On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:
> I've used silence in meetings in particularly nasty situations. One
> was a union/management situation where I was attempting to facilitate
> meetings to align them on projects to transform a plant that would
> otherwise be closed.
>
> Both sides were bitter, antagonistic and righteous. They would not
> engage in dialogue nor look at each other. I had them pair up, look
> at each other and not say anything for 3 minutes. Then I had one
> speak his mind for 3 minutes while the other listened in silence and
> could not respond. Then reverse. When I suggested it, they refused
> and I told them to come and get me (from another room) when they were
> ready or just go home. They did come, they did the exercise and the
> rest was quite easy.
>
> My next "exercise" was to require that they not do anything for
> themselves and that they had to ask someone from "the other side" for
> anything they wanted - say a cup of coffee - as a practice
> throughout an otherwise normal meeting.
These are 'enacted' stories; lived parables, aren't they. I can't help
contrasting these with -- oh, some of the more insipid little
"instructive" rituals I've participated in at retreats -- positive little
wordgames to "expand our minds". Your exercise prescribed nothing for
anybody to think about or feel: just action, observable, evaluable
action. Enacted stories.
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen jamzen@world.std.com
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
-----------------------------------------------------^---------------------
. . . . . . . . . . Actions speak louder than words . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . but not as clearly . . . . . . . . . .