Resources / Chapter 4

Chapter 4

Chapter 4

The Fast Forum® Technique and How it Works

In The Search for Enlightened Leadership, Applying New Administrative Theory, (1996) Volume 1, the authors, Spady and Bell, stated that the need of people today every-

where in the world is to be able to make a positive and meaningful contribution to the decisions that affect their lives and futures, public and private. To do this, new orga- nizational and societal contexts must be created to enable people to make such contri- butions. People must consider these contexts to be meaningful also in their “life work” of civilization building. Furthermore, new social measurement techniques must be created to serve in those contexts. These new techniques of organizational and soci- etal processes must enable citizens (or organization members, constituents and the like) to participate meaningfully within their time and energy levels.

This has always been the goal toward which the Forum Foundation is working.

Further, we must discover new, vital feedback communication techniques that will facilitate this participation and release fabulous amounts of human creativity.

The Fast Forum^® Technique was developed as a new, vital feedback communica- tion technique. The Fast Forum^® Technique (sometimes simply called Fast Forum) makes possible constructive, symbolic, connected, and collective dialogue, among public or private groups of any size, using optical scanning and computer technology. From the beginning, it was the intention to design and make available a simple, inexpensive, grass-roots method of obtaining feedback by which governors, adminis- trators, and other organizational planners could open up decision-making processes more to their colleagues and constituents. The goal of a feedback system of this kind is to create symbolic dialogues between and among leaders and members of organiza- tions, institutions, and societies in order to make those institutions function better

and to satisfy the needs of the people involved.

In this chapter, we describe the foundations of the Fast Forum^® Technique and tell how it works.

Foundations

The Fast Forum^® differs somewhat from other polling and survey methods. The dif- ferences are based on the theoretical and philosophical foundations that underlie the Fast Forum^®. These foundations are: 1) Our Administrative Theories especially The Zeitgeist Principle and The Theory of Learning, 2) Participation Theory, 3) Mainstreaming, 4) Social Resolving Power, 5) Symbolic Dialogue, 6) The Polariza- tion-Consensus Rating, and 7) Small Discussion Groups which include “Day-in-the- Sun” and “Future Molding Game” formats. A brief explanation of these foundations follows.

Administrative Theories

The Administrative Theories present a new paradigm for thinking about governance and authority in institutions. This new paradigm calls for significantly greater partici- pation by members and citizens. Communication techniques designed to handle these increased participation requirements should be simple, systematic, inexpensive, and easy to use by grass-root organizations and citizen groups. It is all people can do everywhere to get a simple idea across and upward in organizations. What’s lacking are communication tools that are for “the many” and not for “elites” only.

The Zeitgeist Principle argues for creating feedback systems so that governors and the governed can have “dialogues” on important issues. Again the need is for simple, inexpensive, “user friendly” tools that can be easily understood and implemented. For example, it is preferable to be able to develop useful, low key, routine surveys “in- house” without always requiring the use of outside experts who are frequently un- available due to costs or time constraints. It’s desirable to be able to present and ana- lyze the results simply and informally so they can be easily understood by most people. It’s desirable to be able to design valid surveys without the leader having to be an expert in random sampling and statistical analysis.

The Theory of Learning, based on the Socratic Method, proposes that people learn and grow when they make opinion choices and apply their own thinking to prob- lems, questions, and ideas posed to them. In addition, they learn still more when they see feedback that shows how others think about the same issues. The needed commu- nication tools would allow people to contribute their opinions and ideas as well as review the results in easy-to-understand formats.

Participation Theory

Participation Theory is our term for a combination of ideas underlying the Fast Fo- rum^®. The first idea relates to participation theory itself: The essence of participation theory is that “the right to participate viably is made available to everyone.”⁸² Not everyone will or must participate; but everyone must be enabled and has the right to do so if they wish. In a national presidential election, for example, not everyone will vote but all qualified persons who wish may do so. And the results are binding no matter what percentage of eligible voters actually voted. Extending the right to par- ticipate to all is an important foundation of the Fast Forum^®.

A second idea related to participation theory is that the votes (and ideas) cast by the people who volunteer to participate are important and count for something. Specifically, there is value and validity in the opinions, ideas, and votes of those who offer their opin- ions, ideas and votes. In the election example, voters were the volunteers; they volun- teered their time, energy, and votes for their candidates. Non-voters were non-volunteers; they declined the invitation to vote. The point here is that the opinions and ideas of those who volunteer (participate, contribute) their opinions and ideas constitute valuable in- formation about what they think. Their social and political energies really matter.

Let us pause here for a brief comparison between participation theory and statis- tical theory.

There are different branches of statistics. Statistical science deals with the math- ematical treatment of facts, usually facts summarized in numerical form. The point of such statistical summaries is to present a snapshot picture of activities in a group of items or people.

Statistical theory deals with the principles underlying the practice of statistical science. For example, statistical theorists make a clear distinction between descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics assembles mathematical facts about groups (sometimes called “populations” in a mathematical sense), and inferen- tial statistics deals with analysis of the significance of the relationship between sets of data. These relationships might be difference, association, or correlation.

For example, one of the main goals of statistical science is to deduce, from the sample that we have, properties of the population from which the sample is drawn. If we have a million senior citizens in a small country, for example, we hope that by interviewing 100 of them we will learn something about the million. This hope rests on an assumption that is fundamental to statistical theory. This assumption is that broadly homogenous groups share many attributes.

So there is substantial overlap between participation theory and statistical theory. The participants in the Fast Forum provide information that is not only valuable, and valid for them, but is certain to have some significance as a representation of the large group to which they belong. The question of the exact “validity” in a mathematical sense of our data is not the central concern of participation theory; it is the task of the statistical theorists who work with the Fast Forum to gauge these fine points of statis- tical science. Participation Theory is concerned primarily to activate the participation of those who belong to a particular group, “population” or social category in which the Fast Forum^® researchers are doing their work. Participation Theory is a theory of political energies and how to shift them from dormancy, apathy, repression, or sup- pression towards full expression.

This relates to a third idea underlying participation theory and the Fast Forum^®: we are more interested in finding the thinking of the people who participated than we are in the thinking of “everyone” or “all people.” We simply report the results of the participants as the thinking of the participants at that point in time. We (and they) make no claim that the resulting information represents anything other than what it is: their thought at that time. Is information from volunteers/participants valuable? Is it valid? We say definitely, “yes” to both questions.

People who volunteer and participate have something they want to say. These are the people who elect congresspersons every two years, a president every four years, and senators every six years in this country. These are the people who “vote with their pocketbooks” for Product A instead of Product B. These are the people who provide feedback to their governors about whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going and whether they will stay the course or vote with their feet and leave. Even though the information comes from participants/volunteers, we believe the information is valuable and valid. This belief is at the core of the Fast Forum^® Technique.

At the same time, we certainly value and support efforts to discern the properties of statistical “universes” based on random sampling and statistical inference. These activities are important, valuable, valid. It’s just that the Fast Forum^® seeks to mine valuable information in accordance with the goals of participation theory rather than sampling theory.

Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming refers to activities that have “real-world” value and meaningfulness. The mainstreaming principle is: people willingly participate in activities that have mainstream value and avoid activities that have little or no mainstream value. If em- ployees “perceive” and believe their political or organizational leaders really do not want their opinions, the employees may not give their opinions even if asked for them. If citizens believe an election is “rigged” they may refuse to vote. On the other hand, people willingly participate with their best thinking when they believe their efforts are wanted by their leaders and will be given real-world consideration to help in decision-making processes.

Social Resolving Power

Social Resolving Power refers to the fact that people’s true beliefs about a topic become more clear as more and more individuals give their responses to a large number and variety of questions. It is similar to looking at the stars through a telescope that mag- nifies the field of study one thousand-fold, versus a pair of binoculars that magnifies the field of study one hundred-fold. Blurry, indistinguishable images are made clear; clarity and greater resolution result from using the more powerful lens. The Fast Fo- rum^® can analyze vast amounts of data and make the meaning of the data clearer. The Fast Forum^® can analyze data from subgroups (e.g., males-females, old-young, ethnic family, geographic, political demographics, religious denominations, etc.) and make the meaning of the various subgroup data clearer. Furthermore, “compound searches” of data can be made, e.g., “How did teenagers in organization A in geographic district B in denomination C respond compared to everyone else?”

Symbolic Dialogue

“Symbolic Dialogue” refers to the fact that a “meeting of ideas” can take place through surveys and printed data feedback without the necessity of physical meetings. Sym- bolic Dialogue is one of our key terms. It has to be understood in easy stages:

• Symbolic Dialogue is not a physical dialogue of

• Symbolic Dialogue does not mean dialogue about symbols!

• Symbolic Dialogue does not mean dialogue that symbolizes something else, except in this sense:

• Symbolic Dialogue does mean “dialogue” across a multitude of small groups, linked by a common theme or concern and a pooling of the total output of opinions and knowledge of the groups as a Symbolic Dialogue occurs when printed reports are then returned showing total responses by gender, age, ethnic group and the like. It is like a multitude of separate but linked

conversations that are symbolic of a large meeting such as a Convention or a Town Meeting.

• Symbolic Dialogue does mean “dialogue” between a governor, e.g., a “Chief of State” (i.e., an elected or duly appointed public official or a corporate leader in the private sector), a parent, a teacher and the like, and the governed, e.g., citizens, children, students, organization members, and the like. This is so in two senses: 1) a number of Small Group discussions represent (symbolize) actual physical dialogue such as in old-style New England Town Hall Meet- ings, and 2) the Opinionnaire^® and its resultant social data enact vital data exchange between the governor and the governed. The data exchange is in the form of first-order numerical counts, and second-order data such as percentages and the Polarization-Consensus Rating resulting in third-order analysis through “Social Resolving Power.”

My (RJS) eldest son, John Spady, Director of Research for the Forum Founda- tion, just completed his Master of Science degree in Computer Science (Applied In- formation Management) and sums it up best:

It [symbolic dialogue] is the answers to the Opinionnaires^®, from all multiple small group dialogues, analyzed by a computer program, reporting among others the Polariza- tion-Consensus Rating and then returning a printed report to each small group partici- pant, that constitutes the entire cycle of symbolic dialogue.⁸³

John Spady’s research documents that symbolic dialogues among large numbers of groups of people can impart as much understanding as physical, face-to-face dia- logues among small groups.

The term “symbolic dialogue” is a creation of Spady and Bell (1998), and is defined by this researcher, and for this study, as a repeatable process where the values and opinions of numerous individuals from multiple small groups in independent dialogue are measured using an objective instrument such as an “Opinionnaire^®” or a survey. Results of the mea- surement are analyzed by a computer program and represented for an observer as that of a single, and virtual, large group in dialogue This finding, which is graphically repre-

sented below, can be stated now as:

A small group in dialogue, and a (virtual) large group in symbolic dialogue, may share the same benefits of dialogue—while a large group [over 40], that is too large to dialogue as a single entity, may not.

In fact, we believe symbolic dialogues are preferable to physical meetings for a number of reasons.

The following table taken from John Spady’s master’s thesis lists the benefits of dialogue, according to the eight scholars studied, among three groups: “1) A small group in [physical dialogue], 2) a large group in [physical] dialogue [over 40 persons], and 3) a large group in symbolic dialogue [i.e., not meeting physically].”

Benefits of Dialogue Related to Three Categories of Interest

Thus, the Fast Forum^® facilitates symbolic dialogues. It does so through the use of new social indicators which we have invented in the Forum Foundation and which are embedded in its proprietary computer program. These accurately measure opin- ions in easily understood profile reports. These can then be summarized and high- lighted in a Viewspaper^®, if desired, either simply or elaborately.

One of the earliest applications of “symbolic dialogue” was the Delphi Technique,⁸⁴ developed by Ted Gordon and Olaf Helmer and the Rand Corporation after World War II. The Delphi Technique was an exchange of ideas by having a panel of experts respond to their administrative leaders in three “waves” (or iterations) of survey ques- tions. We have used some of its concepts in developing the Fast Forum^® Technique.

Describing an early hypothetical Delphi project will clarify how the technique works. Government administrators needed to develop long range plans and budgets and make decisions for America’s nuclear energy programs. But the administrators had minimal knowledge about the future of nuclear energy, its directions, and costs. Atomic scientists had the best knowledge, but they were scattered around the coun- try, and sometimes they held widely differing opinions. Rather than call them to meet physically together, the administrators created a “meeting of the minds.” A question- naire was sent to the scientists/experts asking for their opinions on a variety of topics, such as how long they thought it would take to develop “technology X,” or what facilities would be required to build “product Y.” The Delphi administrator collated and summarized the responses and then prepared a second round of questions. Each expert then answered the second round of questions, which were collated and sum- marized by the Delphi administrator who then sent out a third round of questions. The scientists then responded to the third round of questions and their answers were collated and summarized by the Delphi administrator. At this point there was enough of a consensus on many questions. The administrators were able to draw up reliable future plans and effective budgets. The symbolic dialogue created by the Delphi Tech- nique had produced satisfactory results at a fraction of the cost of holding physical meetings. The Delphi Technique has been applied successfully in the public and pri- vate sectors for many years.

We believe symbolic dialogue is a significant component of Many-To-Many Communication and Zeitgeist Communication, and we have made symbolic dia- logue a key feature of the Fast Forum^®.

The Polarization-Consensus Rating, (PC Rating^™)

The Polarization-Consensus Rating was invented by Richard Spady in 1969 ⁸⁵ and incorporated into the Fast Forum computer program in 1970. The PC Rating^™ makes it easier to read and understand the results of large quantities of raw data.

The problem was that as the number of participants increased it became more difficult to interpret the meaning of their responses—the numbers were so vast one’s mind could not easily comprehend them. We didn’t want to use conventional statisti- cal symbols such as standard deviation or variance because that would probably turn people off. The whole purpose of participation theory was to be able to communicate data back and forth between and among leaders and people. Everyone had to be able to understand the meaning of the data easily.

We reasoned that the most widely understood statistical symbol among non- technical people was the percentage; second to that was the arithmetic mean, the average. So we decided to report results using percentages, in addition to raw numbers. That way the size of the number of participants could vary widely, but the percentage of people answering Yes, No, or Abstain was always easy to calcu- late and report. In addition, we advanced the concept through the use of two percentages in juxtaposition to each other that was labeled the Polarization-Consen- sus Rating.⁸⁶

The first number, the Polarization Rating, is a measure of the weight given a question by those participating in order to get a sense of the importance of the overall response to the question. It is the number of the people who were “polarized” and answered either Yes or No (excluding those who Abstained or Objected), divided by the total number of participants being tabulated, multiplied by 100. Thus a polariza- tion rating of 100% means everyone participating answered Yes or No. A rating of 50% means half answered Yes or No. A rating of 0% means no one answered yes or no (which means everyone Abstained or Objected). The higher the percentage of polar- ization is, the more meaningful the answers will be.

The second number, the Consensus Rating, is the percent positive response of those who were polarized. It is a measure of the agreement for a given question or statement by those participating in order to get a quick sense of the overall consensus. It is the number of people who answered Yes, divided by the total number of partici- pants who were polarized and answered Yes or No (excluding those who Abstained or Objected), multiplied by 100. Thus a consensus rating above 50% means the people answering favored the idea—up to 100% that means unanimously favorable. A rating below 50% means they were against the idea—down to zero that means they were unanimously against it. A rating of 50% means they were split, fifty-fifty. Thus, the Consensus Rating reflects the amount of agreement or consensus on a question and the amount of opposition—simultaneously.

For example, when 2000 people are asked if they agree or disagree with the value statement, “Seattle has a serious shortage of affordable housing,” assume that 1500 choose “yes,” 300 choose “no,” and 200 choose to abstain. In percentages this would be 75% Yes, 15% No, and 10% Abstain.

The Polarization-Consensus Rating is calculated as follows. In this example 90% of the respondents were polarized (75% Yes, 15% No)—they took a stand on the item; and 10% (the Abstain votes) were not polarized. The Polarization Rating is thus 90%. In the example, 1800 people were polarized and 1500 of them voted Yes. There- fore the Consensus Rating is 83% [(1500/1800) x 100]. The Polarization-Consensus Rating is thus “90% — 83%” which by convention is reported as (90% — 83) and is read as: “90% had 83 consensus.” This was done to reinforce the idea of the Consen- sus Rating as conveying two meanings simultaneously, i.e., “83 out of 100 answered yes,” and thus “17 out of 100 answered no.” The PC Rating enables people to quickly determine the importance (weight) of a question or statement (by experience we gen- erally consider a Polarization Rating of 70% or higher as “good data”). The Consen- sus Rating encourages people to automatically think not only about the majority opinion but also simultaneously about the minority opinion. The Polarization-Con- sensus Rating neatly summarizes the most important information quickly, easily, and accurately.

From our experience the PC Rating provides more and better information com- pared to the use of percentages alone because the computer can rank all questions by polarization rating if desired. We consider those questions showing 70% or greater polarization to be “good data.” In effect then, the four numbers (Yes, No, Abstain, and Object) are reduced to one number, the Consensus Rating, with a significant increase functionally in efficiency as a social indicator. If people feel they need all the information, it can be easily observed, but with experience one seldom looks beyond the PC Rating. The Consensus Rating is also a “fractal” as all the values of the raw data and percentages are contained in it as a single number.

It is for these reasons that we consider the Polarization-Consensus Rating one of the foundations of the Fast Forum^® Technique.

Small Group Discussions

Small group discussions are recommended as an integral part of the Fast Forum^® pro- cess. While large meetings contain many liabilities and frustrations, small groups of four to twelve are ideal settings for discussing the content of an Opinionnaire^® prior to completing the survey as individuals. In addition, small groups can meet anywhere and nearly anytime at the drop of a hat.

In a typical Fast Forum^® program, a “convener” hosts (convenes) a small group of participants who are interested in the topic at hand. Some groups will meet on week- days and some on weekends—whenever it is convenient for them during the window period designated. An audiotape (or video if preferred) from the “governor” presents the subject for discussion. Next, small groups discuss the issues then individuals com- plete an Opinionnaire^®.

We have had great success with two small group discussion techniques—the “Day- in-the-Sun” and the “Future Molding Game.”

Day-in-the-Sun

The Fast Forum^® groupware technique, in most applications, uses small discussion groups that use “Day-in-the-Sun” to get discussion started in the small group.⁸⁷ Each person is invited to speak for up to two minutes as to his or her reaction to what has been presented in the tape. And the role of others in the group is to listen, not to find fault, not to criticize, not to comment, not to use body English, e.g., thumbs up or down showing approval or disapproval—but just to listen. The convener keeps time and limits speakers to two minutes each. The purpose is to keep things moving and give all an uninterrupted chance to present their ideas and opinions. After everyone, including the convener, has had an opportunity to have his or her “Day-in-the-Sun,” an open discussion continues informally as the group considers questions about the ideas and reactions raised. The first administrative theory, The Basic Attitude, should always be observed. No one has to agree with anything said, but everyone should always respect another’s right to say it.

The Future Molding Game

This configuration was invented by our late colleague Dr. Stuart C. Dodd, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Washington. It was demonstrated at the Evergreen Chapter of the World Future Society in Seattle in the early 1970s. Four persons lean forward in their chairs sitting almost kneecap to kneecap. Their heads are close together and they can talk—intimately. One could fill up a gymnasium with foursomes in this manner and it would still be quiet. But when larger numbers of people sit around tables, they usually have to raise their voices so that the person at the other end of the table can hear them. In a large room organized in this manner there can be a lot of noise that is distracting.

When two people talk to each other they are engaged in the “counseling relation- ship.” It is not just preparation for change, it is dynamic change occurring itself.⁸⁸ They are what they were, psychologically speaking, plus their gain of new information that they receive in their dialogue together. They are new beings, psychologically speak- ing, after their dialogue.

Originally our experience and study suggested that 12 people was the upper limit of small discussion groups using “Day-in-the-Sun” to get started in dialogue. At first we felt the lower limit was eight, but then we decided that six was all right. Finally, we realized we were approaching Dodd’s “Future Molding Game” of four persons, and that he was right. In fact foursomes are imperative for adolescents to effect Erik Erikson’s theory of “Psycho-Social Moratoria.”

These are the major foundations of the Fast Forum^® Technique. Together they give the Fast Forum^® its distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other polling/ surveying techniques.

Components of the Fast Forum® Technique

Implementing the Fast Forum^® is simple and straightforward. This section describes the components or elements of the technique. The next section describes a typical flow of events for Fast Forum^® projects.

Recall that Zeitgeist Communication is primarily concerned with generating and communicating ideas, and opinions about those ideas across and upward in organiza- tions and society. Such communication can create a symbolic dialogue between lead- ers/representatives and constituents when enabled by the leaders/representatives. The Fast Forum^® Technique is designed to facilitate and enable such communication.

The following components of the technique will be examined next: 1) The com- puter program and machine-scannable response sheet, 2) The tabulation of data (gen- eral), 3) Keying of demographics and data, 4) Opinionnaire^®, 5) Abstention and objec- tion to the question, 6) Viewspaper^®, 7) The formal clauses, 8) Response formats, 9) How to generate Opinionnaire^® statements, and 10) Small group discussion methods.

Computer Program and Machine-Scannable Response Sheet

A computer program for analyzing data and reporting the results was developed in 1970 and modified a number of times since then. A machine-scannable response sheet also was developed. It costs only a few cents, but it allows a human being to interface directly with a machine—accurately, swiftly, and economically. With small groups using it in symbolic dialogue with political and organizational leaders, it’s low- tech but high-touch.

Together these tools permit quick and efficient analysis of data, no matter how large the number of respondents. The response sheet, Form K, accommodates responses for up to 50 Opinionnaire^® statements or questions and up to 15 demographic and psychographic variables. (Our most recent Form L sheet will accommodate up to 150 questions if needed using both sides of the response sheet. (See Appendix B.)

The computer program can perform simple and compound analyses based on demographic and psychographic variables of interest to the user. For example, “How did male and female participants respond who were, in their teens and 20’s, living in King County in Washington state compare with those in other counties and with everyone else responding?” Literally there are millions of profile reports that could be generated from any specific data; as a practical matter only a few need be printed and distributed. Furthermore, the data generated can be posted on the Forum Foundation’s website and any authorized person can massage the data and obtain their own profile reports for personal reference. For example, the annual conference directors or district superintendents of The United Methodist Church could generate reports comparing their conference or district or jurisdiction responses with others and the national total. The Forum Foundation is now designing this programming so it could be done auto- matically on line. The General Boards and agencies could do the same thing as could Bishops of the church. This kind of data and generated reports would empower parish- ioners and enable them to bring their theological relevancy to the level of the pew.

Tabulation of Data (General)

Participants in a Fast Forum^® can record their responses in three ways. First, they can mark an Opinionnaire^® directly which is then returned for key tabulation. Second, they can mark a Forum Foundation Reproducible Response Sheet (see example in Appendix C). This allows the response sheet to be returned for keying of the data and the participants to retain their Opinionnaires^® for future reference. The convener of the group can make as many Reproducible Response Sheet copies as are needed for the group on short notice. Third, they can mark a Forum Foundation Machine-Scan- nable Councilor^™ Response Sheet, which can be returned and scanned optically by machine by the Forum Foundation and the results tabulated by computer accurately, timely, and economically. Both the second and third ways listed allow the participants to keep a copy of the Opinionnaire^® for personal reference to compare with overall results when returned, or they can allow the convener to display the questions from a transparency or to simply read an Opinionnaire^® given to the group to reduce ex- penses if desired. The group’s time, interest, and resources will determine the choice. The machine-scannable forms are not reproducible on a copy machine, nor are they usually available from printers locally. Their timing marks and registers from the edge of the paper are critical and they require a special non-magnetic ink.⁸⁹ Data from reproducible response sheets are keyed either by the organization’s communica- tor, e.g., in a church, or by the Forum Foundation for subsequent tabulation. Data

from optically-scanned response sheets are scanned by the Forum Foundation.

Keying of Demographics and Data

User groups can tabulate their own response data using a computer. The data file is then transmitted to the Forum Foundation via E-mail on Internet or by diskette by

U.S. mail for processing and return of profile reports generated. This process is the least expensive to the user groups and practical for normal purposes where fewer than 1,000 people are participating. (Students or communicators who wish to key data to be transmitted to the Forum Foundation, see Appendix F.)

Opinionnaire^®

Today most people who look at a valid “Opinionnaire^® say, “Oh, that’s a survey.” Most people already think they know everything about surveys so they often drop the idea from their mind. But there are some significant differences between a “Question- naire,” which seldom allows abstentions to questions, and an Opinionnaire^® which always allows abstentions and objections. Also, Fast Forum^® reports always provide disclaimer, philosophy, and trailer clauses and report the polarization-consensus rat- ing. These all are based on participation and administrative theory instead of statisti- cal and mathematical theory which underlie objective, random-sample, and ques- tionnaire survey instruments. There is a need to break through the stiffly resistant, stereotyped thinking of leaders and people to open up all to the new possibilities inherent in the new communication technology of Many-To-Many Communication which is emerging. One way to break through this resistance is to differentiate the processes, techniques, and theories in which questionnaires and Opinionnaires^® dif- fer from one another through their names.

The basic thrust of questions from a pollster using statistical theory is to question others about their opinions for his own or others’ purposes. The basic thrust of ques- tions from a leader using participation theory is to gain the opinions of constituents for better organizational or institutional decision-making while also building com- munity, cooperation, “social capital,” and improving community mental health within the constituency. Both approaches are valid and have their place.⁹⁰

Instead of using random-sample objective questionnaires based on statistical and mathematical theory, The Fast Forum^® groupware technique uses objective Opinionnaires^® based on participation and administrative theory. Different rules ap- ply as the Fast Forum^® technique deals with the “statistical universe” and not a ran- dom sample. It is for this reason that the Forum Foundation has taken extra pains to differentiate between these two methods that equally provide valid social indicators. The term, “Opinionnaire^®” is a copyrighted and registered trademark of the Forum Foundation issued by the United States Patent Office. Trademarking is a very simple and effective method to let others know that these concepts are new, important, and different. The trademark “Opinionnaire^®” can be used by others within the proper context of participation theory (but not statistical theory) with credit given to: “Forum Foundation, 4426 Second Ave. N.E., Seattle WA 98105-6191, www.ForumFoundation.org. Used by permission.” ⁹¹

Abstention and Objection to the Question

It is important that every objective question provide an opportunity for the indi- vidual responding to abstain if the person feels unable to respond because he or she is undecided, feels the need at that time for more information before deciding, or has another reason. An abstention is a valid response if it accurately records where that person is with that idea at that point in time. It is also a way for people to communi- cate to a leader posing the question that there might be a need for more information before making a decision, especially if the abstention rate is high. The effort is always to get as high a polarization rating as possible with the highest consensus rating before making decisions (normally a polarization rating of 70% or higher and a consensus rating above 66—2 out of 3 favoring). The leader who makes decisions where col- leagues or constituents agree with a high consensus is on firm ground. As we said in the Theory of Leadership, the leader who makes decisions contrary to colleagues or constituent consensus is not on firm ground and is instead involved in acts of “states- manship.” This may or may not be appropriate in the long run; only time will tell.

In 1978, after eight years of research, a very slight technical change was made to the earlier Fast Forum^® computer program and format of the profile reports. Again, while it was a very slight change to the computer program, it was a very great ad- vancement in theory. The format of both the Opinionnaire^® and the profile reports was changed to allow individuals participating to object to the wording of a question or statement if they felt that the wording was not clear or that a question or statement was misleading or inappropriately worded.

The problem stemmed from complaints by some persons who felt the questions were biased. They would say, “You can’t use the data generated from that survey. The questions are loaded. They just beg the question. They are ‘terrible,’ and the like.” Who was right? No one knew because it was a value judgment. The leader who pre- pares the questions and statements or collects them from others and places them before the total participants may think the questions or statements are highly appro-priate. But if someone disagrees, who is right? It is a standoff, because it is a value judgment for both. It makes little difference if one has the expertise of a George Gallup and Louis Harris all rolled into one. The design of an objective instrument seldom evades some criticism like this; often, there is someone who complains.

Administrators and leaders are seldom trained in the preparation of objective surveys. They usually need help from an outside expert. The essential thing is that the leader (or staff in name of the leader), interact with his or her own constituents doing the best they can and not be reluctant to do so because he or she lacks the “expertise” to pose questions. The leader probably knows his or her own organizational problems and issues better than any outside expert would. To get around this problem, partici- pants are permitted to object to any Opinionnaire^® question posed to them. Now there is a difference.

If someone objects to the wording of a question, one can reply, “Well, let’s see how the people who participated felt about that.” If only four or five percent objected to the question challenged, one can place the criticism in its proper perspective, i.e., simply ignore it. But if one sees that a question has 20 or 25 percent of the partici- pants objecting to it, one knows there is a problem. It is not necessary to be told. The response is not a random-sample based on statistical theory with a relationship be- tween a pollster and people that is one-time and gone forever. Instead, usually the response is participatory and an ongoing feedback communication system. In the next iteration the defective question can be rephrased or additional questions submit- ted for further clarification. This can be continued until the administrator or leader reaches a point in his or her thinking and says, “There is no point in asking these people any more questions about this topic. We already know how they feel.”

When that judgment is reached, then the objective of the program has been achieved because the Zeitgeist, the “Spirit-of-the-Time,” has just been identified. It will not necessarily tell what is “right” or “wrong,” but it will tell what those people participating perceive is right or wrong at that point in time. And the leader and group move forward to new areas of consideration.

Profile Reports and Viewspaper^®

The Forum Foundation computer profile reports are designed to be complete reports showing titles, dates, organization, questions, data, legend, disclaimer, philosophy, and trailer clauses. Those profile reports selected can merely be reproduced, and dis- tributed as might be appropriate. They are designed to stand-alone (see example in Appendix D-3). They can also be summarized and highlighted in a Viewspaper if appropriate.

A newspaper is primarily a feed-forward communication instrument that reports news of events and the views and opinions of leaders, officials, etc. A “Viewspaper^®” is just the reverse. It is a feedback communication instrument designed to report the views of people participating! A Viewspaper^® is similar to an editorial statement by the people participating. A Viewspaper^® can range from a one-sheet summary highlighting results of a forum to an elaborate stand-alone document for wide distribution and used over time as a reference. The previous page shows the cover sheet of a more elaborate stand- alone document completed by the City of Redmond in Washington State.

The concept of “Viewspaper^®” is a social innovation in the field of journalism. I (RJS) coined the word “Viewspaper^®” because of the need for a new term to describe a different kind of newspaper. I developed the Viewspaper^® to emphasize that the results reflect the views and opinions of self-selected volunteers who wish to commu- nicate with their fellow colleagues, citizens, organizational members, and the like.

The Viewspaper^® is a vehicle for presenting results in a readable, interesting format. A Viewspaper^® usually highlights important or surprising results, often contains a message from the initiator about next steps or future actions to be taken, and ex- presses the initiator’s thanks to the participants.

See Appendix D-1 (also posted online at www.ForumFoundation.org/ WUMBView9) for an example of a simple one-sheet, four-panel bulletin of a Viewspaper^® completed in an evaluation of an early, experimental, nine-week na- tional project involving a study of The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church in 40 churches. The subjects studied included: Series Orientation, Authority in the Church, Families, Children, Aged, Health Care, Racism, Economic Justice, and Evaluation.

Significant learning and new insights occur when participants and others study profile reports and results highlighted in the Viewspaper^®.

The Formal Clauses:

The Disclaimer Clause

Because we are involved in participation theory based on administrative theory and not in statistical theory based on mathematical theory, every profile report generated on the Fast Forum^® computer program contains a disclaimer clause at the start that typically reads as follows:

The purpose of these informal reports is to communicate ideas, issues, and problems among people as a platform for future, meaningful discussions of concerns. Participants are assisted in becoming aware of their own beliefs as well as of those intellectual and moral beliefs of others—the Zeitgeist—“The Spirit-of-the-Time.” The views and opinions ex- pressed herein are those of the individuals who participated and do not necessarily repre- sent the official views of the parent group or sponsoring organization. Nor will the views expressed necessarily represent those of the same participants at a later period of time; as humans we each have the ability to receive new information, consider it, and change.

The Forum Foundation

The Disclaimer Clause in effect frees people participating to speak because they speak only for themselves, which is every person’s right. Thus, the data generated are 100% valid for those persons participating! The data generated are just as valid as letters sent to legislators and public officials. The data are just as valid as telephone messages, just as valid as personal meetings, and just as valid as information gathered in testimony at a public hearing, none of which is necessarily “statistically valid” and indicative of the values held by the public at large. It is also much easier to understand where people stand on issues of concern to them because the data can include demo- graphics such as gender, age, ethnic families, geographic, legislative, and congres- sional districts, organizational departments, and the like which enable the “symbolic dialogue” to occur. As more and more people participate in the process, the data reports published just get better; they never get bigger. The process thus avoids the problem of “information overload” which is especially burdensome to leaders who must deal often with voluminous amounts of correspondence and thousands or more of constituents.

A Disclaimer Clause is always printed on every profile report generated by the Forum Foundation and released to users. Similarly, users should be careful, in turn, to disclaim the results to their colleagues or constituents to help avoid criticism by oth- ers who might be trying to find reasons to do so. Users should always print a Dis- claimer Clause in any Viewspaper^® they produce.

The use of the disclaimer clause is the key to being able to send the reports to others inside or outside the organization. For example, it permits reports to be used without the stilting, and perhaps even dehumanizing experience, of having to have the reports approved first by an administrative board, an executive committee, or anyone else. Such a requirement is an abridgment of the basic human rights of the people participating: freedom to assemble (symbolically), freedom of speech, free- dom of the press, freedom to petition, and we believe, “freedom to be heard.” These are constitutional rights of every citizen; they apply in all contexts including government, business and industry, education, church, and community.

All such communication is advisory only to elected or appointed organizational and societal leaders i.e., “chiefs of state,” who have the tactical, legal responsibility for decisions in our republic—a representative democracy. However, organizational and institutional members and citizens have an equally strategic moral responsibility as citizens to listen to their leaders and help their leaders and planners by participating with their thinking, e.g., their opinions, knowledge, and wisdom.

The Trailer Clause

The Fast Forum^® computer program and profile reports always contain a trailer clause which provides an additional frame of reference for those participating and which typically reads as follows:

The Forum Foundation is a nonprofit educational-research corporation of Washing- ton State. It conducts research in pure and applied social science—specifically in the field of Administrative Theory, which is a subset of Organization Development. The founda- tion is dedicated toward strengthening the democratic processes of our society through im- proved feedback communications from people. This Fast Forum^® technique assists inter- ested persons in our society and among its institutions and organizations to participate more meaningfully by expressing their individual opinions. Through written reports, as attached, these opinions assist those persons participating to illustrate to themselves, as well as to parent/ teacher/ school/ church/ business/ community, and government establishments, the values in which they believe. It is hoped that the overall communication process estab- lished will reduce apathy among people, improve community mental health, and assist in solving the human problems we face together in our society and world.

The Philosophy Clause

The Fast Forum^® computer program and profile reports always contain a philosophy clause that provides an additional frame of reference for those participating and which typically reads as follows:

A creative organization or society is one that actively searches for solutions to its prob- lems. The open exchange and discussion of ideas is the mortar that binds such a society together during this creative process. This exchange, in turn, leads naturally toward im- proved consensus, decision-making and spontaneous collaboration. Any group, organiza- tion, community, or society which inhibits the free movement of ideas of its members up, down, and across its organizational and societal structures (whether innocently or not) isdepriving itself of its greatest resource—human thought—and is in grave danger of being buried in history by an avalanche of the creativity of others.

The Certification Clause

The Fast Forum^® computer program and profile reports always contain a certification clause that provides an additional frame of reference for those participating and which typically reads as follows:

The data utilized in this report were submitted on individual Forum Foundation machine-scannable or other response sheets by the user organization and recorded by opti- cal scanning or were keyed from Opinionnaires^® provided by the Forum Foundation. The information tabulated by the Forum Foundation contained herein is certified correct bar- ring unintentional errors.

The purpose of this clause is to acknowledge that the data are as accurate as pos- sible under the processes being followed. The Forum Foundation tries its best to report accurate data, but cannot be responsible for inaccurate data supplied by others in the course of their participation in a project. Of course, keying data in itself, with- out verification, will have some errors; however, verification (like that required for bank transactions) is prohibitively expensive and, in this case, experience indicates that verification does not provide significant differences. The Fast Forum^® computer program will abort if it detects keying errors over one half of one percent. The certifi- cation clause alerts all participants to accept the data within this context.

Response Formats

Several different response formats are available to users of Opinionnaires^®. Depend- ing on how your questions or statements are worded, one of the following formats should meet your needs nicely.

Yes/No/Abstain/Object

One good, simple, robust, understandable format uses the response categories Yes and No along with Abstain and Object. That looks like the following on the Opinionnaire^® :

Yes  No  Abstain  Object.

 

A Yes means, “I agree completely with this statement or question.” A No means, “I do not agree with this statement or question.” An Abstain means, “I do not yet have an opinion on this statement,” or, “I need more information,” or, “I am not ready to answer at this time,” etc. An Object means, “I object to this statement.” Participants use the Object response when they dislike the wording, or the clarity, or the content or context of the statement or question.

Multiple-Choice

The standard multiple-choice question can also be used with two to five choices. This format looks like this on the Opinionnaire^® : The following example has five choices. Which is the best choice among the following proposals? 1) Proposal One,

• Proposal Two, 3) Proposal Three, 4) Proposal Four, 5) Proposal Abstain Object. Please select the one best choice.

End Anchors

A question can be posed with “End Anchors.” For example, “How appropriate is this action to be taken now?” In this example “3” is the neutral position.

Not Appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 Highly Appropriate. Abstain. Object.

Likert Scale

The Likert Scale format is also clear, simple, and effective. This format looks like the following on an Opinionnaire^®:

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided* Disagree Strongly Disagree Abstain Object

This format includes the Abstain and Object response choices and translates an Agree/Disagree choice into five options. The Likert format allows respondents to give more finely-grained answers and also conveys a clearer picture of how strongly people feel about an item. (*Or substitute Neutral if preferred.)

Converted Likert Scale

The final response format that can be presented in an Opinionnaire^® is a special adaptation of the Likert Scale to use our Converted Polarization-Consensus Rating, (CPC Rating^™). See Appendix E. This format looks like the following on the Opinionnaire^®:

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Abstain Object

How To Generate Opinionnaire Questions/Statements

Questions are formulated by leaders or staff and will end with a question mark. For example, “Do you favor adoption of this resolution?”

Statements on an Opinionnaire^® are usually normative or declarative value sen- tences about an idea, policy, situation, event, or just about anything else. They state an opinion. Respondents are asked if they agree or disagree with the statements. They should be identified as coming from constituents or the leader. Here are some ex- amples of opinion statements.

• I support the idea of building a third bridge across Seattle’s Lake

• On balance, the annual Seafair Celebration is good for the City of

• Seattle should not host more World Trade Organization

• I believe the City of X-Ville’s Growth Management Plan is seriously

• I believe capital punishment is

It is important to make the questions and statements as clear, concise, and unbiased as possible. Good statements should be clear about what they are declaring. Good state- ments should refer to only one issue, not multiple issues in the same statement. Good statements should not be “loaded” either positively or negatively. Good statements avoid ambiguity, words with multiple meaning, jargon, and unfamiliar phrases.

Initiators of Opinionnaires^® often have several topics on which they want infor- mation, such as (for a company): satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with benefits, evaluation of leadership, or understanding the company’s strategic direction and the like. A good way to generate value statements for an Opinionnaire^® is to have a small group “brainstorm” a large number of normative statements or questions about dif- ferent facets of each broad topic. The leader and staff then choose the best items for each topic based on clarity, relevance, and understandability. These statements are arranged in logical order in the Opinionnaire^®, i.e., they can be clustered into similar areas of concern, e.g., the nurturing community, the social community, the economic community, the political community, the ecumenical community and the like. It should be understood that the Fast Forum^® is designed to be user-friendly. The leader does his or her best to articulate problems and suggest solutions, but if questions posed are not well done, participants can “object.” And because everyone is involved with an ongoing feedback system (and not a one-time relationship as in random sampling), on the next iteration, poor questions can be rephrased until the leader gets it right. It works fine.

Small Group Discussions

As we said earlier, small group discussions related to Opinionnaire^® statement topics are highly valued by participants, cause significant learning to occur, and ener- gize the Fast Forum^® process. We recommend including small group discussion op- portunities whenever that is feasible. “The Future Molding Game” and the “Day-in- the-Sun^®” have been shown to be effective in stimulating thoughtful discussions.

These are the main components of the Fast Forum^® Technique. Over the years we have added and deleted components as we learned what worked and what didn’t.

Flow of Events in the Fast Forum Technique

The Fast Forum^® is used primarily to implement feedback systems in organizations, institutions, and societies. The Zeitgeist Principle introduced in Section 1 states:

To work most effectively, human organizations and institutions (from the small- est—the family, to the largest—civilization itself ) require a functional feedback com- munication capability. Feedback systems are necessary in order to apprehend the Zeit- geist, the Spirit-of-the-Time. This is best accomplished in most organizations by a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback communication system. Few organizations, institutions, governments, and societies in the world today have such an envisioning system.

The Fast Forum^® Technique represents our attempt to build a feedback commu- nication system in the spirit of the Zeitgeist Principle. This section describes the flow of events of Fast Forum projects.

There are two starting points for the Fast Forum^®, or ways that a Fast Forum^® is initiated. These constitute the two basic contexts of the Fast Forum^®. The first we call Top-Down; the second we call From-the-Ground-Up, i.e., “grassroots.” An actual application might originate somewhere between these two extremes, or it might com- bine them.

In the Top-Down application a “governor” decides to investigate the people’s (con- stituents or organization members) opinions on a subject. The governor wants—for whatever reason—to know the mind of the people on a topic. The governor wants a richer data set than might be achieved with a simple poll or survey, so uses the Fast Forum^®. Whereas a plebiscite aims to know the mind of all the people on a vital subject, and a referendum polls them all in similar circumstances, the Fast Forum^®gets an in-depth reading of a set of all the people participating on whatever topics the governor chooses.

In the From-the-Ground-Up application of the Fast Forum^® , an individual con- stituent (or small group of constituents) decides to ask the governor to investigate the people’s (constituents or organization member) opinions on a subject. This “grass roots” application may occur when the constituents believe a governor does not know enough about the viewpoints held by the governor’s constituents.

In both contexts the goal is to establish a feedback communication system be- tween constituents and governors.

The generic model of the Top-Down application of the Fast Forum^®, showing the “bare bones” structure of the process looks like the following.

Step 1. A Governor wants Information from Constituents and communicates that desire to Constituents.

Step 2. Governor produces an Opinionnaire^®, gives to Constituents with supporting written and/or audio/visual documentation.

Step 3. Constituents meet in small groups of 4 to 12 persons, to listen to the tape, do Day-in-the-Sun, discuss the issues, answer Opinionnaire^® , return Opinionnaires^® to Governor.

Step 4. Governor tabulates Profile reports by various key categories showing percentage responses, analyzes data, prepares Viewspaper^® if desired, and sends Profile Reports to Constituents in most cases.

Step 5. Governor studies Profile Reports for possible action. Constituents study Profile Reports as basis for gaining new knowledge of how others feel.

Step 6. The communication process continues routinely as might be required. This is the basic structure of most Fast Forum^® projects. Variations and embel-

lishments are usually added, but the basic structure remains the same. In this model the Governor can be any leader/representative/planner—a plant manager, a governor, a county executive, a mayor, a school principal, a high school’s student council, etc. The Information in this model can be on a variety of topics, sometimes topics of special interest to the governor and sometimes topics of special interest to the Con- stituents. The Constituents are always the constituents of the Governor, so that the process creates a communication link between governed and governor. The Opinionnaire^® asks for Constituents’ opinions on topics of interest. The Opinionnaire^® is the vehicle for obtaining the desired Information.

The Profile Reports summarize the data and the major findings. The Profile Re- ports contain the Information the Governor wanted at the start of the process.

Here is an example of the actual flow of events from a Fast Forum^® project with a city government that is reported in more detail in the next chapter. The Mayor and City Council of Redmond, Washington initiated a “Community Forum Program” to involve citizens in planning for the future of the city. Interested citizens were invited to participate through newspaper advertisements and public notices. The Mayor pro- duced a video in which she thanked people for taking part in the project, and then introduced a narrator who conducted a guided tour of the city centered on the topic of “Growth Management.” Assistance was provided by the locally licensed cable tele- vision company and others in the industry. Cassettes were distributed to people who volunteered to participate. The volunteers met in small groups in homes, libraries, public buildings, and workplaces. Each small group viewed the video tape, did Day- in-the-Sun, discussed the issues posed in the tape and supplementary materials, and then individuals completed their Opinionnaires^®. The data were tabulated by the Forum Foundation. Profile reports were given to the Mayor’s office. The Mayor’s staff produced a Viewspaper^® that was sent to each small group where its members met again to discuss the results.

Thirteen iterations of the Community Forum were conducted between 1990 and 1998 on topics related to the future of the city. Virtually everyone who participated strongly endorsed this simple, effective “Citizen Involvement” methodology.

In this example, the Mayor (Governor) wanted Information (citizen input on planning for the future) from Constituents (interested citizens) and obtained it through an Opinionnaire^®. Additional features of this program included statements from the “Governor” (Mayor) on video introducing each topic, small group meetings of par- ticipants to discuss the topic before completing the Opinionnaire^®, and group meet- ings to discuss the results. This is a very efficient and cost effective model for creating a symbolic dialogue between Governor and Constituents.

← Chapter 3 Chapter 5: Examples of Fast Forum Projects →