I am an instunent, I am finely tuned. I am an outsider, not part of the current debate. I risk vulnerability and lead the way as a demostration. I have done my homework with fairness, transparency, truthfulness and presence. I am an instunent, I am finely tuned.
"They had determined that I was trustworthy, which I would suggest is short of trust. They were willing to risk vulnerability, in part, because I had demonstrated fairness, transparency, truthfulness and presence... enough to take a risk on the process." On Wednesday, 12 February 2014, Chris Kloth <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for your question, Eric. > > I was going to make a quick response when I tripped over an artichoke full > of thoughts and feelings I am trying to get to the heart of. Please be > patient as I try to honor your very good question with a a worthy answer. > > -- > Shalom, > > Chris Kloth > ChangeWorks of the Heartland > 254 South Merkle Road > Bexley, OH 43209-1801 > ph 614-239-1336 > fax 614-237-2347 > www.got2change.com > > > Quoting Eric Hansen <[email protected]>: > > Hi, Chris: >> >> I know I am a stranger on this list. My wife, Elaine Hansen, I think is >> more >> active, and is friends with Suzanne Daigle, who also responded to your >> post. >> I did not respond on top of Suzanne's response so as not to "muddy the >> waters." None of which matters except to provide some context for who I >> am. >> >> You're email caught my eye for several reasons. The comment that struck me >> most is this one: >> >> "They had determined that I was trustworthy, which I would suggest is >> short >> of trust. They were willing to risk vulnerability, in part, because I had >> demonstrated fairness, transparency, truthfulness and presence... enough >> to >> take a risk on the process." >> >> I am wondering: Could you tell me (us) more about why, for you, >> trustworthiness falls short of trust. >> >> I am not asking you to justify the distinction, only to explain it more. >> At >> this point, I do not understand. >> >> If you do decide to provide an answer, I would then invite you to answer >> one >> more question: >> >> Why is that distinction important to you? Again, I am not asking you to >> justify that distinction. I am, instead, inviting you to reflect on why >> the >> distinction has meaning for you and then to share that meaning with the >> list. >> >> Eric Hansen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Kloth >> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:05 PM >> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list >> Subject: [OSList] Interdependence and Vulnerability: a delayed reframe re: >> Trust >> >> I have re-read the Trust thread several times. I noted the passion and >> thoughtful reflections it triggered. >> >> Like the rest of you, over the many years (decades) I have been engaged in >> working with individuals, groups, organizations and communities the issue >> of >> trust has certainly been raised as an explicit or implicit source of >> concern >> when people are having difficulty getting something done. >> >> At the risk of both sacrilege and hyperbole, I think trust is overrated, >> or >> at least misunderstood. Here is an OST story I hope helps explain my >> perspective. >> >> About 20 years and several governors ago a statewide community mental >> health >> system I was working with was deeply enmeshed in turmoil. There were three >> major factions: rural agencies, urban agencies and the state oversight >> agency. They were all actively engaged in lawsuits against one another. >> Then >> the state legislature introduced a piece of legislation that all three >> factions strongly opposed because of the negative consequences for people >> suffering from mental illness. However, a series of highly publicized >> individual tragedies (circumstances beyond their control - control is >> always >> such an illusion) made it seem likely the legislation would pass. >> >> I was asked to help find a way for the three factions to work together to >> defeat or amend the legislation. After considerable pre-work I proposed >> OST >> as a way to proceed. A group of 6 people (2 from each >> faction) worked for the better part of a day to craft a question to >> convene >> a larger group to explore. The first half of the planning day was fairly >> tense and colored by the mistrust they all brought into the room. >> Crafting a >> question that would reflect their shared interests required owning their >> distinct interests, which initially tended to reinforce their mistrust of >> one another. By the end of the day they had a question they all agreed was >> sufficiently compelling to attract a significant cross-section of their >> world to gather, talk and listen. >> >> What they did NOT have by the end of the day was trust of one another. >> What they had determined was that they could not succeed in achieving >> their >> shared outcome without one another. They were interdependent, which also >> meant they were vulnerable. They had determined that I was trustworthy, >> which I would suggest is short of trust. They were willing to risk >> vulnerability, in part, because I had demonstrated fairness, transparency, >> truthfulness and presence... enough to take a risk on the process. >> >> Approximately 100 people, a credible cross-section of people from all over >> the state, gathered in open space to explore their question... to figure >> out >> what, if anything, they were able and willing to do together. >> They were the right people doing the right work. I was not surprised they >> found ways to work together to address their shared concerns. What did >> surprise me was that, in the process of addressing their common threat >> they >> "inadvertently" discovered opportunities to begin to resolve the lawsuits >> that had been pending for years. Of course, all these years later I would >> not be surprised. I might even have expected it, though I would not have >> suggested it as a possible outcome at the front end of the process. >> >> The question remains, did they trust each other during and after working >> in >> Open Space? I would say they trusted each other and the process just >> enough >> to risk vulnerability in this particular situation because they knew they >> needed each other. They laid a foundation for building trust over time. >> Over >> the next several years they experienced gains and setbacks, largely due to >> larger social and political conditions beyond their control. (Again, >> control >> is always such an illusion.) >> >> However, despite the ebbs and flows in their level of trust, they were >> able >> and willing to continue to risk vulnerability because they knew they >> needed >> each other... they were authentically interdependent. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- >> Please note that my new e-mail address is [email protected]. You >> may also contact me by using the Contact Page at www.got2change.com. >> >> Shalom, >> >> Chris Kloth >> ChangeWorks of the Heartland >> [email protected] >> www.got2change.com >> phone - 614.239.1336 >> fax - 614.237.2347 >> >> Think Globally, Act Locally >> >> Please think about the environment before printing this e- > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > -- Kári Gunnarsson [email protected] gsm: +354 8645189
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
