By Bill Harley
All of us work in groups and observe groups working much of the time—whether they be couples, families, work, governmental or community groups. Regardless of the content (or subject) being discussed, most people experience the process (or human interaction) as more rough and tumble than they would wish. Group members commonly feel interrupted, unheard, disregarded, misunderstood, talked over, put down, shouted down or even steamrolled.
The human family in all its diversity is getting closer and closer together, but less and less unified because of the immaturity of our deliberation practices. In other words, our problem solving and decision-making practices are too weak to effectively address the growing complexity of our problems and opportunities. It is no coincidence that the revolutionary decision-making and problem-solving process called Compassionate Consultation (CC) has appeared in this age—it is the truth finding and unifying methodology for the 21st Century and beyond; yet few people know about it.
Jean’s and my second book, TRANSFORMED: How to Make the Decisions That Change Your Life, is a guidebook to understanding and gaining skill in using CC for individuals, couples, families, communities, organizations, institutions and the world at large. In the book, we outline 12 Behavioral Standards for practitioners that distinguish CC from all other deliberation processes and help provide its transformative results. One of these is “Honoring the inherent value of each group member.” What does it mean and look like to embody this Behavioral Standard during CC or in life generally?
Essentially, honoring the inherent value of each group member means treating each member with dignity and respect—a requirement for optimal success in any human endeavor. However, even when this is happening outwardly, problems can be created by the preference filters we have learned to use from our cultures which lead us to attribute more value to some members of the group than others. Biases based on educational level, gender, rank, race, age, ethnicity, political leaning and personality create filters that affect how much or little credence we give to others’ ideas.
Bias is poison to Compassionate Consultation and instantly reduces its effectiveness. For one thing, bias is an ego-based, lower nature-driven energy that springs from the assumption that human beings are essentially separate rather than one. Because this perspective runs counter to the spiritual principle of the essential oneness of the human family, it blocks the divine assistance that members prayed for from their higher natures in Step 1 of CC.
In addition, when we listen to some members’ ideas with a multiplier of 10 and others’ ideas with a multiplier of 1, our selective listening makes us vulnerable to missing the breakthrough ideas that may represent that assistance because they came from a member against whom we hold a bias.
Furthermore, when members feel that their inherent value is not being honored by other group members, they are more likely to withhold their ideas because bias is felt and it does not feel safe or welcoming to speak up. In all three of these scenarios, the group is deprived of ideas that may represent the solution or lead to the solution the group is seeking.
What is more, most solutions to complex problems and opportunities require a bundle of nuanced solution elements which need to be carefully dovetailed together for effective implementation. When several solution elements are missing because they were ignored by the group or withheld by a member, the dovetailing process is blocked and the solution bundle remains incomplete and suboptimal.
A Case in Point
Early in my career, before I fully understood the importance of honoring the inherent value of each group member, I was in the industrial design business. We had clients who were manufacturers and we created new product designs for them via 3-dimensional concept drawings, orthographic engineering drawings and handmade prototypes. The eight industrial designers had both engineering and artistic training and skills; and, as an account executive, I would facilitate weekly design review meetings so that team members could share concepts, cross-fertilize ideas and give and get constructive feedback. One of the members of the team, Hank, was a graphic designer who did mostly 2-dimensional drawings. He was talented, rather shy and mostly listened in the meetings.
At one point, the team was struggling to come up with a way to design a consumer product with six different functions; and do it in such a way that the product specifications could be manufactured within the parameters of the client’s existing factory. The team met about this weekly for three weeks and was still unable to solve the complex design issues involved.
After the third frustrating weekly meeting, I happened to go to Hank’s office to discuss a different matter with him. He wasn’t there and, while I waited for him to return, I noticed a small drawing tacked on the wall by his drawing board. After looking at it for a couple of minutes, I realized that he had created a very elegant design solution to manufacturing the 6-function product. I also noticed that the date of the drawing was just two days after the first design review meeting we had had to solve the problem three weeks ago.
At that moment, Hank returned to his office. I pointed to the drawing, praised him up and down for the breakthrough design concept; and then asked him why he hadn’t shared it at the last two weekly design review meetings. Hank said, “Well, I wasn’t really sure it solved all the problems and I also wasn’t sure it would be welcomed by the industrial designers when it was coming from a person who is just a graphic designer.”
The next day, I asked Hank to introduce his concept to the team. Everyone loved the design and breathed a collective sigh of relief that the problem had finally been solved. Then we had a discussion about how we had unwittingly created a group culture in which status filters of educational level and rank may have been creating an unwelcoming atmosphere for the sharing of ideas. We committed to honoring the inherent value of each member; and going forward the members proactively asked Hank and all other members who were being quiet for their views.
To better understand how to honor the inherent value of each group member, the rest of the 12 Behavioral Standards for CC and the process of Compassionate Consultation itself, read Jean’s and my second book, TRANSFORMED: How to Make the Decisions That Change Your Life.
