The document discusses the principles and tools of Deep Democracy, an approach to group decision making. It explains that Deep Democracy aims to create a safe environment where all views can be expressed to reach real and lasting change. There are five steps to the process: gain all views, make it safe to express dissent, spread dissenting views, vote and ask dissenters what is needed for their support, and resolve tensions through debate. The goal is to involve everyone, make informed decisions, and minimize resistance that slows effectiveness. Neutral facilitation is key to applying the various tools successfully.

1. Pru Gell
“How groups make decisions, & have discussions, shapes the
kind of culture that they have & if people don’t feel heard,
or safe to talk, they resist (decisions & more)”
Myrna Lewis, From Inside the No: Five Steps to Decisions That Last, 2008.

2. Main purpose of Deep Democracy tools = have
a roadmap to make it safe(r) to say what needs
to be said so we can achieve real and lasting
change
can be uncomfortable but it’s harder, even more
uncomfortable, to deal with consequences of not
We achieve this through:
1. ‘Lowering the waterline’
2. Facilitators being able to skillfully practice the metaskill of
neutral
3. Role fluidity

3. 1. é people feeling heard & levels of
engagement therefore people are less
drawn to act out resistant behaviours
(that when present really slows down
effectiveness)
2. Make well informed decisions that
people buy-in to (& therefore less likely
to waste time revisiting discussions &
decisions made)
3. Resolve/transform moment to moment
tension (rather than solely deal when
tensions have progressed/become
really stuck) … until the next one
comes along
Benefits of
Deep
Democracy?

4. Module: The waterline
(conscious &
unconscious) &
understanding resistance

5. 1. Conscious & unconscious
(basic theoretical assumption
of Deep Democracy)
2. How decision-making
shapes what’s in the
conscious/unconscious of a
group
3. Resistance Line
4. Majority democracy

6. CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS What some
people in the
group are
aware of but
others are not
What everyone
in the group are
aware of
Group’s
Wisdom &
Potential
(so lower the
water line)
Irrational/
emotional
Rational/
logical
Part 1. Conscious &
Unconscious

7. How Lewis Deep Democracy differs
from some other facilitation
approaches
Majority of issues, behaviors etc
informed/stem from emotions, aka
from unconscious
Lot happening in unconscious of
any group that affects conscious
happenings of a group
… Therefore rational/logical
approaches don’t work
Lewis Deep Democracy tools factor
this in

8. Part 2. How
making shapes the
conscious/unconscious of
a group

9. CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS
Group’s
Wisdom &
Potential
Not
everyone
aware
Irrational/
emotional
Everyone
aware
Rational/
logical
Decision-
making style
shapes what’s
in a groups
conscious or
unconscious
or in other
words, what
people are
aware of &
what they are
not

10. CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS
Decision-making
(& discussion)
style shapes
what’s in groups
conscious or
unconscious
+ How likely people are
to go along with decision
or onto Resistance Line.
If feel safe to talk &
heard in discussions &
decisions ê levels of
resistance.
+ Shapes if potential
growth & informed
decisions/outcomes
achieved
Autocratic, once
leader leaves
true views
feelings unheard
à build up to
resistance
activities

11. Inefficient & ineffective
Part 3. Resistance Line
Sarcastic jokes
Excuses
Gossip
and/or
lobbying
Poor
communication/
breakdown
Disruption
Go slow
Strike
War/
withdrawal
Covert Overt

12. The
Resistance
Line
Continuum,
not
necessarily in
order
Resistance isn’t
‘bad’ = very
understandable
response not
feeling heard
over timeBeing on it =
indicator not with
popular view nor
saying openly
what needs to be
said è to conflict Longer views (that
need to be said) not
heard & issues/
tensions not resolved
they get bigger.
Won’t go away

13. Inefficient & ineffective
Part 3. Resistance Line
Sarcastic jokes
Excuses
Gossip
and/or
lobbying
Poor
communication/
breakdown
Disruption
Go slow
Strike
War/
withdrawal
Covert Overt

14. Reflect on experiences of losing
the ‘vote’, being in the minority,
what do you tend to do?
Part 4: Majority
Democracy

15. Without using tools to make it safe(r) to say what needs to be
said (unconscious into conscious aka lower the waterline) you
may feel resistance or lack of buy-in, but can’t label it or
identify how or why it’s happening.
Using tools to create participation, collaboration can be
empowering & enables:
• Genuine buy-in to decisions made
• Resistance Line kept at bay through minority being brought
on board with the majority decision (this is done by asking ‘what would it
take you to come along?’ More on that in the 5 Steps).
• Wisdom of the group tapped
Revisiting how decision-making
impacts on group dynamics

16. Module:
Metaskills & the 5 Steps
The 5 Steps are a way/etiquette for holding,
meetings & discussions. Steps 1 – 4 are for
working above the waterline (rational/logical)
& Step 5 for working below the waterline
(emotional).

17. Irrational/Emotional
Step 5: The Debate/Argument (has own 3-4
steps)
Rational/Logical
Step 1. Gain all of the views
Step 2. Make it safe to say ‘no’/alternative view
Step 3. Spread the say ‘no’/alternative view
Step 4: Summarise views, take a vote & ask ‘what will it take you to
come along’
Steps 1-3 are
for
discussions
Steps 4 &
5 are for
decisions
etaskills
esent&the&Video&or&PowerPoint,&or&add&to&Diagram&&
There are five Steps to DD; the first four are above the water line.
All the Steps fall under the umbrella of Metaskills
Metaskills are the attitude one brings to the tools
A way to think about the Metaskills or attitude is by way of an example:
A butcher and a surgeon both use a knife but one hopes that the attitude that the surgeon
Step 5 for tension/
conflict
transformation

18. • Gain greater participation & buy in (stay on
the bus)
• Involve & empower people
• Make sounder, wiser, better decisions
• Helps facilitators be less autocratic
• Minimise ineffective & inefficient decision-
making that results from people being on the
Resistance Line
Why we use the 5 Steps

19. • Package, bits & pieces
• Solo, 1-on-1, small è large group
• Meetings needing discussion,
brainstorming, collaboration,
decision-making (but not if just
sharing information)
• General conversation
• Simple à Difficult decisions &
• discussions
• Want to surface all the views
• Trying to involve & empower others
r personal experiences – give your own views.
s
e&Video&or&PowerPoint,&or&add&to&Diagram&&
ve Steps to DD; the first four are above the water line.
When to use the 5 Steps

20. All steps under
umbrella of
Metaskills
Metaskills =
Attitude applied
to the tools
Ability be use
Deep Democracy
toolkit based on
ability to use
Metaskills
Neutrality = main
Metaskill
Neutrality = ability to
suspend viewpoint &
attachment to outcome
(not to not have views
or feelings but to be
able hold them aside)
Metaskills

21. 5 Steps
Step 1: Gain all of the views
Step 2: Make it safe to say ‘NO’
(alternative view)
Step 3: Spread the ‘NO’ (alternative
view)
Step 4. Vote & ask ‘what would it
take to come along?’
Step 5. The Debate/Argument
(with their own 3-4 Steps)
esent&the&Video&or&PowerPoint,&or&add&to&Diagram&&
There are five Steps to DD; the first four are above the water line.

22. Why we do it
• Feel valued & heard
• More information
• Reduces/prevents
time on the Resistance
Line
Step 1. Gain all of the views

23. How
• With what you say ‘I’m
genuinely interested in hearing
all of the views/your views’
• Don’t summarise
• Model talking from ‘I’:
• 2nd/3rd person generalities slow
& no real decision made,
accountability through ‘I’
• Metaskill of neutrality
• Address Communication Vices

24. Why we do it
• Inevitably different opinions
• Recognising ‘no’/alternative view is very
counter intuitive. People may look for
agreement/unity & find the ‘no’ uncomfortable
o Different views ignored, glossed over, dealt with
politely
o Feel unsafe. So striving to allow space for the
‘no’
• Varied opinions = ‘rub’ of diversity, innovative
solutions aris
• Being open to ‘no’ à reduces time on the
Resistance Line
Step 2. Make it safe to say ‘no’/
alternative view

25. How
• Be aware of tone & ensure address
all sides equally
• Actively search for & encourage the
various, minority & alternative views
(not people) to be voiced ‘other
views’, ‘any views we haven’t heard
yet’, ‘new views’

26. v
Step 3. Spread the say ‘no’/alternative
view
Spreading the ‘no’ can feel highly counterintuitive as are now
more ‘no’s’ in the room
One brave soul will say ‘no’/alternative view (for other people
who are silent in the room)
We’ll know it’s a ‘no’, because it often sounds/feels different
Why we do it
• Recognise person with ‘no’ = spokesperson
• Avoid scapegoating (seeing people as ‘difficult’)

27. Be aware that there are other ‘no’s’ or differing views.
Funny thing is, if different opinion has space to be heard
That opinion, no matter how unpopular it is, is alive & well in the minds of
others too.
Perhaps the others find it hard to accept that deep down they see the
truth/reality of this opinion &/or don’t feel comfortable voicing it.

28. So prevent scape goating by
Encouraging those who have
a similar opinion to speak out
even if it doesn’t sound
exactly the same

29. v
Why we do it (continued)
• Encourage participation,
make it feel safe(r) to
• Creates climate for others
to disagree
• More share naysayer role,
prevents role being
personalised (&
scapegoating)
• Supports Resistance Line
being kept at bay

30. v
“Does anyone else feel/think a bit like this?” (this being ‘no’ view said)
“Does anyone else have another point of view?”
Do this in a way that is easeful, like spreading butter on warm toast
How
As soon as you hear a
‘no’ try & get others to
state theirs. Know that it
won’t sound exactly the
same.
Ask …

31. Why we do it
• After a vote minority view becomes part of
unconscious. Therefore can act as doorway to the
deeper wisdom
Remember:
o Doesn’t mean their view wiser … but note position of
minority … under waterline = closer to the wisdom.
Not tangled in majority
o All ideas relevant
o Minority view &/or what they needs to come with,
has wisdom to add (value) to the majority view
Step 4. Summarise views, take a vote & ask ‘what
will it take you to come along’

32. Why we do it
• By not expecting the minority to
cede & go along with majority &
asking them ‘the question’
o They’ll add wisdom
o Ensure buy-in
o Reduce resistance

33.
• Summarise key options
• Take a hands up vote (1 person, 1 vote)
• Note if there’s a clear majority (2/3 or ¾)
• Ask the minority (1 person at a time) what would they need to go along with the
decision:
“I’m sorry that you lost the vote.
However the majority will tend to have its way. That’s gravity!
However, you might have some insight/wisdom to add, & to ensure that you will
come along, with more ease than being pressured or ignored, what will you need?”
• Add wisdom back to original decision
• Vote again on modified decision
How

34. Find the wisdom that the ‘no’ represents
Minority have insight majoring are not seeing
Insights from the minority will add value to the majority decision

35. Step 5 (for working
‘below the
waterline’)
Debate: For tension (not conflict) Argument: For conflict
Step 1: Gain agreement & set the
safety rules (standard = nobody has
monopoly on the truth)
Step 1: Say it all (from sides) Step 2: Say it all (from sides)
Step 2: What hit home / Owning the
grains of truth
Step 3: What hit home / Owning the
grains of truth
Step 3: Solve the issue/ Make the
decision
Step 4: Solve the issue/ Make the
decision

36. Module:
Check-in
A Check-in is a way to connect
at the start of any meeting of
two or more people.

37. How
• Introduce it (call it what you like!),
share guidelines (& why you do it?)
• Set & respond to 1 à ? questions (@
least one on feelings & another on
expectations)
• Go popcorn style
• Be very present & be neutral
(respond to people the same)
• Invite everyone but not force it
• Let everyone be heard (no
interruptions or conversation)
• To close summarise
(key objectives &/or themes) don’t
attribute to people
Check-in

38. Why
• Humans not cogs
• Insights
• Dynamic relevant
agenda
• Build Psychological
Safety
• Normalises sharing
• Otherwise pre-frontal
cortex not available
Check-in

39. Module:
Communication
Vices
Communication Vices are five common
things that happen in meetings that thwart
effective & safe conversations.

40. 1. Not being Present
This is when your body is present but your mind has left the room.
Antidote: Try to get everyone to participate, & stay in the room a) changing
tools might help + b) voting process.
2. Interruptions
Missing the point by cutting off the last part of a statement. Note, it often
carries the significant message.
Antidote:
1. Make people conscious that they are interrupting.
2. Ask the group to decide whether interrupting one another is acceptable
or not.
3. Request people to keep their comments brief (if appropriate).

41. 3. Indirect Speaking
We use vague references instead of being direct. There are 3 common
ways of being indirect.
4.1 Not speaking from the ‘I’, speaking in the 3rd person
People tend to speak in the third person, & say: “One should” à They are not
saying “I want to …”
Antidote: Encourage people to talk from the ‘I’.
4.2 Speaking generally or not addressing the person directly
This refers to people speaking in general terms, rather than expressing something
directly.
Antidote: Encourage people to address one another directly in the first person.
4.3 Angel-winging
This refers to a person speaking on behalf of someone else. “He felt x when y
happened”,
Antidote: Make sure people speak for themselves.

42. 4. Sliding rather than Deciding
Often conversations slides into different topics or change without people
consciously agreeing on the direction.
Antidote:
Make the group conscious that they may be/are sliding off the topic suggest
they decide the direction i.e. “decide not slide”.
5. Questioning
We often use questions - especially in group settings - as a way of making a
statement in a soft or cushioned way.
Antidote: Gently challenge a question that doesn’t seem to reflect a genuine
request for information: “Are you making a statement or do you genuinely not
know?”

43. Module: Role
fluidity
(Please note that this is part of a larger
module of theory called ‘Role
Theory’)

44. People tend to get stuck in roles. For example Leaders and
Followers as represented above as ‘F’ and ‘L’.
Greater roles become stuck =
é projection takes place (see next slide)
é the group gets polarised & conflicted,
ê health,
ê group grows
True change does not take place.

45. Leaders & followers

46. Through spreading the ‘no’ or different view, we resolve the role of
leader. Each person at any point in time can become the leader.
Through being neutral in using the DD Steps the leader is able to
encourage others to take back their power. This is not all the time,
but when the leader wants to facilitate & spread their role.
Through achieving fluidity of roles:
• Water line drops
• Start dealing with the roles that were stuck i.e. that of leader &
follower through ‘owning’ our projections.

47. When there is role
fluidity, magic
(quantum change)
occurs. The issue no
longer stays between
red & green, but
something else
emerges.

48. Spreading the ‘no’/alternative views à ‘resolve the roles’ (do
something to shift/transform/get new insights on) via:
• Step 3
• Debate Step 2 & Argument Step 3 ‘own your insights’
With fluidity true transformation, real change, can then take
place. Goal of Deep Democracy.
How to create role fluidity?