朝邦文教基金會於3月17、18日舉行『對話中的反思：如何讓價值展現於行動」工作坊。工作坊結束後，邀請講師/引導師陳穎堅撰文並且接受執行長吳咨杏的訪談。精彩內容摘錄如下:
在一言一行中展現自己的價值觀
這個工作坊真正的核心是關於「對質 (confrontation)」。對 Argyris & Schon來說，我們對質能力都是偏低的。當我們有這樣的能力時，我們都是會激起防衛的。當防衛機制建立起來後，以攻擊為主的對質也顯得越來越無效。
但不對質的後果是什麼？是越來越同質 (homogenous)，組織越同質，就越來越只得一把聲音。通常這把聲音都是最高領導者的聲音。在華人「禮教」的習慣下，組織會傾向自動的審查不同的聲音，以至最後只餘下「中聽」的說話。這是組織對了最後沒法創新的重要原因。
Value-in-Action，將我們所信奉的價值觀放在大太陽下，顯現出我們的價值觀主張，很多時候根本沒有可行動的一套方案，也因此出現了行動與主張的落差。當我們沒有留意到很多信奉的價值觀原來是沒有可行動的方法時，在飽受威脅的時刻，這些信奉的價值觀就很會很快地消失於無形，只剩下我們成長過程中被社會化的一套。
對質，不一定是無禮的。它可以是善意的，也可以是好奇的，也可以是真誠的，同時也可以是有效的。通常我們都沒有給對方prove-wrong 的feedback「能力」，重點是我們的「卡住」是因為我們的能力，而不是我們的意圖所致。因為我們沒有這種能力的養成，所以我們很難做到高質而低防衛感的「對質」。
這兩天的工作坊，我相信大家都做到了「醒覺」的動作。但其實並未真正「建立能力」，因此在我們下一個有關「建立能力」的工作坊出現之前，儘一切辦法與一起上課的同學組成一些學習社群，在Model I 的世界裡創造一個Model II的環境。
Value in Action 工作坊後訪談
Q:您在這次工作坊最想要傳遞的重要訊息是甚麼?
A:第一是不要以為我們很棒。我們學了很多好東西，便以為可以是救世主。偏偏我們是造成很多困局的幫兇，共謀困境的一份子。我們的意圖是希望做好，但往往會出現很嚴重的落差，有時甚至是原意剛好相反的落差。以前沒有方法、工具來觀照自己做的事與原意相反的事情，現在有了工具，又有一群很認真、願意反思的夥伴共同學習，那應該是容易點吧。對一群有願意反思的人，這個課程的價值就變得很大。因為反思是U型理論中那種U型反思，經過兩天，有些人可能覺得U下沉的很深，我認為這種U的過程是很重要的。
第二是我們要重新學習「對質(confrontation)」。我們不是沒有意見、不是沒有想法的，而且我們也不是沒有看到問題的所在，但我們應該如何提出來？當我們學了一堆發問的技巧，但我們都熟練的不自覺自己是有偏見的。結果問了半天，我們還是想聽到自己想要聽到的結果；要不然，就是懷疑對方不明白狀況，或別有用心…等等。我們必須重新學習一種以 prove-wrong 的「科學精神」來進行「兼顧主張與探詢」。「對質」並不一定是無禮的，它可以帶著尊重與自由選擇的；然而，對方也不一定不歡迎這種對質。因為他們都可能很想搞懂一些他們也不太明白的事情。這時防衛的圍牆就可以拉下來了。
Q:很多的自我成長課程強調要活出自己的價值觀，你的APPROACH 有什麼不同？
A: 一般的成長課程主要是自己要會領悟，領悟得到，就成為你的，領悟不到就是因為我們沒有這種天份。但這種解釋是很決定論式的。我們的行動需要可實踐的步
驟，讓信奉的價值能變成行動，有一種踏實的感覺。舉個例子，一般我們都會認同「保持好奇心」這種價值觀，但該如何做呢？我所提出的「主動地 provewrong」，就是不斷地邀請新的資料加入到我們的考慮之中，這是一種很具體的步驟來達致「保持好奇心」或
「保持開放」。這種Prove wrong精神也同時尊重他人在充分資料下的自由選擇。例如問:『我這樣做你覺得可以嗎？』去化解自我防衛，並釐清自己的假設/觀察是否正確。
在關鍵時刻 (critical moment) 是最需要展現價值觀的時刻。那可能是危難的時刻，最挫敗的時刻或最被卡住的時刻。就是因為我們信奉的這些價值觀在關鍵時刻與我們一起，就像一個與我們共渡患難的戰友一種一起有過難忘的經歷，它才是屬於我們的。
Q:你想給台灣的社群鼓勵是什麼?
A:台灣的朋友已經學了很多好的東西，相信也是時候整合一下，至少在理論框架上做一個completion。我希望這些理論框架能提供一種強而有力的膠水(glue)，將自己以往認識的不同部分聚合起來，讓自己看到整體圖像。當然最後是關於建立一些能持續實踐的實踐小組。個人力量是很孤獨的、很單薄。一定要用團隊或社群的力量來促成這種學習。
後記: Joey 老師在FB成立Model II 實踐社群，持續維持討論與分享。 http://www.facebook.com/groups/186556258126465/
“Reflective Dialogue: How to Show Values in Action?”
a post-workshop report
On March 17-18, 2012, the CP Yen Foundation Director Jorie Wu interviewed “Values in Action” workshop facilitator Joey Chan. Below is Joey’s summary followed by highlights of their interview.
Showing Our Values in Word and Deed
This workshop is all about confrontation. People generally have weak confrontational skills, observe Argyris & Schon. Yet a good confrontational capability heightens our defense mechanisms and makes an attack increasingly ineffective.
Joey Chan points out that non-confrontation leads to homogeneity, where organizations tend to self-censor differing voices ultimately constructing a single groupthink – which is one reason why organizations often struggle with innovation.
“Values in action” addresses the gap that often exists between our actions and our values. When we notice obstacles to acting according to our values, we often compromise; causing our values to wane leaving behind the socialization of our development.
But confrontation isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It can be well-intentioned, curious, sincere and effective. Because we haven’t cultivated a “prove-wrong” feedback capability, its difficult for us to achieve a high quality and low-defensive form of confrontation. The reason we get stuck is largely due to our lacking ability, not intention.
This two-day workshop served the purpose of instigating people, but we haven’t really developed a full capability therefore, before our next capacity building workshop, we ought to form a study group to create a Model I world in a Model II environment. (see charts above).
Value in Action Post-Workshop Interview:
Q: What key message being conveyed in this workshop?
A: Firstly, we’ve learned a lot of good things but let’s not think we’re saviors of the world, because we can also create a lot of trouble in the world too. Our intention is to do good, but sometimes the outcome may be far different, or even the opposite.
In the past we lacked tools for effective reflection on the differences between our actions and aspirations, but now we have tools, as well as a group of dedicated partners in learning who are willing to practice. The value of this course becomes much bigger when working with a group of people willing to reflect; because I believe that reflection is the most important part of the “U” process.
Secondly, we need to re-learn the meaning of “confrontation.” When we practice inquiry, we’re still seeing through our unconscious biases. We could be hearing the answer all day. But still be deaf to it if it’s not the answer that we want tohear; or we may think the other party just doesn’t get it or has ulterior motives, etc. We must re-learn a kind of prove-wrong scientific methodology to optimize advocacy and inquiry.
Confrontation is not necessarily rude, it can be done with respect and freedom of choice, even though the other party may not welcome this kind of confrontation. But if they genuinely want to understand something, then defense walls can be pulled down.
Q: What’s the importance of reflection for individuals, organizations and society?
A: Reflection is humankind’s precious quality, but we still need to learn how to do it. The model for learning reflection is different from our traditional education. Reflection can
roughly be grouped as two types: 1) Reflecting on one’s own behavior (looking inwards), and 2) Reflecting on social matters. The difficulty is that because we live in similar social environments we also have similar blind spots.
Q: Many personal development courses emphasize living ones values, what’s different about your approach?
A: Most development courses are based on self actualization, and frustrated progress can lead one to presume a lack of talent. Turning our values into actions I believe, requires
practical steps. For example, most of us would agree that “being curious” is a good value, but how do you do that exactly? I propose “proactive prove-wrong,” which means to continuously invite new information into consideration. This is a specific step towards achieving curiosity or openness. The “prove wrong” spirit means to respect others under
sufficient information and freedom of choice. Asking for example: “is it ok to do it like this?” is a self defense for resolving and clarifying whether our own assumptions are
correct.
Critical moments when we most need to access our values might be a moment of distress, frustration or stuckness. Not until we experience our values as a battlefield companion will
we feel as though they are really our own.
Q: How would you like to encourage your Taiwan community?
A: Taiwanese friends have already learned many good things, so I believe it’s time to take an integrated look; I hope that these theoretical frameworks provide a strong glue enabling us to see the big picture while learning different things together.
Of course we ultimately spoke of creating a sustainable practice group. An individual’s power can sometimes feel very lonely and thin. So we must use the power of groups to
advance our learning.
Professor Joey created a Model II practice group on Facebook to continue our discussion and sharing:
www.facebook.com/groups/186556258126465/
朝邦文教基金會 