Blogs

A few ruffled feathers seems a natural enough part of any group of people attempting to be in the same room at the same time. This is why we have as part of our communication context the phrase "We are willing to make space for difficult conversations, without relationships falling apart".

In addition, new groups also get to deal with the phenomenon that M. Scott Peck called 'forming to storming'. This speaks to the idea that when new projects or new members start to settle in, there can be a tendency for people to start to push back against each other, and the founders. Perhaps to find out where we begin and end. This doesn't speak of something to be fixed or avoided, its just a necessary integration.

This hints at the idea that even though I may now feel safe enough to speak out, my capacity to do this is possibly still developing. Also possible is that as a newcomer my understanding of the established contexts may not yet be complete. After all, those documents are, in the project's case, decidedly verbose (equal parts: clarity, and brevity just being hard).

We are none of us perfect, be it new members or old. Isn't that why we are here? To build capacity!

A meta conversation

Hearteningly, some new members initiated and are shepherding a discussion on this topic. It's a kind of meta conversation, or a conversation about a conversation.

The topic as it is became named on the open topics list is: "What do we want to do with unresolved tensions". The initial discussion included a diverse and interesting collection of points of view. This shortened list is best read as a brainstorm, rather than any hard conclusions:

The idea of creating an orientation "guide for new members" is something that came out of a couple of meetings where members expressed frustration about not being able to find things, and not knowing how to contribute their gifts. That guide is now under construction.

The list above, to my mind, seems like a comprehensive start to this interesting discussion. I find myself appreciating the attention and skill that new members have devoted to this issue.

There's one 'little' thing i want to add.

Decompression, the good , bad and ugly

To the idea of making a space to air grievances, i notice the presence of a strong opinion. And i would even go further to say that my "Mother Hen" starts to raise its heckles.

First lets get this out of the way, and go ahead and name that part of my experience is my fear of conflict. Maybe that is maladaptive, maybe its healthy, just now that isn't clear.

But putting that aside for the minute, as my blood pressure starts to rise, i see the part of me that wants to stand up and protect the integrity of the project. With its deliberately crafted and explicitly stated vision, mission, and values.

If it pleases you, i would love to explain.

Having visited community groups that employ "Possibility Management" with its radical honesty / expand the box narrative, one of their tools is these dramatic "resentment airing" parties. Where they 'celebrate' how many unaired resentments they can excavate and name.

What's my reaction, you might ask? I suspect that by now, you can probably guess. At the time of writing I am working on a comprehensive review of Baumeister and Leary's book, The Power of Bad. It's my view that this book would make anybody who reads it rise up against such horrors. Defending the right to air grievances seems to my mind to overlook nervous system science. Of, what it is to be trauma informed, and neuroplasticity friendly. Actually i feel so strongly about this that i notice myself wanting to just go ahead a name such a notion plain antithetical and dumb. There, i said it!

But seriously, want to look closer at it?

First, to the desire "i want us to support those that are upset", i notice on one hand a sense of appreciation for this sense of care and tenderness. Its not easy to figure out and process our upsets on our own. Not easy work at all.

When i think of a PVT frame, do i feel safe or do i not? I notice that i feel safe with most of the people in the group, and have a great deal of trust in our collective ability to hold a space for difficult conversations.

On the other hand, to the one or two instances of those using name calling language, and then being disinclined to lean into repair, i'm for sure tracking some discomfort. The end result is a trail of 'murmurings', to use a term coined by a member. How do i feel about this? In a single word: afraid.

I grew up in an era when babies cried themselves to sleep. My nervous system is now extra tuned to discord.

I experience being present during the combination of unhappy nonverbals, and the unexamined use of unowned language, to be quite triggering. My wise mind fully understands that this behavior is not going to kill me, and that it is just some need trying to express itself. As neither right nor wrong, nor in need of fixing. Because all of us are developing, vulnerable, and can at times get over-saturated .

And, i know that for my particular trauma tuning, being exposed to this particular behavior, often exceeds my current ability to maintain my own regulation. And I know that when i become dysregulated i tend to say unhelpful things. This feels like a dilemma.

So, to think out loud a little more, what if my nervous system, from the perspective of the gift of this tuning, is like a canary in a coal mine?

Going this route, the suggestion for an grievances airing event, while i can see as well intended, finds me cautious, and reaching for context. It finds me wanting to lean on the vision. It finds me wanting to protect that vision.

What i think the vision says about regulation

Of course, i realise that its possible that there are unclear parts of the vision. For example, it now seems clear to me that there is no accepted definition of what AR is, so if we use the term, we might want to specify whether its the Boulder school or the Sengstock school, or the European school or what ever it is. (BTW: for me personally its less about being authentic in our relating, and much more about a deliberately repeated structured practice).

Coming back to my fear. This fear speaks to the question: Do dissenting voices share enough of a common context with the project's context? Enough that a difficult conversation has a prospect of being fruitful? My frame of reference is aligned with the Boulder school: as practitioners I am ultimately responsible for maintaining my own regulation, that the facilitator is not my therapist, and thus to try to share only what i can hold.

What is meant by sharing what i can hold? PVT offers us the value of regulation. My read of this is that a parent is responsible for co-regulating an infant. Whereas as individual adults we are ultimately responsible for their own regulation. That doesn't mean we cant seek or receive co-regulation, not at all. Another adult person may choose to offer their gift of co-regulation to peers. And we may seek support from a peer and this way receive co-regulation.

I see a direct analog to what the Boulder derived ART school calls being 'confidently vulnerable', and of 'holding identity lightly'. We can illustrate the difference with a pair of examples:

I personally view, sharing what i can hold, as taking responsibility for my regulation. And, taking responsibility for the potential impact on others of me expressing unmetabolised dysregulation.

Now, you may be wondering, i can hear you saying it already, when is he going to say something about non-verbals?

Indeed, PVT tells us the words have little to no impact on any of this. The former example comes with cues of danger, the latter example comes with cues of safety. Its just that simple.

My unowned language tends to dysregulate me, by way of a nasty negative feedback loop. Conversely my owned language tends to regulate me, in a very helpful positive feedback loop.

I'm curious if the above helps make sense of why i love to create a such strong contexts. For example, on todays topic, the context around difficult conversations. Such a context for me includes that we aspire to use feeling and desire words, not judgment words. And we aspire to remain calm and of an inquiring mind. We agree to reflect, and offer appreciation, per the Gottman protocol.

I have to say, hearing these words out loud, just now they seem pretty not negotiable in my world.

What exactly are the documented contexts?

So what exactly do i see as the relevant parts of the projects documented context?

The vision booklet and practice primer provide an overview of the kind of nervous system informed AR we want to practice.

- The conflict PPP gives two things, the introduction page speaks at length about the kind of communication we aspire to bring to our work, both in good times and bad. It also outlines a detailed process to actively manage conflicts that exceed the ability of our day to day practice to hold.

- The feedback guide that is currently under development attempts to fill some gaps left by the above, by clarifying the handling of negative feedback.

- There is no seperate communication agreement document, in hindsight looking back the founders probably assumed rightly or wrongly that AR covered that more than adequately.

- Rightly or wrongly the proposed guide for new participants tries to tie the loose threads together.

To end this section with a couple of reflections on the Conflict PPP:

1. This was the brain child of one of the founders who is no longer a member. They brought to to the matter a ton of research as well as attending several training courses such as Authentic Rev's courses on Difficult Conversations and Fight Lab

2. I sense a desire to read the PPP again, its been a while.

3. The Conflict PPP has never been road tested. So ironically i find myself with a desire to find opportunities to test it out.

4. I also want to offer the book by Stone Patten and Heen, called Difficult Conversations. In my view it is a great resource, and one that aligns with the Boulder school of AR

Then something of a shift

To summarise so far, my rose is the gifts of us being brave enough to engage with the bumps on the road. My thorn is when that breaks down and we inadvertently start calling each other names. My bud is us building capacity for difficult conversation. Practice is king!

As i decompressed the above with the support of members, something happened. A new sense of a yes opened up in me regarding this alignment episode. That maybe there's another approach. This is to say, what if i was to take each person where they are at, in the manner of welcome everything? What if, for the purpose of this discussion, we put completely aside all the 'official' context, and create a new and simpler context?

What if that context was something like: lets invite each other to use whatever language we need to use in order to express what ever we need to express. We add to this a simple a pressure relief value, something like, if my listening buffer becomes full i can ask for a pause to reflect what i heard. Where listening, is the primary objective.

This "Plan C" finds me more curious to experiment, with experiment with curiosity. It finds me more willing to have a messier dialog. To find out what those that are struggling with the existing contexts, feel is important that i know. It finds me wanting to try to find out what i am not getting, what i am not hearing.

So the short version, is that we gave that a shot, it had its ups and downs. That's why this piece is called part one. Because I sense there is still more to learn. Any conclusion i might make now will likely benefit from the difficult conversations series, to try to unravel this puzzle some more.

If you managed to read this far, i appreciate you listening, and I would love to hear how it lands. And... if you have a different set of desires, id love the chance, to, in turn, listen to you.

To be continued...