World Cafe and Ethical Considerations

Replies to This Conversation

Permalink Reply by Bonnie Wright on November 4, 2009 at 10:18am

I just had one thought, and I don't know if this is appropriate or useful, but it seems like one ethical consideration is whether the organizers have any intention of implementing the recommendations/ideas that come out of the gathering, especially if it is billed that way. Maybe another way of putting it would be to ensure that when contracting for the work there is a clear understanding about what will be happening after the event... If it is clear from the onset that there is no commitment on the part of the organizers to implement the outputs but that rather this is just a method for generating ideas that will be considered, make that clear up front. Outputs from these kinds of activities, especially if done within an organization can create all kinds of conflict if expectation for commitment to implementation are not clear. Management really needs to know how they will integrate these results into their operational planning, and know what resources they have available to support the outputs...the WC process needs to be bought into by top management and key stakeholders if the process is meant as part of organizational planning.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Janet Birgenheier on November 4, 2009 at 10:27am

Hi, Bonnie,
I really like this! It's extremely real-world and relevant. Thanks SO much! BTW, love your baby photo! (You're not really this age, right?! :) )
Janet

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dennis Dougherty 17 hours ago

Hi Bonnie, I think you make an excellent point that management needs to let people know which decision style they intend to use before conversations begin.

People need to know how they are going to participate in a decision. People will accept the 'style' of the decision when you are up front about how it is going to be made. People may become disappointed when they think they are headed into a co-creation session when in fact the boss has already made the decision. Be clear and give good directions. Post the list so everyone knows the style of the decision they are going to be involved in. Your direct reports can ask: "Is this a Sell, Consulting or a Co-creating decision?"

In the companion book to Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline, The Dance of Change, Rick Ross contributes a decision checklist that:

-- gives clear direction about decision styles
-- saves an organization's precious time
-- and keeps morale up.


Telling: The senior leader has studied a problem and has come to a conclusion on how it is going to be solved. The employees are instructed on what to do and are expected to do it. End of discussion.

Selling: This scenario is the same as above, except the senior leader needs to explain why the decision has been made without inviting buy-in.

Testing: The problem is described as is the solution. People are asked what they think? If compelling information is brought to light, the senior leader may rethink the solution and come back with another decision based on input.

Consulting: The problem is described and the senior leader does not have a solution and asks for input. After hearing enough the decision is made. The decision is still the senior leader's.

Co-creating: In this scenario, the problem and the solution are discussed and the decision is made together as a team. A consensus process takes more time, more interpersonal skills and maturity on the part of the team. Give people a goal as to when the decision has to be made. If a decision hasn't been made by then the senior leader will make the call. In the end, people can say they have been heard and have been understood and are willing to back the decision outside of the room wholeheartedly.

Ross believes that people tend to be more committed to decisions when they are co-created and suggests moving in that direction. Organizations face hundreds of decisions each day. It is not practical to convene a team to make every decision. What is critical is that the style of the decision be made clear at the beginning of the meeting. Leaders report that by using this tool a team can save over 20 to 30 percent of its time and avoid lot of resentment.

Cheers, Dd

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Isabelle Mahy on November 4, 2009 at 11:43am

Hello Janet,
confidentiality is an issue. The status of the caller is can also be a issue (consultant or employee). Is he - she doing this freely, with no obligation of results or is there an expectation from management? The ethical considerations linked to the participation to a research (ethics certificate you most probably have to obtain from the research board of your university) are also an issue. Are participants willing to be identified? If not, how will you go about harvesting? How will your intervention be sustainable inside the organization, this is a big ethical issue too.

One of my students is currently doing her masters on exactly the same topic. She planned and hosted an open space, so the intervention was part of the research. She has had to create her research design considering all of the above. If helpful, I can put you in touch.

All the best
Isabelle

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Janet Birgenheier on November 4, 2009 at 4:20pm

Thanks, Isabelle. Good thoughts!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christine Whitney Sanchez on November 4, 2009 at 4:06pm

Hi Janet,

A couple of quick thoughts.
~ I consider the principles and etiquette of World Cafe to partially describe the ethical context for doing our work.
~ I wonder if the Fielding Research Group might have some insights about ethics?

It's so cool that you are bringing World Cafe into the foreground as an example of a highly effective large group intervention! I appreciate Bonnie's and Isabelle's insights. Great discussion.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Janet Birgenheier on November 4, 2009 at 4:21pm

Hi, Christine,
Yes, I did think of describing the principles/etiquette in terms of ethics. Thanks for reinforcing that!
Janet

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Lynn on November 4, 2009 at 5:28pm

Hi Janet,
Ethics is always an interesting topic. For me, the question simply throws up further questions: What precisely do you mean by "ethical considerations"? Do others that you are interacting with (and/or speaking to in your paper) have the same interpretation? Whose ethics? ... And a completely hypothetical question at this stage - Would the participants in a WC have any issues/questions on these lines? This is, of course , a question that each group would need to answer for itself, and is possibly a theme for a whole session.
Hope this helps.
Warm regards
Eric

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ria Baeck on November 5, 2009 at 6:19am

Just a very quick note...

I notice that some consultants use World Café as 'large group intervention' - really as an intervention and not more than that. That is not in the true meaning of WC - or any of the other social technologies, like Open Space - because it is aimed at raising collective intelligence and collective wisdom, and to amplify the self-organisation and empowerment of the participants.

More can be said on this, but I hope you get my point...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lucinda Winslow on November 5, 2009 at 8:32am

Great considerations. To the point by Rhea, the ethics of a technology like World Cafe, Open Space, or the Vistar Method of Communication, and others, are high-principled to begin with. They are based on the premise that if we align in intention, together we can contact a deep wisdom and authentic intelligence inherent in the unified field of collective consciousness. The organizer, the implementer of the social/spiritual technology, is then the holder of the ethical parameters that others are invited into. If his/her/their focus is to follow significant questions into expansive possibility and actions for the whole, then as a whole we move up. If not, not. Perhaps the resultant actions ARE indicators (for I agree, the fuzzy conversation that end in diffuse talk and non-action seem vaguely wrong, for having raised hopes and wasted time.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Janet Birgenheier on November 5, 2009 at 10:00am

Hi, Lucinda,
I agree with you that World Cafe and other such methods are high-principled from the start. That's why I was struggling to think of ethical considerations. They're already embedded in the method. Thanks so much for your rich input.
Janet

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lucinda Winslow on November 6, 2009 at 4:49am

Hi Janet, such an interesting line of inquiry,though.
To me the friction comes in the actual implementation, with so many egos and conditioned responses at work. Subtler levels of ethics may be involved--for example, is it ethical that some conversations get dominated by the loudest, pushiest and most opinionated? (often a woman?) Is it ethical that some leave feeling they have not been heard, not because of evil intent, but because they act passively out of habit? How to raise the general level of conversation by encouraging more conscious debate beyond ego, blind spot, conditioning? This move upward would also seem to be raising the bar ethically for the whole. That is, by evolving our awakeness, our consciousness, together, we contact conscience and deeper/higher ethical involvement. I love these considerations!
Lucinda

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last