Deep Democracy Level 2 ppt Nov 2018 for participants v1

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.

Check-in
Based on what you experienced in the guided
meditation, check-in by answering the following
questions:
1. Introduce yourself - telling us a little about
who you are & what you do.
2. What has happened to you personally since
you last did Deep Democracy? Share what
feels comfortable.
3. (If relevant) Share how LDD has or has not
assisted you & what tools you have used. If
you can give an example of when & how you
have used it & what help you need.
4. What are your expectations for the course?
5. What part of you does not want to be here &
what would it take that part of you to come
along?

Flow of Level 2
Day 1 Day 2
Meditation Exercise 1 Meditation Exercise 2
Check-in Check-in: Participant facilitating
Refresher of Level 1 & menu for
Level 2
Introduction to Let's Talk
Let's Talk exercise #1: From
‘sides’
Let's Talk exercise #2: Argument
‘Business’ meeting (4 Steps from
‘leader’ position) + Practice in
small groups
Journal exercise #2
Journal exercise #1 Let's Talk exercise #3: Golden
Arrows
Practice Soft Shoe Shuffle (facilitator position) into Step 5 (Debate or
Argument)
Discussion on Neutrality + Neutrality Exercise
Role Mapping

Point 1: LDD’s aim
Bring more of the group’s wisdom into
conscious awareness,
by helping people say what needs to be
said,
through providing pragmatic tools designed
to do that.
Refresher: Difference between conscious &
unconscious?

Point 2: Metaskills =
attitudes one brings to
one’s work
Two essential ones in LDD are:
• Neutrality (not identifying with any
side, not attached to an outcome) ...
LDD take on it may provide a fresh
lens?
• Compassion (the ability to accept &
not judge any opinion or behaviour).
Develop metaskills through:
• Experiencing neutrality by moving between the positions of facilitator &
leader (as defined in LDD terms).
• Learning tools for metaskill development i.e. meditation, journaling
• Neutrality exercise which helps you regain your neutrality (+ via
neutrality dance you’ll do from the leader position in the 5 Steps).

Point 3: Arnold Mindell’s role
theory forms the underlying
theory of LDD
In Level 2 you will:
• Add to your awareness of role theory & how it is useful
(through journaling)
• Learn role mapping.

Point 4: Purpose behind LDD is
to get people to say what needs
to be said. When they don’t say
what they need to say, the
Resistance Line comes into play.
• Keep reflecting on how you & others may
be on the Line across a range of situations
such as in group & paired work.
Refresher: What are the steps along the
Resistance Line?

Inefficient and Ineffective
Resistance Line
Sarcastic
jokes
Excuses
Gossip/Lo
bbying
Poor
communication/
breakdown
Disruption
Go
slow
Strike
War/
withdrawal
Covert Overt

Point 5: The 1st 4 Steps in LDD
You will experience each of the 4 Steps from
the position of leader/chairperson ‘in a
business setting’ (you can compare how
similar/different it is compared to from the
position of facilitator)
There will be opportunities to practice.
Refresher: What are the 4 Steps?

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 and ask ‘what
would it take to come along?’
Step 5. The Debate/Argument
(with their own 3-4 Steps)
sent&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

Point 6: If Steps 1- 4 aren’t working &
the group is feeling stuck, then
cycling is probably occurring.
Cycling present = likely edge
behaviour is too
Refresher: What is cycling & edge
behavior?
• As soon as cycling or edge
behaviour occur = indication need
to change tools  Step 5 (to work
below the waterline) & do a
climate report (i.e. note polarity).
• Try to recognise edges & cycling
in the group & yourself.

Point 7: Step 5 (with own 3-4
Steps): Debate or Argument
Debate: For tension (not
conflict)
Argument: For conflict (has a
stronger emotional element)
Step 1: Gain agreement & set
the safety rules
Step 1: Say it all! Step 2: Say it all!
Step 2: What hit home / Owning
the grains of truth
the grains of truth
Step 3: Solve the issue/ Make
the decision
the decision
Learn about to do Step 5, the Debate & Argument, from both
the leader & facilitator position in relation to groups & in pairs
(Let’s Talk).

Point 7: Step 5 (with own 3-4
Steps): Debate or Argument
Learn about to do the Debate & Argument from
both the leader & facilitator position in relation to
groups & in pairs (Let’s Talk).

Modelling ‘business meeting’ & 5
Steps from the leader position
Hat on: When I’m ‘leading’
Hat off: Being a teacher
Lean in: When you are a leader in the
meeting expressing your view
Lean out: When you are being neutral &
sincerely wanting to hear all the views

When & how to use the Steps
• Most meetings are information giving. Not the time to 5
Steps, just use Step 4 (asking what people need to
come along)
• Use Steps when there is space/need for discussion &
collaborative decision making
• Be aware of your rank. If it is expected of you, speak
first
• When leading a meeting with colleagues/peers, it’s
often best not to state your view first, allowing people
not to be influenced by your views
• When working with clients or customers, best to allow
them to speak first. It enables them to state what they
need so you can respond to their specific needs

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

How
• Leader states their (true)
view 1st
• With what you say
• 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

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

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’
• If need bring in own ‘no’ – even
to your idea
• Listen for the ‘La-La-Li’

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, ‘la, la, li’
Why we do it
• Recognise person with ‘no’ = spokesperson
• Avoid scapegoating (seeing people as ‘difficult’)

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 and/or don’t feel
comfortable voicing it.

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

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
(and scapegoating)
• Supports resistance
line kept at bay

v
Yes: Acknowledge it by saying: “I feel a little like that ....” (in this
way you spread the role) and ask “who else feels a bit like this or
has another alternative view?”
No: “Does anyone else feel/think a bit like this?” (this being ‘no’
view said)
“Does anyone else have another point of view?”
How
As soon as you
hear a ‘no’ try and
get others to state
theirs. Know that it
won’t sound exactly
the same.
1st: Identify if you
have a
similar/congruent
‘no’/alternative
view.

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’

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

• 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, and 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

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

Journal work #1
• Help you become aware of your individual roles & gain some awarenesses.
• Recognise role theory & how roles you’re feeling are alive in others well.
Reminder: Roles are everything (ideas, opinions, views, emotions, symptoms,
archetypes).
Reflect on your time in the program so far (especially in ‘meetings’) & write down your answers
to:
What roles can you identify in yourself at the moment?
• What are your feelings?
• What are your views/opinions?
• Have you any symptoms?
• What archetypal roles are you being?
• Are you playing out your ‘typical’ role? How rigid/stuck are you in the role?
What can you do about this?
• How much do you think you are taking on a role in the group & if yes, ask
yourself why & what should you do about it?
What roles can you see in the group?
• What are the feelings?
• What are the views/opinions?
• Are there any symptoms?
• What archetypal roles are present?

How to recover
neutrality
In 3 steps

1. Know you’ve lost it
• Becoming drawn into discussion
• Strong feelings (towards a person)
• Body symptoms
• Attached to an outcome

Note/warning
• Usually become aware of it on your own
• If you don’t, group or a member of the group will
attack you (subtle or overt)
• 1st thing you need to check is your neutrality
• If lost neutrality apologise. Don’t deny it
Why?
• Position of authority, expected to know what’s happening
• Ultimate in double signals, linked with power dynamics
• Denying their reality, automatically, based on your authority,
so they’ll need to give up their own view
• Doubt their own sense of what is real which is
disempowering

2. Once aware you’ve lost
neutrality consciously put the
issue on a hook
 back into neutrality, knowing you’ll return
in 1st available opportunity

During the break need to become aware of
what hooked you & why
• What’s it suggesting about you?
• May already have insights but may not
• Find out through using Neutrality Exercise
(tool for recovering neutrality when you’ve lost
it)

Neutrality Exercise
• May/will be revealing
• About someone that you find difficult or who
you admire very much
1. Choose a person
2. Don’t pick most complicated person or who
is very close to you, possibly rather a person
at work or friend
3. Don’t need to name the person
• Will do the exercise in dyads (pairs)

Model
I’m going to ask you to:
• Walk like the person
• Talk like the person &
• To as far as possible be the person
I’ll:
• Be doing what you’re doing alongside you
• Take what you’re doing & making it bigger,
if it could be described as pink – I’ll ask you to
make it redder
• Won’t be engaging you in a discussion but
rather helping you through your process

Practice exercise: What to do
To start ask person to have a person clear in their
mind &:
• Walk like the person,
• Talk like the person &
• To as far as possible just be the person.
As progresses:
• Ask them to make it bigger “If what you’re
doing/their behavior could be described as pale
pink, exaggerate it until it becomes deeper pink”.
“Now red, maroon etc”
• Be alongside side them & make words/movements
bigger
• Encourage

Coming to an edge to an awareness & say that they cannot do
anymore, kiss them over the edge:
• “Do it just a little longer”, “stay with it”
• “You are near the end & you will have a sudden awareness, keep
with it”
As the participant goes over the edge  sudden awareness (what
they see in the other is actually a part of themselves)
• Likely not exactly the same, similar, will see their shadow side
With gentleness, to enable the participant to look at themselves &
feel supported through this exposing time. Questions that can help
this is:
• “Any awareness you’ve had about this person?” Hopefully they
have the projection & once they have the projection ..
• “Try to look at the person that you were being again & see if
anything changes, how what you’ve noticed is true for you”
• “How do you think you’ll now be in relation to the person?”

Neutrality Exercise Practice
1. Begin in dyads, person A goes 1st to work on recovering
neutrality with someone, person B is assisting.
2. A selects someone who is triggering her (person C-a work
colleague or friend).
3. A imitates the behavior of C that she finds difficult.
1. B facilitates A to amplify being like C.
2. B encourages A to continue even when A hits her edge &
wants to stop, “kissing” her over her edge.
3. A is asked to notice what she is becoming aware of in
herself, and how she will now be in relation to person C.

Introduction to Let’s Talk
• Based on belief ‘engaging with tension
etc. = key to growth’. Consequences of
not = greater
• Simple tool for decision-making & dealing
with tension, conflict etc.
• Derived from Step 5 of LDD method.
• Various adaptations depending on the
circumstances (designed for two people)

Benefits, why we do it
• Understand another person’s point of
view, & to know ourselves more deeply
• Build relationship & resolve tensions
created by misunderstandings/conflicting
interests (often swept under carpet)
• Get to the heart of things quite quickly
• If want/need have a relationship & work &
learn together, helps us do that, even if
may not want to be best friends

Refresher on Step 5 (for
working ‘below the
waterline’) & 3-4 steps
within
Debate: For tension (not
conflict)
Argument: For conflict
Step 1: Gain agreement & set
the safety rules
Step 1: Say it all! Step 2: Say it all!
the grains of truth
the grains of truth
the decision
the decision

Let’s Talk exercise #1
From ‘sides’ (making a
decision)
1. Going to do it in ‘roles’. Remember: Role = view/opinion/feeling.
Each of the two ‘sides’ of the decision = a ‘role’
2. Consider topic & who to partner with

Step 1: Say it all!
Do’s & Don'ts
• Do start sitting side by side & both speak from both sides.
• Do say things sharp & clear. Say everything you’re feeling about
issue/idea. Don’t hold back!
• Do listen to the other person.
• Do take turns to say everything, not holding back, other side just
listens.
• Do both sides at least twice until you both feel that you’re
completely done and have said everything there is to be said. Then
move on to Step 2.
• Don’t defend. Don’t state your view as a reaction to the other's
view. Leave out the "because" & "but" etc.
• Don’t play tennis where you go back & forth and you defend your
views.
• Don’t interrupt.
• Don’t struggle to be polite, be direct.

the grains of truth
Both need to identify at least one truth that hit home & (if
possible/relevant) what it’s saying about you.
• Do Use ‘I’ statements
• Don’t defend or put a “but” in your statement. For
example, don’t say “You said that mergers always are
difficult but there are instances where it has worked.”
Rather say "It's true that mergers are difficult", i.e.
stating the truth with no defense.
• If find yourself falling back into discussion in this stage,
go back to step 1 & keep saying what needs to be said
before continuing with Step 2.
• Do summarise (succinctly)

Step 3: Solve the issue/Make the
decision
Now have insights & know new things about
ourselves & each other – use them to decide on the
issue we are trying to tackle.
Grain/s your basing your decision on could be yours
and/or your partners.
“I’d like to make a decision that we/I do x”
If decision impacts both of you, both have to agree
with decision. If one does not agree, ask ‘what do
you need to come along?’

Reminder of Role Theory
• Often see ourselves as separate from each other
• When we look closely can recognise that we are
part of a greater whole
• Using the iceberg analogy only a small part
(conscious part) exists above the waterline
• Live in a common sea of experiences & emotions
which lie below the waterline of our conscious
behaviour but affect it

• While we have our own unique lens on
how we view issues, due to living in this
common sea, what the other person
perceives or experiences, we will have
at some point also
• May not be exactly the same but they’ll be
similar aspects or textures

Argument between two people (in
proxy)

‘By proxy’ means that the person you’re
speaking to, having an argument with,
isn’t the actual person opposite you
Need to pick a real person in your life that you’re having
an argument/difficulty with, this is the person that you’re
going to ‘talk’ to today.
• For example in your dyads (A & B), person A may be
the proxy for an old colleague that person B still has
issues with or their current partner, whilst person B may
be proxy for a boss who bullied Person A or person A’s
sister.
• If you wish can give 1 – 2 words of who they are, no
need.
Talk directly to the person (you’re having an
argument/difficulty with) rather than talking about the
person. i.e. ‘you do this …’ rather than ‘she always does
…’

Step 1: Gain agreement & set the
safety rules
• Issue little deeper may time & is critical to
set safety rules = Significant difference
between using Let’s Talk from ‘sides’ &
having an argument
• May be important to stress that we will be
staying in relationship
• Remember one implied LDD safety rule ‘no
one has a monopoly on the truth’.
• If one person does not agree ask “what will
they need to go along?”

Step 2: Say it all!
• Tend to not tell people what annoys,
irritates us etc
• Feelings build up like arrows in a
quiver
• Opportunity to empty your quiver,
say all the things built up over time
• May take more time & not be as playful
as exercise #1

Step 2: Say it all!
• Decide who will go 1st
• Person A says everything they have to say to i.e. the
past boss (represented by person B)
• Other person listens & not respond
• Switch sides
• Other person (person B) goes & says everything they
need, think and feel to i.e. their old colleague
(represented by person A)
• First person listens & doesn’t respond
Neither responds to the other; it’s like having two
conversations going at the same time.
Repeat at least twice but go as many times as
necessary, until both feel that you’re completely done &
emptied your quiver.

Do’s & Don’ts
Very similar to in roles but adjusted to reflect
there might be a bit more heat in the argument
between two people.
• Do say things sharp and clear. For example: “You are always late! It
makes me angry!”
• Do take turns in saying everything you have to say, not holding back
anything, while the other side just listens.
• Do listen to the other person.
• Don’t defend. Don’t say: “I don’t finish my Reports in time because
you don’t give me the data”. Rather just state your views “You never
give me the data on time!”.
• Don’t be polite. For example, don’t say: “I feel like it’s not so nice
that you are not so aware of the time”. Rather say “You are not
aware of time.” or, “You are not aware of time; it annoys me.”
• Don’t go into a discussion & slide into defending.
• Don’t play tennis.
• Don’t interrupt when the other person is speaking.

Step 3: What hit home/Owning the
grains of truth
• Both people own at least one insight & what
it’s saying about you
• Use ‘I’ statements & what it’s saying about
you
• Be gentle with yourself when you look at the
arrow. Take it out gently & discover what is
true
If you find yourself attacking the other side
again in this stage, it means you haven’t
properly finished Step 2.

Step 4: Solve the issue / Make the
decision
• Step 3 should have helped lessen the tension
& have a healing effect
• As a result of the better feelings & the new
found awarenesses, both parties can decide
how to be with one another in the future &
how to tackle issues
• Any decisions you want to make based on
your awarenesses/insights? If one does
not agree, ask ‘what do you need to come
along?’

Golden arrows: ‘Arrows of
appreciation’/positive feedback (in the room
or in proxy) Positive arrows
seem easier to
do, may be
more difficult.
Why?
• Not so used to
giving &
receiving
compliments.
• Embarrassed
to listen.
Stay & sit it

Step 1: Gain agreement & set the
safety rules
• Will expose & deepen the relationship.
• Make sure that you both want to do it &
timing is appropriate.
• If one person does not agree ask “what will
they need to go along?”

Step 2: Say it all (shoot your
golden arrows)!
• One person starts & shares as
much as possible, try & empty
quiver
• Second person listens then goes as if
the other hadn’t spoken – without
reacting or responding to the first
person
• Repeat until quiver emptied

Step 3: What hit home/Owning the
grains of truth
• Take that arrow/s & look at it, acknowledge
it & integrate it into your self image. This
may be a fresh insight/new perspective
about yourself & your impact in the world.
• Try to own as many arrows as possible as
these Golden Arrows are helpful insights.

Step 4: Make the decision/take the
wisdom back
• Any decisions you want to make based
on your awarenesses/insights? If one
does not agree, ask ‘what do you need to
come along?’

Step 4: Solve the issue/Take the
wisdom back
• Incorporate new learnings back into your
life, how you can further empower yourself
& maximise your true potential, & how you
can incorporate the grains into the
relationship with one another & with
others.
• Any decisions you want to make based
on your awarenesses/insights?

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).
Communication Vices

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” 
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.

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?”

Deep Democracy Level 2 ppt Nov 2018 for participants v1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Deep Democracy Level 2 ppt Nov 2018 for participants v1

Similar to Deep Democracy Level 2 ppt Nov 2018 for participants v1 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Deep Democracy Level 2 ppt Nov 2018 for participants v1

Editor's Notes