Dynamic Facilitation Manual

A
MANUAL
and
READER
for
DYNAMIC FACILITATION
and the
CHOICE-CREATING PROCESS:
Evoking Practical Group Creativity
and Transformation
Through Generative Dialogue
by Rosa Zubizarreta
and Jim Rough
© 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I: MANUAL
by Rosa Zubizarreta
A. Groundwork
Introduction 3
Who is this Manual For? 4
The Relationship between Theory and Practice 5
History and Overview of Dynamic Facilitation 6
Similarites and Differences with other Approaches 8
B. Basic Elements of the Facilitator’s Role
What We Mean By “Really Listening” 11
Trusting and Supporting Self-Organization 12
Recording Participants’ Contributions 13
Using the Charts to Keep an Open Flow 14
C. Getting Started
“Jumping In” 17
Introducing the Process 18
What About “Ground Rules”? 19

D. Key Aspects of the Initial Stage
Welcoming Initial Solutions 23
Welcoming Concerns and New Problem Statements 24
Working with Advocacy 25
Drawing Out Group Divergence 26
E. Transition and Intermediate Stages
Allowing Convergence to Emerge 29
Helping Groups Through the “Yuck” 30
Remaining in a Creative Process 31
Each Arrival as a Point of Departure 32
Verifying Convergence 33
A “Meeting of Minds and Hearts” 34
Letting Go and Allowing 35
F. Concluding Stages and Follow-Up
Closing Stages of a Meeting 39
Creating “Outcomes” and “Bookmark” Charts 40
Harvesting the Charts After the Meeting 41
G. Applications
When is Dynamic Facilitation Appropriate? 45
Exploring the Larger Context 47

PART II: READER
a selection of writings by Jim Rough
Choice-Creating and Dynamic Facilitation 55

by Jim Rough (Chapter 5 from the book Society’s Breakthrough:
Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People)
Dynamic facilitation and the magic of self-organizing change 79

by Jim Rough (first published in the Journal for Quality and
Participation, June 1997)
Creative Choices: Breakthroughs in Thinking 91

by Jim Rough (first published in the Quality Digest,
December 1992)
Choice-Creating: How to Solve Impossible Problems 101

by Jim Rough (first published in the Journal for Quality and
Participation, September 1991)
POSTSCRIPT 111
PART I:
THE MANUAL
Dynamic Facilitation Manual
GROUNDWORK
1
DF Manual & Reader
2
INTRODUCTION
In The Promise of Mediation, Bush and Folger acknowledge that many

practitioners of mediation have been intuitively practicing a
transformational approach, long before they wrote their definitive book
describing the philosophy and practice of Transformative Mediation.
In a similar vein, I want to acknowledge that many practitioners of

facilitation have been intuitively practicing a transformational,
“emergent process” approach as they help groups address practical
issues. The spirit of what they do may be very similar in some ways to
what is described in this manual.
At the same time, Jim Rough is one of the first who has begun to
explicitly name, define, and teach a transformational approach to the
practice of group facilitation, which he calls Dynamic Facilitation.
This work originated in an industrial setting, helping production

teams find creative answers to the practical and logistical problems
they were facing. It was originally designed to help groups apply
creativity to practical issues, including ones in which people are highly
invested or emotionally charged.
At the same time, practitioners have discovered that this approach can
be used effectively to address a broad range of human concerns. In the
last twelve years, participants in Jim’s seminars have learned
Dynamic Facilitation by facilitating small-group dialogues on a host of
human issues, including homelessness, drug abuse, the health care
crisis, etc. In the process, we have learned a lot about the power of this
approach to help groups address community and social issues.
With Jim’s encouragement and support, I am writing this manual in

order to make Dynamic Facilitation available to everyone. The
challenges we face as a species in our world today call us to share our
tools as freely as we can, and we want to make this work as widely
available as possible.
3
DF Manual & Reader
WHO IS THIS MANUAL FOR?
You may be interested in this work if you are:
•A professional facilitator, mediator, or consultant wanting to expand

your repertoire of ways of working with groups
•A lay person interested in learning to facilitate creative group

dialogue and/or practical group breakthroughs
•engaged in an ongoing exploration of self-organization, creativity,

collective intelligence, and transformation
While many professional practitioners have found this work extremely

helpful, we would also like to see Dynamic Facilitation become a lay
movement. We believe this is possible, given that there are many
people in our culture who have been developing the basic skills that we
see as foundational for this approach to facilitation.
These basic skills include:
1) the ability to listen well to others;

2) the ability to not ‘take sides’ but instead to ‘take all sides’;
3) the ability to trust, allow, and follow an emergent process,
4) enough self-understanding to be able to ‘get out the way’
Many lay people who have been active in the self-help, personal
development, and spiritual growth movements have developed a strong
foundation in these skills. Dynamic Facilitation offers a way that these
skills can be put to use, for the purpose of helping groups experience
the transformational power of generative dialogue.
Of course, to practice Dynamic Facilitation professionally, it helps to

have a number of related skills as a consultant that are not the subject
of this manual. For those who may wish to pursue this further, one
place to start might be Peter Block’s book Flawless Consulting.
4
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
Dynamic Facilitation is a distinctive and powerful approach to group

facilitation, that can help groups arrive together at creative, practical,
and elegant solutions to challenging issues. This manual aims to help
you not only understand this approach, but also be able to practice it.
At the same time, as someone once said, “there is nothing more

practical than a good theory.”1 If we understand how something works,
we are able to creatively adapt its design, figure out when and where
to use it, and even improve on the original process. On the other hand,
if we simply “follow a recipe”, we might leave out a key ingredient and
not understand why we did not obtain the desired results.
Therefore, this manual includes not just a “how-to”, but also an

explanation of the deeper principles at work, as best as I understand
them. I am not asking you to simply “believe in” any of these views or
philosophical approaches offered here. However, I do suggest that you
“try them on” and use them as “working hypotheses”.
One of the basic assumptions of this work is that the facilitator’s

“stance” or “view” is an integral part of this practice. This includes:
•How we understand ourselves and one another

•Our understanding of our role as facilitator
•Our ability to trust the group’s own process
All of these are of course related. Our “view” includes not only the
possibilities that we see for ourselves or one another individually, but
also the possibilities that we see among us collectively.
This principle influences how we teach Dynamic Facilitation. When we

lead a seminar, we do not simply offer a collection of techniques.
Instead, we lead an experiential process that is designed to help
participants expand their view of what is possible in groups. To the
extent that we are successful, that experience gives participants
enough confidence to continue practicing on their own, and acquire
additional experiences that will confirm and deepen their sense of
what is possible.
1
Saul Eisen kindly informed me that the original source of this quote is Kurt Lewin, one of the
founders of Organization Development.
5
DF Manual & Reader
HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF DYNAMIC FACILITATION
Jim Rough first created Dynamic Facilitation while working as a

quality consultant with teams of hourly employees at a sawmill, as a
way to help work teams to address “impossible-to-solve” problems. He
designed a process to help teams tap into their creativity in order to
arrive at practical solutions through collective “aha’s,” otherwise
known as “breakthroughs.”
One characteristic of this approach is the ease of follow-through

accompanying decisions that “emerge” in this manner. Implementation
is rarely an issue, given the high energy and commitment that
accompanies the group’s shared discoveries.
When Jim began to teach, a further application became evident. Since

Dynamic Facilitation works by evoking genuine shifts of mind and
heart, Jim did not want to use role-plays. And since participants at his
seminars came from a wide variety of settings, the only “real issues”
they shared in common were larger human issues. Therefore, Jim
began asking his students to work in groups on human issues, such as
homelessness, the AIDS crisis, abortion, etc., in order to practice their
facilitation skills during the seminars.
The usefulness of this process for hosting dialogue on difficult social

issues soon became apparent. One strength of Dynamic Facilitation in
this arena is its ability to work with participants “as they are”. This
approach does not ask people to adhere to any ‘ground rules’, nor does
it require participants to learn new ways of communication in order to
engage in dialogue. Instead, the facilitator’s very active yet non-
directive role welcomes participants’ advocacy, while at the same time
creating the container for transformation.
There is an understandable concern among some “progressive”

consultants with regard to “facilitator-dependent” approaches.
Dynamic Facilitation certainly requires that someone hold the role of
facilitator, or “designated listener”. However, the essential simplicity of
this role means that lay people are quite capable of learning to “hold
the space” that is required for this process to work. In fact, beginners
are often able to grasp it more easily than experienced consultants.
In the arena of personal development, there are many effective “self-

help” models based on peer counseling, where people take turns
holding space for one another. Similarly, our experience with Dynamic
6
Facilitation leads us to believe that peer-exchange facilitation

networks are quite possible, and we hope that this manual becomes a
step in that direction.
While the process itself not complicated, the greatest challenge for
facilitators is to learn a different mind-set than the one conventionally
assumed whenever one is attempting to “manage” the process of a
meeting. In Dynamic Facilitation, we do not try to persuade
participants to “stick to the topic.” Instead, participants are
encouraged to address whatever issue is of most concern to them in the
moment. I often compare this experience to a family sitting around the
dinner table, working on a very large jigsaw puzzle. Someone might be
working on the clouds, someone else might be working on the tree line,
while yet another person might be working on the building. However,
as each participant contributes his or her “piece,” the larger picture
becomes clearer and clearer.
While the facilitator is not attempting to “guide” or “manage” the

process, he or she is working very hard, listening deeply to each
participant in turn, actively drawing and making space for his or her
contributions. In addition, the facilitator is creating a shared map by
recording all of these various contributions.
As participants experience being fully heard, their focus naturally

begins to expand. Instead of needing to remain narrowly focused on
their initial perspective, their attention is now freed to begin exploring
the larger picture that is unfolding. Everyone’s intrinsic motivation to
discover meaningful patterns, to make sense of conflicting information,
and to create new possibilities begins to emerge, and participants
begin to spark off each other’s creative efforts.
Throughout, the facilitator encourages a diversity of perspectives. He

or she holds space not just for new ideas, but also for concerns about
solutions that others have proposed. Everything is included within the
creative space. As a result, whenever collective “aha’s” emerge, they
have already been shaped and refined by the group’s best thinking.
Perhaps most importantly, participants naturally become more curious

and welcoming of difference as the process unfolds, since they have
begun to experience that difference as a rich source for greater
creativity. Each participant’s unique and individual perspective is
contributing to the power of the larger shared experience.
7
DF Manual & Reader
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

WITH OTHER APPROACHES
Dynamic Facilitation is similar in some ways to other approaches that

also follow the “emergent process” of a group, such as Bohmian
Dialogue and T-groups. None of these processes prescribes nor leads
the group through any set series of “steps”. However, Dynamic
Facilitation is also very distinct in a number of ways, including 1) the
purpose of the work and 2) the role of the facilitator. The latter will
become more obvious in the next section, so I will limit myself here to
the former.
In Bohmian Dialogue, the main purpose of the group is to develop a

deeper understanding of the nature of the thinking process. In T-
groups, the purpose is to develop interpersonal understanding. In
contrast, the purpose of Dynamic Facilitation is to help people discover
creative and practical approaches to challenging issues. This can
include anything from “How do we design a better workplace?” to “How
do we address the homeless problem in our community?”
In the process of Dynamic Facilitation, people generally arrive at

better interpersonal understandings, and they may even have some
realizations about “the nature of thought”. But while these can emerge
as “added benefits”, they are not our principal focus.
On the other end of the spectrum, most approaches that are designed
to help groups address practical difficulties and challenges do not
utilize emergent process. Instead, they tend to rely on structured
agendas, pre-determined sequences of steps, and negotiated decisions.
Dynamic Facilitation takes a different approach, inviting participants
to remain within a creative process where group “aha’s” can occur.
In some ways, Dynamic Facilitation bears marked similarities to the

practice of Transformative Mediation. Both of these approaches have
very active interventions at the micro level, designed to support each
participant’s contribution. At the same time, they both “follow the
process,” instead of directing it, at the macro level.
Dynamic Facilitation also bears some strong resemblances to Dialogue

Mapping, a computer assisted version of cognitive mapping.
8
BASIC ELEMENTS
OF THE FACILITATOR’S ROLE
9
DF Manual & Reader
10
WHAT WE MEAN BY “REALLY LISTENING”
In Dynamic Facilitation, the main role of the facilitator is to listen

deeply, and to create a space where each participant can be deeply
heard. To do so, he or she takes a very active and consistent role in
supporting the emotional safety, unique perspective, and creative
contribution of each participant.
As mentioned earlier, the facilitator is NOT leading the group through

any prescribed series of steps. Instead, he or she is very involved on
the “micro-level”, providing empathy, respect, and support for each
participant’s contribution.
These “micro-level” interventions in Dynamic Facilitation include:
1) listening deeply to each participant,

welcoming them just as they are;
2) drawing out each participant fully;
3) helping each participant feel heard, through reflecting and
4) recording each participant’s contribution.
In addition, he or she is
5) “protecting” each participant’s contribution, by actively

6) “creating space” for the co-existence of opposing views and
7) welcoming and eliciting divergent perspectives while
8) “taking all sides” by valuing each participant.
These interventions will be described more fully in this manual.

Equally important to all of the above, the facilitator is:
9) trusting the group’s process, “letting go”, and

refraining from “steering” the group in any way.
This last item could be categorized as a “macro-level” intervention,

since it has to do with the group as a whole. A few other “macro-level”
interventions will be described on page 33, where we talk about
“verifying” breakthroughs, and on page 40, where we describe how to
bookmark the process at the end of a meeting.
11
DF Manual & Reader
TRUSTING AND SUPPORTING

GROUP SELF-ORGANIZATION
In Dynamic Facilitation, we support the development of a self-

organizing process in a group. This means that we do not lead the
group through any step-by-step sequence of events, but instead support
the natural unfolding of the group. For some people, this might seem
like a contradiction in terms. Why would self-organization need any
support?
Yet when we think about it, nothing is able to “self-organize” in the

absence of supporting conditions. An acorn does not need anyone to tell
it how to develop into an oak tree. Yet in order to do so, it needs water,
sunlight, and air, all in the appropriate quantities. If it does not have a
sufficient amount of any of these, it will not grow. If it has less than
the optimal amount, it will grow in a stunted manner.
Human beings also need some basic conditions in order to be able to

grow. In addition to food, water, and air, people also need to feel
understood by others and respected for who they are. People also need
to feel that others are dealing with them honestly.
Carl Rogers, the founder of humanistic psychology, described these

three emotional conditions for growth as:
• empathy,
• unconditional positive regard, and
• congruence
Rogers found that these conditions are “necessary and sufficient” for
supporting self-organization and growth in a variety of different
settings, from individuals in therapy to groups of students in a
classroom.
These three conditions are also a key part of Dynamic Facilitation.

When we offer each individual in a group empathic and respectful
attention, the group as a whole is able to discover its own creative and
practical answers to any challenges it is facing. We do not need to lead
them through a “problem-solving process” or teach them a series of
“communication tools” in order for the self-organizing process to take
place. Of course, these other tools and processes may have great value
in their own right. Yet if we are dependent upon them, it can cloud our
ability to trust the natural flow of the group.
12
RECORDING PARTICIPANTS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
In Dynamic Facilitation, a key aspect of our work is recording each

participant’s contributions on chart paper, as an extension of listening
deeply and reflecting back what one has heard.
One main purpose of recording is to create an ongoing “map”

of the emerging dialogue, including the full diversity of perspectives
contained in the group. This includes different views of “what the real
problem is”, or “what we should really be talking about”. It also
includes all of the “quick fixes”, pet theories, and creative solutions
that participants bring in with them as they walk in the door, as well
as participants’ concerns about each others’ “solutions”. Also included
is all of the data and information participants see as relevant to their
concerns, including any strongly-held beliefs they may hold.
In general, participants’ contributions can be understood in terms of

one or more of the following categories:
1) a problem or inquiry that needs group attention;

2) an idea or a solution to a difficulty
3) a concern with respect to a proposed solution;
4) general information with regard to any of the issues being explored
(this includes “external” data, as well as information about
participants’ own beliefs and perspectives.)
The facilitator does not attempt to control the order in which

these contributions occur, nor to keep the group focused on
any one particular subject. Instead, he or she simply listens, draws
out participants, reflects, and records.
Usually the facilitator will keep four different charts going. He or she
will add each contribution to the appropriate chart, one for each of the
categories mentioned above:
1) “problem statements / inquiries” chart

2) “solutions / ideas” chart
3) “concerns / difficulties” chart
4) “data / perspectives” chart
13
DF Manual & Reader
USING THE CHARTS TO KEEP AN OPEN FLOW
Each chart consists of a numbered list of items. We are not

asking the group to “decide” on any one problem statement. We are
also not asking the group to focus on exploring the pros and cons of any
one solution. Instead, we are listening deeply to each participant in
turn, and recording the various problem statements, solutions,
concerns, and data that emerge.
There is no need to worry too much about where to place each

contribution. The main purpose of the four charts is to make room for
a wide variety of contributions. In some situations, it may not be
possible to keep four different lists going. In that case, all of the
various contributions are still recorded on one (very long!) list.
The numbered lists are helpful way to “create space” for the co-
existence of opposing views. Instead of attempting to reconcile
differences, the facilitator simply listens deeply and makes room by
adding each contribution as a new numbered item on the growing lists.
The facilitator attempts to record complete sentences, or at

least phrases. It is helpful to use participants’ words as much as
possible, while also listening for the gist of what they are saying.
The facilitator posts everything he or she is recording on the

walls. In this way, the group begins to get a clearer picture of all of the
challenges, solutions, concerns, and information that are “in the room.”
Some folks might wonder, how is this different from brainstorming?

While some aspects may be similar, here are some key differences:
• We are taking time to listen to each person in depth, and

making an effort to help draw out his or her perspective fully. This
is very different than the rapid pace of traditional brainstorming.
• We are welcoming any concerns that people may have

about one another’s ideas and solutions. First, we make sure
that the original contributor has been fully heard and validated, by
having their ideas reflected and recorded. Then, we welcome and
listen deeply to any concerns that may arise (more on this later!)
By contrast, in brainstorming people are asked to refrain from
commenting on one another’s ideas and suggestions.
14
GETTING STARTED
15
DF Manual & Reader
16
“JUMPING IN” AS A WAY TO OPEN A MEETING2
If a facilitator has a great deal of experience, or if he or she has already

established trust with the group, the facilitator might start the
meeting simply by asking, “What do you all want to talk about today?”
1) The facilitator begins working with the first person that

responds, helping to draw out their response and to frame
their issue as a question. For example, if the issue were
“interpersonal relationships,” the facilitator would ask the
participant’s help in reframing that as a question. The end result
might be something like, “How can we improve our interpersonal
relationships so that everyone feels respected and heard?”
2) After recording the question, the facilitator asks that

same participant whether he or she has any ideas on how to
address this issue, and records those ideas as well. To draw
out participants, the facilitator might ask a question such as, “If it
were completely up to you, what would your solution be?”
3) When the facilitator completes the process of listening

fully to the first person, he or she turns to the next person.
The next participant might share a concern about an existing
“solutions”. Alternatively, he or she might share a different
solution, or suggest an altogether different issue.
4) The facilitator ensures that the second person is also fully

heard, before proceeding to the next person (and so forth!).
By this point, the facilitator is no longer at the beginning of the

meeting, but instead, well into the initial stage. A closer look at the
facilitator’s role during this initial stage is offered in the next section.
In some contexts, the “jumping in” approach we have described above

could work well on its own. Yet in many other situations it can be
helpful to offer participants some initial framing, to give them a sense
of what to expect from the meeting before “jumping in”. I shall describe
some ways to do that in the next section.
2
Before attempting to use this approach, we recommend that you read through the entire manual,
in order to gain a sense of the overall flow of a meeting.
17
DF Manual & Reader
INTRODUCING THE PROCESS
It can often be helpful to begin a meeting with a brief introduction to

the process, before “jumping in” to the issues.
For example, you may want to:
1) Let participants know that this is a process designed to evoke

creativity, and it may feel somewhat unfamiliar at first.
2) Use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle, to describe how the group might
“jump around” a bit as it explores various issues, but that a larger
picture will be taking form
3) Explain that as facilitator, you are only able to listen to one person
at a time, and so you will be asking people to take turns.
4) Emphasize that you will be listening to each person fully before

proceeding to the next person, and acknowledge that this is a little
different from what usually happens at meetings.
5) Invite participants to “be themselves”, and remind them that their

individual contributions are key to the process. This is especially true
whenever they feel the most “out of step” with the rest of the group.
Their unique perspective may well turn out to be the “missing piece of
the puzzle”, even though at first it might not seem to fit in with the
rest of the pieces.
These five brief framings are usually sufficient for introducing the
process to a group. If you are planning to interview individual
participants before the meeting (see “Exploring the Larger Context”,
p. 47) that can be a good opportunity to offer participants a “preview”
of the framings. Even so, you may want to review them again at the
beginning of the meeting.
Since the way that agreement is arrived at in this process is so

different from a conventional approach, it can be helpful to have
framed the broader purpose of the meeting as “exploration” of an issue,
instead of “decision-making”. While the need for a subsequent decision-
making meeting will often evaporate as a result of this process, you
may or may not want to emphasize that beforehand.
18
WHAT ABOUT “GROUND RULES”?
In Dynamic Facilitation, we place a strong value on creating a safe

space for participants. At the same time, we also value being able to
meet people “where they are”, instead of asking them to behave
differently or to censor themselves.
Instead of using “ground rules”, we emphasize both active facilitation

and modeling. As the facilitator listens deeply to people, he or she is
modeling good listening. Even more importantly, the facilitator is
helping participants feel heard. In the process, participants naturally
become more able and willing to listen to others.
Of course, this approach takes some time. As mentioned earlier, the

facilitator actively intervene to “protect” participants whenever
necessary. For example, if someone interrupts during a sensitive
moment, the facilitator might say, “Excuse me, I really want to listen
to what you are saying, but first I want to make sure that I have really
heard what this other person has to say.” As soon as the facilitator has
finished with the first person, he or she will turn back to the person
who is “overflowing”, in order to help that person be fully heard.
At other times, our role as facilitator may require us to walk up and

place ourselves physically between two participants in order to
interrupt a “back-and-forth”. In such a situation, we might say, “I
really want to hear what each of you are saying, so I can record your
ideas. But I can only listen to one person at a time, so I will need to ask
you to take turns.” Then we invite each participant to re-direct any
intense emotional statements toward ourselves as facilitators and
“designated listeners”.
When we work in this way, we encourage people to speak their truth

openly, while still providing safety for others. However, sometimes a
group may insist on a conversation about “ground rules”, if that is how
they are used to working. From the perspective of Dynamic
Facilitation, the key element in that situation is the conversation
itself. Any actual “rules” or “agreements” that a group might come up
with are not nearly as powerful as the shared understanding that is
built through exploring what those agreements might mean.
Even if the group has come up with some “ground rules”, our role as a
facilitator is not to enforce rules, but to facilitate in such a way that
rules become unnecessary.
19
DF Manual & Reader
20
KEY ASPECTS OF THE INITIAL STAGE
21
DF Manual & Reader
22
WELCOMING “INITIAL SOLUTIONS”
Part of what people are bringing with them when they first come into a
meeting are all of the individual “solutions” that they have been
generating in response to the challenges at hand. As facilitators, we
want to support and encourage people’s creativity. We want
participants to feel heard, so that they are in turn better able to listen
to others. We also want to help participants empty themselves of what
they already know, so that they are able to come up with new ideas.
We find that the best way to do all of this is to welcome and
listen deeply to initial solutions.
Therefore, we do NOT ask people to wait until agreement has emerged

around a problem definition, before sharing their initial solutions.
Instead, whenever a participant offers a problem statement, we
assume that this problem is something that particular individual has
already spent some time thinking about. As a result, we encourage
the same person who has offered a “problem statement” to
share whatever “solution” they may already have in mind.
This can be more difficult that it might appear. Often people need
active encouragement to share the “solutions” that they are harboring,
as they may have often felt criticized in the past for their creative
contributions. Usually, people will only share the “tip of the
iceberg” at first. We want the whole iceberg.
Of course, other individuals may be quite eager to share their ideas. If

a facilitator is not receptive, these individuals will persist in their
attempts to do so. But in some ways, it does not make a difference
whether people are reticent or voluble. In either case, the process of
listening to, drawing out, and acknowledging a person’s “initial
solutions” helps that person become ready to listen to others’
perspectives.
Of course, as the facilitator draws out each participant, individuals will

naturally discover that others have different perspectives, and begin to
sense the larger complexity of the situation. In the process, the
limitations of their initial solutions will quite readily become apparent.
However, it is not the facilitator’s job to point out flaws in the
initial solutions, but instead to help each person feel heard and
to record all of the data that emerges.
23
DF Manual & Reader
WELCOMING CONCERNS AND

NEW PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Initial solutions contain valuable information for the group, as they

offer insight into participants’ various perspectives. They serve as a
valuable source of “raw material” for the much more comprehensive
solutions that emerge later, once the group has had an opportunity to
digest the larger picture that is emerging. Initial solutions also
serve the group by eliciting concerns from other participants.
Any concerns offered by participants in response to others’ solutions

are valuable sources of information for the group. In addition,
underneath a participant’s concern, there is often another alternative
solution. The facilitator’s task is to draw out the concern, as
well as the alternative solution that may lie beneath it.
In general, we do not want to use concerns and alternative solutions to

go back and modify the original solution proposed by someone else.
Instead, it is more helpful to continue “moving forward.” First, we
record the concern on the “concerns” chart. Then, if the concern
contains an alternative solution, we want to add it to the list as
a new solution, even if it is a modification of an existing
solution.
Similarly, if someone offers a new problem statement that is a

modification of an existing statement, the facilitator will
record it as a new addition to the “problems” chart, rather than
going back to modify the original problem-statement.
NOTE: Every once in a while, during the initial stages of the meeting,
the group experiences a real breakthrough. As the facilitator is
drawing someone out, helping that person present their perspective in
full, the group may realize that that person has the answer for which
they have been searching. This person may have previously attempted,
unsuccessfully, to communicate their solution to others. Yet it is not
until the group has the opportunity to listen to that person in depth,
that they are able to discover the answer.
Of course, this is not usually the case. The occasional “cultured pearl”
that we may find is NOT the rationale for welcoming initial solutions.
It is much more likely that all initial solutions will end up as useful
raw material for later work. However, these “early breakthroughs” do
happen often enough to be worth mentioning!
24
WORKING WITH ADVOCACY
In Dynamic Facilitation, the facilitator’s role is to create an

environment where each individual’s advocacy can serve the
group. This is done by listening deeply to each individual’s strongly
held positions, and helping him or her feel heard by reflecting and
recording his or her contributions. As we help participants feel heard,
we find that they naturally begin to shift into a greater openness and
curiosity about others’ positions.
Of course, some individuals may need more help than others in

order to feel heard. It may require greater effort on the facilitator’s
part to “draw out the gems” that these participants are bringing to the
group. Yet in the process, we often find that “challenging” individuals
are holding a particularly valuable piece of the larger puzzle.
Our own role as facilitators is to meet people where they are,

not to ask them to change in any way. To the degree that change
happens as part of a naturally unfolding process, we welcome it. Yet
our activity is not focused on getting participants to establish or
adhere to any “communication guidelines” beyond the practical
necessity of taking turns so that we can hear each person fully.
Instead, as facilitators, we take an active role to protect

participants from one another’s advocacy and intense emotion
by inviting them to direct their energy at us, and welcoming their
contributions with openness and receptivity. If necessary, we will
physically step in the middle of an exchange, and invite each person to
take turns addressing their strong concerns to us so that we can listen,
reflect, and record their position.
In turn, other participants in the group are able to listen better

when they have the opportunity to “overhear” someone’s
advocacy, rather than having the advocacy directed at them.
While listening deeply to someone, the facilitator will often notice

changes in participant’s posture and body language. As individuals
feel fully heard and received, they tend to visibly relax and
soften. If we are aware of these signals, it can help us notice when we
need to continue drawing someone out, attempting to understand them
more fully, and searching for the heart of what they are wanting to
communicate.
25
DF Manual & Reader
DRAWING OUT GROUP DIVERGENCE
In Dynamic Facilitation, our most difficult challenge is how to draw

out group members fully, so that the various perspectives of all of its
members adequately inform the creative work of the group.
Often, some individuals may “hold back” initially, waiting to see if it is

really safe before sharing their perspectives. Or, they might feel that
their own views are too different from the rest of the participants’.
Whenever it appears that only one side of an issue is being
expressed, we may need to explicitly ask the group whether
anyone present might be feeling the opposite perspective.
When someone who has not previously shared finally offers their
perspective (sometimes quite tentatively or after some hesitation) it is
particularly important that the facilitator draw out that participant,
reflecting and affirming their contribution. As others are able to
overhear the new perspective in depth, it becomes additional
information that helps the group reach a new level of thinking. As the
group begins to experience the usefulness to the creative
process of understanding unfamiliar perspectives, a sense that
divergence is truly welcome starts to emerge.
Despite the facilitator’s best efforts, he or she may not realize that
someone has been holding back until a later stage in the process. When
attempting to verify what appears to be a group “breakthrough”, the
facilitator may be surprised to discover that a participant has not been
really ready to voice his or her perspective before that moment.3
It can be momentarily frustrating for us as facilitators to realize that

the group is not as far along as we had thought. While many of the
participants may have entered a phase of creative synthesis, the
“discovery” that they are excited about has not been informed by the
perspective of the person who has not yet “purged”.
Regardless of timing, the only way to move forward is to accept

each situation as a valuable opportunity to genuinely welcome
and draw out that person’s contribution. As the group obtains a
more complete picture of the diverse perspectives contained within it,
the natural process of synthesis will continue, on a deeper level.
3
More information about the role of the facilitator in the later stages (including verifying
breakthroughs) will be covered in the next section, pp. 29-35.
26
TRANSITION AND INTERMEDIATE STAGES
27
DF Manual & Reader
28
ALLOWING CONVERGENCE TO EMERGE
Many facilitation approaches include a variety of techniques to help

draw out divergence. If you are a professional facilitator, what we have
shown you so far could appear to be simply a novel way for helping
bring forth the divergence that is present in the group.
Yet the radical gift of Dynamic Facilitation is that we do not “shift

gears” in order to lead a group into the “next stage” of convergence.
Instead, we invite a group to remain within the creative process, and
allow that convergence to emerge naturally.
While we do not lead a group through “steps”, we do find that groups

tend to move, of their own accord, through a series of stages. One
pattern we frequently encounter is the shift from
1) the “purge” stage, of “what we already know” to
2) the transition or “yuck” stage of

“how will we ever reconcile all of this?” to
3) the stage of excitement over creative possibilities
In the first stage, the facilitator is “purging” people of what they

already know by drawing them out, helping them feel heard, and
recording their contributions to create a “mind map”.
The second stage is similar in some ways to the ‘creative block’ that
an artist feels when facing a blank canvas, or a writer facing a blank
page. Except that in this case, the group is facing walls and walls full
of chart paper, and wondering, “how will we ever reconcile all of this?”
While this stage is challenging, it is relatively brief. Of course, when

the facilitator’s main job is to hold the creative tension, and to
REFRAIN from jumping in to “steer” the process, a few minutes can
easily feel like hours.
In the third stage, the facilitator continues recording people’s

individual contributions, just as in the first phase. The energy has
shifted and the ideas are new, but in many ways the role of the
facilitator is similar to the first stage.
29
DF Manual & Reader
HELPING GROUPS THROUGH THE “YUCK”
After the initial “purging” stage of a meeting, we find that there is

generally a critical transition stage. The facilitator has already drawn
forth the various perspectives that are present in the group, the walls
are covered with chart paper, and the participants are often feeling
somewhat overwhelmed by the divergence that they are facing.
At this point, we might use the following interventions:
1) Waiting – being comfortable with the silence, and with not-

knowing. This can be harder than it sounds, as a minute of silence
can feel like an eternity.
2) If needed, offering a recap of what has been said already:

(“Well, it seems from the charts that some of you feel this way
about this issue, and others feel this other way, while a few of you
are focusing on an altogether different perspective.”)
3) Resisting the temptation to jump in and rescue the group.

(Back to number one above – time to wait some more!)
At some point during this brief but challenging phase, someone in the
group will inevitably come up with a creative inspiration. “Wait! I just
had a thought! What if we….” This spark, in turn, will evoke additional
solutions, concerns, and questions from the rest of the group, and the
group is off and running again.
While the process the facilitator uses remains the same – charting
people’s ideas, perspectives, inquiries, and concerns on the various
charts – the quality of the group’s thinking tends to be fresher and
more inclusive at this stage. The solutions participants are proposing
are no longer the ones that they walked in with. In general, people are
attempting to respond to the diversity of perspectives that has
emerged in the first phase.
Most significantly, the facilitator does NOT take any of the suggested
proposals, and attempt to lead the group into a negotiated process so
that they can all “decide” upon a solution. Instead, he or she continues
recording the flow of the dialogue. However, in this third stage, the
facilitator often finds that he or she can recede into more of a
background role, while remaining alert to being “on call” as needed.
30
REMAINING IN A CREATIVE PROCESS
In our experience, the flow of divergence — convergence — divergence

—convergence —etc. happens quite naturally when a group is in a
creative process. Therefore, once the facilitator has helped a
group enter a creative process, the task becomes to help them
remain in the creative flow.
The facilitator does this by continuing to listen deeply, and to record

the flow of the conversation. In the third stage, since participants
have usually become more comfortable in sharing their ideas
and concerns, the facilitator may not need to work as hard to
draw them out. Also, since participants have begun to listen to one
other more deeply, and express curiosity about divergence, the
facilitator can often take more of a background role.
However, it is vital that the facilitator continue following the

conversation very closely, and jump in when needed to create
space for divergence, especially whenever it seems that people may
begin to become polarized around apparently contradictory ideas.
Perhaps most importantly, the facilitator helps a group remain in

a creative process by REFRAINING from any attempts to
“manage” the process in order to reach formal agreement or
consensus. This includes voting, show of hands, or any other forms of
“agree or disagree” thinking conventionally used in the struggle to
arrive at formal decisions.
Most of us have learned to define “agreement” as what ensues after a

formal decision-making process. Therefore, refraining from formal
agreement is one of the ways in which Dynamic Facilitation differs
most profoundly from conventional facilitation. At the same time, we
are not interested in false consensus or in groupthink. Therefore,
instead of attempting to negotiate consensus before it happens,
we take time a few minutes after the fact, to verify with the
group any shared understandings, convergences, or
breakthroughs that appear to have emerged.
When we are in a creative process, any convergences that the group

reaches will quite quickly open up a new level of divergence. We do not
call attention to convergence in the moment, but wait until after the
group has begun working on a new level of divergence to check in with
them to see whether everyone is really “on board.”
31
DF Manual & Reader
EACH ARRIVAL AS A POINT OF DEPARTURE
As an example of what an ongoing flow of divergence — convergence —

divergence -- might look like, let us imagine for a moment that our
family is planning our next vacation. At the beginning of the
conversation, we all start out with different ideas of where we want to
go. Each of us talks about why we have our particular preference, and
then begins coming up with new ideas. At some point, our teenage son
mentions that he has heard about this dude ranch out West. If the
family goes there, Sis can get to go horseback riding, Mom and Dad can
camp, and he can sit around the campfire practicing his guitar.
It is apparent that everyone is excited about this new idea, and then
Mom brings up the question of how we will get there. She has always
wanted to ride a train, but it will take an extra three days to get there
if we do that. Dad mentions that if we drive, we could visit his uncle
along the way. Meanwhile, Sis is accumulating frequent flyer miles.
It is obvious that once the transportation issue is decided, our family

will need to figure out a whole new set of questions. These might
include what to take on the trip, what kind of arrangements to make
while we are gone, etc. In fact, from a pessimistic perspective, we could
say that every “convergence”, or agreement about what we want to do,
just opens up a whole new set of “divergences”! At the same time, the
group is in fact making progress.
In the absence of a conventional agree-disagree process, the group can

easily miss that they are now working on a whole new set of
challenges, having already solved the original ones with which they
started out. In fact, this often happens in Dynamic Facilitation.
Taking a moment to stop and verify the convergences provides
the additional opportunity to pause and help the group
acknowledge the progress it has made.
Now we will apply this to the above example. A few minutes into the
conversation about modes of transportation, someone taking on the
role of facilitator might say: “Well, when we started, we were trying to
figure out where to go for our vacation. Now it seems we are all happy
with the idea of going to a dude ranch. (Taking a minute to look around
for nods….) And so now we are at the next step of figuring out how we
will get there. It seems there are a number of different ideas on the
table, so let’s continue to think creatively about this…”
32
THE APPEARANCE OF CONVERGENCE
What if, in the example we just gave, something different happened

when we attempted to verify that everyone was indeed happy with the
idea of going to the dude ranch? What if Sis were to say, “Well…” and
then look down?
From a Dynamic Facilitation perspective, it would be clear that we had

not, in fact, fully “purged” everyone. When we check an apparent
convergence, we may sometimes find that one or more
participants have not been feeling fully safe, and have been
holding back their thoughts and feelings.
No problem! We know what to do. The facilitator needs to welcome

this as an opportunity to listen deeply to the person whom, up
to now, has been holding back his or her concerns. The
facilitator then continues with the process of listening to each person
and helping the group remain in a creative flow. In this way, the next
time the group arrives at a point of convergence, it will be something
that everyone is truly excited about.
As we “circle back” to listen deeply to anyone who was not fully

comfortable with what appeared to be a convergence, we are letting
each member of the group know that their voice and perspective is
important. Participants begin to realize that their full
participation is needed in order for the group to move forward.
What we do NOT want to do is to jump on convergences as they are

beginning to emerge. We might be tempted to ask the group to “vote”
or have a “show of thumbs” to make sure that they are all in
agreement before “allowing” them to proceed to the next set of
problems. Yet if we do so, we will only short-circuit the creative process
and shortchange the group.
When we ask people to enter into “agree/disagree thinking”, we are

stepping out of the creative flow, and re-entering the arena of
bargaining, limited options, and power struggles. Much better to wait
for a few minutes until after the group appears to have experienced a
shared shift, and then verify that everyone is in fact ok with the
direction the group is going. If someone is not, he or she will speak up.
If everyone is in fact ‘on board’, the group may simply look at you like
you have just asked a stupid question, and continue merrily along in
their creative flow.
33
DF Manual & Reader
A “MEETING OF MINDS AND HEARTS”
It is becoming clear, then, that when we speak of convergence in

Dynamic Facilitation, we are not speaking about the kind of formal
“decisions” that groups usually struggle to make. Instead, we are
talking about “felt shifts” in the group energy, attention, and focus,
which we verify after the fact. This verifying process is an opportunity
to make sure that all of the divergence present in the group is in fact
being surfaced, and to welcome any voices that have not yet emerged.
On one occasion, a colleague and I were working with the sales and
warehouse departments of a winery in Sonoma County. As part of a
longer three-hour training session, we spent about 45 minutes using
Dynamic Facilitation to explore a problem that the company was
experiencing with some truckers. These truckers were showing up
notoriously late for their pick-up appointments, to the great
exasperation and inconvenience of the warehouse staff. The group
explored a variety of possible responses to the problem. When the
solution at last emerged, it seemed clear to the whole group that the
problem had been solved, and there was no need to discuss it further.
Afterward, when we were debriefing the entire session, one of the

participants mentioned that he had particularly appreciated the part
of the meeting where we had… He started to say, “come to consensus”,
but stopped himself in mid-sentence; instead, he thought for a minute,
and then said, “…arrived at a meeting of the minds.”
Although I had not explained very much about the process, this person
knew that we had not struggled to reach a solution, in the usual way
that “consensus” is negotiated. Instead, something else had happened:
we had had a “meeting of the minds”, and of the hearts as well. We call
this kind of powerful convergence a “breakthrough”, and this is what
the Dynamic Facilitation process is designed to evoke.
Sometimes breakthroughs arrive in the form of a new problem statement, around

which the whole group coalesces, instead of in the form of a solution. In a group
exploring the abortion issue in Jim’s seminar, the breakthrough came in the form
of a shared inquiry. Instead of “What do we do about abortion?”, or any of the
other questions that had emerged in the conversation, the group discovered that
the real question that they had all converged on was, “How do we create a world
where every child is a wanted child?” (Of course, that question in turn generated a
whole new set of questions…)
34
LETTING GO AND ALLOWING
There is a degree of paradox at the heart of Dynamic Facilitation. For

instance, in order to allow breakthroughs to happen, we need to
release our attachment to having breakthroughs. After all, if we are
greatly invested in the outcome, we might be tempted to try to control
or direct the process in some fashion, which would make it very
unlikely for a breakthrough to emerge. Instead, when we are willing to
risk, to trust, and to let go of control, we create the conditions that
allow breakthroughs to take place – in their own time and manner.
Yet our trust in the process is not ‘blind trust’. Instead, it is based on
our experience. A key element of the seminars consists of providing
participants with enough experience in self-organizing groups, so that
they can trust the process enough to apply it. As they do so,
practitioners gain more experience, thus deepening their trust in this
work and in groups’ potential for self-organization.
Another paradoxical aspect is that this approach is fiercely protective

of participants’ individuality, never seeking to get people to modify
their position “for the good of the group.” At the same time, this same
emphasis on continually making room for individual creativity is what
allows powerful group breakthroughs to occur.
This paradox is not new. For example, in diversity work, participants

often experience a much deeper sense of unity as a result of making
room for everyone’s unique histories and identities. However, we are
not accustomed to applying this insight to the realm of generating
practical group outcomes. Instead, there is a strong conditioned pull to
believe that we must bargain or negotiate in order to achieve any
common agreement, or at least make a conscious attempt to dis-
identify from our individual positions. (This latter approach can indeed
be useful, if there is no facilitator present!)
In Dynamic Facilitation, we are instead continually seeking to elicit

the fullness of individual creativity and diversity. We know that this
fullness becomes the rich ground for “co-sensing”, as the group begins
to develop a shared sense of the larger picture in all of its complexity.
“Co-sensing,” in turn, allows the group to discover breakthroughs, or
“creative consensus without compromise.” While a particular
convergence might emerge through any individual, there is a sense in
which the whole group recognizes itself in the larger insight that has
been voiced.
35
DF Manual & Reader
36
CONCLUDING STAGES AND FOLLOW-UP
37
DF Manual & Reader
38
CLOSING STAGES OF A MEETING
Since we are working with a natural flow of divergence — convergence

— divergence – etc., there are no guarantees that our meetings
will end nicely right when we are at a major convergence
point. In fact, that is not likely to happen. The group may have
experienced several convergences already, and be in the middle of
exploring a whole new set of challenges when the time to end the
meeting approaches. Alternatively, if the issue is particularly large
and complex, we might still be in the midst of the initial “purge” stage.
At other times, the group might have a large breakthrough early on. If
it is sufficiently major, the group may not want or need to continue
working on the next level of challenges right away. When this happens,
it is generally quite obvious. At that point, the Open Space law of
“when it’s over, it’s over” applies, even if we are only halfway through
the time that was originally allotted for the meeting.
Assuming this has not been the case, and the group is still hard at
work, the facilitator needs to let the group know when the
allotted time to the end the meeting is approaching. This helps
the group to self-manage their time accordingly.
This is especially important if participants have stated a need to have

a solution or decision by the end of the meeting. “In about 15 minutes,
we need to be wrapping up, and you have not come to any shared
agreements about how to proceed with x, y, and z.”
Being aware of the approaching timeline sometimes helps participants

shift naturally into a higher creative gear, and a breakthrough solution
might emerge in the last few minutes of the meeting. However, this is
not something that we can count on. In such situations, it is helpful to
have explored alternatives with the group before the meeting. “If you
are not able to find agreement on what you need by the end of the
meeting, what will happen? What other alternatives are there?”
In any case, it is important to reserve some time at the end of

the meeting to review the charts with the group, and elicit
their help in creating an “outcomes” chart and/or a
“bookmark” chart for the next meeting.
39
DF Manual & Reader
CREATING “OUTCOMES” AND “BOOKMARK” CHARTS
When it is time to end the meeting, we need to help the group

experience closure. One way to do so is by reviewing the charts with
the group, and pulling out any significant convergences that the group
has experienced onto a new “Outcomes” chart.
In order to prepare for closure, we can highlight, during the course of

the meeting, the various statements that have been major turning
points or convergences in the conversation. In this way, they will be
easier to locate when it is time to create an Outcomes chart.
Even if the group has experienced a number of major breakthroughs, it

may be currently in the midst of a critical divergence. In that case, we
may want to create a “Bookmark” chart in addition to the “Outcomes”
chart. On the other hand, if the group is still in the initial “purging”
stage, there may not be anything to record on an “Outcomes” chart. In
such cases, a “Bookmark” chart is especially important.
The purpose of bookmarking is to:
1) help acknowledge the progress the group has made,

2) summarize the current state of the conversation,
3) help the group start up again at their next meeting.
Especially when in the middle of a significant divergence, it is helpful

for the facilitator to help the group acknowledge all of the work that
they have accomplished toward obtaining a fuller picture of their
situation.
One way to do so is to ask participants for help in summarizing the

larger flow of the conversation. What are the main themes that have
been explored? What is the current landscape, including any
unresolved divergences or polarities? It often helps to spend a few
minutes reviewing all of the charts that have been created during the
session, in order to help the group answer these questions.
The facilitator might also ask participants if anyone could come up

with a symbol that represents the current state of the conversation. If
so, that person can be invited to come up and draw the symbol.
Whether composed of words, symbols, or a combination of both, this
“bookmark” page becomes a useful way to open the group’s next
meeting.
40
HARVESTING THE CHARTS
The “Problems,” “Solutions,” “Concerns,” and “Data” charts that have

been created during the course of the meeting constitute a useful
record of the group’s dialogue. They can serve as a rich source of
questions for ongoing inquiry, and a storehouse of creative ideas and
information for later review.
It can be very helpful to transcribe the charts and create a

written document to share with the group afterward. In
addition to the benefits mentioned above, facilitators and participants
may often perceive a much greater coherence to the conversation by
reading the notes afterward, than what they were originally able to
notice when right in the “thick of things”.
Transcribing the charts is usually much less tedious than we might

fear at first. Facilitators often experience a sense of ‘reliving’ the
meeting as they transcribe the notes. This can help the facilitator to
‘reconstitute’ the original statements. For the sake of readability, he or
she may choose to expand the notes somewhat from the abbreviated
manner in which they may have been originally recorded. Of course, it
is important that the meaning not be altered in the process.
Since long lists of any kind are hard to read, it makes sense to
“chunk” the material for ease of presentation. For example, we
might group together a set of four items, and then add an extra blank
line between one group of items and the next.
Depending on the circumstances and the purpose for which the notes
will be used, the facilitator may choose to make some minor edits by
re-grouping similar items together. For example, I recently finished
facilitating a two-day strategic planning process. While reviewing the
transcript at the end of the first day, I realized that, with a minor
regrouping of a few items, I could create series of distinct content
categories. These categories, in turn, addressed each of the major
aspects of this particular business.
In fact, it is a hallmark of the creative process that it leads to results

that, in hindsight, appear perfectly linear and logical. (Edward de
Bono explains this brilliantly.) While the process of Dynamic
Facilitation might feel somewhat unpredictable at times, the greatest
surprise can be the natural order and immense practicality of the
results that we obtain.
41
DF Manual & Reader
42
APPLICATIONS
43
DF Manual & Reader
44
WHEN IS DYNAMIC FACILITATION APPROPRIATE?
Dynamic Facilitation is a powerful and effective approach for practical

problem-solving situations as well as for hosting dialogue on difficult
social issues. However, in each of these arenas, there are a few
considerations to explore.
1) Dialogue on Social Issues
Dynamic Facilitation is highly effective in this arena. It can be

especially useful for hosting dialogue in difficult situations where
people may not be willing to agree to “ground rules”. It can also serve
as a useful way to de-escalate a conflict that has already erupted.
People who have not experienced the process first-hand may have a
concern that the focus on “problems”, “solutions”, and “concerns” may
not be compatible with dialogue, especially in situations where the
purpose is simply to increase intergroup understanding.
However, we know that nothing brings people together more quickly

than working on a common problem. Framing an issue in terms of
what can be done about it (“How do we…”) and eliciting people’s
creativity in the form of “solutions” (I think we should…”) helps create
a shared sense of collaboration. We have found this to be highly
effective even when a group is primarily focused on exploring an issue
rather than taking action.
Of course, eliciting people’s creativity in this way requires the

facilitator to play an active role in protecting each person’s
contribution and making room for a diversity of perspectives,
especially in situations of high conflict. The non-linear, open-ended
structure of Dynamic Facilitation frees the facilitator from any
concerns about “managing” the process on the macro level, and allows
him or her to focus on supporting each participant through these
micro-level interventions.
Note: When working a new group that is meeting for the first time to
dialogue on social issues, we want to give people an opportunity to
begin getting acquainted, before jumping in to explore an issue. We
generally find it helpful to begin with a circle check-in or go-round,
before proceeding to Dynamic Facilitation.
45
DF Manual & Reader
2) Practical Problem-Solving
Dynamic Facilitation evokes outstanding outcomes in a wide variety of

practical contexts. It is especially useful to obtain full participation,
real creativity, and wise decisions. However, there are some situations
where we advise caution:
a) When a decision needs to be made quickly
Since Dynamic Facilitation helps participants develop a complex

understanding of the “big picture” and evokes high levels of creativity,
it may not be a “fit” when a group is in a hurry to arrive at a decision.
But even though this approach often requires a greater amount of time
invested “up front”, it generally proves to be much faster in the long
run. While quick decisions often lead to difficulties in implementation,
agreements that emerge as “breakthroughs” carry an enormously high
level of commitment and energy.
However, if there are non-negotiable time limits for a decision, there is

a way to adapt the process. We can agree on a certain period of time to
use Dynamic Facilitation for obtaining a fuller understanding of the
situation and generating creative ideas. At the end of that allotted
time, the group can resort to a “fall-back” decision-making process.
b) When the choice is constrained to a fixed set of options
Since Dynamic Facilitation excels at evoking creativity, it may not be a

fit in a situation where there is no room for thinking “outside the box.”
However, a group might choose to spend a meeting thinking creatively
anyway, even with the knowledge that at the end, they will need to
limit themselves to choosing among a constrained set of options.
c) When the decision has already been made
Dynamic Facilitation is NOT applicable for situations where what is

required is “buy-in” to a decision that has already been made.
However, it is sometimes possible to reframe the situation. For
example, a manager might be willing to participate in a group
exploration to explore whether a better option can be found than the
one that has already been decided upon. If this is undertaken as a
good-faith effort, it becomes a win-win regardless of the outcome. The
group will either come up with a better solution, or will have “re-
discovered” the original plan and made it truly theirs.
46
EXPLORING THE LARGER CONTEXT
When using Dynamic Facilitation professionally, there are a number of

consulting issues that come into play. I will touch upon some of them
here, but this is by no means a complete exploration.
A large part of creating a fruitful context for Dynamic

Facilitation involves reaching a shared understanding with
key decision-makers about a number of key points. Often known
in the consulting world as “contracting”, this remains a crucial element
with Dynamic Facilitation, as with any other approach. The following
is NOT a complete list, but it may be a good starting-point.
We need to arrive at shared understanding on:
a) The role and purpose of the meetings within the larger

“scheme of things”
This is perhaps even more important in the context of public

participation projects than in a business context, since it is not just
employee morale but the public trust that is at issue. In a nutshell, one
of the biggest difficulties can be to hold a series of highly successful
meetings, and then discover that the work that the group has done will
not be utilized.
b) The real “bottom-line”, in terms of the desired outcome or

outcomes of the meeting
As mentioned earlier, Dynamic Facilitation is NOT appropriate for

situations where what is required is fabricated consent or “buy-in”.
There needs to be a genuine need for a creative breakthrough in order
for the process to be effective.
Even when key leaders are genuinely open to the process, it can take
quite a bit of one-on-one coaching beforehand to help them become
clear about their desired outcomes. This time is well worth spending,
as key leaders often play a critical role with regard whether the
group’s decisions will be implemented or not. In addition, they often
have key information about the links between the group meetings and
the larger organizational process. So it is particularly important that
they are able to participate fully in the process, and give a clear voice
to their own perspectives and solutions.
47
DF Manual & Reader
c) The importance of leaders’ full participation in the process
Often, leaders have a tendency to “hold back” in a meeting, in a well-

intentioned effort to encourage broader participation. In the context of
Dynamic Facilitation, this well-intentioned effort is completely
misguided. The last thing we want is to encourage group creativity,
and then have everyone’s bubble burst as, toward the end of the
meeting, the leader finally brings in the “bottom-line constraints”.
Instead, we need to let the leader or leaders know that we will be

“purging” them first, in order to get all of the relevant information on
the table. In this way, group creativity can emerge within the context
of all of the known parameters.
However, simply saying this may not enough. I still recall a situation
where, three-quarters of the way through a meeting, I was quite
surprised to see the leader pull out a long list of issues that he wanted
the group to address. Although I had spent quite a bit of time
contracting with him, there had been no mention of this list earlier!
The point of this story is to highlight the importance of “drawing out”

the leader beforehand, in a one-on-one interview or coaching situation.
If we are able to become aware of all of the relevant information, we
can then remind the leader to share that information with the group
early on in the process.
d) The real issues present in the group
Dynamic Facilitation excels at helping groups come up with creative

and practical ways to address complex and difficult issues. However,
its open-ended approach means that it is likely to elicit whatever is
really going on, especially since there is no agenda to ‘stick to’ to keep
us from talking about the real issues.
As a result, it can sometimes be very helpful to begin by conducting

individual interviews with group members. If there are too many
participants to interview everyone, we might choose a representative
selection of group members, making sure to include anyone who might
be identified by others as particularly challenging. These individuals
may be serving the role of “scapegoat,” and often have valuable
perspectives about larger issues that the group has not been able to
address.
48
The purpose of these interviews is four-fold:
1) to begin establishing trust with individual group members,

by listening to their perspective of the group situation
2) to begin getting a sense of the issues that are present
3) to give participants the opportunity to begin thinking about

what they want to share in the group
4) to begin introducing the process to group members, so that

they will have some familiarity with it (see p.12)
When conducting the interviews, it is usually helpful to use fairly

open-ended questions. One set of questions that has worked well for
me in the past is:
1) What is working well?

2) What could be improved?
3) What are some conversations that would be useful for this
group to have?
4) What are some issues that you may hesitate to even bring up
in a group, because they seem so hopeless or difficult?
Once we have conducted the interviews, we can have a “courtesy

feedback” session with the leaders. While maintaining individual
confidentiality, we can review the general issues that have come up,
offer our support and coaching, and invite the leader to decide whether
he or she is ready to proceed with having these issues surfaced.
e) The time-frame needed to address the issues
Often, when we hear about a new and powerful process, there is a

human tendency to expect “magic fixes” or “instant solutions.” From
time to time, it does happen that groups using Dynamic Facilitation
experience a major breakthrough very early on. However, as a general
rule of thumb, we recommend a series of four meetings, each about 2
hours long, and ideally not more than a week apart. This configuration
ensures enough time for groups to become comfortable with a new way
of working together and to experience significant progress on their
issues.
49
DF Manual & Reader
50
PART II:
THE READER
Choice-Creating and Dynamic Facilitation
by Jim Rough
(Chapter 5 from the book Society’s Breakthrough:
Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People)
— 5 —
Choice-creating and Dynamic Facilitation
There is a “movement in the air”—an exciting

renaissance of interest in conversation as a
transformational tool, and its potential as a well-
spring for much-needed social change.
Rosa Zubizarreta
ocial philosopher Tom Atlee recently began a talk by
S asking the audience five questions:
1. How many of you have been in a really productive

conversation where the people involved were seeing the
topic in new ways and seeing options and possibilities that
none of you had thought of before? (About half raised
their hands.)
2. How many of you know of groups or organizations where
you find LOTS of that kind of conversation? (About a
fifth raised their hands.)
3. How many of you know of an elected democratic
government whose decisions you feel are truly wise? (A
few—Denmark and Iceland were mentioned.)
55
DF Manual & Reader
4. How many of you think we will survive the 21st Century

if we don’t put a lot of wisdom into our collective
decision-making and problem-solving? (None.)
5. How many of you believe it is possible for ordinary
people to generate wisdom together? (Everyone.)
Tom’s questions laid out the issue beautifully. We know it’s

possible to have Choice-creating conversations, where creativity and
wisdom happen among ordinary people and where decisions get made
jointly. We long for it in small groups, in large organizations, and in
nations. But it doesn’t happen very often.
Recently, a young woman was telling me how frustrated she was
with Congress—how childish and argumentative elected
representatives seem, and how they don’t address the truly important
issues. Then she ended by apologizing. I asked her why she
apologized and she said, “I don’t like to talk about politics because I
don’t like that way of talking.”
She’s right. Our official collective way of talking, thinking, and
deciding issues is not pretty. It’s a battle rather than a collaboration.
As Deborah Tannen says in her book, The Argument Culture:
Stopping America’s War of Words, we have a “pervasive warlike
atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about
anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight.” But this
combative style arises, not because people are selfish or that our
culture is argumentative, as many people think, but because we have
structured it that way. Majority rule, for instance, pretty much
guarantees a back and forth argument between two positions, rather
than thoughtful reflection.
When we don’t structure for Choice-creating, it is difficult to
achieve. It’s not just a matter of everyone trying harder. So instead of
seeking this creative, wisdom-generating conversation, people often
strive for second best, to be dispassionate, logical and under control.
But this means blocking our true feelings, undermining our
56
relationships with others, and risking that our emotions work against
rather than with us.
But, as the answers to Tom’s questions suggest, we need for
ordinary people to generate wisdom together, something most of us
believe is possible. How do we do it? And how does the Citizens
Amendment help us?
Two Kinds of Talking
To understand how to generate wisdom, we need to recognize the

difference between two ways of talking: transactional (TA) and
transformational (TF). TA talking is a transmission of information
between sender and receiver. It is as though bits of information are
exchanged and added to a database each person carries inside. TF
talking, on the other hand, is a heart-to-heart experience where people
and concepts evolve together. Participants in a TF conversation might
be “moved” by the experience or find it “deeply meaningful.”
A friend of mine told me a story that illustrates the difference. She
was in a movie theater and noticed a young girl and her mother sitting
directly behind her. After awhile, she felt something touch her hair
and, eventually, she discovered that the young girl had deliberately
stuck gum in it. When the movie was over, my friend confronted the
child and parent. The girl’s mother was horrified to learn what had
happened, turned to her daughter, and demanded she apologize. A
dutiful “I’m sorry” was all she got. This apology meant little under
the pressure of her mother’s insistence. It was a transactional
communication.
Outside the movie ten minutes later, as my friend was about to get
into her car, she heard a child’s voice call to her. Apparently, the girl
had time to think about what she had done, and on her own ran over
and said, “I’m really sorry.” They were almost the same words, but
this time they came from the heart. My friend’s frustration melted.
Both people were moved. It was a transformational communication.
57
DF Manual & Reader
Each mode has value and engenders a different sort of thinking.

With TA talking, we spark critical thinking, judging, analyzing,
sorting, combining, storing, and relaying information. With it we can
influence others toward predetermined goals. In a TF conversation,
outcomes are reached spontaneously, through breakthroughs, insights,
or changes of heart. The whole person is involved—creativity, reason,
emotions, body, and spirit.
The word “apology” only has meaning in a TF conversation. This
is also true of “consensus,” “community,” and “democracy,” because
these words require the genuine involvement of people. The word
“involve” comes from the root “to turn inside of.” To be involved
means engaging fully with others in a process that creates trust,
relationship, meaningfulness, and shared commitment. It is more than
just providing input, being listened to, or voting. It requires a
transformational, authentic conversation.
Nobel Prize-winning quantum physicist David Bohm uses the
words “discussion” and “dialogue” to point to a similar distinction.
He explains that “discussion” has the same root as “percussion” and
“concussion.” The root “cuss” means “to strike” or to “break things
up.” In his book, On Dialogue, Bohm says, “Discussion is almost like
a ping pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth
and the object of the game is to win points for yourself.”
The word, “dialogue,” on the other hand, derives from the roots
“dia” which means “through,” and “logos” which means “the word”
or “the meaning of the word.” Thus, in dialogue, shared meaning
emerges through words. Dialogue elicits shared understandings,
personal growth, and group coherence.
Bohm taught a particular practice of dialogue, with twenty to
forty people assembling on a regular basis, with no purpose or
agenda. They suspend judgment and inquire into a topic, watching the
58
59
DF Manual & Reader
group’s process and challenging assumptions. It can sometimes be a

frustrating two hours, because it often doesn’t seem like the group is
getting anywhere, but at the same time, an exciting new form of group
coherence and collective intelligence also can emerge.
Another form of dialogue is the more heartfelt approach of the
Guild for Psychological Studies in San Francisco, which has been
conducting seminars since the 1940’s. In this form, a facilitator takes
more of a leadership role, asking evocative questions and encouraging
participants to speak only what they are discovering in the moment,
not what they already know. There are other forms of
transformational talking as well, including psychotherapy, prayer,
personal sharing, and Choice-creating.
The two different modes of talking and thinking, transactional and
transformational, are analogous to ways in which physicists view
nature. The traditional physicist sees the universe in a transactional
way as a machine which can be measured and analyzed by objective
observers. But quantum physicists and cosmologists see the universe
more as a living process with fields of energy and the potential for
spontaneous change. “Discussion” fits with Newton’s mechanical
universe, and “dialogue” belongs to the quantum view. Bohm
suggests that when people engage in dialogue and, presumably, other
forms of transformational talking, they are actually changing the
“nature of thought itself.” He says about dialogue, “When you listen
to somebody else, whether you like it or not, what they say becomes
part of you.”
The distinction between transactional and transformational talking
may not seem apparent or important to us today, but it was always
important to ancient peoples. Native Americans, for example, used
the peace pipe, the kiva, the talking stick, the vision quest, and sacred
dances to call forth the spirit of transformational talking. They
structured their lives so that important decisions, particularly for the
tribe, would always be made in this spirit.
60
Today, we do the opposite and structure TA thinking and talking

for those big decisions. In politics, in our education system, in
corporations, and in most organizations, we focus more on
measurable results and deny the existence of this deeper way of
talking. We take TF concepts like “involvement” and “democracy”
and redefine them so that they fit into the transactional mold. For
instance, we say that citizens are “involved” because they can vote
and, therefore, the country is a “democracy.” This simplistic
perspective limits the magical possibilities.
Choice-creating vs. Decision-making
Wise decisions and true democracy arise from TF talking but not
necessarily from dialogue. Bohm and the practitioners of his form of
dialogue suggest that a group should use dialogue to build a
foundation for decision-making, but switch to discussion for making
decisions. The word to “de-cide” means “to cut away” the bad
alternatives, leaving the good. Choice-creating is different, offering us
a way to reach joint conclusions through TF talking. Chart #6
describes the two different styles.
To illustrate how Choice-creating can be structured instead of
decision-making, let me describe an old role-playing exercise used in
business training sessions. (See Supervisory and Executive
Development, by N. R. F. Maier, A. Solem, and A. A. Maier, ©1957
by John Wiley and Sons.) Four volunteers are chosen. Three play the
role of employees in a manufacturing company, with three different
jobs, while one plays the boss. The workers are happy in their work,
taking turns on the three jobs. But in private, the boss is given some
new information: A 50% gain in productivity would be achieved if,
rather than rotating between jobs, each employee stayed on the job he
does best. The exercise begins when the boss calls a meeting to
discuss this new possibility.
61
DF Manual & Reader
62
The role-playing goes one of two ways. If the boss proposes the
new approach and asks the employees what they think, they will have
a transactional conversation. They will do “decision-making,”
discussing back and forth whether to try it or not. In the end, they will
decide yes or no—or some half-measure, like trying it for a while to
see.
If, however, the boss presents the new information and asks the
employees what they think, the resulting conversation will usually be
Choice-creating. The four will seek to understand the issue, listen to
one another’s feelings and needs, and will become creative in
addressing them. Most always, they will discover or invent some new
alternative that suits everyone. Some of these solutions are: two
people switching jobs while one remains; each of the three alternating
among his two best jobs; all switching jobs for unequal periods of
time; or the boss helping out.
So with decision-making, people tend to go back and forth
agreeing and disagreeing, trying to influence one another. When a
decision is ultimately reached, it is to a preformed option for which
there may be little enthusiasm or commitment. But with Choice-
creating, there is an engaging conversation. Trust builds, relationships
strengthen, people grow, breakthrough solutions emerge, and a
consensus evolves for which there is natural commitment. It almost
makes you wonder why we’d ever do anything else.
Overcoming a Crisis
To engage in Choice-creating is like encountering a crisis. You

face a problem that you really care about and to which there is no
satisfactory answer. It is not a negotiation between two positions or a
selection among alternatives. It’s messier than that. It requires that
you open yourself, be creative, and trust that, in the end, something
will happen that allows for committed consensus. This kind of
openness can be threatening if there is any risk of judgment present.
63
DF Manual & Reader
In the same way that judgment stifles the creativity of people who
are brainstorming ideas off the tops of their heads, it also stifles the
heartfelt creativity of Choice-creating. People cannot be open and
authentic, or grow and change in their views if judgment is present.
In Choice-creating, crises are overcome through different kinds of
breakthroughs, new inventions, new understandings of the problem,
new feelings and attitudes, or through an elevation of consciousness.
The great Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, talked about these
breakthroughs in consciousness: “All the greatest and most important
problems of life are fundamentally insoluble. They must be so, for
they express the necessary polarity inherent in every self-regulating
system. They can never be solved, but only outgrown. . . . This
outgrowing proved on further investigation to be a new level of
consciousness. Some higher or wider interest appeared on the
patient’s horizon, and through this broadening of his outlook the
insoluble problem lost its urgency. It was not solved logically in its
own terms, but faded out when confronted with a new and stronger
life urge. It was not repressed and made unconscious, but merely
appeared in a different light, and so really did become different.
What, on a lower level, had led to the wildest conflicts and to panicky
outbursts of emotion, from the higher level of personality now looked
like a storm in the valley seen from the mountain top. This does not
mean that the storm is robbed of its reality, but instead of being in it
one is above it.”
Most meetings are aimed at decision-making rather than Choice-
creating. We prepare agendas, define goals, and use step-by-step
techniques to keep people on track—all of which seem like common
sense. However, by structuring this form of talking, we unknowingly
narrow our thinking, diminish ourselves, and limit the possibilities for
change.
Consider what happened at a meeting I recently observed. A
group was organizing itself and the moderator suggested that there
were two alternatives for how people could decide issues: voting or
64
consensus. Then he defined “consensus” as when everyone votes

“yes” with no more than two people abstaining. Unknowingly, just by
presenting these two well-defined alternatives he was assuring a
transactional rather than a transformational conversation. And worse,
if the group adopted either of these two proposals, it was structuring
future conversations to be transactional as well.
The group went back and forth over the two options. Everyone
wanted consensus, but knew something wasn’t right with these
options. In the end, they didn’t decide. They changed topics. If the
moderator had been on the ball, he might have realized that this was
the group’s decision and that it was an example of true consensus. A
skilled facilitator might’ve jumped in and said, “It seems that you all
want to decide issues in a less formal way than has been proposed,
through talking things over and just seeing where people stand. Is that
right?” In response, the group probably would have replied, “Yes!” in
one unanimous voice.
Choice-creating encourages this in-the-moment, “sense of the
meeting” type of conclusion which captures what everyone wants, but
which may not fit into predetermined box-like expectations. With
Choice-creating, the aim is not for people to stay on topic within
some set of boundaries, but to follow group energy to a point where
everyone looks at one another, knowing they want the same thing.
When this occurs, it’s unbelievably powerful.
Choice-creating is when people address an issue they care about
deeply in a way that allows them to be:
• Authentic — There are no roles or hidden agendas.

• Open-minded — People are interested in new and
different ideas.
• Open-hearted — People are listening deeply to the
feelings and perspectives of each person and they are
being influenced in response.
65
DF Manual & Reader
• Learning — Each person is interested and seeks out new

understandings.
• Engaged — Everyone is involved, wants to participate,
and offers his or her talents.
• Respectful — Each person’s ideas and uniqueness are
appreciated.
• Creative — Breakthrough insights and changes of heart
are frequent.
• Efficient — Consensus decisions are arrived at with
relative speed and ease through naturally-occurring
breakthroughs.
Unfortunately, many people have not experienced this kind of

meeting. In the “My Turn” Column of Newsweek magazine (Sept. 9,
1985), Isadore Barmash described the extent of the problem by
concluding: “After a lifetime of work, I’ve never seen a meeting end
happily.” One counterexample is that, for over three hundred years,
the Quakers have been holding business meetings aimed at
transformational talking, at true consensus. Called “meetings for
worship for business,” they rely on participants sharing two religious
assumptions: 1) Every person has “that of God” within, and 2) He or
she is “seeking God’s Truth.” For the process to work, everyone must
adhere to these assumptions. Consensus is sought, not so much as a
polling of the collected wisdom of those present, but as a collective
discernment of God’s will. (See “An introduction to Quaker Business
Meetings” by Eden Grace.) Besides requiring that all participants
share one religious perspective, Quakers also use a “clerk of the
meeting” to act as a kind of facilitator. She asks for moments of
silence, reflects on group progress, and proposes postponements on
difficult topics.
66
The Dynamic Facilitator Assures Choice-creating
One way to generate group Choice-creating that works better than

relying on a shared belief system is with the help of a “Dynamic
Facilitator.” Unfortunately, the word “facilitator” is another TF term
that has been given TA meaning. Most people have come to expect
that a facilitator keeps them to an agenda, holds them on task, or helps
them to follow a step-by-step procedure. I distinguish this kind of
facilitation, which is aimed at helping people do decision-making,
from Dynamic Facilitation, which supports people to do Choice-
creating. The Dynamic Facilitator helps people make progress in
jumps, creative insights, and spontaneous changes of heart.
I’ve developed a specific approach to Dynamic Facilitation that
will need its own book. But for our purposes here, twelve principles
are described below.
1) Distinguish between process and content. The group

determines the content—what is talked about. They generate
the results. The facilitator focuses on the process—how
people talk. She assures Choice-creating rather than decision-
making.
2) Help people attend to the issue, not other people. The
Dynamic Facilitator uses a flip chart or large screen to direct
the attention of participants toward the front of the room. In
this way, everyone works on the issue, not each other.
3) Help the group assume ownership of the issue. People
in the group should be working on what they care about,
regardless of whether or not it seems impossible to solve. In
transactional conversations, the tendency is to pick something
that is solvable or some issue that has been assigned. But here,
the Dynamic Facilitator helps people choose what they most
care about.
67
DF Manual & Reader
4) Use reflection. The Dynamic Facilitator reflects back to

people what they are saying or seem to be feeling. She does
this by using flip charts to paraphrase or capture the points
made. This active listening process eliminates miscommuni-
cation and, more importantly, stimulates breakthroughs.
Through reflection, for example, people discover what they
really want and grow from this discovery.
5) Orient the conversation to numbered lists of Solutions,
Problem-statements, Data, Concerns, and Decisions. Lists
help people to think generatively and let go of points once
they are made. For instance, the Dynamic Facilitator might
begin by asking, “What are some of the issues we might
address?” as opposed to, “Does anyone have an issue?” This
suggests that there are an infinite number of issues rather than
one or two.
In particular, four lists are crucial: Solutions, Concerns,
Data, and Problem-statements. With these, the facilitator can
turn every comment into a contribution. If someone starts to
criticize an idea, the Dynamic Facilitator would rephrase the
criticism as a concern and get it down on that list. Then she
might say to that person, “It sounds as if, behind your
concern, you have a different idea for how to solve this.”
Usually there is another idea that can be added to the list of
possible solutions. Once a consensus begins to emerge, it can
be added to the list of Decisions (or Conclusions, or Next
Steps).
6) Purge initial answers. When confronted with a big
issue, most people already have some kind of opinion. These
opinions must be fully expressed and captured, usually on the
list of Solutions, in a way that people know they have been
heard. If not, creativity will be blocked. In traditional
meetings, it is easy to become polarized into agree/disagree
camps when people express their ideas. Here, the Dynamic
68
Facilitator heads this off by helping each person express their

views fully, and then to seek more options.
7) Protect people from all forms of judgment. When
people are being creative, judgment in any form is harmful.
For example, if someone is expressing his view and is cut off
by a comment about why his idea won’t work, the facilitator
must act quickly to keep him safe. She captures the original
idea as one possible solution and also captures the criticism as
a concern. She makes sure both people are fully heard and
both views are respected.
8) Go with the energy of the group. In a transformational
conversation, new solution ideas can come to the minds of
participants at any moment. The Dynamic Facilitator must
“go with the flow” and encourage this spontaneity. She can
use the lists to help build energy. By capturing all comments,
she helps people see that whatever comes to mind and
whatever anyone says is an asset to the group.
In a Choice-creating conversation, there is often a pattern
to how energy unfolds. Once people purge their initial
solutions, they tend to become more circumspect. They start
noticing other aspects of the problem and do more problem-
solving. The facilitator should be sensitive to this change in
group energy and, on occasion, help this shift to happen.
Then, someone is liable to say, “I’m not sure we are solving
the real problem.”
This questioning attitude can spark breakthroughs.
Everyone stops for a moment, often realizing that interests
and perspectives have changed, and that the group’s issue
may now be different.
9) Diverge/converge. In Choice-creating, the facilitator
helps people generate many ideas and then helps them narrow
the list down to one, or just a few. Diverging and converging
may happen a number of times before the group consensus
69
DF Manual & Reader
becomes apparent. The best way to converge is not through

deciding on one option, but via a breakthrough that everyone
supports.
10) Orient the group toward creating versus deciding. In
Choice-creating, it is important that people make minimal use
of judging. When narrowing down the list, for instance,
instead of having the group decide from among three
possibilities, it is better if the facilitator can help them create a
fourth idea, which combines all three, or which works even
better.
11) Suggest different activities and venues. To be creative,
people must think in different ways, using different parts of
the mind. At times, the Dynamic Facilitator may suggest that
everyone pause to stretch, or to write down responses to a
question, or to talk together in small groups. These different
venues can help maintain group energy and spark new
insights. Even when people break into small groups, the spirit
of Choice-creating remains; for example, the decision-making
words “agree” and “disagree” are not heard.
12) Highlight and celebrate progress. It is more difficult
for people to assess progress in a transformational meeting
than in one that is transactional, since breakthroughs cannot
be foreseen or their importance readily measured. People
change in TF sessions, so when a group resolves what was
once thought to be an impossible-to-solve problem, they tend
to discount their amazing progress. Looking back, everything
seems so obvious they often berate themselves for not seeing
it sooner. The facilitator should act as a kind of historian,
recounting how the group’s thinking unfolded, reminding
everyone how exceptional they have been, and helping them
to celebrate progress.
At the end of each meeting, the group’s progress should
be captured in clear statements. These statements serve as
70
symbols of the group’s work that can carry momentum

forward.
How Dynamic Facilitation Works
The Dynamic Facilitator begins a Wisdom Council by asking,

“What are some of the issues you might like to talk about?” She helps
the group develop a list and narrow it to what they want to work on
first.
The selected issue need not be well-defined and, in fact, can be
just be a statement of feelings or even a couple of issues combined.
Rather than trying to define the problem further, the Dynamic
Facilitator helps people express whatever it is they have to say about
it. Often they express a frustration, like “we can’t do anything about
this,” or a particular solution approach like, “government should just
get off people’s backs,” or “the key is education,” or “people just
need to respect one another.”
Instead of trying to direct people to defining the problem, as logic
would dictate, the Dynamic Facilitator helps them to express
whatever point they are making. Usually this point can be added to
the list of Solutions. She will invite them to flesh out their thoughts by
asking, “How would you suggest we do that?” followed by, “What
would be the next step after that?” until the person has expressed the
point fully. We call this “the purge.”
Once the points are fully expressed and people feel they’ve been
heard, they are more able to open their minds, listen to the points of
others, and try out new perspectives. When the issue is a difficult one,
the frequent result of the group’s purge is for everyone to see that all
known answers are inadequate. Energy is less lively at this point,
maybe with periods of silence and anxiety that nothing can be done.
Then someone will mention a curious bit of new information, or ask a
question. The energy will shift to become more like solving a puzzle
than reeling from a crisis.
71
DF Manual & Reader
One form of breakthrough that often happens at this stage is when

the group realizes that there is a more fundamental question or
problem than the one with which they started. Someone will say, “the
real problem is . . . ” and energy will build. Someone will wonder
“what do we really want here?” or “what would happen if . . . ” and
the group is on its way to a breakthrough.
One group from my seminars was concerned about the loss of
traditional family values. Several people started expressing their
frustration with parents who rely on schools or television to raise their
kids. Others complained about the media teaching violence and sex.
One person stated strongly that one of the parents should stay home
with the kids. Another said that we need to make sure there are
enough high paying jobs so that one parent can stay home. Another
thought that religious institutions held the key. Still others felt that it
was important to educate parents in how to raise their children. Each
view was fully heard, but the Dynamic Facilitator made sure no one
view became the focus. Instead, as each person’s perspective was
expressed, the group arrived at a difficult, empty stage where the
problem seemed overwhelming.
Then someone began to talk from the heart about their own
family, their own upbringing, and how difficult it was for them to
raise children with the same quality of support they had received from
their parents. Others in the group responded by sharing on a deep
level as well, and began to talk about their struggles with time,
increased financial pressures, and the lack of a supportive community.
These heartfelt remarks changed the tone in the room. As people
shared their experiences, group members became curious about the
differences between yesterday and today. They considered the impact
of cell phones, the media, and the Internet. The conversation became
lively again. At one point, everyone arrived at the realization that
today’s challenges are quite different from those in the past. It was a
breakthrough for them that maybe what was needed was a different
kind of family. At the end of the hour, they had redefined the
72
problem. Their collective energy had shifted to this larger, more

ambitious issue: “How can we create a society where everyone feels
included, as though belonging to one family?” Interestingly, to them
this bigger issue didn’t seem as overwhelming as saving the
traditional family, and they felt excited to continue working on it.
With a traditional facilitator aimed at decision-making, it is
unlikely that either issue—the loss of family values or the creation of
a global family—would have been addressed in the first place.
Equipped with only logical thinking and control-oriented approaches,
traditional decision-making gives us a limited range of problem-
solving capability. It avoids emotional issues, impossible-to-solve
issues, and problems that are outside our area of expertise or
responsibility. But with Dynamic Facilitation and the prospect of
Choice-creating, people can address what is really important to them,
regardless of how hard it seems—and expect breakthroughs.
Because people grow in perspective and capability when they do
Choice-creating, the process itself often becomes the solution. For
example, many times I’ve facilitated groups working on the issue of
“low trust in the organization.” Over the course of just three or four
meetings, after people have expressed their frustrations and worked
together to find new solutions, they usually look around the room and
realize they don’t have that issue anymore. They all trust each other
and often can hardly remember why the problem originally came up.
The Constitution Establishes Decision-making
Despite the huge benefits to be gained from Choice-creating, its

use is relatively rare. This is largely because decision-making is
imposed on us by the system in which we live. Consider the
constitutional system with its balance of power, rule of law, elected
representatives, voting, majority rule, adversarial legal structure, and
Parliamentary Procedure.
73
DF Manual & Reader
Elected representatives can’t engage in a transformational

conversation because, for the most part, they must adhere to the party
line or to a set of predefined positions. They can’t be open-minded or
open-hearted on these issues or they will lose the support of key
constituents. So they take pride in not changing their minds, in being
consistent, and they become masters of Parliamentary game playing.
Voting sets up decision-making very much like the foreman did in
the exercise when he presented his proposal, rather than sharing the
data. In voting, specific ideas are presented, people debate them back
and forth, and then they make their decision. Those in the minority
are overruled, no consensus is sought, and creative thinking is
discouraged.
Of course, the judicial system is entirely transactional. It is an
adversarial process where decisions are made according to preset
standards. The whole process is a competition. The kinds of questions
it addresses are: Did this person break the law or not? Or, is this law
constitutional or not? There is no concern about what would be best
for everyone, for what people really want, or for reaching consensus.
It’s combat within the rules.
Parliamentary Procedure is transactional as well. In its time, it
was a wonderful innovation, laying out publicly, for the first time,
exactly how decisions were to be made. But the process is so
inefficient that no corporation would make decisions this way. It’s
another case of trying to be rational and straightforward, but getting
something far less. With it, there is no room for breakthrough
insights. If one did miraculously occur, it would be ruled out of order
and immediately squelched.
Furthermore, our official transactional mode of talking extends far
beyond politics. It affects town council meetings, school board
meetings, courtroom proceedings, Hollywood scriptwriters, and how
businesses operate. It drives away TF by assuming agendas,
measures, and the methods of control. Any time we are measured
against set standards, like the threat of lawsuits, conversations
74
become transactionalized. Gradually, this systemic effect has come

between doctors and patients, teachers and students, and employees
and management in companies.
Of course, TA talking has value. There are many times when
conveying information or engaging in decision-making is appropriate.
But it causes problems when it is used inappropriately, when TF is
needed. When people are in conflict, when people seek meaning or
the involvement of others, or when problems seem overwhelming, TA
talking cannot produce the desired results. It doesn’t work when we
need to go straight to the heart of the matter and talk about what is
really going on.
Equipped with only transactional talking, we do not face the most
important issues. We ignore them and, instead, focus on the kind of
smaller issues that TA talking can address. It’s like the old story of
the man who loses his key and looks, not where he loses it, but under
the lamp because the light is better there. Author and physicist, Fritjof
Capra, describes the situation: “The Earth’s forests are receding,
while its deserts are expanding. Topsoil on our crop lands is
diminishing, and the ozone layer, which protects us from harmful
ultraviolet radiation, is being depleted. Concentrations of heat-
trapping gases in the atmosphere are rising, while the numbers of
plant and animal species are shrinking. World population continues to
grow, and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.
And yet, while public awareness of all these problems is rising
dramatically everywhere, they are strikingly absent from the
American political dialogue.”
With the Citizens Amendment, the old TA structures in our
system—like representatives, voting, the legal system, and
Parliamentary Procedure—all remain. It’s just that the Citizens
Amendment adds a TF conversation and places it in a position of
overall importance.
It assures the shift from decision-making to Choice-creating
through simple structural devices—like the father adding the word
75
DF Manual & Reader
“please,” or like the foreman presenting the problem instead of the

solution. The random sampling process, for instance, brings together
ordinary people who speak only for themselves. Unlike representa-
tives, they can grow and change in their views. When they do, it’s
exciting and cause for celebration. Also, because the Wisdom Council
is enacted as an amendment to the Constitution, the people it gathers
are not a special interest group. They are placed outside of politics to
form We the People, a general interest group. The required unanimity
of the Wisdom Council disallows competition or power plays, and
promotes cooperation. This assures that everyone’s views will be
heard and respected.
These seemingly small changes may be enough to make the
necessary difference. But in addition, a capable facilitator is provided
who, even if this person is not skilled in Dynamic Facilitation, can
pretty much guarantee Choice-creating instead of decision-making.
76
Dynamic facilitation
and the magic of self-organizing change
by Jim Rough
(first published in the Journal for
Quality and Participation, June 1997)
Dynamic facilitation and the
magic of self-organizing change
by Jim Rough
(This article was first published in the Journal for Quality and
Participation, June 1997)
_________________
Rather than trying to explain or teach what is needed, the facilitator

attends to the process of change and trusts that things will self-organize... Because
of the mechanistic, cause and effect paradigm we live in, changes like these can
seem to be magic.
_________________
After a college basketball game I spent a few moments with one of the
players to help him improve his shot. The player knew that my son had been the
national leader in three point shooting the year before and assumed I was a coach.
He asked me to help him... I eagerly accepted. I watched him shoot a few
times and mentioned out loud some of what I was noticing. Each time I said
something, he reacted and asked what he should do differently. I didn’t know
exactly, but I knew telling him was not going to help. I asked him to walk far out
beyond his range and then shoot. He couldn’t reach the basket from there and
looked at me questioningly. “Do whatever it takes to get it there,” I suggested.
With resolution and relying on some kind of innate knowledge, he threw the ball
toward the bucket. Without my coaching he was heaving the ball in balance and
using more of his body - he was in rhythm. Moving closer to the basket he
adapted this motion into a new shot and made buckets with far greater accuracy.
He said it felt weird but was no longer asking me for coaching. Now he was
coaching himself having learned something his body had taught him.
Two kinds of change
Many had tried to coach him before, but coaching wasn’t what he needed.
Instead I facilitated a process where he brought himself to a new level of
79
DF Manual & Reader
capability. A facilitator elicits and sustains this kind of breakthrough process,

whether it is in a person, in a group, or in an organization. Rather than trying to
explain or teach what is needed, the facilitator attends to the process of change
and trusts that things will self-organize.
Examples of such self-organization are:
• Problems being spontaneously solved through new insights...

• Changes of heart where the trust level shifts and adversaries
become friends...
• A shift from dependency to empowerment...
• A change of management style, from control to self-management...
• People discovering what they really want instead of what they
thought they wanted.
Because of the mechanistic, cause and effect paradigm we live in, changes
like these can seem to be magic. In understanding facilitation we recognize two
fundamentally different kinds of change:
1. Type 1: manageable change.

2. Type 2: self-organizing change.
Type 1: manageable change –
This model has been used almost exclusively to explain the universe for
hundreds of years. It holds that extrinsic forces, or causes, make change happen.
Because of this, change can be predetermined, measured and controlled. This
model views the universe as though it is a giant machine following exact laws.
Goals can be set and procedures followed to achieve the goals. Ultimately this
view means accepting the idea that the universe is predetermined. Our culture
views this Newtonian model as truth, common sense.
Type 2: self-organizing change –
Self-organizing change is more like a garden than a machine. Things are

growing all the time by themselves, drawn out by an inner life quest for quality
and efficiency. This growth is transformational, “things” can radically change
course or change levels of capability spontaneously. Aspects can be designed, and
growth can be anticipated, but fundamentally, this change process cannot be
planned. In this model success is sought in the quality of relationship with nature,
not power over it.
80
DF and the Magic of Self-Organizing Change
The dynamic facilitator focuses on type 2 change
To facilitate is to elicit, sustain, and enhance self-organizing change. To

facilitate a meeting, for example, is to let go of controlling others toward
predefined results and to help them accomplish what they want. The dynamic
facilitator not only helps meeting participants self-manage but he or she also helps
shift the thinking process to be self-organizing. This is what is meant by the word
“creative.” It’s where the mind spontaneously creates new order.
Self-organizing change cannot be planned. Progress happens through
breakthroughs of different kinds. Not only might there be original insights, but the
people involved are changed by the process. They might enter the meeting feeling
one way and leave feeling the opposite. In a self-organizing dynamic people grow
in trust, in their desire for responsibility and in their systems understanding.
Analytical, type 1 thinking helps people understand elements within a system.
The self-organizing type 2 process generates awareness of the whole system.
Two models of change.. .
Type 1: manageable change Type 2: self-organizing change

How order is determined How order is determined
It is organized by someone (extrinsic forces) Order comes from within (intrinsic energy)
• Build it/Do it... with no mistakes • Explore/trial and error
• Closed boundaries • Open boundaries
• Mostly stable with periodic disorder • Dynamic... between chaos and order
Thinking Thinking
Stay rational... avoid the unconscious mind Be creative... work with the unconscious mind
• Decide on goals ... avoid feelings • Energy driven... include feelings
• Discern and analyze • Generate and synthesize
• Stop things from going wrong • Seek what's right ... i.e. quality
Leadership Leadership
Manage to get results Facilitate the process
• Can measure progress • Use milestones to reflect on progress
• Emphasize extrinsic motivation (rewards) • Emphasize intrinsic motivation... (mission, vision)
• Static process... step by step • Dynamic process... the flow
Orientation Orientation
Stop things from going wrong Help things go right
• There are objec tive constraints • Expect breakthroughs
• All is measurable • Measuring everything can mess things up
• Eliminate chaos • Some chaos is essential
81
DF Manual & Reader
The results of a self-organizing process can seem magical because change

happens by itself. The mechanistic paradigm cannot account for this, so when it
happens, it is either ignored, or there is a rush to try to package the methods. For
example, if taking basketball players outside their range works with players in
general, then it could become an accepted technique to improve a person’s shot.
Trainers would then be hired to teach the technique and "facilitators" used to
make sure that people did the technique right. The miracle of self-organization
might still be there, but our paradigm would frame it as though the miracle had
been explained.
Too many facilitators are driven by techniques. Brainstorming, visioning,
the workshop method, Pareto charts, or fish bone diagrams are all valuable
techniques that can elicit a self-organizing dynamic in specific situations. Also,
packages of techniques can be used. Examples are: Future Search Conferences for
large organizations to build a common vision among stakeholders, JAD for
systems design, ToP (Technology of Participation™) for working with
communities, or Synectics to seek innovations. The facilitator who focuses on the
techniques instead of the dynamic process of the group is a static facilitator. A
dynamic facilitator is one who, while using many of the same techniques or
packages, does so in support of the self-organizing dynamic.
To illustrate the difference let me tell a story. Recently while playing
tennis with a friend, a young boy ran across the back of our court. My friend and I
hardly noticed. When the boy got to the other court, his father stopped playing
and animatedly scolded the boy. At this point I became attentive and managed to
discern that the father was scolding the boy for crossing behind our court during
play. The boy had not been disruptive but the father’s anger and his way of
scolding the boy were.
The father was focused on the rules of etiquette, the static process. But in
this case his focus worked against the higher purpose of why the rules were there.
The rules are intended to support a dynamic of courtesy. A focus on the static
process cannot assure the desired dynamic.
Two paradigms
Each focus is associated with a different paradigm of thinking. Those in

Paradigm 1 see the universe primarily as a place where outside forces make
change happen. The universe is comprised of dead matter which can be broken
apart into smaller and smaller pieces. It assumes that life and living organisms
will eventually be explained in terms of objects and forces.
82
This paradigm of Newtonian science has been extremely successful for

our culture. However, it can also be destructive when we use it to organize what is
alive, like educating our children or managing companies. For instance, to assume
that people always need to be motivated through incentives, rewards, recognition
or punishments, is to diminish them.
Two paradigms compared...
Paradigm 1: Paradigm 2:
A static facilitator’s world view. A dynamic facilitator’s world view.
Type 1 change:
In a Newtonian universe,
change is manageable. Type 2 change:
In a Quantum universe,
change is self-organizing.
Type 1 change
Type 2 change
The Newtonian paradigm has been extremely successful for our culture. However, it can a lso be
destructive when we use it to organize what is alive, like educating our children or managing companies.
Paradigm 1 is in real trouble because modern science has shown that it is

not accurate. The quantum revolution in physics has made it clear that the
universe is fundamentally more alive than dead. As Margaret Wheatley points out
in her book, Leadership and the New Science, our view of management just
hasn’t quite caught up with these discoveries. Even rocks are lifelike at the
subatomic level. Within them are complex quanta and fields of energy connected
to the whole universe acting indeterminately. Current science, in other words, is
telling us that the world view of self-organizing change is more accurate than the
world view of manageable change. The difference in the two paradigms can be
illustrated by how two teachers work with their children.
83
DF Manual & Reader
A Type 1 classroom:
• All the children working on their assigned tasks, each kid on the same
page of the workbook, everyone facing the front of the room.
• Objective tests measure progress toward learning objectives - there
are gold stars on the wall to recognize excellence.
• Order is kept in the classroom and this assures measurable progress as
long as the teacher is present and in control. When the teacher leaves the
room, this highly organized structure dissipates and chaos reigns.
A Type 2 classroom:
• The kids are in small groups working on projects of interest to them.
• There is a low level of disorder as the kids get up and move around
the room. This is a different kind of order because it is self-ordering.
• This class also uses charts to track progress, but these are primarily
for self-assessment.
• When this teacher leaves the room, the kids carry on with their work
as they did before. Since they are intrinsically motivated there is nothing
to rebel against.
The first teacher, rooted in paradigm 1, thinks “I tried that other way but it
did not work.” When he or she tried the type 2 classroom, the tight reign on order
may have been loosened but there was probably no dynamic facilitation. A
knowledge of the techniques will not suffice to establish this self-organizing
dynamic.
Mixing the two types of change can be dangerous. Many people remember
throughout their lives the pain they felt in hearing judgmental words by a
kindergarten or preschool teacher when they first tried to write or paint. When
Type 2 change is cut short by the application of Paradigm 1 thinking, people can
feel hurt and betrayed. Paradigm 1 talks exclusively about the need for goals,
roles, action plans and ways to measure progress. The dynamic facilitator, on the
other hand, seems to waffle about these essentials. Having them is desirable, but
he or she understands how they also can subvert transformational change.
Those in Paradigm 1 can find dynamic facilitation uncomfortable. A
basketball coach, for instance, might become alarmed at my way of working with
the player on his shot. He could feel threatened saying, “In our basketball
program, we start with fundamentals and build up. We can’t have someone telling
players to heave the ball in any manner. We want all our players to practice the
same fundamentals.” This sounds reasonable. It is Type 1 common sense. Type 2
change can threaten this perspective.
84
For a number of years now, I have taught a seminar in dynamic facilitation

skills. The essence of the seminar is for people to experience the validity of the
self-organizing dynamic and to learn how to facilitate small groups dynamically.
A map of thinking styles is presented which identifies a sequence of
thinking. This is not a static, step by step process the facilitator takes people
through. Instead it is a framework to guide the facilitator in supporting the
creative process to unfold naturally. The seminar itself is self-organizing so
people can break through to new levels of capability.
Recently after a seminar, one attendee said he was glad he came because
he learned a lot of new techniques he could put in his bag of tricks. I was glad to
hear he was pleased, but concerned because his words indicated he may have
missed a key point. Those who "get " this point say things like “it’s a new level of
thinking,” or “it validates something I’ve always known but just didn’t have
words for.” To facilitate dynamically means working from paradigm 2. A focus
on the techniques can mean a paradigm 1 perspective.
Dynamic facilitation transforms organizations
Many companies are ostensibly seeking to achieve the self-organizing

dynamic. The quality movement in business is an example. Management
consultant, Peter Senge, says it this way, “If you don’t understand that the quality
movement is about intrinsic motivation, then you don’t understand the quality
movement.”
Many companies, consultants and words of advice, however, are deeply
rooted in Paradigm 1:
• They propose setting measurable goals, planning actions, clarifying
roles, learning the latest techniques, and maintaining control.
• They expect facilitators to act as "process cops," holding people to
predetermined processes and behavioral outcomes.
These skills are secondary, not primary. They cannot be allowed to get in
the way of self-organizing processes that build integrity, respect, trust,
relationship, fun, quality, and creativity.
The president of one organization understood what was needed but his
next level of managers did not. They had been clamoring for a clear definition of
roles. They wanted to know exactly what was expected of them so they could
excel. The president knew that telling them his ideas would not generate a self-
organizing dynamic.
The group was in a confused state until a breakthrough occurred. The
breakthrough came in the form of a paradoxical statement: “NEVER DO THE
85
DF Manual & Reader
MISSION OF THIS COMPANY.” This statement served as a symbol for them to

remember that their job was to help their subordinates do the mission of the
company. With this statement they knew they were to stop managing and start
facilitating. No longer did they need or want clear expectations. Each person was
excited about this permission to use their own judgment.
The shift in dynamics from type 1 change to type 2, can be initiated at the
bottom of an organization. A group of road crew workers met each week in
facilitated meetings. They worked on their problem of getting adequate help for
directing traffic in construction zones.
The county commissioners had told them, to save money, they could only
hire part-time flaggers. The road crew looked at their problem creatively and
determined that hiring full-time flaggers was ultimately cheaper and would reduce
the county’s exposure to lawsuits if there was an accident. They met with the
county commissioners in a public hearing. Because they had carefully considered
all viewpoints, it was clear to everyone that these workers really understood the
problem and were making responsible choices.
The county commissioners were put in a predicament because they had
been making judgments without truly understanding the situation. Not only was
their decision reversed, but the group’s work set a precedent. The road crew’s
meetings changed the management style of the county in their area--from top-
down to bottom-up.
The old corporation has a bottom line that is literally the bottom line on a
profit and loss statement. It is objective and measurable. But the bottom line of
the kind of corporation we need is the sense of integrity and mutual respect of
people working toward a shared mission. Of course, measures are still sought and
used, but in the new organization they are not the bottom line. By working
creatively on their problem, with the best interest of the citizen in mind, the road
crew was turning the old, top-down system into the new, bottom-up organization.
Changing paradigms in any organization is like changing from a push
lawn mower to a power lawn mower. The power mower is easier and can cut far
more grass, but it requires a new level of understanding, especially for gas and
maintenance to keep it working: The gas of self-organization is an ongoing, high
quality conversation. The needed maintenance is the facilitative presence and
priority put on those conversations. The dynamic facilitator helps assure this
essential conversation on issues that matter to everyone.
Some closing thoughts
Most management literature assumes that the answer to improved

performance and value are ever more stringent applications of controlled change,
86
setting clear objectives and making accurate measurements. But these answers
actually block self-organizing change, limit the transformational possibility and
sometimes the spirit of excellence. Just the language of control can block
creativity and the new dynamic.
It is not easy to let go of what has worked for so long. Acknowledging the
reality of self-organizing change undermines the old paradigm by which we think.
Most avoid the dilemma altogether by focusing on techniques, or static processes,
as though they are added tools used in controlling change. But the paradigm shift
is happening anyway. A general awareness is growing that the self-organizing
dynamic not only exists but is primary. In the end, we all must let go of control
and facilitate. Greatness in basketball, companies, or just people, necessarily
involves the self-organizing dynamic.
87
Creative Choices: Breakthroughs in Thinking
by Jim Rough
(first published in the Quality Digest,
December 1992)
Creative Choices:
Breakthroughs in Thinking
by Jim Rough
(Revised from Quality Digest Dec. 1992)
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 came into being in a way that was different
from most legislation. Committee members had struggled mightily to reach a
compromise. Everyone knew that tax loopholes were immense, yet attempts to
change them met with strong resistance from special interests. President Reagan
had initiated the attempt at tax reform, but when the House committee was done
with it, even he said he wouldn’t sign it. The Senate Finance Committee then met
and through long and arduous discussions the bill deteriorated further as special
interests added additional provisions. It looked as though it would die.
At this point Senator Packwood, Chairman of the Senate Finance

Committee, did something different. He called a special, closed door breakfast
meeting. At the end of this meeting the Senators emerged with a unanimous new
perspective that was far more revolutionary than anything anyone had imagined to
be possible. It was a breakthrough, which felt risky to participants. They pledged
to one another that they would stay unanimous and would live or die as a block.
Unfortunately, they weren’t able to maintain these pledges but substantial change
did result.
This example is not intended to make a point about taxes or government. It

is an illustration of the limits to normal approaches to meeting and thinking. For
breakthroughs to happen, like what happened at breakfast, something different is
required. The stalemate in thinking was not overcome through compromise or
power struggle, but through a change in the mode of thinking.
Normal meetings proceed dialectically. Ideas are presented and discussed

one at a time. Although they seek a dispassionate, ordered process leading to
compromise, in the face of emotional tension this process often polarizes. To
91
DF Manual & Reader
discuss abortion in a normal meeting, for example almost guarantees a battle

between two polarized views: pro-life and pro-choice. The more polarized the
discussion, the less creative it is.
Creativity, requires thinking that is open to different ideas, that is

unpredictable and can change directions suddenly. Solving difficult or emotional
issues should be done passionately.
Creative breakthroughs are difficult to imagine in the white heat of a tough

issue. When faced with constraints, physical limits, or federal laws, people
naturally assume that creativity isn't appropriate and often exclaim "there are only
two possibilities" or "nothing can be done about that".
Creativity exists, so what they meant to say is that there are only two
possibilities, or nothing can be done, within the current frame of mind. When it
seems impossible to move ahead on a given problem, they should remember the
step that Senator Packwood took: To change modes of thinking. Without that, the
Senate Finance Committee would have continued its decline eventually giving
up, or possibly developing an unsatisfactory compromise. The breakfast meeting
opened a door into unknown territory.
In my facilitation work, which is oriented to creativity in people, I have

found four different types of creative thinking and four corresponding types of
breakthrough. By understanding these, a facilitator can make adjustments to help
groups tap their creative capability more fully, just as the Senate committee did.
Each different mode is discussed below with an example where a group

faced a situation that seemed impossible to solve. In each case, with a slight
adjustment to the style of thinking, the situation was transformed and a new
,"Creative Choice" was determined.
The diagram on the next page illustrates how these four modes are related.
The asterisk-like figure represents creative energy, and how it tends to evolve.
The horizontal axis stretches from perception-building to innovation-building,
two modes that seek a change of mind. This axis is the HEAD axis because these
modes require a measure of detachment from feelings and emotions. The result of
these processes is a different way of seeing things that reveals new options.
The vertical axis is the HEART axis with Trust-building and Mission-
building at the two ends. These both work with people's energy seeking a change
of heart to new choices.
92
MISSION-BUILDING:
ISSUE: Twenty-five members of a
Board of Directors met in a retreat to
agree upon one of two possible
directions for the organization.
CREATIVE CHOICE: By uncovering
shared motivation and values, they
developed a unanimous decision.
INNOVATION-BUILDING
PERCEPTION-BUILDING ISSUE: Design engineers estimated
ISSUE: Workers in a mill identified a the cost to automate an operation
critical need for more and better currently performed by temporary
cleanup. laborers.
CREATIVE CHOICE: By critically CREATIVE CHOICE: A group of
examining how this need was caused, non-experts met and invented an
they eliminated the problem using a entirely new design approach that
welding torch and twenty minutes. cost only 10% of the expert
approach.
TRUST-BUILDING
ISSUE: An organization of social workers
resisted their new manager. The manager
wanted them to respect her authority.
CREATIVE CHOICE: The manager earned
respect in a way that didn't seem possible
beforehand. They respected her instead of her
authority.
Four Examples
#1 TRUST-BUILDING:
This mode of creative thinking is experienced when people are respected
and heard deeply, and when they can feel that sense of recognition from others.
It's especially important with high-care issues in transforming anger, frustration or
alienation. New choices are created when the problem miraculously disappears,
because the person or group no longer feels like it once did.
93
DF Manual & Reader
Example: In their efforts to help clients, caseworkers in a state agency

occasionally bent minor rules. Supervision felt the need for corrective measures in
the form of stronger rules and increased direction to the staff. They hired a new
supervisor and directed her to shape up the department. The caseworkers
responded to these moves with outrage at the new supervisor’s style. They
engaged in labor grievances, strict orientation to rules, uncooperative attitudes,
etc. Eventually both sides pointed with exasperation at the extent to which the
other betrayed trust and acted without scruples. In the minds of all nothing more
could be done . It was up to the other party to change., and neither was going to
do that.
Creative Choice: The group met in a series of meetings with a facilitator.

In the process members articulated their differing views and were guided to hear
one another completely. As people were able to accommodate the feelings of
others the emotional tone of the group changed from outrage, to quiet honesty, to
enthusiasm. As trust developed, people saw themselves and their colleagues in a
new light. Before the meetings the group thought that the supervisor was the
problem. After the meetings, it was agreed that she had become a vital asset to the
department. Beforehand, the supervisor’s goal for the intervention was to have the
group respect her authority. After the meetings they were respecting her, instead
of her authority. In the final session the group energetically and innovatively
tackled the task of “how to become the best department in the state!”
Observation: Repressed feelings restrict one’s power and sense of what is

possible to change. This impossible-seeming problem was courageously
addressed by the group in a creative fashion. One important strategy for the
facilitator is to help the group articulate fully the ready answers that people are
stuck on. In this case each side wanted the other to accept blame and to change.
Articulating these extreme viewpoints is difficult but to do so ultimately builds
group trust and leads to possible breakthroughs.
This mode of thinking is "heart creativity" where feelings are important.

With really big problems, this may not be enough and there is a need to shift to
another mode of thinking ... "head creativity".
#2: PERCEPTION-BUILDING:
This mode of creative thinking often follows Trust-building. The focus is
no longer on the energy or feelings of participants but on data or details of what's
going on. In this "head" mode of creativity, we seek to spark new perceptions, for
people to see with new eyes.
94
The master auto mechanic gets into this mode of thinking when
confronted with a difficult problem. Each new bit of information or measurement
sparks new thoughts and awareness.
Example: A group of employees in a sawmill met to work on the problem

of “cleanup at the log barkers.” Bark debris from logs caused numerous problems
and they had made it known to management that there was a pressing need for
more cleanup people. They talked to the cleanup people about the special needs of
the area. They felt they had done all they could.
Creative Choice: Meeting in a creative format the group examined the list
of cleanup issues and specified one as most critical. It was “cleanup around the
bucking saw.” When that area wasn’t cleaned properly, sawdust and bark worked
into the equipment in such a way that a mechanism to lift logs didn’t fall all the
way back down. This meant that a log had to be jockeyed back and forth until it
could be positioned to ride past the stuck lift. Besides wasting time, jockeying the
log damaged the equipment.
After identifying this problem as most severe, members of the group

climbed below the log lift to examine exactly how sawdust and bark hung up.
Although they had been there many times before, this time they looked at the
equipment in a different way. They were able to determine that the ledge on
which the bark accumulated could be structurally eliminated. With a welding
torch and about 20 minutes they eliminated not only the ledge but their most
pressing problem, one that had been impossible.
Observation: This problem had plagued the men for years and yet the
solution was quite simple once they looked into it with a creative attitude. Key
was addressing the issue with a feeling of curiosity and confidence. In this case
these feelings and attitudes were triggered in the men by listing data and
observations about the situation. Questions arose and they took time away from
normal work and operational thinking to find out more.
Again, this "head" mode of creativity may eventually run its course. If a
breakthrough doesn't happen there's a shift back to "heart creativity."
#3: MISSION-BUILDING:
This kind of creative thinking often follows perception-building. People
ask, "What are we really after here?" It's an inner quest for what you really want
instead of what you think you want. When you get an answer, it is a breakthrough.
Old solutions and concerns can seem irrelevant and are even forgotten once the
95
DF Manual & Reader
"real problem" is discovered. As in Trust-building, this is a heart approach and

feelings play a crucial role. When the issue is redefined people feel empowered to
do more and to commit to more.
Example: The Chamber of Commerce for a small town beyond the edge of
suburbia met for a retreat. The retreat format provided an opportunity to assume a
creative approach to a hot topic. Many of the members were shopkeepers on the
edge of economic survival. Some had raised their children in the area and wished
to ensure that there were job opportunities so their children could find ways to
stay. Others chose to move to the area precisely to avoid the urban and suburban
development that accompanies more jobs.
The meeting was to determine a direction for the Chamber in an

atmosphere of division. There were those who wanted the organization to promote
rapid economic development in order to create jobs and wealth. The other
sentiment was for the Chamber to be a force which preserves the quality of life in
an economically viable way.
Creative Choice: The group spent time examining questions like: Exactly
what kind of industry would you like to see? What would be the best location for
the businesses you would like to see here? Where would you like to see the
additional people located? What are the special qualities that drew you to this
area? What would be the benefits of growth? the detriments? The whole group
worked to determine answers to these questions. By filling out different scenarios
as a group and examining the pluses and minuses all could see the implications.
As the group talked about the values which underlie the choice to live in
the area a new feeling tone was generated. This feeling tone brought the group
together in a new way: Everyone in the room strongly valued the special features
of the area and agreed that these must not be threatened by a pursuit of
commercial growth. It was a moment of clarity and consensus.
The group then developed a list of the special features they wanted to
preserve and readily made new choices about old programs. The level of
consensus was a breakthrough that had seemed impossible to achieve.
Observation: People often lose touch with the values which underlie their
goals. A creative moment happens when the feelings associated with these values
are renewed and articulated. A meeting of hearts was an outcome of this meeting
that superseded all wrangling. In the tone of new discovery, other unanimous
decisions were reached.
96
#4 INNOVATION-BUILDING:
Innovation-building is what most people think of when they hear the term
"creative thinking." It's a process like brainstorming, forced analogies, or guided
imagery, which are methods to help people make new connections. This is "head
creativity" because it is not well suited to emotional issues. It requires detachment
from the issue and often, help a facilitator or technique.
Example: The manager of a reforestation project proposed a problem he'd

been working on. After planting seedlings each year the plastic tubes in which the
tiny trees had been contained were brought back from the woods. Hundreds of
thousands of these tubes needed to be sorted into racks to feed a machine that
deposited soil, fertilizer and seed for next year. Getting the tubes into the racks
was done manually. Design engineers had estimated that hundreds of thousands of
dollars would be required to mechanize this. He asked a group of people “can you
think of a new way to do this more cheaply.”
Creative Choice: The group started by considering how the tubes might
sort themselves. They discussed how elements from nature sort themselves. They
thought about how bees fill hexagon racks in their hives with eggs, how birds
migrate to specific locations, and how salmon return to their spawning ground
after years at sea. Thinking about salmon in more detail they imagined themselves
as salmon returning through river currents by smell and instinct. Forcing this
image together with the tube problem, the group thought of ways to use water to
sort the tubes. If the tubes floated straight up and down when put into water, they
could be guided by currents to squeeze together at the end of a tub. A rack
situated under the tubes, when lifted, could then catch one tube per hole. This idea
would cost only a few dollars and could be set up for testing in a few hours. The
group invented a line of thought and made a cost improvement that the engineers
would have thought to be impossible.
Observation: Innovation-thinking actively avoids logical approaches in

order to provoke new lines of thought. For this kind of thinking there is value in
irrelevant material and in non-expert participants. But normal meetings squelch
this kind of thinking. In most meetings only relevant ideas are tolerated, and only
people who are familiar with the issue are invited to attend. This type of creative
thinking is rarely supported within an organizational system.
97
DF Manual & Reader
Summary
In each of the examples above, it appeared that the problem was not
solvable. But in each situation, through different styles of creative thinking, old
patterns of thought and feelings were left behind. Ready answers and logic
became less ordered and the door to new possibilities was opened. Unforeseeable
breakthroughs resulted.
In the Perception-building example, the group physically looked into a

situation in a way they hadn’t before. A breakthrough idea, cutting out the ledge,
appeared to them. In the Innovation-building example the group used an unrelated
idea of salmon running upstream, to spark new ideas. They achieved a perceptual
shift which gave them a simple, cheap, new alternative. Both of these thinking
modes are powerful. They are detached from feelings, so they work well on
physical problems. Issues with emotional content require a heart dimension.
In the Trust-building example a breakthrough was achieved because

feelings were addressed and given credibility. A new quality of relationship
between supervisor and group became possible. Using Mission-building each
person in the Chamber of Commerce retreat looked beyond their fears to discover
their desires. This step allowed them to look past people's differences for what
they had in common. These heart modes, Trust-building and Mission-building,
are powerful for difficult issues. They turn problems into exciting challenges.
These four brief examples, plus the tax reform story, illustrate ways that
seemingly impossible-to-solve problems can be transformed. Creativity is not a
usually applied when people identify difficult issues, however. More natural is to
avoid creative thinking, to squander our creativity in defending against change.
But the creative possibility is always present and can be called upon. This is
especially true in the presence of a skilled facilitator oriented to creative processes
of thinking.
98
Choice-Creating: How to Solve Impossible Problems
by Jim Rough
(first published in the Journal for
Quality and Participation, September 1991)
Choice-creating:
How to Solve Impossible Problems
(Adapted from Journal for Quality and Participation… Sept 1991)
By Jim Rough
A group of twelve maintenance workers in a sawmill were unanimous and

adamant: An additional full time person was required to oil machinery. It was
obvious! Because that person is missing, machines break down and maintenance
costs are excessive. There is no other way, they said.
Later, in a few meetings the group devised a six-point plan which more
than solved the problem without requiring an additional person. By thinking
creatively they solved a problem which had seemed impossible. One aspect of
their solution was the invention of a new oiling device which saved time
equivalent to hiring a person half-time! Changing lubricants gained more time.
Another aspect was the creation of a state-funded training program for oiling and
maintenance. A fourth aspect was to change job classifications because it was
discovered that the REAL problem was a misunderstanding about the level of
expertise required for proper oiling. Instead of pursuing the “only thing we can
do” option, the group used creativity to breakthrough old patterns of thinking. As
a result, the group not only achieved success but also grew in competence,
confidence, and trust. This article discusses how creative breakthroughs can occur
in real situations.
The above story illustrates a point: Because human creativity exists, there
is always the possibility of discovering new solutions which are better than any
thing currently known. When an impossible problem is encountered, this should
be a signal to mentally shift gears to a creative thinking process suited for such
issues. Unfortunately, the approach of most people toward seemingly impossible
problems seldom involves creativity. In companies, classrooms, friendships, and
families, there is a natural reluctance to engage in creative thinking in difficult
situations. In these situations, there is a natural tendency to compulsively
implement uncreative solutions, even when they have little prospect of success. In
the example above, hiring another oiler seemed like the only thing that could be
done. The group was initially focused on achieving that solution.
101
DF Manual & Reader
The story also illustrates another point. The creative breakthrough the men
achieved, to discover and solve the REAL problem, was emotional as well as
mental. At first, the millwrights were resistant to creative thinking approaches.
They were sure that the problem could only be solved by hiring another oiler.
They were unable to achieve a frame of mind, which tolerated other options. They
had strong feelings about the issue that couldn’t be ignored.
Creative approaches to solving impossible problems do not usually

address emotional aspects. Creative Problem Solving(CPS) methods are designed
to stimulate the unconscious mind to develop ideas and make new connections. In
brainstorming, for instance, one is encouraged to generate many ideas in a short
period of time, postponing discussion and judgment. One is even encouraged to
generate crazy and silly ideas in the hope of breaking out of traditional patterns
into new lines of thought. Other CPS methods include using forced analogies, or
using random words to help generate ideas. These techniques, referred to here as
brain-stirring techniques, are useful for helping people escape from old patterns of
thought. Industry uses these methods in such areas as research, advertising, new
product development, etc. However applied to everyday problems, CPS methods
tend not to be used. Brain-stirring is effective when the emotional component of
an issue is small, where problems are more like puzzles or challenges than REAL
problems. When strong feelings are present, ideas do not naturally bubble out of
the brain in a playful way. Feelings need to be addressed before the intuitive mind
can be tapped. Often feelings of anxiety, frustration, intimidation, etc., are the
problem. The type of creative breakthrough needed is not so much a change of
thinking, but a change of feeling.
Impossible-seeming problems require creativity. The creative methods

which can help solve impossible-seeming problems must be multifaceted, stirring
the heart as well as the mind. I call this broader thinking process choice-creating.
“Stop the Car”
As an illustration, consider the following tale:
My family took a drive in the mountains to have a cook-out. We were

going to a campground which looked to be nearby on the map. We arrived at the
turnoff, a two lane road into the mountains, and began a slow winding drive. On
the map the campground looked to be about 3 or 4 miles from the main
intersection. As time passed and we had already gone 5 or 6 miles, the driving
became more intense. We had not seen another car in either direction. There were
102
no road signs. The car rocked forcefully as we rounded the curves tightly. The
kids in the back became restless and a feeling of frustration prevailed. Eventually,
we came upon a car approaching from the opposite direction. We flagged it down
and asked the driver how much farther it was to the campground. The answer was
a shock: another 18 miles of slow mountain road! In our shock, we continued
driving absentmindedly for a while and then did something that we later realized
was critical. We stopped the car. We sat for a minute by the side of the road with
our feelings of frustration. We talked about what we wanted to do. We talked
about the new prospects of when we were going to eat. Together, mulling the
situation, we decided to go on.
After driving a little farther we came upon the scene of a beautiful valley
and got out for a moment to take a picture. A little further yet we discovered an
apple tree and stopped again to try the apples. Our trip had transformed into a
beautiful country drive, a creative time, and we arrived at the campground
surprised that the time had gone so fast.
In this simple story many important lessons have been found for us over
the years. Stopping the car allowed us to change our frame of mind, not because
we did various creative exercises, but because we took time out from the
situation. We stopped working on the apparent solution, driving faster, to think in
a new way. This time of thinking and the decision we reached transformed the
problem into an opportunity.
The story is a simple illustration of how choice-creating can work. After

we stopped and talked, and then had driven on a while, we were not aware of the
changes in us. Things seemed the same except, possibly, that we had lost five
minutes driving time. Soon, however, the problem was no longer foremost in our
minds. New and enjoyable aspects of the situation were more important. Our
choice to stop had been a creative one that sparked a different type of thinking. It
required our whole being, even the small piece that was engaged in traveling. The
creative process, however, was not brainstorming or brain-stirring, which avoids
feelings. It was heart-stirring. Feelings, attitudes, motivations, and relationships
with others were involved. The creative shift wasn’t due to a new idea which led
to an innovation, but a change within each of us, which led to a new clarity and
commitment.
Creative Choice: Change of Mind/Change of Heart
Brain-stirring approaches to creativity are cognitive. One plays with

perceptions seeking a change of perspective, a change of mind. In this cognitive
103
DF Manual & Reader
thinking mode new and different ideas are encouraged and provoked. On the other
hand, heart-stirring seeks a change of heart. The aim of this second type of
creativity is an emotional shift which transforms situations and the people in
them. When such a shift occurs we say that the person or the group “got on top of
the issue” or that they “became empowered.” Such phrases do not do justice to the
phenomenon. When it happens, a new motivation, enthusiasm, and perceptive
capability occur in the face of problems. Problems move and change shape so that
they become unrecognizable as the dragon issues they once were. The individual
who made such a creative choice has new freedoms of perspective, attitude and
action.
The difference between heart-stirring and brain-stirring, two modes of

creative thinking, can be seen by contrasting the car story above with the example
below. The example is designed to provide you with an aha! experience, which is
the goal of brain-stirring. The aha! is a sudden perceptual shift, a new way of
seeing the situation, an insight. Hopefully you will experience an aha! by thinking
for a moment about the following puzzle:
Show that one half of eight is zero.
(Pause)
If you “got” the puzzle, you experienced something that cannot be given
to you from someone else. It only can come from within you . . . a sudden gift
from your intuitive unconscious.
Unlike most impossible-to-solve problems in life, the puzzle is presented

in well defined form. Although seemingly unsolvable at first, a puzzle is not met
with dread but with a sense of challenge. Unless there is panic at this kind of
exercise the emotional component of the problem is insignificant. Heart-stirring is
not necessary. (Hint for the puzzle: See how 1/2 of 8 can also be 3, 6, 2, 5 and
more.)
Brain-stirring methods are only effective when the emotional component

can readily be set aside. A puzzle is an invitation to play with a problem as a
recreation, away from cares or concerns. Playing in this way, the mathematical
viewpoint can be dropped fairly easily and other viewpoints are allowed to
prevail. Innovations are achieved in this way. CPS methods help achieve
innovations by encouraging a kind of mental vacation in which ideas and details
flow without being burdened with cares. The mind is freed of restraints to just
wander through the mental landscape in a playful way. Ideas are encouraged to
104
flow across boundaries of propriety and convention which have previously limited
thinking. This kind of mental play needs the freedom to suggest ideas that would
normally be offensive or unethical, but in this context are only funny. Feelings
disrupt this kind of mental play.
To detach from feelings is to put a lid on creativity, and to limit our

capabilities. This is why, even in courses teaching Creative Problem Solving,
common advice is: “Work only on problems you can do something about. Don’t
worry about something you can’t affect.” In other words with this approach,
instead of using our limitless creative potential on serious problems, we use it
only on limited, smaller issues. And in the face of really difficult issues, there is a
natural repulsion to essential creative methods. It is as though we protect our
creativity from the possibility of failure by not utilizing it.
Looking again at the car story, a key element to achieving resolution was
stopping the car. It was taking time in the middle of our stuck frame of mind to
address the problem, rather than to continue to work compulsively at the
perceived solution. It was deciding to allocate this time not toward the obvious
goal of getting there in a hurry, but to thinking and feeling and being while parked
by the side of the road. By stopping and looking directly into the problem, by
asking one another how hungry we felt or how we felt in general, and by thinking
together about what we wanted, something in all of us was changed. The problem
situation changed because we chose to let go of the automatic solution and to give
our unconscious minds some latitude.
Along the side of the road we were open to a deeper kind of creativity. We
were non judgmental of the expressions of one another, whether they made
immediate sense or not. We were open to different ideas, feelings, and
impressions in ourselves. In other words, we made ourselves available to be
influenced or changed. Our choice was not only a decision between alternatives,
but an inner movement which happened outside of our awareness. Stopping the
car opened the door to the transformational potential of spirit, or “grace.”
Impossible-seeming problems are often attached to a course of action with

the strong sentiment: “It’s the only thing that can be done.” For the maintenance
workers in the sawmill, this apparent solution was to hire another oiler.
Commonly, this solution requires someone else to change, or more resources, or
trying harder. This solution is a block to creative thinking. It rarely works except
to protect one from experiencing the crisis. The blocking solution, must be set
aside. When it is and when we open ourselves to creative potential, a creative
choice becomes possible. This choice may not seem like a solution, however,
105
DF Manual & Reader
since it develops outside of conscious awareness. But, stopping and thinking

differently breaks up a mental and emotional logjam. Enthusiasm and
commitment to a new challenge become possibilities. In the car story, for
example, the creative choice was not a different alternative but a different state of
being. The journey stopped being a problem and became a means of enjoyment.
From these three illustrations, the maintenance workers, the car story, and
the “half of eight” puzzle, we can begin to see how impossible problems are
solved.
Impossible-seeming problems require a creative choice involving a change

of perspective and a change of heart. Neither of these are commanded by the
conscious mind. Instead, we make ourselves available to a creative shift. Brain-
stirring methods do this by playing with ideas in different combinations, apart
from feelings. Insights, aha’s and innovations may be sparked which break
through old thinking barriers. More often, however, the feelings from which
brain-stirring seeks escape are a substantial part of the problem. Emotional
resistance arises if they are ignored. Such issues require a creative approach that
includes feelings.
Some Steps to Heart-stirring
Below is a story which illustrates steps that help trigger changes of heart:
I was teaching a problem-solving class to a group of loggers called “hook

tenders.” They were the leaders at the logging sites. In the class we developed a
list of problems to consider, eventually choosing the need for new radios. We
chose this one because the group said that it was the most important one on the
list and because they felt it was an issue they couldn’t do anything about. The
need for radios had been taken to management and already had been turned down.
I asked if they had taken their request higher than their supervisor and the
response came, “Yes! There is nothing more we can do!” They were adamant in
the tone of their response as though this was obviously the final word. To them
this problem was impossible to solve, and as indicated by their responses, one
which involved strong feelings. There were credible reasons for this attitude. The
economy was poor and their jobs were not secure. “Let’s work on a problem we
can do something about” was the natural sentiment, but they agreed to look at this
one.
The situation: Currently used radios often gave garbled transmission and
this made log movements unsafe along the mountain side. When asked “why do
106
you want to improve safety?” one of the answers was “because we are responsible
for safety at the logging sites.” After discussing this a moment the group became
newly inspired with a different point of view and a change of heart. Since they
were restricted from buying the radios which they felt were needed for safety then
they had not really been given the responsibility for safety! The group energy
shifted immediately from one which was heavy and thick: “We can’t because we
tried” to one that was powerful: “Either we are responsible for safety or we aren’t.
If we have been given this responsibility then we should be able to make this
decision.” Discussing it further, the group decided that, above all else, the safety
of the crews must be assured, and either way it was their responsibility. They later
talked to management from this new standpoint, receiving not only the radios, but
a new level of appreciation and shared responsibility.
Using this example, below are listed some key elements of a Choice-
creating process, which allows for this change of heart:
1. Stop the Car occasionally. Reserve a finite amount of time to address

impossible to solve issues in a creative way. Normal processes do not work on
impossible to solve problems. The hook tenders did their thinking in a class away
from the work site.
2. Face the big issues. Since the hook tenders had already dismissed the
problem as one for which nothing more could be done, their choice to reexamine
it took an effort of will. They chose to reopen a difficult topic and to think about it
in a different way. It was like choosing to stop the car in the earlier example.
3. Identify and fully describe the obvious-seeming solution(s). The hook

tenders wrote down that they needed to ask the supervisor, indeed that they had
already asked him for new radios. When the obvious is acknowledged in this way,
it helps people to “let go” and move on.
4. Name the “dragon” concerns. Here, the entire group felt a low level of
job security and there was a realistic fear that a complainer could lose his job.
When this primary concern is identified and articulated its emotional impact is
changed. The concern becomes less demanding and people become more open to
creative possibilities.
5. Describe the current situation factually and without exaggeration. The

group discussed the difficulties with the current radios and the possible
consequences of keeping them. This step is an important part of problem solving,
both rational and creative. A dispassionate examination of the situation is needed
107
DF Manual & Reader
to establish a new emotional and intellectual perspective. It was in this step that
the realization happened that the hook tenders really weren’t responsible for
safety, since they didn’t have the authority to buy the radios.
6. Identify the mission or motivating goal as clearly as possible. The hook

tenders wanted to insure the safety of the crew, their friends. The process of
revisiting this motivating goal is an empowering experience for any group. It was
re-experiencing the importance of this mission that allowed the hook tenders to
approach management with a new attitude rather than approaching them
deferentially.
7. At this point, if needed, use Creative Problem Solving processes like

brainstorming to develop new approaches. The hook tenders didn’t need this step
because they had their “heart” breakthrough.
8. Act. The above steps led to a transformation of feelings in the men.

Action came directly from the sense of empowerment and mission that the men
developed from the conversation.
Using a facilitator to move through these steps, the group dealt adequately
with their feelings, enough so that they were able to experience the situation
differently. They reached beyond the “only thing we can do” alternative: to ask
management for new radios. Ironically, their creative choice was this same
solution. However it was also different, because they didn’t talk to management in
the same affected way they would have. The men felt powerful and asked in a
way that helped their managers to also choose differently. They were able to
present the issue from a different perspective with a different emotional tone.
Summary
This article is intended to remind us of a potential for solving problems

which exists not only in our rational and conscious mind, but arises from our
creative mind as well. In the face of problems which appear to be impossible to
solve, we all have capabilities that can transform any problem. The recommended
approach, “Choice-creating,” is richer “Creative Problem Solving.”
While CPS, or brain-stirring methods, are appropriate for puzzles and

problems safe from emotional entanglement, these methods do not get used on
“real” problems for good reason. They do not deal with the feelings involved.
Choice-creating is aimed at creating changes of heart as well as changes of mind.
Either type of creative thinking requires an act of will to make time to think and to
108
trust that results will be forthcoming. Neither offers guarantees, but the promise of
a creative breakthrough far outweighs the results that can be obtained by working
harder on the “only thing we can do.” This kind of “blocking solution” is not
really a solution at all.
The sentiment, “Don’t spend time on something you can’t do anything

about” is only supported in this article to the extent that we don’t “stop the car.” If
we do, impossible problems can be transformed. Not only do we have creative
resources, which can invent new ways to do the impossible, but there is also the
possibility of transforming our feelings about such problems. This transformation
of feelings is empowering.
109
POSTCRIPT
We hope you have found this manual and reader useful.

If you have any questions, feedback, or stories
about your own experiences with Dynamic Facilitation,
we are interested in hearing from you.
You can contact Rosa at rosalegria@igc.org,
or Jim at jim@tobe.net.
For information about Dynamic Facilitation seminars,

please visit the webpage at http://www.tobe.net.
For consulting and facilitation,

contact:
Jim Rough and Associates,

1040 Taylor Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
phone: 360-385-7118
Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A.

Facilitating Creative Collaboration:
Organization Development and Human Systems Redesign
phone: 707-824-8876
Please note:
There are a number of other practitioners

who also describe their work as
“dynamic facilitation.”
This term is not trademarked.
If you are interested in the particular approach

we have described in this manual, you may need to
identify it as “Jim Rough’s Dynamic Facilitation”
and/or the Choice-Creating Process.

Dynamic Facilitation Manual

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dynamic Facilitation Manual

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A

Evoking Practical Group Creativity

Through Generative Dialogue

Who is this Manual For? 4

The Relationship between Theory and Practice 5

History and Overview of Dynamic Facilitation 6

Similarites and Differences with other Approaches 8

B. Basic Elements of the Facilitator’s Role

What We Mean By “Really Listening” 11

Trusting and Supporting Self-Organization 12

Recording Participants’ Contributions 13

Using the Charts to Keep an Open Flow 14

Introducing the Process 18

What About “Ground Rules”? 19

Welcoming Initial Solutions 23

Welcoming Concerns and New Problem Statements 24

Working with Advocacy 25

Drawing Out Group Divergence 26

E. Transition and Intermediate Stages

Allowing Convergence to Emerge 29

Helping Groups Through the “Yuck” 30

Remaining in a Creative Process 31

Each Arrival as a Point of Departure 32

A “Meeting of Minds and Hearts” 34

Letting Go and Allowing 35

F. Concluding Stages and Follow-Up

Closing Stages of a Meeting 39

Creating “Outcomes” and “Bookmark” Charts 40

Harvesting the Charts After the Meeting 41

When is Dynamic Facilitation Appropriate? 45

Exploring the Larger Context 47

a selection of writings by Jim Rough

Choice-Creating and Dynamic Facilitation 55

Dynamic facilitation and the magic of self-organizing change 79

Creative Choices: Breakthroughs in Thinking 91

Choice-Creating: How to Solve Impossible Problems 101

In The Promise of Mediation, Bush and Folger acknowledge that many

In a similar vein, I want to acknowledge that many practitioners of

This work originated in an industrial setting, helping production

With Jim’s encouragement and support, I am writing this manual in

WHO IS THIS MANUAL FOR?

You may be interested in this work if you are:

•A professional facilitator, mediator, or consultant wanting to expand

•A lay person interested in learning to facilitate creative group

•engaged in an ongoing exploration of self-organization, creativity,

While many professional practitioners have found this work extremely

These basic skills include:

1) the ability to listen well to others;

Of course, to practice Dynamic Facilitation professionally, it helps to

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE.

Dynamic Facilitation is a distinctive and powerful approach to group

At the same time, as someone once said, “there is nothing more

Therefore, this manual includes not just a “how-to”, but also an

One of the basic assumptions of this work is that the facilitator’s

•How we understand ourselves and one another

This principle influences how we teach Dynamic Facilitation. When we

HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF DYNAMIC FACILITATION

Jim Rough first created Dynamic Facilitation while working as a

One characteristic of this approach is the ease of follow-through

When Jim began to teach, a further application became evident. Since

The usefulness of this process for hosting dialogue on difficult social

There is an understandable concern among some “progressive”

In the arena of personal development, there are many effective “self-

Facilitation leads us to believe that peer-exchange facilitation