tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133094372127145968.post8289086701866260131..comments2023-07-13T05:50:17.393-04:00Comments on Communication :: Collaboration :: Consensus: “Informed Choice” versus “Participation:” Competing Democratic ValuesSandy Schumanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04373637046730424126noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133094372127145968.post-47235456167583616822011-03-09T18:21:46.560-05:002011-03-09T18:21:46.560-05:00Yes, thanks to both Doug and Jan. Perhaps “Informe...Yes, thanks to both Doug and Jan. Perhaps “Informed Choice” and “Participation” are yin and yang constrained by time.Sandy Schumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04373637046730424126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133094372127145968.post-48921016683036194392011-02-22T04:58:41.268-05:002011-02-22T04:58:41.268-05:00Hi Sander, looks like a typical case of the parado...Hi Sander, looks like a typical case of the paradoxes of Engaging: disclosure, trust, intimacy and regression. This is the reason we call it having a say and having a vote. The "say" is the analogue part of information (more/less), the "vote" is the digital part (yes/no). The problem is that we need to have a say or to vote but cannot do so at the same time. The tension between these two generates the energy for participating. Engaging or participating, in my view, is about these two. <br /><br />There will be no definitive solution to end any paradox: they maintain the endless regression (or progression, depending on your point of view, we're in). The best thing i can suggest is to frame it not as a competition or a competitive game between the two, but as a cooperative game. While playing the game of participating, sharing information people build trust, intimacy and a willingness to make progress. In doing say we share perceptions of each other and the facilitative way is to prevent people of falling into "us" versus "them". <br /><br />--<br /><br />Disclosure is about sharing information, the paradox being that only information that is hard to disclose is really informing. <br />Trust is about relying on others and is only needed in situations where the other cannot be reliably counted upon. <br />Intimacy is about connecting with each other in situations that are not very conformance.<br />Regressing, according to Bion, is massive in groups and a necessary condition for growth.<br />Perception of - or perhaps better, perceiving - differences as parts of the same in stead of opposing parts generates solidarity.Jan Leliehttp://www.mindatwork.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5133094372127145968.post-49934654838794193882011-02-22T00:50:21.192-05:002011-02-22T00:50:21.192-05:00Fascinating. You point out some common and yet gre...Fascinating. You point out some common and yet greater than they might appear risks. It is exceedingly risky to fall under the illusion of participation if people are permitted to vote before the dialogue is completed. Allowing people to have partial participation and full voice encourages more and more detached and dispassionate "participation".<br /><br />The power of dialogue often comes in the ability to influence. To reason, to share, to see things from another view, and to remain open to being influenced.<br /><br />At the same time, organizations can get bogged down by too much conversation when the facts in evidence are clear enough for nearly anyone to see.<br /><br />One solution is a firm set of ground rules before the group begins, coupled with a firm time constraint. It's amazing how fast people can come to conclusions once a uniform time limit is set -- so that everyone in the group has the same time to listen and respond.<br /><br />-- Douglas Brent SmithDoug Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09316502969861903024noreply@blogger.com