[Ailist] Re: Connecting with Others

[Cheri Torres]

Kevin and Rob,

I read emails backwards--now I know what you meant, Rob, by collaborator. 

The heart of what you are saying, Kevin, is what I was suggesting in my last
post as a challenge--honoring all voices while finding the way
forward--potentially generating new knowledge jointly.

Kevin, you mention scholarly inquiry--can you post references, please.  I'm
interested in them all, and especially any that actually offer insight into
or actual means for the "how" and "with whom"--for me, the practical
application is what is challenging. 

Thanks,
Cheri

-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Kevin Kervick
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:52 AM
To: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: [Ailist] Re: Connecting with Others

Hello Rob:

> My friend then responded:  "If I could help you make sure your company is
> secure without having to annihilate the competition would that work for 
> you."
> To which the client responded "sure, that would be great."
>
> So my strategy would be to explore what are the underlying core values 
> that the
> people I disagree with have.  To I also share those values.  is there a 
> way we can
> find a strategy to achieve those deeper values, and is that strategy 
> consistent
> with the deeper values.

I actually like this rather honest approach very much, although I would 
disagree with you that this is neutral curiosity.  There is a growing debate

within psychotherapy, my first profession, about whether a talk therapist 
should impose his values on a client whom seems to be coming from a 
destructive place, or at a minimum a different place.  I believe we should. 
Your friend's comments above indicated that he disagreed with the client's 
strongly held convictions about annihilation.  But he intervened in a 
respectful way.  Had he said, OK, like many consultants would have done and 
then went about his merry way of creating change without an annihilation 
strategy, that would have been a lie.  Your friend had integrity.

This is the type of well-differentiated relating I am trying to describe in 
my own work.  In the polarized argument we have collaborators (nice people) 
on one side and dominators (mean people) on the other.  I say and the 
example above indicates there is a more powerful middle ground.  This is 
what I say about that middle ground in a paper:

This conversation has polarized with "dominators" on one side of the 
discussion and "collaborators" on the other side of that conversation. 
Essentially, dominators believe that one side usually wins and imposes its 
views on the other.  Collaborators believe that people respect differences 
and compromise.  The premise to be explored in this study is whether there 
might be a more powerful middle ground between the dominator and 
collaborator paradigms.  There is some emerging scholarly inquiry about the 
potential for this new paradigm, that I refer to as interpersonal wisdom, 
but the polarization, which also tends to be connected to political identity

and nationalism, is interfering with much needed scholarly temperance in the

search for truth. Political Right - Left identity phenomenon and groupthink 
dynamics are blocking creativity.

Kevin 
_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles
School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list
administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist