Finn Tschudi
September 2003
Conferencing and committee decisions:
Reflections on a hypothetical scenario
While this note refers to a specific person, the point is of course not that it
necessarily is an advantage to be a professor of philosophy in order to
facilitate conferences. My point is rather that a facilitator should be
completely open, ‘transparent’, about her/his background/qualifications for the
task ahead and mention specific points she/he feels to be of vital importance.
So:
Imagine that:
My friend Dagfinn Føllesdal - professor of philosophy - with special interest in
moral philosophy applied to complex decision situations involving serious risks
- tells me that he has been informally approached from high governmental level
whether he could consider accepting a job as leader of a committee to discuss
the feasibility of building factory for gas refinery/ atomic plant/ exploit a
major river for electric power [whatever]. He knows that I'm deeply concerned
with such issues and asks me what I think about this. Material in [ ] is to be
read as 'metacomments', which will not be included in any possible 'publishable'
later form of these thoughts
So I write him a letter which might run like this:
First of all congratulations, Dagfinn. I'm very happy to hear that what you've
done in moral philosophy has caught the attention of the authorities, and hope
you will find that you can take the job. Forgive me if I sometimes may sound to
prescriptive - look at this letter as nothing more than a basis for a dialogue.
First a couple of comments on the language you use. I would not like to think of
you as 'leader' - it sounds to authoritarian - and would rather suggest
'facilitator' (Norwegian 'tilrettelegger') Furthermore 'committee' may have too
many conventional connotations of formal dress, sitting around a table etc., a
'seriousness' which may be counterproductve. I like 'workgroup' better. Think
about it?
Then some comments on the formulation of the mandate: Try to have it as 'openended' as possible, in the sense that no conclusion should be foreclosed in the
mandate. You might consider talking with a couple of friends - preferably with a
good flair for the political climate concerning the relevant issues. Next point
here is that you should resist a definite, non- negotiable deadline. A
provisional deadline, yes, but with possibilities of extension if important
unresolved issues remain at 'deadline'.
An even more important issue - where you should require a free hand - is in the
selection of the group members. The authorities will be likely to supply a list
of important 'pro' people. You'll probably find no reason to reject any of
those. But you must insist on freedom of choosing people with heavy investment
in 'con'. (I trust I need not remind you of the sad fate of the Oslo process
where those with perhaps most heavy 'con' stakes, Hamas and extreme Jewish
groups were deliberately excluded.)
I think you should think of a 'suitable size', say something between 15 and 30,
more would not be manageable. A variety of subissues might arise where your
group is not sufficient, you should then have the possibility of forming
subgroups to deal with special issues.
As for more concrete procedures in selecting appropriate members I don't have
much to say. Ask the people you start out with who else might be relevant,
either because they think in the same way, or because they think in very, very
different ways (but still are worth listening to). Concerning the premises where
the work should take place; it need not necessarily be a luxurious resort, 'far
away', but a place with a nice garden where people could walk around during
breaks.
I think it is of the utmost importance that you are completely 'transparent'
when you talk with the participants beforehand, no trace of hidden agenda.
I'll here just summarise the important points you mostly would have made when
recruiting participants as your opening remarks when the workgroup first
convenes:
'As you know I'm primarily a philosopher and do not claim any expertise in the
specific task ahead of us. I have written about ethical issues in decision
making, but I'm not here to lecture you. Only disclaimer here - I have my own
list of issues I regard as important. I do, however, think that those issues
will naturally arose during our conversations. I'm happy to have such a broad
set of perspectives represented here (look around and 'notice' everyone with a
glance). If there are some issues which towards the end have not been covered, I
will, however,. feel free to introduce them. (If at this point questions should
arose about exactly what you have written, just downplay this, but say I'm happy
to give you a copy of what I have written, but emphasise that you do not find
it important for the process - 'you're the experts' you say to the group)'
You then explain that your job is exclusively with the process. You want to make
sure that every voice is heard, that all points made are seriously deliberated,
and that no-one gets to dominate the talk [Obviously Habermas' 'undominated
dialogue' is a model here, are there important points you think should be added
from this please tell me when we meet, cf. else my TJAREV3.DOC chapter]
You then say that obviously the authorities would be pleased if you (miraculously you might add if you find that appropriate) arrived at a unanimous
'positive' conclusion, but it is a very important ethcial consideration for you
that there should be no untoward pressure against anyone to sign something which
they can not 'fully from the heart' endorse. (From a Gandhian point of view most
'persuasion' is mainly a subtle form of wreaking violence.)
Furthermore you might something like:
'As you know the format for the work ahead of us is an experiment in the sense
that we try to take advantage of recent innovations in how one should set the
stage for productive group work. What might seem quite radical is that we are
seated in a circle with no table. I will also strongly encourage you not to
take notes., The reason is that this may detract attention from group
processes. As I have told you there are serious limitations to being
preoccupied with notes. Paying attention to the affective engagement in various
perspectives is crucial for arriving at viable conclusions, and this requires
full attention to the person speaking.'
[Several of the persons will already have produced plenty of written material
with more or less strong injunction to concentrate on this or that stuff. You as
facilitator will have made certain that everything any participant has found
important has been circulated but you have made no attempt to either encourage
reading it or not. It is all available on a table.]
You go on:
In order to keep track of the proceedings I have engaged two secretaries (they
are seated outside the circle, here they rise up, and are briefly presented,
then they sit down). [I think it is of major importance that they do not make
any attempt to make a stenographic record. Rather they are exceptionally well
trained in extracting the main points - preferably directly on a laptop - well
versed in a variety of graphical techniques, POWERPOINT, EXCEL etc. The day's
work should end with a brief social mingling, during which the secretaries do
any necessary brief editing. The resume is then ready to take home/ to the hotel
at the end of the day.
Concerning the sequence in which people should talk I would suggest the
following [inspired by the usual procedure in conferencing
where it is customary that the 'offender' or the one immediately responsible for
instigating acts which have turned ot to be harmful start. I think that what
this might here suggest is that the prime spokesperson for the controversial
project start.] In the preconference talk the chief protagonist, say A ,has
agreed to starting after you've finished your intro..
So after your introduction you turn to A and say,
'You have been very active in pushing this issue: I suggest you give us a brief
introduction, but just what you see as the major points. [I haven't thought this
through but e.g. POWERPOINT presentation might be allowed - provided it is not a
'power game ', or in any way 'showing off', but essential in getting the message
across in an optimal way.]
You have agreed with A that, say ten minutes (or whatever, not too long!), will
be sufficient for her/his presentation . You then turn to B, a prime opponent,
and afterwards to others with the same general stance. Then to the ones
supporting A. (There may be some 'undecided' ones - in case say something like
'let us listen to someone, nodding to X, with a quite different perspective'.
After everyone thus have had their say you again turn to A and ask her/him to
sum up where we are so far. If you find the summary exceedingly biased you
might nod to one who you think best will (perhaps one of the several hands which
here may be competing for attention) set the record a bit more straigt.
You then make your own - very short, and very pointed assessment of where the
group is: Perhaps:
'I'm happy that everyone has got a chance to express their view, and obviously
we have a long way to go/ we have to return to several important issues which we
have just briefly touched but we now need a break. There are refreshment in
the adjoining room. You are now free to stretch your legs, look at some of the
position papers / suggested readings (pointing to the table where those are
deposited), and perhaps some of you might like to ask for clarification or
elaboration of something you found hard to assimilate get (in a maximally
unobtrusive way encourage friendly dialogue among opponents).
When the group reconvenes you might feel it convenient with brainstorming,
encourage creativity on some major points, e.g.
'obviously quite a lot revolves around whether safety precautions/pollution
issues [whatever] are sufficiently takne care of in the present plan. Perhaps
standard technology is a bit uncertain, should we just play around with
alternative ideas for a while? (without committing ourselves at this moment)'
Perhaps a subgroup with the persons most involved with this issue should work on
this?'
A special problem which might arise is long technical contributions where half
of the audience more or less completely fail to follow the thread. In this case
you might say something like (of course always honor the prime rule that you
should always show respect for every participant - regardless of how
preposterous they on occasion may be. Never be condescending, brutely ironic
etc.).
'I'm sure that linear programming/ simulation studies/ decision trees [whatever
term might be appropriate to describe the contribution] might be important but
could you (perhaps tomorrow) extract just the main presuppositions and give us
the conclusion which follow from these presuppositions. You might add:
Technical information on computation procedures etc. might be on the table with
papers which anyone are free to browse in breaks/ get a copy to take with them
for the evening or night'
[Some additional comments here. First of all my background for the above
paragraph is the strong conviction that Jerry Bruner was on to a most important
insight when he said that
'any subject can be explained in an intellectually honest way to a six year old
child.'
Lest this statement sounds too far out a useful modification might be that the
chief responsibility for getting a message across rests on the sender of a
message, not the receivers! The further basic point in the paragraph is to
clarify our differences on the importance of formal models/modes. My impression
is that you tend - too strongly - to give them a hegemonic place. This I feel
is part of a Western hubris which I have been at some pain to show may lead us
down dangerous roads. This is not to say that I'm any kind of 'anti-scientific
Luddite'. Insights derived from/stimulated by using formal models may be
helpful, but such thinking should not be a apriori priviliged. If this is too
large a bite for you to swallow consider that it is highly likely - or you
might even have pushed things a bit in this direction - that vocal spokespersons
for formal approach(es) + substantial insights in the specific issues are
included in the workgroup. From what I have written about your role as
facilitator - which certainly includes taking care that in the end your valuable
list is taken into consideration - you might even at the end of the proceedings
find that due to overemphasis on formal approaches several vital considerations
were left out! (To counteract this is another argument for having a wide
variety of backgrounds among the participants.)
Any clash between formal and other types of arguments - (I wonder if it is
possible to dig relevant stuff from the literature on this?) would be very
valuable as supplementing, or perhaps even supplanting 'conventional'
intellectual interchanges on say, Ulrich Beck vs. any (modified) classical
tradition on decision making.
I don't have much to say about negotiating interruptions etc. The ideal would be
to intervene as little as possible, only when necessary to avoid 'tyranny' (cf.
the ideal of undominated discourse). Shun any appeal to formal rules 'no
interruptions', 'observe turn-taking' etc. Strive for an informal, engaged and
lively interchange. You should, however, try to 'monitor' all participants e.g. from noting facial expression of say irritation/sadness you may address
that person: 'you haven't said much lately, I wonder are there any special thing
on your mind, which you'd like to bring forth?
It is about time to draw this to an end. I'm sure that there are several
important issues not covered, but I'll here restrict myself to remarks
concerning possible outcomes. First - as already stated - there should be no
pressure for consensus. You might even feel that so strong polarisations existed
that no progress was possible. This should then be explained to the authorities,
with or without recommendations for having another workgroups. Not only should
you resist anyone contrary to the majority being pressured to agreed. You might
rather encorage that person(s) to submit a special note/dissension. .
Suppose now that at the end that there seems to be a hefty majority or even
unaminity in favour of specific conclusions. I would then strongly suggest that
you called for a brief moratorium and said something like:
'Seems that we have arrived at the end. Before you sign this, however, I want
you to take a good break ('sleep on it') really feel how happy you are with our
conclusions. Be aware of any 'rumblings', however queer or inarticulate. When
we next meet I hope all of you will report on how you really feel about our
preliminary report/conclusions.' After we have mused about this we may be ready
to finish, or - just as well face it - we may have more work ahead of us! Have
a good evening!'
[This last point is first of all inspired by Herbert Simons few comments on
emotions - where he was on to a vital point in taking serious affective signals
as pointing to 'unfinished business' . Completely independent of this a similar
theme runs through the NLP writings (NeuroLinguisticProgramming) when they talk
about 'performing an ecological check' - ('listen to the body) on important
plans before trying implementation .
Enough for today, eagerly waiting for continuing the dialogue!
finn