不論是在公部門、企業界甚至公民社會團體，在與不同背景、想法的人共事時，都極受煎熬。有鑑於此，朝邦文教基金會特別邀請國際知名社會變革引導者–湯斐力先生，帶領一場三天（11月04日到06日）的工作坊。這次工作坊共吸引了兩岸四地52人參加, 包括台灣,還有 中國, 香港以及菲律賓的同好. 工作坊把焦點放在如何規劃一系列包含各方利益相關者對話過程，讓參加工作坊的各方好手能以更精進的手法幫助團隊集體思考與行動。這三天豐富的學習,都呈現在短短的六分鐘影片 : https://www.youtube.com/2011 Dialogic Workshop
本月對話新訊息是這次工作坊的回顧。對話式變革流程認為：
行動很重要—協調的行動促成個人之間、團體之間互相瞭解與信任，才能產生有效的結果；思考很重要—確實反思我們的假設與思維以及影響我們思考與行為的”變革理論”；人際關係很重要–關注人際間的「互動品質」，以一種學習、同理及開放的立場自我檢查，建立互信與更有效的溝通；流程很重要—運用適當的社會工具安排事件內外、彼此間的互動，更能提昇前述三項：行動、思考與人際關係，的品質。
如果沒有前述四個基礎或過度強調其中之一項，變革者會感到痛苦。社會越來越多元，我們的挑戰不僅是更多的溝通，還要更優質的溝通。我們必須要理解到個人的知識與視野都只是部份，要持續不斷的自問”有什麼是我還不知道的….需要學習的？“藉著超越「預測與控制」轉化成「學習與接納」，我們學習到在保持自己的想法同時也能全然向外向其他人開放。
對話的目的在建立一種改變後的關係，在整個發展的每一個階段都有特定的介入方式在不同利益關係者之間理出更充分的瞭解。如右圖所示，對話一開始通常都是在探索議題時讓各方聲音與觀點得以發散。
做為引導者必須要創造出一個安全的空間讓所有聲音同時存在然後進入審議與主題有關的所有可能解決方法。最後就能彙整所有利益相關者都能產生繼續向前的決策。引導者要能協助團體經歷變革的過程後產生具體的協議與行動。
個參與式的決策過程。
引導者，也是一個策略設計者，要確保以下原則：
- 包容性：保證包容所有觀點的參與，包含經常被排除在外或外圍的聲音，在既有的資訊、能力、目的、法令的情況下確保參與的品質。
- 各方利益關係者共同擁有對話流程是成功的要素，可以藉由與主要利益相關者全程共同設計來達到這個目標。
- 藉由中立第三方來管理過程正當性（引導、資訊管理、文件記錄、溝通、後勤行政），以及明確的後續追蹤與成果監控機制。
- 政治意圖不只是展開對話，還要達成協議並追蹤執行成效。
左邊的「滿意三角」圖，是一個讓引導者可以分析利益與需要的工具，藉此設計介入方式並可留意三種利益：心理上（參與者感覺被理解嗎？）、實體上（設計是否具備清晰的範疇與目的並達到參與者真正想要的果？）以及過程（過程公平、清晰及包容？）一個介入手法是否成功，端看是否讓這三種利益都得到相當程度的滿意。
即使在利益相關團體內部亦有爭端，所以對話式流程有很多階段是先從內部開始工作（如左圖），以一種非正式氛圍讓團體內的不同部門先做深度的理解彼此立場的看法，再與不同團體以這種非正式對話及審議後，公布決定。經過多方利益團體，在團體內部、團體間對話式變革流程後，就如下圖，逐漸呈現一種流程設計一方面型塑出執行方式，又同時依據執行結果調整設計的過程。
根據情境的變動隨時調整設計，意味著「順利進行革」依賴學習與接納的能力，更甚於貫徹一個好的設計的技能。所以引導者的角色就在協助團體完成下圖的「學習循環」。
朝邦文教基金會希望藉著這一次的工作坊就「對話式流程設計」提供參加者及實務工作者一個全貌的綜覽，同時也能獲得一些啟發、指引及方向在特定的主題更深入的繼續學習之旅。如需要進一步探索研究審議對話流程，我們推薦湯斐力先生的著作「民主式對話—實務工作者手冊」，可在線上下載。
「對話」始終是在真實生活中探討人類的真實需求與優先順序，朝邦基金會將在2012年提供「對話力領導獎勵」給在台灣的對話式實務工作者。請將推薦名單寄到(jorie@cpyen.org)，說明如何使用對話式流程達到永續正向的社會影響，介入的方法及實際成果。基金會將繼續跟進有關評選及獎勵詳細流程。
A Review of The Dialogic Change Workshop with Philip Thomas
People at all levels in government, civil society and business frequently struggle in working with others of different backgrounds and perspectives. To address this challenge, the CP Yen Foundation invited Philip Thomas to deliver a three day workshop (Nov 04-06) focused on designing a multi-stakeholder dialogic change process where participants from the three sectors would fine-tune their skills in collective thinking and action. The workshop attracted 52 participate from Taiwan, China, Hong Kong and the Philippines to plan a series of dialogues. The workshop’s rich learnings are captured in a short video here; https://www.youtube.com/2011 Dialogic Workshop This month’s newsletter reviews this workshop.
Dialogic change processes recognize that:
- Action matters: coordination across individuals and groups based on mutual understanding and trust generates more effective results;
- Thinking matters: rigorous reflection on our assumptions and “theories of change” guide our thinking and actions;
- Relationships matter: paying attention to the quality of interactions and adopting a stance of learning, empathy and openness to self-examination generates trust and more effective communication;
- Process matters: the use of appropriate social tools for organizing interactions within and between events enhances the quality of the above three points: action, thinking and relationships.
Change initiatives suffer if any one of these elements are absent or over emphasized. As society becomes increasingly plural our challenge is now to have better communication, not simply more. This requires realizing that our individual knowledge and vision is partial and to continually ask “what do we not yet know…and need to learn?”
By transcending the logic of “predict and control” and shifting to “learn and adapt” we learn to recognize the legitimacy of our own perspectives while simultaneously remaining profoundly open to the other.
Dialogue aims to achieve a changed relationship, and each stage of its development has a specific intervention whose purpose is to elicit greater understanding among stakeholders.
As shown in the image to the right, dialogue generally begins with a stage of issue exploration where divergence occurs as multiple perspectives get voiced.
A facilitator must create a safe enough space so that all voices can coexist and begin deliberating over possible solutions to the topic at hand. Finally convergence occurs as stakeholders reach decisions on ways forward.
A facilitator aims to enable a group to undergo a change process that generates concrete agreements and actions. Philip introduced a series of steps used in a dialogic change process to achieve a participatory decisionmaking process, (illustrated at left)
Throughout a dialogue, deliberation and decision-making process trust and respect must be continuously built through listening, as depicted by the reinforcing loop to the right.
As a strategic designer, the facilitator is responsible for ensuring:
- Inclusiveness: guaranteeing the inclusion of all perspectives, including voice of those frequently excluded or on the periphery, and ensuring quality of participation by considering the existence of information, competencies, clarity of purpose and mandate of the intervention.
- Joint Ownership of the process by stakeholders is essential for a successful outcome and can be achieved through codesigning the entire process with the key stakeholders.
- Legitimacy of the process is maintained through impartial process management (in facilitation, managing information, documentation, communication, logistics) and clear mechanisms for monitoring and follow-up.
- Political will is necessary not only to engage in dialogue, but also to reach agreements and follow through with implementation.
The “triangle of satisfaction” on the left is a tool to analyze interests and needs for facilitators to design interventions that attend to three kinds of interests: psychological (do participants feel understood?), substantive (does the design have a clear purpose and scope to achieve the results participants really want), and process (is the procedure fair, clear and inclusive?). An intervention’s success depends largely on the extent to which each of these interests are satisfied.
Within each stakeholder group however fragmentation often exists and a dialogue process therefore consists of many stages starting with (see image at left) intragroup work first, followed by informal spaces to convene the different sectors together for deepening understanding of each side’s views, and finally, after informal dialogue and deliberation, the groups meet in formal spaces to declare decisions. Over the course of a multi-stakeholder dialogic change process intra- and inter-group processes unfold in a way that the design is both the shaper of, and shaped by the implementation, as depicted below:
Adapting design to the changing context means that “doing change well” depends more on the capacity for learning and adaptation than on the ability to execute a good design well. A facilitator’s role therefore is to helps the group through the learning cycle of:
The CP Yen Foundation intended this workshop to offer both an overview of the subject of dialogic process design, and for practitioners to gain inspiration, guidance and indications of where to continue their learning journey more deeply on specific topics. For further research into the deliberative dialogue process we recommend the Democratic Dialogue – A Handbook for Practitioners, written by Philip Thomas and available for download online.
Because dialogue is always about the needs and priorities of real people in real situations, in 2012 the CP Yen Foundation would will recognize Taiwanese practitioners of dialogue with a leadership in dialogue award. Nominate a dialogue practitioner by writing to (jorie@cpyen.org) explaining how dialogic methods were used to achieve sustained positive social impact, how was the intervention was implemente
朝邦文教基金會 