Re: Using Silence in Meetings LO3438

John Godfrey & Miranda Beale (jgodfrey@werple.net.au)
Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:17:07 +-1000

Replying to LO2858 --

Silence in decision making

First an introduction and then an added wrinkle on silence (per Carla's =
note).

I'm John Godfrey, a chemical engineer for some ten years now, working =
for a multi-national oil company in Melbourne, Australia. I've =
specialised in what we now call Logistics, which is manufacturing and =
bulk distribution. I was lucky enough to work insane hours on a =
"Business Improvement Project" for a few months where we re-engineered =
(or redesigned) our processes etc. I am now enjoying doing follow-up to =
see that some of these new processes get thoroughly embedded, and am =
pleased to believe that it's working reasonably well. (Possible self =
delusion resulting from heavy personal commitment, but hey, it's my =
reality.)

When I'm not doing that, I sometimes think about whether a parent learns =
more from a 16 month daughter than vice versa. I'm a member of ASTOLg, =
and contemplating enrolling in a Masters of Organisational Systems next =
year at Monash University.

Ok, here's some of Carla's note:

>>From: "Carla Shafer, Cornell Local Govt Prog" <cs13@cornell.edu>
>>Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:33:54 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Using Silence in Meetings LO2858

>>Replying to LO2827 --

>>This discussion about the uses of silence has been wonderful.=20

>>I would like to suggest another use of silence that also stems from =
Quaker
>>practice. That is the use of the pause following a speaker. One =
Friends
>>meeting which I have attended prints a short guideline for visitors on =
the
>>back of their weekly bulletin. A rule of etiquette stated there is =
that
>>the group should leave an appropriate time for reflection (at least =
three
>>or four minutes) after someone speaks. When someone does choose to =
speak,
>>they should make sure they "speak to the issue" being considered and =
not
>>to the previous speaker. This is a very different dynamic than the one
>>most of us are used to in which people are encouraged to respond =
quickly
>>with gut reactions to other speakers in the group. Consensus may be
>>reached, in the latter case, as a result of getting and manipulating =
as
>>much data as possible. In the first instance, it seems, the meeting is =
not
>>so much used to generate data as to condense and polish an issue until =
it
>>"belongs" equally to everyone.=20

(continues)

I spent some of last Saturday on an "experiential exploration of some =
aspects of silence" which was led by a Quaker. Amongst other things, he =
(Drew Lawson) talked to using silence for making decisions. He's read =
of the technique being used by both native American Indians, and also =
the early Jesuits (St Ignatius??). The basic technique is to give ideas =
to an imaginary offering bowl. Visualise elders sitting in a room =
speaking to the collective tribal silence, not each other. These gifts =
of ideas are not commented on, but instead are acknowledged by silence. =

A lexicographer could no doubt add something here, as I think the word =
"acknowledge" is quite powerful in this context.

Truth then grows out of the silence, and the silence becomes richer as =
more ideas are acknowledged. I can picture a smoky room full of wisdom.

For very difficult problems, the Jesuits apparently had / have a =
variation on this technique. The meeting agrees to adopt a particular =
decision as if it has been made. There is then a period (like two days - =
these people work in a different time frame to the "modern" world) where =
people silently reflect and pray on how the spirit moves within them =
regarding this decision. They then meet again, and adopt another =
decision and go through the same process. The idea is to compare the =
messages from the spirit, and to see which decision rests most =
comfortable with the collective soul. =20

Anybody who manages to successfully introduce this to a corporate world =
ruled by time management systems dividing time into 15 minute chunks =
deserves a prize. It might be possible however to encourage people to =
take a "pseudo" decision and mull over it for a week before the next =
meeting. Somehow there needs to be a mechanism to provoke solitary =
deliberation though. Perhaps ask that everyone sends "journal jottings" =
every couple of days to a secretary who demands the input but does not =
circulate or distribute anything except back to the author. Tricky...

--
John Godfrey
jgodfrey@werple.net.au
Macedon, Victoria, AustraliaJohn Godfrey & Miranda Beale
jgodfrey@werple.net.au
Macedon, Victoria, Australia
61-54-263025