As I posted Using effective ground rules to facilitate a group to increase open communication, it occurred to me that these rules could explain the change this country is longing for as we come to the end of our long primary season. Both Clinton and Obama are suggesting a different model of government and leadership at the top–one that is more transparent and open, which is consistent with the model of group facilitation that I teach. I have seen this approach produce very effective results in groups ranging from the classroom to negotiation, mediation, and conflict situations between group members with very different backgrounds. Imagine what our county might have been like over the past 7+ years if the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfield group had been open and honest with the country and allowed Congress and the citizens to make an informed choice about attacking Iraq (or not!). Maybe I am a naive optimist, but I have seen this open and transparent approach work successfully. And it empowers all who are part of the process instead of polarizing the participants into warring opponents of each other.
Tags: Add new tag
May 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
I like where you are going with this, but I do see a flaw.
In the UK we have had experience of partnership working , involving people from different political parties, as well as people who are not involved in party politics. Things go well, and often a measure of agreement can be reached on difficult issues, UNTIL we get near election time. Then politicians have to exaggerate their differences in the hope of getting elected.
This is presumably an expression of our life where everything is becoming more and more like a market? The politicians are seeking greater and greater market differentiation, at a time when open communications is making this more and more problematic?
I hope to blog myself on this in the near future, so do feel free to visit and comment how I get on!