Crosby B.C., Bryson J.M. - Leadership for the Common Good (2005)(en)

RESOURCE E 429

chart sheets, redrawing the whole map or making a minimap of the issues they consider important. Each small group then reports to the whole group on their new interpretation, their current actions on the issues they selected, and their plans for future action on the issues.

Next comes a “prouds and sorries” exercise. The facilitators ask each group to talk among themselves about their feelings about the issues that have just been highlighted. The question to the group is, “Looking at what you personally or members of your stakeholder group are doing right now about these issues, what makes you really proud? What are you doing or not doing that makes you really sorry?” Each small group summarizes its conversation for the large group. Then the whole group is asked to respond: What are their feelings, reactions, insights?

Weisbord comments on this exercise: “The point is to get people to own up, not to finger-point, not to blame, not to breastbeat, not to do anything about it, but just to be in touch with what they are proud of and what they are sorry about. This is usually a pivotal step in our conference, because of what people hear other people say. And there is an amazing release that comes from taking responsibility for your feelings” (Flower, 1995, p. 41).

Creating a Vision: Step Three

Participants are then reassembled into mixed groups and given the task of creating a vision for female literacy. They are told it is a certain day, ten years into the future. They are asked to think of their ideal scenario of what they would like to see then in terms of female literacy—what programs would be in place, and what the results would be.

The groups use flipchart sheets to write characteristics of their ideal scenarios. Then they are asked to list on additional sheets the barriers that would have to be overcome to achieve the ideal. At this point, the groups are given a lengthy lunch break (two and a half hours), during which they prepare a creative seven-minute report to present to the entire group.

Before the presentations begin, one or two people from each group are asked to take notes on common themes that emerge, especially innovative ideas for programs, projects, or policies.

430 RESOURCE E

Weisbord comments: “People do the most amazing presentations. All their idealism pours out. It’s fun. They are often hilariously funny. Some of them are profound. Some people do ceremonies, rituals. The collective unconscious gets mobilized in a big way” (Flower, 1995, p. 42).

As the final exercise for the day, each small group compiles three flipchart sheets. On one, they list the common desires for the future they have heard in the presentations; on the second they note innovative ideas that might accomplish these desires; and on the third they note unresolved differences that emerged from the presentations.

The small groups are then paired and asked to compare and merge their lists. Each group then cuts the agreed-upon items from the old lists and places them on the wall under the headings—com- mon futures, potential projects, unresolved differences. This exercise concludes the second day.

On the final morning, participants come back to the wall with the lists of common futures, potential projects, and unresolved differences. They rearrange the lists, grouping similar items together. Facilitators then invite the group to talk about and clarify the lists. What does everyone endorse? What should be left in the unresolved category?

Action Planning: Step Four

The conference concludes with action planning. Stakeholder groups meet to consider what they want to do immediately about female literacy, what they want do in the next six months to a year, and what they want to do in the long run. They identify needed resources, timelines, support, and action steps. They then report their conclusions to the whole group.

Next, participants meet with anyone with whom they want to work to do action planning around a particular project or interest. These common-interest groups then report to the whole group about what next steps they have agreed to. To wrap up the conference, one or more participants sum up the agreed-upon action steps—for example, a new coordinating structure that includes many of the people at the conference. Next steps might include follow-up conferences that involve the same group or additional stakeholders.

RESOURCE E 431

General Observations

The future search process has many variations. Participants might be asked before the conference to collect information about historical and current forces affecting the problem they are considering. Participants might be invited to a preconference session to hear presentations by experts. Such a session preceded a future search conference convened in Pakistan to develop a national conservation strategy (see Weisbord and others, 1993).

If conference participants do not read and write the same language, then skilled storytellers, translators, and artists may be able to use the process framework to help participants create a shared understanding of the problem, a desired future, ideas, and action steps for programs, policies, and projects.

434 RESOURCE F

•Afternoon: Analysis and discussion of a written policy change case study, plus instruction in any special techniques likely to facilitate movement through the change process, such as brainstorming, the snowcard process (see Exercise 3.1), simple stakeholder analysis methods, or conflict management methods (Fisher and Ury, 1981; Thompson, 2001). The case analysis should highlight the stakeholders involved; their views about appropriate problem definitions and solutions; the exercise of leadership; and design and use of forums, arenas, and courts in successful pursuit of change.

•Evening: Discussion of possible next steps in undertaking a policy change effort, including finalizing the agenda for the second day of the retreat.

By the end of the first day, it should be clear whether or not the key decision makers wish to proceed. If so, the second day might be organized something like this:

•Morning: A stakeholder analysis, followed by tentative definition of the problem(s) to be addressed.

•Lunch: A speaker who can present another case example; or a high-status, nonvested speaker who can emphasize the importance of collective action in the problem area; or a personal “call to action” from someone with a special message relevant to the policy area.

•Afternoon: Development of an initial agreement among participants that states the need to respond to the problem(s) raised and that outlines the basic initial response strategy. It is important that the session not end until agreement is reached on the immediate next steps in the process and the people responsible for each step are identified.

If the group can reach quick agreement at each point, less than two full days may be necessary. If quick agreement is not possible, more time may be necessary, and sessions may have to be spread over several weeks or even months. The more difficult the problem area for those involved or affected, and the more groups or organizations involved, the more groundwork is likely to be required to reach agreement on the purpose, timing, and length of the retreat, as well as the subsequent next steps (Bardach, 1998; Huxham, 2003).

RESOURCE F 435

A retreat, or series of retreats, is a valuable forum for discussion, as well as an informal arena for initial decisions about the purpose, nature, scope, and timing of a policy change effort. A retreat can also send an important signal and be a symbol that a community of place or interest is about to address one of its most important concerns, it can prompt desirable media coverage, and it can induce other stakeholders, who might have been lukewarm about the process, to participate. Additional advice on initial retreats, as well as gatherings for later phases in the policy change cycle, may be found in Holman and Devane (1999); Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer (1999); and Weisman (2003).