The document discusses the principles and tools of Lewis Deep Democracy, which emphasize the importance of creating a safe environment for open communication and decision-making within groups. It explores how decision-making influences group dynamics, outlines resistance behaviors, and promotes techniques to foster participation and resolve tensions. The toolkit aims to engage group members effectively, enabling well-informed decisions and a healthier collective consciousness.

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. This slidedeck includes core underpinning theory &
tools from the Lewis Deep Democracy toolkit & in the
following order:
Theory: Understanding resistance (Conscious & Unconscious)
Theory: Group dynamics (Role theory)
Tool: Check in
Tool & theory: Metaskills & the 5 Steps (from a leader’s perspective)
Tool: Step 5 in pairs:
• Making a decision from sides
• Argument
• Golden Arrows
Theory: Edges & cycling
Tool: Communication Vices

3. main purpose of Deep Democracy tools
= have a roadmap to make it safe(r) to
say what needs to be said
can be uncomfortable but harder to deal with consequences of not

4. 1.  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
Lewis Deep
Democracy?

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
Module: Understanding resistance
(Conscious & Unconscious)

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/l
ogical
Part 1. Conscious &
Unconscious

8. How Lewis Deep Democracy
differs from some other
facilitation approaches
Majority of issues come from
emotional/irrational place, not
resolved  consequences
(please note there is no judgement here of emotional or rational
as better or worse, they both just exist)
Therefore rational/logical
approaches don’t work
Lewis Deep Democracy tools
factor this in

9. Wisdom & potential
rests/waits in unconscious.
Lower waterline to pull up
some of the group’s potential
& wisdom into their
conscious(ness) (at a pace
that’s ok with the group).
Lot happening in unconscious of any
group that affects conscious of group

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

11. CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS
Group’s
Wisdom &
Potential
Not
everyone
aware
Irrational/
emotional
Everyone
aware
Rational/logica
l
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

12. CONSCIOUS
UNCONSCIOUS
Decision-making
(& discussion) style
shapes what’s in a
groups conscious
or unconscious
+ How likely people are
to go along with
decision or onto
Resistance Line.
Feel safe to talk & heard
in discussions &
decisions  levels of
resistance.
+ Shapes if potential
growth & informed
decisions/outcomes
achieved.

13. Conscious
Unconscious
Water line = very high
A person’s or very few
people’s wisdom in
group’s conscious
Collective wisdom &
potential lies dormant in
unconscious
For example:
Autocrat/top down/
imposed (aka not
participative) decision-
making style

14. Once leader/autocrat leaves meeting  true sentiments voiced by
others
Feelings stay in unconscious  build up, manifesting as resistance
activities
Resistance = actions that sabotage status quo/go against a decision
Actions initially covert  eventually become overt
Concept called Resistance Line
Consequences of autocratic
decision-making

15. Inefficient & ineffective
Part 3. Resistance Line
Sarcastic jokes
Excuses
Gossip/Lob
bying
Poor
communication/
breakdown
Disruption
Go slow
Strike
War/
withdrawal
Covert Overt

16. 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 
to conflict Longer views (that
need to be said) not
heard &
issues/tensions not
resolved they get
bigger. Won’t go away

17. Excuses
Excuse is piggy backing off a deeper
issue from ‘under the waterline’.
Issue/s need not be what the excuse is
about, it is often more complex.
Coming up as unheard/excluded minority
has one excuse after another for not
supporting the majority decision.
Try to recognise that these excuses
suggest unresolved emotional issues.

18. Inefficient & Ineffective
Sarcastic jokes
Excuses
Gossip/Lob
bying
Poor
communication/
breakdown
Disruption
Go slow
Strike
War/
withdrawal
Covert Overt
Reflect on a time (it’s likely there’s been many) when you’ve been on
the Resistance Line:
1. What stage of the were you at & what how did they get there?
2. What had you tried to do before you went on it & what were you hoping
for?
3. Did your steps parallel with Resistance Line or not?

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

20. 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

21. Module: Group Dynamics
(Role Theory)

22. 1. Energy fields
2. Fractal patterns
3. How fractals relate to groups
4. Role exists beyond/greater than the individual (&
projection)
5. The individual is greater than the role
6. Role fluidity
Group Dynamics: Role Theory

23. Introduction
• Based on Arnold Mindell’s Process Orientated Psychology
& his version or evolution of Role Theory
• Significant shift  Moved psychology away from focusing
on the individuals to:
o Focusing on the collective
o Field & energy theory, based on new physics
• A change from Newtonian to Quantum Physics

24. • Independent variables
• Billiard Ball theory, cause 
effect
• Linear growth
path/progression
• Predictable
NEWTON QUANTUM
• We are part of an energy field
• Don’t know what causes what
• Chaos & transformation linked
• Pure potential & possibilities

25. 1. Energy fields Each of these is an
energy field. How do
you feel in different
energy fields?

26. All living things are energy & that we are energy.
Everything exists in the energy field, all of the time, but almost all of it at an unconscious
level, because we are unaware of it, or not focused on it. We can access it if we develop
the conscious awareness.
Everything exists in the unconscious

27. All connected, part of a bigger whole & live in a
field of energy
In fact we are all energy. Our bodies are manifestations of denser energy. We may think that
we are separate i.e. that we start & stop where our bodies start & stop, but in fact we are
energies & are in an energetic field.
We all have access to everything there is in our unconscious.
Our conscious creates the boundaries, but it is an illusion.
Example: If you identify with being anything a
i.e. red circle , then there is a red circle below
the water line & it exists in others as well. The
‘red circle’ could represent anything i.e. carer,
victim, difficult, excited. Although it may look
like it is with you only it’s part of the energetic
field.

28. Part 2. Fractal patterns
Fractal is a
pattern within a
pattern.
Fractal isn’t an exact
copy but the pattern is
similar.

29. Like each cell in body:
• Contains image (through the
DNA) of the whole body.
• DNA is a “self-replicating
material which is present in
nearly all living organisms as
the main constituent of
chromosomes. It is the carrier
of genetic information”.
• DNA in the cell does not look
like the rest of the body, but
within it the key/code for the
foundation for the rest of the
body.
• Is a fractal pattern of the whole
of us.
• Has the elements, the
‘themes’, of the whole of us.

30. It’s about the general themes & patterns
So too, you part of the world & at an unconscious level
have all the parts in you.
Like DNA in the cell you have major themes that are
common to humanity in you.
Martians trying to understand humanity, only you to
observe, would get a pretty good idea of the basic
themes, or make-up, of human kind on earth.
You are also a fractal pattern of a group. Friend asked
you what took place in the group, your description of what
took place won’t be exact as it is your own perception, but
your friend could gain some insight into the general
themes of the group.

31. 3. How do these concepts (energy fields & fractals patterns)
relate to groups? (have a very important influence on groups & help
us understand groups from a different perspective)
Can think of a fractal as a role
Roles happening now a workshop i.e. teacher
& learners.
Tend describe people in relation to their roles
in sociological terms
Many learners in room, so say there is a ‘role
of learner’ rather than an individual or ‘X is a
learner’
Role of learner = A fractal of learner
Learner is in an energy field, therefore so too
is the learner in me (teacher)
‘Role of teacher’
Like fractal pattern, not exactly same, but a
texture of the role
Talk about role as ‘existing in the group’
Say ‘there is a role of teacher’ as opposed to
saying ‘Pru is in the teacher role’
In groups = many different sociological roles,
also known as archetypal roles
Archetypes = pattern of behaviour that exist
across cultures that describe a complex of
behaviours linked to a function

32. Mindell extends the definition of
a role in role theory to include
An opinion/view/thought:
• “We should have a break”
• “These tools take too long”
• “I want to talk about x”
• “We need to set a deadline”
Feelings:
• Frustrated
• Happy
• Unsure
Symptoms
• Sore back
• Headache
Refer to role as if it was
energy & a fractal pattern
in the room.
Therefore begin to see
that the role is not linked
to the individual.

33. 4. Role exists beyond/greater than
the individual
Think of a person who is a disruptor, disagreeable. If they leave, what happens?
Same pattern will emerge. Maybe not be in exactly the same way.
Blue square represents the ‘difficult role’ based on the fractal pattern.
We are in an energy sea. What is the ‘blue square’ is also in us & what is in us is also in the
‘blue square’.
Although we may not want to disagree as much as the ‘blue square’, may be a little
disagreeable, or we may have had a disagreement in the past, or we do have other views
that we have not mentioned etc.

34. Colour below the surface of the water is projected onto the ‘blue square’ (in this
scenario ‘disturber’).
Part of us that we don’t become conscious of, we project onto the ‘blue square’.
Disturber/blue square’ then begins to hold, their bit of blue, & all our little bits of blue.
Their blue becomes bigger & disturber becomes larger than life & begins to get stuck
in their viewpoint.
At this point they are carrying the energy/role for others.

35. We know what its like to be in the disturber role when you find yourself
arguing your point stronger & with more energy than you originally felt.

36. When disturber role leaves, energy then projected onto the next person as the energy
needs to go somewhere & the ‘disturber or difficult role’ is in each one of us, & won’t go
away.
If ‘blue square’ gets sick ‘their’ ‘view’/role does not suddenly go away because ‘their’ view
is in all of us.
Rather someone in the group who is a little like the ‘blue square’/sensitive to the ‘blue
square’ role will take on the role or energy. That person will now have the projected
energy.
The next few slides gove some examples of roles existing beyond the Individual.

37. beyond the Individual
Teacher & students (learners)
The students project their teacher ability onto the teacher. However the teacher &
learner role is in all of us. No matter how young we are, we have the ability to explore
our world & thereby ‘teach’ ourselves. In this way while we may not be exactly like a
‘teacher’ we all have that part/role in us, we have a fractal pattern, a texture or theme of
the teacher in us.
So too, the teacher has the role of learner as we are never beyond learning in this world.
No one can say they know it all & there is no room for learning. The teacher will have
different needs regarding learning as a learner but they have the texture/theme/role of
learning in them.

38. Leaders & followers
Followers project their leadership ability onto the leader. The leader will
then become bigger than what they are.
We all have the leader role in us. When we are faced with a leader we
tend to not recognise our own leadership qualities & they become
suppressed into the unconscious & we tend to project them onto the
leader. By not owning our own power we set the leader up to be more
than they are by giving them our power.
The leader also has the follower role.

39. 5. The individual is greater
than the role
Leader may also be: Partner, parent, community
minded person, child, sibling, gardener, cook & a
follower at times

40. 6. Role fluidity
People tend to get stuck in roles.
Greater roles become stuck =
 projection takes place
 the group gets polarised & conflicted,
 health,
 group grows
True change does not take place.

41. 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, the water line drops & we can start
dealing with the roles that were stuck i.e. that of leader & follower
through ‘owning’ our projections.

42. Fluidity of roles between teacher & students
Only when there is role fluidity can true
transformation & learning take place.
When there is role fluidity magic
(quantum change) occurs. The
issue no longer stays between red
& blue, but something else
emerges.
Think of the best teachers in your life. It’s likely they inspired you
beyond your learner role & you were able to tap into your true
potential, your own teacher within you.

43. Spreading the ‘no’/alternative views  ‘resolve the roles’ (do
something to shift/transform/get new insights on) ie of leader
Soft Shoe Shuffle
Argument Step 3 ‘own your insights’
As a leader: Being neutral (via neutrality dance) encourages others to
take up power + Debate Step 2
With fluidity true transformation, real change, can then take place.
Goal of Deep Democracy.
How to create role fluidity?

44. What
Way to connect at the
start of a meeting (or
just anytime two or
more people get
together)
Module:
Check-in

45. How
• Introduce it (call it what you like) & why
it’s done
• Set & respond to 1-5 questions
• Leader goes 1st to model length & depth
• Go popcorn style (when people are
ready)
• 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

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

47. Irrational/Emotional
Step 5: The Debate/Argument (has its own 3-4
steps)
Way/etiquette
for holding,
meetings &
discussions
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
WWW War stories or personal experiences – give your own views.
TTT TEACH
Metaskills
Present&the&Video&or&PowerPoint,&or&add&to&Diagram&&
There are five Steps to DD; the first four are above the water line.
Module: Metaskills & the 5 Steps
For working above (Steps 1 - 4) & below (Step 5) the waterline

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

49. • Solo, 1-on-1, small  large group
• Meetings needing discussion,
brainstorming, collaboration, decision-
making (but not if just sharing information)
• Simple  Difficult decisions/discussions
• Trying to involve & empower others
• As a whole package or in bits & pieces
onal experiences – give your own views.
o&or&PowerPoint,&or&add&to&Diagram&&
s to DD; the first four are above the water line.
When to use the 5 Steps

50. 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

51. Using the 5 Steps from the ‘leader
position’
Make it clear when you are expressing your own
personal view for example:
Lean in: When you are expressing your view
Lean out: When you are able to be ‘neutral’ &
sincerely hear & invite all the other views

52. 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)
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

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

54. How
• Leader states their (true) view 1st ‘my
view is x’ & then invites others to share
their view
• 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’
• Practicing metaskill of neutrality by
responding to all views the same
• Address Communication Vices (slides on
Communication Vices are near the end of the
slidedeck)

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

56. 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’
• As a leader if no ‘no’/alternative view is
being spoken (so everyone is just agreeing)
you can bring in own ‘no’, even to your
own idea/s expressed prior

57. v
Step 3. Spread the say ‘no’/alternative
view
One brave soul will say ‘no’/alternative view (for other people who are
silent in the room) to what has been said so far
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’)
Spreading the ‘no’ can feel highly counterintuitive as are now more ‘no’s’
in the room

58. 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.

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

60. 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

61. v
Yes: Acknowledge it by saying: “I feel a little like that ....” (in this way you spread the
role) & 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?”
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) by:
1st: Identify if you
have a
similar/congruent
‘no’/alternative view.

62. 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’

63. 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

64. • Summarise key options
• Take a hands up vote (1 person, 1 vote)
• Note if there’s a clear majority (2/3 or ¾) if there is not get people to lobby. If there is:
• 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 each piece of wisdom back to original decision
• Vote again on modified decision. Do this for a maximum of 3 times.
How

65. 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

66. Step 5: Debate
If at any point during steps 1-3 a clear difference of opinion
aka a polarity arises/pops up call it & transition to the
Debate (Step 5) to resolve the tension rather than gloss
over it & have cycle/slow down the meeting.
Debate has it’s own 3 steps:
• Step 1: Say it all!
• Step 2: What hit home?/Owning the grains of truth
• Step 3: Solve the issue/Make the decision

67. Why use Step 5?
There will always be different opinions.

68. Different opinions can
coexist until one person
(clearly-ish) says that are
right & implies that the
other person/view is
wrong.
Then conflict will emerge.

69. It’s difficult for people to sit on the fence.

70. A lot of conflict resolution encourages
people to empathise (try to see the
other side).
Deep Democracy is different.
1. Encourages you to initially hold your
own view strongly.
2. Sees conflict is an opportunity to
learn by becoming aware of the parts
we unknowingly project onto the other.

71. The Argument helps group find & resolve issue/s (fish/es) blocking
progress.
Issue/fish:
• Exists for the group & continue attach itself to anything group is
doing until it’s resolved.
• Can’t be identified or labelled so Step 5 helps group ‘go fishing’ &
resolve most relevant issue at that time (does not resolve every fish
or issue).
• Resides within the unsaid & the lack of clarity.
• Already there. Longer left unresolved, bigger it grows.
• Indicates an active Resistance Line.

72. Therefore:
• Step 5 aims get fish asap, so emphasis
helping people ‘say what needs to be
said’.
• In effect, surfacing issue/fish, you’re
bringing in ‘conflict issue’ earlier than
later.
• Therefore introduce issue at more
manageable stage than at end of the
Resistance Line.
By surfacing the issue
or fish you lower the
water line.

73. When to use Step 5
• When a group is having
difficulty with an issue & is
unable to decide.
• When there are two different
views.
• When wanting creative &
innovative solutions.

74. Debate Mini roadmap to make it
safe to say it all, from
sides, in 3 phases

75. Debate
For example sides of a
Debate topic could be:
We should join & sign
onto the alliance vs no
we should not

76. Debate
Transitioning into it
Ideal time to use the
Debate:
• Clear contrasting
views (polarity)
emerges
• Begun to go in circles
Seize this opportunity

77. Debate
• Name the two main
contrasting views you’ll
debate about
• Simply say “going to
continue conversation
but in a different way”
Transitioning into it

78. Debate
Do it in ‘sides’
• Say everything in
support of one side
• Say everything in
support of the other side
• Repeat
Step 1: Say it all

79. Round 1 Round 2
Side for no
we should
not join &
sign onto the
alliance
Side for we
should join &
sign onto the
alliance
Side for
no we should
not join & sign
onto the
alliance
Step 1: Say it all
Debate
Side for we
should join &
sign onto the
alliance

80. Debate • Do it in sides/roles
• Leader goes 1st on both sides to
model role fluidity
• Try to get everyone to say a
statement on each side
• Exhaust views, ‘throw all of the
arrows’
• Speak views true for you
• Be succinct
• New views
• Use ‘I’ statements
• No ping pong
• No conversation
Say it all
Round 1
Side for we
should join &
sign onto the
alliance
Side for
no we should
not join & sign
onto the alliance
Round 2
Side for we
should join &
sign onto the
alliance
Side for
no we should
not join & sign
onto the alliance

81. Own your insight
Own your insight
Debate
Which comment
‘hit home’?
Could be something you
or someone else said & from either
side (share via an ‘I’ statement)
B
What does that insight
say about you?
A
1. Make it clear you’d like everyone to own an insight
2. Succinctly restate key insights shared

82. Lead taking the insights back to the
original issue that led to the
disagreement/Debate in the first place.
Ask: Based on the insights
gained (in the last step), what
would be some decisions that
the group can make now?
• Leader can go 1st ‘based on these insights
I think we should x, all those who agree put
your hand up’
• After people share each idea for a decision
take a vote
• Summarise list of decisions
Operationalise
the insights
Debate

83. Module: Step 5 in pairs

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

85. 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

86. 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!
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

87. 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

88. 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.

89. Step 2: What hit home / Owning 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)

90. 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?’

91. 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

92. • 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

93. Let’s Talk exercise #2
Argument between two people (in proxy)

94. ‘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 …’

95. 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?”

96. 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

97. 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.

98. 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.

99. 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.

100. 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 you were doing it in real life &
not in proxy for every decision if both people don’t agree
you ask ‘what do you need to come along?’

101. Let’s Talk exercise #3
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 out

102. 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?”

103. 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

104. 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.

105. 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?

106. Module: Edges & Cycling
Edge behaviours
Bored
Frustrated
Irritated
Low energy/sleepy
Physical
symptoms
Wanting to gossip
Mind wandered

107. Edge behaviour
• Sudden
• Occurs when group ‘at an edge’
• Symptom something from
below waterline (in groups’
unconscious) trying to emerge
• Linked to topic but no one
comfortable to talk about
• Call this issue a fish as it’s
below waterline; sardine 
whale

108. Edges & Cycling go together
Meetings with edge behavior,
often things getting repeated
Issue/pattern/dynamic/behavior
continue to present itself 3 times
 suggests no longer
rational/logical
Repetition called cycling

109. Edges & Cycling go together
Cycling flags a critical/difficult
issue connected to emotional
from below waterline
Far deeper issue, surface topic
= easier
No resolution because not
addressing the real, deeper
issue

110. Edges & Cycling are diagnostic tools
Begin to recognise & count
issue/pattern/dynamic/behavior cycling
Each time cycling happens:
• Issue gains weight & more energy.
• Adds to tension & makes it more difficult
to resolve.
Therefore better deal with issue sooner than
later.
Can’t address underlying unconscious
issues (below waterline emotional/irrational)
with rational tools, they do not respond to
logic.
Different tools needed to uncover & resolve
the deeper issues  Step 5

111. 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

112. 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.

113. 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?”