interactions with each other. There are people all around who are a continuous source of inspiration, both for what they ask us to see within ourselves and the way they call us to go deeper or confirm the bridges we have crossed long ago.
 
This learning and insight has nothing to do with the content of the conversation but has everything to do with our shared movement and interaction. COVID has taken the power of that reflection and turned it up 100%. Even though we are only seeing someone’s shoulders and forehead, we are actually getting to see so much more!
 
To grasp the opportunity to reflect on the effort that goes into the manicured representation we show the world, is an invitation is to be quizzical rather than critical. Reflection can be powerful and it can be playful. It shows us the degree to which we rely on calculation and conditions to get through life. "I will do this, if...",' you can do that if...". As much as we like to calculate our next move, the reality is each calculation, requires another and another, which becomes a recipe for stress.
 
One thing to note in the above is the term ‘manicured representation’. This does not just refer to those that present as punctilious and pristine, because being tardy and dishevelled requires its own form of curation.
 
In reality the first and second points blend together to remind us that transparency is a powerful tool in our personal and collective development. Being willing to allow others to see all of us actually magnifies the learning that is present for all. It is not always comfortable – but meaningful learning rarely is.
 
Which brings us to the third point. Our willingness to see what has been and is always going on around us. The willingness to feel the preference to sequester the deep failing of society into the realm of ‘those people’ or ‘there is nothing I can do’ or ‘ it doesn’t affect me …’. This is not an appeal for donations or volunteering but an offering to bring all three points together.
 
|  The more we foster a society that encourages transparency and revels in the learning we get from each other’s reflection, the more these hidden pockets become the exception rather than the rule.
 
Call me idealistic, but could family violence exist in a society that operated with super high levels of transparency? We would see and be encouraged to enquire about another’s well-being without guilt, blame or victimising. We would stamp out the stigma that comes with talking about many of society’s challenges. The truth can set us free, but until there are boardrooms and bedrooms where truth can be safely spoken, we will forever be looking at the clean up, rather than real prevention.
 
Going even deeper, greater transparency would help us determine if any given life philosophy really worked based on the total quality of the life lived by that person. How many new age gurus have deep-seated anger issues but present as a serene being for the time they are on stage (Hawthorne effect)?  Of course, we could apply that to any model of theosophy, psychology or science. Indeed, any number of recent royal commissions are showing a stark gap between the words and deeds of many of the models of life we are encouraged to live by and the behaviour of those who profess to live by those models.
 
| In terms of our responsibility for the mess - it is easier to be sold lies, if we collectively live them ourselves.  
 
So, I say bring on the great transparency; maybe it will kill the most harmful virus infecting the planet – the pride we take in individuality.

You have to love the way life mimics life. In life people say “group facilitation, we got this”, then they get in front of people and realise that there are some skills required to effectively work with a group of people. The fact is there are some fundamentals of group facilitation that people sometimes forget to apply.

​What are these fundamentals? (There are others, but these are at the top of my list).
 
1. Know the session purpose and context;
2. Know your role as the facilitator and not the subject matter expert;
3. Trust the expertise of the group; AND
4. Bring quality processes to harness that expertise and balance power dynamic.
 
Enter COVID-19 and the social fabric of society is becoming locked behind doors. Then life mimics life – “lets jump on Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp” comes the cry… it’s just a meeting online right? 
 
Twenty minutes into the meeting and people are checking emails, dropping their video so they can do a sneaky snack or dash of online shopping.

​It turns out that there are some skills involved in working a group of people.

​Online meetings can be facilitated, and by applying the same principles, meetings go from virtual to virtually real! We still need to know the purpose and context, we still need a facilitator that is there to facilitate, we still need to trust the group. But more than that, we need to harness quality processes and how you deliver processes for online meetings is different to delivery in a room.
 
One of my favourite free tools is Google docs and Google sheet… online, live, multiuser editing. For those who know your way around a Google sheet formula you can set them up so small groups each contribute into one tab, and then you can see all the collated input on another tab… see below for some screenshots
 
Life mimics life – effective online meetings need the same creativity and thought as an effective face to face meeting.
 
The best part of moving to online facilitation… your facilitator can now be anywhere in the world.

There are lots of other tools out there and we will be profiling a few of them in the Virtually Real workshop (online of course).

 
The date is Tuesday 22nd February 2011 and the time 12.51pm, and the City of Christchurch, New Zealand is about to be changed forever. It took a 6.2 scale earthquake, 10 seconds to liquefy the soil and destroy much of the city and surrounds. 185 people lost their lives and large tracks of land have now been deemed uninhabitable.
 
While it is not uncommon for people to come together in a crisis, something quite remarkable has emerged from the rubble … a community-led vision for both the short and long-term rebuilding of the physical and social infrastructure of the city.
 
Vacant land, where buildings once stood and are still waiting to be rebuilt, has been turned into parklets and playgrounds. Some have even been turned into paid parking, where the funds are quarantined for other community development activities.
 
There has been thought given to active transport (cycling, walking, e-scooters) to reduce the pollution from cars, work done to initiate urban farming that delivers a paddock to plate supply chain within the CBD and even returns the waste back to the paddock for composting. This is a self-sustaining commercial venture that demonstrates sustainable ways to reduce food miles.
 
By all accounts the people of Christchurch have grabbed the opportunity to review and regather with both hands. It’s not perfect, and I am sure there are still plenty of issues, more healing and rebuilding to be done … but the start that they have made is inspiring.
 
However, there could be a deeper lesson for engagement and facilitation practitioners to consider here – the way in which physical structures lock in a certain way of relating and being with each other.
 
Many of us face ingrained systems and thinking that serve as a speed bump or even a dead end on the road to change. But the example of Christchurch could be showing us two things:

1. That institutions and people can change ingrained systems and ways of working.
2. That what locks people in is not just the structure of institutions but the physical structures we create.

What is intriguing in the Christchurch example is that the walls of these institutions came crumbling down before the institutions and systems changed. On some level it makes perfect sense. If the people and systems building the buildings are locked into a certain way of living, then those buildings will be created to support the system that is there.

Think about the hallowed institution of government and the protocol that surrounds how elected officials interact and what it does for the quality of decision making. There is something about Humans that seems to be hard-wired to maintain and even defend the status quo. It is not until people seem to be quite literally broken that our humility kicks in and we become willing to work in a different way.

But could we consider if this level of change can be achieved without the need for tragedy?
 
In a world where everything counts, change may need to be considered on a deeper level than just the mental desire to do something different. Step out from the safety of those meeting room tables, turn off those power points and look across the room, sit in circles so you can see each other and you could even look at the photos on the walls and the messages they are sending.
 
If we want people to free up how they and/or others think then it seems incumbent on us all to explore the subtle changes we can all be making to help people move together differently, rather than doing the same thing and expecting something different.
 
If people respond with discomfort then maybe, that is the start of a change you are looking for … What habitual structures do you have for working with groups that may be a rut?
 

My truth, your truth, our truth, THE truth … in this post truth era of ‘alternative facts’ it would seem that the most needed commodity on the planet at the moment is the hardest to find.
 
People and societies are asking for a clear way through the many complex and challenging issues we face. Climate change, the rate of family violence, depression, dementia, obesity, slavery (aka. human trafficking), the degree of trust in governments and religious institutions, the ongoing intolerance and discrimination that occurs due to race, religion or gender, corporate greed, abuse of the elderly, to name but a few.
 
The list of issues and the many more not listed, suggests that we need a different approach or maybe we need a very, very old approach.
 
When the suggestion is made that a different approach is needed, it is easy to get general head nodding and agreement, but then the need to actual look at what we personally believe or the need to change what we personally do and the age-old battle between power and truth plays out … Here are two short examples, a few hundred years apart, to set the scene for the next part of this exploration.
 
Dr Semmelweis was a Hungarian doctor who lived in the mid 1800s. He was concerned about the deaths of women who gave birth in the hospitals where he worked. He discovered that the hospitals where autopsy were also conducted had higher rates of death. Even though they did not know much about bacterial infection at the time, he implemented a regime of hand and equipment cleaning that led to the reduction in mortality rates of these women.
 
Today we take this understanding for granted and would scoff at any suggestion that this was anything but good practice, but the medical profession of the day did not take kindly to the suggestion that they may be somehow responsible for the death of their patients.

Power trumped truth and Dr Semmelweis was run out of town. In that moment where lives were on the line, those who had taken an oath to protect our well-being chose power over truth.
 
We might write this off as an issue from centuries ago but the reality is, the same thing happens today – the politicisation of climate change, the lobbying by the food industry against any changes to the levels of sugar in foods, the protection of sensationalistic journalism over reporting of facts and balance.
 
There are many more examples in modern times where evidence is dismissed, manipulated or simply vilified to avoid admitting an seemingly uncomfortable but simple truth … 'we got it wrong'. In many regards it’s no big deal, people make mistakes all the time; the adult option is to learn and move on, but this doesn’t seem to be the case.
 
Who hasn’t been involved in some kind of project where the ‘powers that be’ determine that something should be a certain way, yet all the evidence suggests that this is the wrong direction?
 
As a society we have placed more value in appeasing the power base than we have in building collective understanding. It is an approach that is exemplified by the adversarial models of the Westminster system, the legal system, and even the academic realms focus more on the rigorous defence/prosecution of an idea rather than collective understanding.
 
The basic premise makes sense: test your idea rigorously and the best ideas will survive. But when power and the need to be right get in the way, it becomes okay to bend the truth, to ignore or make up facts, to incite outrage and to stack the deck. One side takes I step away from truth and the other takes two. We justify it by saying that, if we don’t, the other side will, and in doing so give another crank to the flywheel that keeps things ticking along as they always have.
 
We glorify this adversarial approach in TV shows and continue to reward fear-based campaigns and media articles with our reactions and indignation. However, the community has become tired of being manipulated like this; but rather than change the systems that support this way of operating, the community is  beginning to use the same strategies against the decision makers.
 
Organisation complain of less civility and genuine interest in understanding at public consultations. The public have gotten better at inciting and threatening those in power and the bullied have become the bullies. It makes community leadership a fraught position where it is fatal to have made a mistake in the past or show any glimpse of fallibility or uncertainty. Community leaders are pressed into the relentless demand for quick solutions that relieve and appease. Everyone wants an answer but no one wants to do the hard work that it takes to keep communities and organisations strong.
 
But humility, vulnerability and uncertainty are the hard work that makes communities strong. We need places for people to explore what they don’t know, we need places of humility where it is okay to start a conversation with ‘we’ve got it wrong’, rather than ‘this is why I am right’.
 
 “The descent into right and wrong, is simply a sign of the absence of truth.”    Liane Mandalis
  
The reality is, there is no magic bullet. No three step program that will bridge the divide. The principles that have underpinned quality conversation are not new, just not always followed; so here is a simple memory jogger:

1. NO BLAME/NO FAULT: We all have thinking errors, biases and our own ‘power’ structures that we unconsciously protect. Truth is a humility this lies beyond those structures. There is such a thing as a unified truth and understanding that groups can arrive at, but only if arriving at that place is desired more than being right.
2. LIVED EXPERIENCE IS EVIDENCE: Science is one form of evidence and has an important role to play, but our own lives and experiences are also evidence. What is felt is also evidence or at least a starting point for another way of understanding. If we only rely on scientific evidence and do not explore our lived experience, nothing new is tried and we end up in an intellectual battle, limiting our exploration of what is needed and what is possible.
3. WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE: In any system we all have a role to play. Pointing fingers is the easy part, taking responsibility for our part is the doorway to understanding others and allows for others to explore their own role. 
4. GO TO THE BIG PICTURE: While there are many who stoke the fire of individuality, humans are social beings and do better as a collective. This means there is something to learn from each other in every problem or issue. We ignore this because it feels too big, but we don’t need to change the world before looking at the learning, we just need to look at the collective learning and apply #3 (personal responsibility) – we only change the world when we change our world.

 
Of course, there is more to say on all of these and more to explore … but at least we are having the conversation.

I can’t recall the last time I facilitated a workshop where the focus wasn’t on finding a solution, making a plan and developing priorities. We listen to the experts, we hear views from the room, we talk about what we want, hope for and need and we diligently set about making plans. It’s all good productive stuff.
 
But I am wondering more and more about the power of NOT knowing, the power of NOT jumping to a solution. Maybe even not getting to a solution in the meeting at all.
 
It’s the long-lost art of pondering. Sitting with a topic and reflecting on it from many sides and allowing the answer to emerge, rather than focusing on picking the best solution.
 
Solutions are great, they relieve a certain type of pressure, they give us hope, when they seem deliverable and fit within what people can get on board with. But as Peter Senge, one of the exponents of learning organisation models says;
 
“Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions”
 
The problem with solutions is that they come with an existing set of filters or said another way, bias. Time is precious, the demands placed on organisations is growing but unless we are willing to come to a conversation and NOT know the solution, we end up driving for what will relieve and not what is really needed. It is the ultimate way to limit creativity and deep thinking.
 
So, the alternative could be about stepping into the power of NOT knowing.
 
Being willing to deeply acknowledge the fact that after many years of trying, we simply don’t know! There are so many issues that society has not really moved the needle on and so many issues that we seem to need to revisit, time and time again.
 
“Burnout doesn’t occur because we’re solving problems; it occurs because we’ve been trying to solve the same problem over and over” Susan Scott
 
What would happen if we allowed ourselves the honesty, humility and space to dive deep into not knowing. The aim is not to build a morbid sense of defeatism but rather discovering that just how much we know about what we don’t know!!
 
Why is this problem still a problem – for your organisation or community?
What is the organisations role, what are other people’s roles? How many solutions have we tried and why didn’t they work or if they worked why didn’t they stick?
 
This is not about finger pointing but being humble enough to name what is and isn’t working. No one person carries the responsibility for something not working, leaders need teams, teams need each other. We all affect each other in overt and subtle ways. The key to this conversation is the focus on both collective and personal responsibility.
 
What does this problem, remind you of? – is this a trend that you have seen before?
 ​
Putting profit before people, fitting people into overly ridged systems, making decisions based without considering the people we are affecting.
 
There seem to be overarching themes to many issues, that are often dismissed as being part of the human condition, but what if there is more to explore?
 
It’s fair to say that NOT knowing irks most of us, and this is not suggesting we don’t deal with crisis or keep people suffering until they learn their lesson but recognising that something different needs a different direction in the conversation.
 
Sometimes we need to go backwards to go forward!
 
This can be hard to do once you have invested in getting a room full of people together that are well trained in solving problem and is about realism and not defeatism. Humans are naturally innovative and purposeful, so the answers will come but only when we ask the right question.
 
Solutions are not always what they seem and with today’s complexity we need to be able rekindle our ability to let ourselves NOT know
 
By Joel Levin