Community

by Peter Block

  CHAPTER 9

  The Small Group Is the Unit of Transformation

  The future is created one room at a time, one gathering at a time. Each gathering needs to become an example of the future we want to create. This means that the small group is where transformation takes place. Large-scale transformation occurs when enough small groups are aggregated to lead to a larger change. Small groups have the most leverage when they meet as part of a larger gathering. At these moments, citizens experience the intimacy of the small circle and are simultaneously aware that they are part of a larger whole that shares their concerns.

  The small group gains power with certain kinds of conversations. To build community, we seek conversations where people show up by invitation rather than mandate, and experience an intimate and authentic relatedness. We have conversations where the focus is on the communal possibility, and there is a shift in ownership of this place, even though others are in charge. We structure these conversations so that diversity of thinking and dissent are given space, commitments are made without barter, and the gifts of each person and our community are acknowledged and valued.

  • • •

  Communal transformation takes its most visible form in those moments when we gather. It is when groups of people are in a room together that a shift in context is noticed, felt, and reinforced. This means that each gathering takes on a special importance as a leading indicator of the future. Every meeting or special event is that place where context can be shifted, relatedness can be built, and new conversation can be introduced. The times that we gather are when we draw conclusions about what kind of community we live in.

  We change the world one room at a time. This room, today, becomes an example of the future we want to inhabit. There is no need to wait for the future. Creating the experience of belonging in the room we are in at the moment becomes the point, namely that the way we structure the assembly of peers and leaders is as critical as the issue or concerns we come together to address.

  One conventional structure for meeting is described in Robert’s Rules of Order. It is good at efficiency and containing conflict; it is also good at dampening energy. Even when Robert’s Rules do not apply, which is most of the time, our meetings typically pay primary attention to explanation, persuasion, and problem solving, rather than engagement, and in this way they also drain our aliveness. For community building, we want to give as much or more attention to that which creates energy as we give to the content, which usually exhausts energy.

  Creating energy is critical, for in our gatherings we have the most control and influence over shifting the context and public conversation. It is true that other factors, such as the media message and the policy stance of public figures, make a difference. The media has a large impact on the narrative of our community and our experience of it. Public policy can make what we do easier or more difficult. However, most citizens who want an alternative future, including some of the community’s leaders, have little short-term control over these factors. When there is a shift in the way citizens listen and speak, however, eventually there will be a shift in the context spoken by the media and the stance of public figures.

  Therefore, like it or not, the way we design our gatherings is the only way we can bring into existence the possibility of authentic community. Everything that occurs outside the room we are in at the moment is an abstraction and leads us into conversations of complaint and wishful thinking. There is no power in the complaint, no power in more explanations or talking about who else should be in the room. These conversations are a defense against citizen power and action.

  The Power of the Small Group

  All change includes work in one or more small groups, which is why we use the shorthand sentence “The small group is the unit of transformation.” The small group is the structure that allows every voice to be heard. It is in groups of three to twelve that intimacy is created. This intimate conversation makes the process personal. It provides the structure that enables people to overcome isolation and experience a sense of belonging. Even though we may be in a room filled with a large number of people we will never meet, by having made intimate contact with a handful of people in our small group work, we are brought into connection with all others.

  The small group is therefore the bridge between our own individual existence and the larger community. In the small group discussion, we discover that our own concerns are more universal than we imagined. This discovery that we are not alone, that others can at least understand what is on our mind, if not agree with us, is what creates the feeling of belonging. When this occurs in the same place and time, in the presence of a larger community, the collective possibility begins to take form and have legs. The small group, three of us talking in a room full of other small groups talking, is a close-at-hand example of the larger life and world we want to inhabit. It is evidence in the moment that change is possible.

  The power of the small group cannot be overemphasized. Something almost mystical, certainly mysterious, occurs when citizens sit in a small group, for they often become more authentic and personal with each other there than in other settings. Designing small group conversations (more about that later) is so simple that it rarely receives the attention and importance it deserves.

  The small group also offers a self-correcting quality when things are not going well. There are always times in any gathering when we become stuck. Energy is low, perhaps there is anger or cynicism in the room, or simply confusion, and we are unsure what to do. The best path in nearly every situation is to put our faith in citizens to identify and name what is occurring. Simply request people to form small groups of three or four and ask them to discuss what is going on and report back in ten minutes. This request need not be sophisticated. Simply say, “Form small groups of four and talk about how this meeting is going and to what extent we are getting what we came for.”

  In doing this, we ask the community to take responsibility for the success of this gathering and express faith in their goodwill, even if they are frustrated with what is happening. This act is a way of shifting power and accountability from leader to citizens; and in most cases, citizens will identify what needs to occur to get the action back on track. Doing this is an acknowledgment that critical wisdom resides in the community.

  The point is that every large group meeting needs to use small groups to create connection and move the action forward. As obvious as this might seem, it amazes me how many events and gatherings do not do it. How many conferences, summits, and events have we attended where the small group discussion is relegated to the breaks and thereby left to chance?

  The Role of the Large Group

  In gatherings where there are more than twenty people in the room—which I am calling the large group—we need to move back and forth from the small group to the large group. The same if there are a thousand in the room. There have to be moments when the whole room hears individual voices and what other small groups are speaking about. Holding to the metaphorical meaning of “the room as a microcosm of the universe,” when people share with a larger group, they are sharing with the world.

  These are the moments where individuals have an opportunity to stand for something. So, as a symbol of the larger purpose of the gathering, a person speaking to the whole literally needs to physically stand. As they “stand” for something for themselves, they are standing for the sake of all in the room. As each person stands, we ask their name so that they can be known for their stance.

  A place of belonging is one where all voices have value, so we need to make sure that citizens’ voices receive the same technological boost as leaders’. When people speak to the large group, their voices need to be amplified so that all can hear. Our belief in the importance of the voices of citizens hinges on what may seem like a secondary matter: the availability of a microphone for all who choose to speak.

  Having a standing microphone for citizens that they have to walk to and even line up behind does not c
ount. Most public meetings have leaders with their own mics and citizens traveling to a common mic. The geography of this disparity speaks volumes as to who is important (leaders) and therefore who has the future in their hands. Juanita Brown and David Isaacs have expressed the profound insight that every moment is a combination of methodology and metaphor. What may seem like a small procedural or technological matter is actually much more important than we have imagined because of its metaphorical message. The amplification of a human voice is a good example of this.

  What has slowly dawned on me over time is that the outcome of small and large group experiences is primarily determined by a set of details that I thought were incidental, as in the example mentioned here: people standing when they speak, the voice amplified so that the sound of the citizen is as clear as the sound of a leader.

  Another example: ask people making a powerful statement to the whole community to say it again slowly. They speak for all others who are silent, and in that way they speak for the whole. These can be sacred moments, and repetition honors this. One more detail along these lines: when people speak in a large group, they need to be acknowledged for the courage it took to speak out.

  Most of this way of being in groups is part of the emerging but well-established methodology often called large group interventions. These were noted in the first chapter. The intent throughout this book is to bring what has been facilitator technique into standard, everyday leadership practice, and to underline the potential power of these practices.

  A Couple of Role Models

  Mike McCartney is a longtime leader in Hawaii. His commitment as part of his Democratic Party work is to change the nature of the political debate there. He has been tireless in his effort to reframe elected officials as servant leaders and shift the conversation from problems and partisanship to the well-being of the whole community. Another leader who understands this s Jimmy Toyama. He also was a leader in the party who held a wider vision of the role a political party can play in society. To say that its main purpose is to win elections is too small a purpose. Jimmy held a series of conferences to create the conversation of possibility for the Democratic Party. Participants held conversations of gifts, ownership, and commitment . . . in small groups, with those they knew least. So simple, but very different from the usual party meeting. Jimmy is no longer chair of the party, but still gives his life to building community in Hawaii.

  Conversations That Count

  To say that the future is dependent on having conversations we have not had before does not mean that any new conversation will make a difference. So what specific kinds of conversations can create the relatedness and accountability that are the heart of a restorative context?

  To create a community of accountability and belonging, we seek conversations where the following is true:

  An intimate and authentic relatedness is experienced.

  The world is shifted through invitation rather than mandate.

  The focus is on the communal possibility.

  There is a shift in ownership of this place, even though others are in charge.

  Diversity of thinking and dissent are given space.

  Commitments are made without barter.

  The gifts of each person and our community are acknowledged and valued.

  These are the specific conversations that are central to communal transformation. It is when we choose to speak of invitation, possibility, ownership, dissent, commitment, and gifts that transformation occurs. This is the speaking and listening that is the linguistic shift that changes the context through which community can be restored and traditional problem solving and development can make the difference.

  There is a great deal written and practiced about creating new conversations, all of which is valuable and holds the same spirit as what will be offered here. Much of what is written is about handling difficult conversations in a way that builds relationships and holding crucial conversations that are important for the success of an organization. There has been for some time an important dialogue movement to help people understand their own mental models and listen more deeply as an act of inquiry.

  The types of conversations offered here, and explored in more depth in the next three chapters, are a little different in that they are aimed at building community, whereas many of the others are primarily aimed at individual development or improving relationships. Plus these community-building conversations are pointedly designed to confront the issue of accountability and commitment. That aside, all the movements toward shifting conversation are extremely valuable, and all serve to change the world in a positive way.

  CHAPTER 10

  Questions Are More Transforming Than Answers

  We can now be specific about defining the conversations that create trust, accountability, and connection. The essence of a productive community. The traditional conversations that seek to explain, study, analyze, define tools, and express the desire to change others are interesting but not powerful. They actually are forms of wanting to maintain control. If we adhere to them, they become a limitation to the future, not a pathway.

  The future is brought into the present when citizens engage each other through questions of possibility, commitment, dissent, and gifts. Questions open the door to the future and are more powerful than answers in that they demand engagement. Engagement is what creates accountability. How we frame the questions is decisive. They need to be ambiguous, personal, and stressful. The way we introduce the questions also matters. We name the distinction the question addresses by stating what is different and unique about this conversation. We give permission for unpopular answers and inoculate people against advice and help. Advice is replaced by curiosity.

  • • •

  The major theme here, that transformation and restoration occur through the power of language and how we speak and listen to each other, is rather abstract. Nice theory, but operationally how does this occur? What is the means to achieve the full impact of this idea?

  We begin by realizing, at a basic level, that we need a new conversation. Some will say we are already having these conversations. Maybe, but even if ownership, dissent, gifts, commitment, and possibility are on the agenda, they are rarely pursued in a way that causes a real shift. We need to identify a way to hold these conversations so that the chance of creating something new increases, so that they have the quality of aliveness we seek.

  The conversation is not so much about the future for the community but is the future itself. A parallel way to think of this is to consider the meaning of a yoga practice. Anyone beginning yoga struggles with the postures and cannot help but feel inadequate, have doubts about their body, and think the purpose of the practice is the core strength and flexibility it produces, or not. We are told—and sometimes get—that even the way we breathe can be a pathway to a better life.

  All this is true, but the larger insight, the meta-goal, is to realize that “how you do the mat is how you do your life.” That the practice of yoga itself is your life. Creating good postures, breathing, and flexibility are simply fringe benefits. It is your way of doing the practice itself that is the breakthrough, not some future moment in which a better state of being has been achieved. This way there is nothing to wait for, no future or objective measure of accomplishment to be attained.

  The same with certain conversations. Holding them in a restorative context—one of possibility, generosity, and gifts, in relationship with others—is as much the transformation as any place that those conversations might lead you. The right small group conversation releases aliveness and intention into the community. This creates the condition where the symptoms and fragmentation and breakdown can be healed. It is only within this context and communal aliveness that our skill at problem solving will make the difference.

  Conversations that evoke accountability and commitment can best be produced through deciding to value questions more than answers, by choosing to put as much thought into questions as we have tradition
ally given to answers.

  The Construction of Questions

  Questions are the essential tools of engagement. They are the means by which we are all confronted with our freedom. In this sense, if you want to change the context, find powerful questions.

  Questions create the space for something new to emerge. Answers, especially those that respond to our need for quick results, while satisfying, shut down the discussion, and the future shuts down with them. Most leaders are well schooled in providing answers and remain rather indifferent and naive as far as the use of questions goes. How many PowerPoint presentations have you seen flooded with answers, blueprints, analyses, and proposals? How many have you seen presenting questions?

  What makes us impatient with questions and hungry for answers is that we confuse exploring a question with talk that has no meaning—namely, opinions, positions, argument, analysis, explanation, and defense—talk that leaves us despairing about citizens coming together to create something. Questions that trigger opinions, argument, analysis, explanation, and defense have little power. It is significant that most of the meetings we go to, and the conversations we engage in, have these qualities. They may be interesting, but that is different than being powerful.

  Powerful questions, as opposed to interesting questions, are those that, in the answering, produce accountability and commitment. They are questions that take us to statements that have power, simply in the saying. These statements are requests, offers, and declarations and expressions of forgiveness, confession, gratitude, and welcome, all of which are memorable and have transformative power.