Chapter 5: Examples of Fast Forum Projects
Selected Examples
I (RJS) developed the basic ideas and methodology for the Fast Forum Technique in 1969 during the Eastside Inter-Racial Clearing House project, described earlier in “My Personal Quest—Richard J. Spady’s Story.” Since that time we have conducted a num- ber of Fast Forum projects and assisted others who wanted to use the method. Follow- ing are several examples illustrating how the Fast Forum works in actual practice.
Encouraging Dialogue and Reflection in a Church Denomination
During the American Bicentennial Celebration in 1976 one of the larger church de- nominations associated with the Church Council of Greater Seattle conducted a bi- centennial program titled “Reaction, Reflection, and Response” to honor the nation’s birthday. In my role as a member of the Church Council volunteer staff I (RJS) assisted them in the design of their program and generated their final Fast Forum profile reports.
The aim of the program was to get parishioners to reflect on various aspects of their faith such as education, worship, prayer, social concerns, ecumenical affairs, etc. and to engage in both a symbolic and actual dialogue with church leaders. Steps in the process were: 1) Parishioners completed an Opinionnaire®; 2) Volunteer parishio- ners met in discussion groups in their local churches to reflect on the results and develop recommendations for church leaders; 3) Parishioners met with church lead- ers in regional meetings to present their recommendations; and 4) Church leaders considered the feedback information and promised to respond to the ideas.
The process worked like this. A steering committee prepared an Opinionnaire®covering the topics of interest. The Opinionnaire® was administered at regular Sunday church services throughout western Washington State. In lieu of a sermon that Sunday, everyone “reacted” and read, considered, and responded to the items on the survey for the 15 to 20 minutes allowed. Over 50,000 people responded to the Opinionnaire®. This is the QUEST Forum™ format (QUICK ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING TEST model described in Chapter 6).
After completing the survey, parishioners were asked if they would like to meet once a week for four weeks to “reflect” on the data. Thirty-five percent of the partici- pants agreed to meet.
I tabulated the data and produced regional profile reports showing results from each church among ten churches in their region. Thus the volunteers at each church had data from their own church and nine other churches in their region. In addition I created a number of subgroup regional and combined profile reports using the cat- egories they requested, e.g., gender, age, and region.
After a month-long “Reflection” period in local churches, regions then met with their Bishop and staff. Representatives from each church in the region reported to the total group by reading two statements prepared in response to each of the various issues considered—education, worship, prayer, etc. The idea was that the Bishop and diocese would have five years to “Respond.”
It was a very innovative program. The diocese won national recognition for its bicentennial program. And I learned that our process could work with thousands of people—one way or another if the leadership were involved.
Using the Fast Forum for Long-Range Planning
I (RJS) have long believed that the Fast Forum® Technique is a useful tool for organi- zational planning. I had the opportunity to confirm that belief in a project with a national religious organization from 1978 to 1981.
The Forum Foundation was asked, through the Church Council of Greater Seattle, for assistance in futures research programming for a major denomination engaged in its own long-range planning. The national denomination had just been reorganized into geographic regions. The region containing the five northwestern states was try- ing to get its long-range planning efforts off the ground.
It was suggested they use the PLAN Forum® model (Planning Long-range Assess- ment Network Model described in the next chapter) as a way to avoid the problem of having big meetings at remote distances. They agreed. The denomination’s Long-Range
Planning Committee used the model successfully for nearly four years. It involved sev- eral hundred people participating in local churches throughout the five-state region.
Audiotapes articulating issues were prepared by the committee and mailed with supporting papers, Opinionnaires® and response sheets to the conveners of commit- tees in participating local churches. They would listen to the tapes, discuss the issues, respond individually on their own response sheets, and mail the responses back for tabulation and review by the Planning Committee. Subsequent reports from the com- mittee to the Executive Committee were an ongoing process.
It was here in field test research with a religious denomination that it was learned that the small discussion group process — as advocated in the PLAN Forum® tech- nique — worked over large geographic areas.
At the end of the third year, the process itself was evaluated by those participating. It had over an 80 per cent positive response and was another indication that the research was on the right track. The executive minister of the denomination was in- terviewed at the end of the project. He reported that the thing he liked most about it was that the process was able to generate data about controversial issues without itself exciting controversy.
That was a significant achievement for research at that time.
Citizen Participation in a Municipal Setting
The city of Redmond, Washington conducted a Community Forum Program that ran from 1990 to 1998. The program, originally sponsored by Mayor Doreen Marchione and later continued by Mayor Rosemarie Ives, used the Fast Forum Tech- nique involving small groups in symbolic dialogue with the Mayor and city.
The city of Redmond stated their goals for the Community Forum Program to be:
-
To make participation in Redmond government easier for citizens by allow- ing people to meet in small groups at time and places convenient to them-
-
To give citizens a chance to meet, discuss, and learn more about issues that are important to the city.
-
To go beyond open discussion and gather specific and objective opinions about the topic from every participant.
-
To develop a process that is easily repeated at regular intervals throughout the year.
By all accounts the Program was a great success. Let’s look at what happened.
The City of Redmond used the Community Forums to gather citizen input on issues important to the city. There were 13 Community Forums from 1990 to 1998, each one addressing a topic important to the city of Redmond. Dates, topics, and number of participants for the Forums follow.
Date Topic Total Participants
-
1990-December Growth Management 227
-
1991-April Downtown Redmond 313
-
1991-November Transportation 284
-
1992-May Youth Issues 467
-
1992-October The Future of Redmond 447
-
1993-October Regional Transit 641
-
1994-July Redmond’s Economic Strategy 611
-
1995-January What About Water? 541
-
1995-July Rethinking Rubbish 425
-
1996-February Dealing with Disaster 1201
-
1996-June Taxes 186
-
1997-October Neighborhoods 383
-
1998-October Environment 360
The flow of events for the Forums was straightforward. Interested citizens were invited to phone and register with the city. From these volunteers, “conveners” were solicited to act as hosts for the small groups organized. The proposed forum was announced and advertised in the media, city newsletter, etc. Citizens and businesses were solicited for volunteers to participate in or organize a group meeting.
Conveners rounded up participants for their meeting (calling or sending invita- tions, and contacting neighbors or fellow employees). The conveners also attended a training session at City Hall to pick up the materials for the meeting and share infor- mation on how to conduct the meeting. In addition to volunteer citizen conveners, instructors at the local high schools also participated as conveners for their high school classes when students participated in the process.
Participants in the Redmond Community Forums typically met for about two hours in small groups of eight to twelve persons. Each group met at a time and place convenient to that group’s participants, usually in the home of the convener, a school, or a place of business. The group meetings were held over a two to three week period.
During each group meeting, the participants watched a video prepared by the City for that Forum. After the video, each participant was allowed two minutes of non-interrupted time to express his or her views, i.e., Day-in-the-Sun. After an open discussion by the group, each participant responded to questions on the prepared Opinionnaire®.
The results were summarized and included in a newsletter called a Viewspaper® which was elaborate and several pages long. This newsletter was distributed to partici- pants through their group convener and provided to all city employees.
Sometimes a follow-up workshop was held to review the results. The workshop was open to everyone and was attended by the Mayor and other city officials.
How was the Community Forum Program received by city staff and citizens? First, it is safe to say that a program containing 13 iterations spanning a nine-year period was probably viewed as quite valuable by the mayor, city staff, and citizen participants. Second, the number of people participating remained high throughout the program, suggesting a positive reaction to the overall process. Third, reactions by the citizens who participated were strongly positive, although a few negative com- ments were received. Typical comments by participants were:
-
“The process ”
-
“The Forum was an outstanding idea and ours was very useful as an oppor- tunity to discuss widely divergent views peacefully, respectfully, and ”
-
“This is a worthwhile process and if sustained, holds great promise of revital- izing the political process.”
-
“The idea of small group meetings is much more appealing than a larger, and often intimidating, community meeting.”
-
“I think this is a fantastic idea, and getting the citizens involved is the perfect thing to cure voter indifference.”
-
“[This was an] excellent way to communicate with Should be held every 3-5 months.”
-
“People are interested in government, but have no format other than elec- tions to feel as though they are part of The Community Forum helps to provide this.”
-
“I think this is the best thing to happen to Redmond since the stop light at NE 85th and 161st Ave.”
A large number of people simply wrote: “Thank you for this process.”
In 1991 the Association of Washington Cities recognized the Redmond Commu- nity Forum Program with an Honorable Mention in their Municipal Achievement Competition. This award is designed to recognize innovative programs that benefit communities.
All in all, the Fast Forum Technique appears to be a robust tool for enhancing citizen participation.92
The Fast Forum Goes International and Multilingual
The United Nations Conference on Women (Beijing, China)
Dr. Jan Cate, a member of the Forum Foundation board, was a delegate to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing, China in September, 1995. She administered an Opinionnaire® to some of the participants there to get opinions and ideas of women from different countries. Here are excerpts from her report, Everywoman’s Delegation and the Forum Foundation Opinionnaire®.
Abstract: At the Beijing conference, the Everywoman’s Delegation from Seattle, Washington developed an Opinionnaire® to demonstrate its potential in examining communality and differences in values among women participating worldwide through a democratic process.
There were three International Women’s Conferences during the Women’s De- cade ending in 1985: the First World Conference in Mexico City 1975, Copenhagen, 1980 and Kenya, 1985. Ten years later another international conference was held in Beijing, China. As a result of these conferences women have continually monitored their concerns: poverty, education, health, violence against women, effects of armed conflict, economic structures and policies, inequality of men and women in decision- making, gender equality, women’s human rights, media, environment and the girl- child. The statements and questions in the Opinionnaire® were based on these issues. A Platform for Action was the result of the Beijing Conference signed by 189 govern- ment delegates.
Out of 5,000 Opinionnaires® distributed 1,102 participants responded in four languages — English, 74%, French 4%, Spanish 12%, and Chinese 10%.
The Everywoman’s Delegation was a volunteer group of women related to the non-profit organization, Global Security Studies. The delegation represented a di- verse group of women ethnically, racially, vocationally, educationally and in age. As volunteers our access to translators and time was limited. This demonstrates what an interested and concerned group of women can accomplish. For the purposes here the most interesting responses are those sorted by language and the statements selected have become crucial for women since then. Examples would be women and violence, war, economic development, and world trade; and in health, HIV, plague, and the environment, including the growing scarcity of water.
The first 7 questions of the Opinionnaire® were demographic in nature. These were used to analyze the responses to the statements. With 1,102 respondents, 82% were female, 10% were male and 8% were not identified. The “typical” participant was 36-49 years old; the ethnic family — Caucasian, 31%; Asian, 27%; Latina, 13%; African, 9%. Those residing in North America were 37%; Asia, 23%; Europe, 14%;
Africa, 6%; South America, 5%. Professionally, 26% were educators, 11% were ad- ministrators, 11% were students, 7% were in the medical field, 6% in the political field, and 5% were related to the media. Vocationally 19% were social workers. In response to education 46% had 17+ years of schooling; 27%, 13-16 years; 11%, 0-12 years with 16% not identified.
Partial summary of opinions:
Equality —“Women’s health will improve if men assume greater responsibility for their sexual behavior.” It was an overwhelming 84% that agreed with this state- ment. French-speaking rated 94% agreement.
In response to the statement, “Women’s control over their reproductive choices should be viewed as a human right,” 83 percent agreed with this statement and the French-speaking rated 98% in agreement.
“Both sexes receive equal access to educational and training resources in my com- munity.” 56% of the Spanish-speaking were neutral, disagreed, abstained or objected to this statement.
“There is discrimination and prejudice against women entering public life in my community.” The majority of Chinese disagreed with this statement, 68%, as compared with the other language groups who agreed by approximately the same percentage.
“Discrimination against lesbians is a violation of human rights.” 70% agreed with this statement, except for the 80% of the Chinese who disagreed, were neutral or abstained to the statement.
Economic Development — “Feminization of poverty exists because governments fail to respond to the human rights of women.” While overwhelmingly the majority of respondents 80% to 90% agreed with the statement, only 27% of the Chinese speaking agreed with the statement.
Over 50% of the respondents agreed with the statement, “Childhood sex educa- tion and contraception would help to ensure young women academic success and economic security.”
“Free Trade Zones expand employment opportunities for women.” The results proved that responses to this statement expressed ambivalence.
“Establish an international tribunal where indigenous women may testify and present crimes against them and/or violation of collective rights.” 87% of the Spanish speaking responded affirmatively to this statement and only 3% of the Chinese.
“The interest on international debts owed by economically poor countries should be forgiven if such debts exceed 10% of their gross national product.” The French- and Spanish- speaking voted in the 80% bracket.
Peace — “Conclude by the end of the Year 2000 a negotiated binding schedule for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons within a time frame and with provi- sions for effective verification and enforcement.” The total agreement average 84%
“The UN should establish a permanent war crimes tribunal to prosecute rape in war as a war crime. Government should be held responsible.” Total agreement aver- aged 84%.
Trying to interpret a group of opinions is a challenge and if taken seriously can give some ideas of what grassroots people are thinking and this should guide those in leadership positions to accommodate the respondent and take very seriously the opin- ions expressed. This Opinionnaire® could be conducted over and over again. The Everywoman’s Delegation actually conducted a similar one during the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle, Washington, November, 1999 under the auspices of Lelo, Northwest Labor and Employment Law Office.
—End of Report—
Soros Telecommunications Conference on Sexual Trafficking in Russia
Dr Tatyana Tsyrlina, Professor of Education Kursk State Pedagogical University, Russia, 1998
Associate: Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation (USA) and Forum Foundation (USA)
Dr. Tsyrlina reports as follows:
As is now well-known, trafficking in women for the purpose of their sexual exploitation is a very profitable shadow market. For years the main countries sending women were in Asia, mainly, Thailand and the Philippines. “The collapse of the So- viet Union opened up a pool of millions of women from which traffickers can recruit. Now, former Soviet republics, such as Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Russia, have be- come major sending countries for women trafficked into sex industries all over the world. In the sex industry markets today, the most popular and valuable women are from Ukraine and Russia (Hughes, D. “The ‘Natasha Trade’—The Transnational Shadow Market of Trafficking in Women,” Journal of International Affairs, Spring 2000). For a number of reasons those women were seldom heard by the state, and the population hardly knew anything about a problem which might have grown into a national disaster.
Luckily, the MiraMed Institute (Seattle, USA), which has an office in Moscow, raised the issue and joined the fighters for a world free of violence against women. One of the components of their fight was and is the fight against trafficking in women. Important facts and data were collected, and there came a moment when it became necessary to share the information and get an immediate response from large groups of people.
As a result of meeting in 1998 between John Spady, the Forum Foundation’s director of research, and Mrs. Juliette Engel (President, MiraMed Institute)93 , an Opinionnaire® on sexual trafficking was created for people all over the Russian Fed- eration. After much debate, the two organizations assembled an Opinionnaire®. Be- ing the representative of the Stuart C. Dodd Institute for Social Innovation and an associate of the Forum Foundation in Russia, I also participated in formulating some of the questions and in administering the process.
To work with an Opinionnaire® one needs to know a certain number of rules which are not complicated but critical to make the process effective and to get final reports. So to make it easy, we prepared a short video-film with all the necessary explanations and instructions. Copies of the film, together with the questions and computer-scannable sheets, were sent to all the Russian sites willing to participate. John Spady and I worked with a group of women in the Russian Volga city of Saratov. Around 50 women and men got together in the Saratov University Internet Center where they, first, watched the film from the UNO conference on violence against women (March 8th, 1999). Next, they discussed the problem in small groups, watched an Opinionnaire® orientation video, and finally worked at the Opinionnaire® itself. The results, which required more than a month to collect, showed a growing interest in the trafficking problem. There was also a great deal of interest in the effectiveness of the Opinionnaire®. For example, judging by the replies, we realized that the problem was still new to large groups of the Russian population, and that it de- manded a lot of legal regulations (like a law to deal with sexual trafficking) and many people’s initiatives. On the basis of the results, MiraMed Institute conducted several Internet discussion groups, which brought together 153 sites from the Russian Fed- eration and 52 International groups from England, Belgium, Germany, the Nether- lands, and the USA. Final Fast Forum® reports became the basis of a new struggle against sexual trafficking in Russia.
To conclude, I can say that Sexual Trafficking Opinionnaire (March 1999) is a wonderful example of a symbolic dialogue held by 1,500 men and women all over the world, conducted by the Forum Foundation and MiraMed Institute. It’s also a pow- erful example of the cooperation between two non-state, non-profit organizations, in their desire to solve critical problems of our today’s life. Finally, it’s an example of the raise of the people’s interest towards a serious problem that was provoked by the mere fact that everyone’s voice would be heard and considered important.
—End of Report—
In summary, the Fast Forum® Technique has been used successfully in a number of settings and for a number of different purposes. The technique appears to be flex- ible, simple to use, and both efficient and effective.
The SMILE Syndrome
Lessons Learned
(Scientific Method In Leadership-Expertise)
A Serious Social Malady that Alienates People from their Organizational and Societal Leaders
The SMILE Syndrome identifies a major barrier to social progress.
The initial attempt to understand this phenomenon resulted in a paper written by Dick Spady in January, 1974, under the auspices of the Church Council of Greater Seattle. It was our first effort to explain the difference between “questionnaires” gen- erating random sample reports based on statistical theory (which itself is based on mathematical theory) and reports based on participation theory (which is based on administrative theory). Different rules apply. Unfortunately, the differences are not well known. It was later that we adopted the word “Opinionnaire®” and registered the trademark to better lift up and alert people to these important differences.
The inappropriate reference and use of the “scientific method” by leaders/experts intent upon the rational defense of the exclusiveness of random-sampling survey tech- niques as the only valid social indicator—as against citizen-participation, social-feed- back survey techniques of interested persons—is the root cause of the SMILE Syn- drome which, in turn, is a wall across the pathway of social progress.
The SMILE Syndrome is a serious social malady that attacks society at all levels and is carried unwittingly for the most part, by organizational and societal leaders, academic humanists, and experts.
The late Dr. Arthur W. Combs, preeminent national educator and psychologist, gave an outstanding address on “Human Relationships” in Seattle at a meeting of the DAS Conference of the Washington Education Association in May, 1970. He as- serted, “The Scientific Method is one of the sacred cows of our society. It works fine with things, but it doesn’t work so well with people.”
Specifically, while random-sample surveys are mathematically and statistically valid, the problem is that they fail to meet the psychological and social needs of people which Maslow and others have defined to include Ego-Fulfilling, Self-Actualizing needs, and Meta-Actualizing (i.e., civilization building) needs. The fact remains that the average person can go through an entire lifetime and never be asked for his/her opin- ion—at any time—on a specific issue of his or her concern from a random-sample survey. This situation does not meet the psychological needs of today’s citizens who, compared with their historical counterparts, are much more highly educated and have available sophisticated TV, Internet, and electronic media together with a multi- tude of books, magazines, and references.94
George Gallup wrote,
In conducting thousands of surveys on almost every conceivable issue for nearly half a century, I have learned three significant things about our fellow citizens. One is that the judgment of the American people is extraordinarily sound. Another is that the public is nearly always ahead of its leaders. The third is that the electorate has become better edu- cated and more sophisticated politically than ever before. 95
It is important to realize that just because information or opinions are generated by “interested” or “self-selected” persons or groups does not mean that such informa- tion isn’t useful. Such opinions are extremely useful in arriving at decisions in our society. Consider, for example, newspaper, TV, and radio editorials and interview programs. They do not necessarily represent the views of the people at large statisti- cally, but they play a leadership role and tend to influence decision-making.
When a citizen (or 500 or 1,000 citizens) writes a letter to a public or organiza- tional official, the views expressed are not necessarily “representative” of the views of the people at large. In addition, “public hearings” are used by “self-selected” people or organizations to lobby their views. Nevertheless, the public hearing is extremely im- portant and generates much useful information for arriving at decisions. Like all citi- zen participation models, the public hearing plays a leadership role and tends to influ- ence decision-making.
A start toward the solution of this important problem would be a two-track social information feedback system using a full spectrum of Zeitgeist Communication and routine, random-sample surveys for comparison when available. The purpose is to try to gain organizational and/or societal consensus. Social and organizational problems that are not solved by consensus have a way of cropping up again and again.
To accomplish this, leaders of governments, schools, churches, and community organizations must enable their constituents and stakeholders to participate. The people cannot do it alone; they need the help of their leaders to engage in a symbolic dia- logue. Someone has to talk, and someone has to listen.
These processes as a routine are hardly ever done today and our society and its public organizations are floundering because of it. It is an honor to be asked for one’s opinion; governments and organizations everywhere need to honor their citizens and constituents.
Again, most of the knowledge in the world today is in books and computer data banks. But most of the wisdom in the world today is in the minds of people walking the earth. We have to learn how to reach it.
Furthermore, the overall process envisioned in Zeitgeist Communication is open to the regular news media at every point, but it is never dependent upon the media for its promotion or to maintain communication between people and their leaders. Per- haps it will help to think of the process not as a “survey” but rather as a way for “Chiefs of State” (i.e., anyone either elected or duly appointed—public or private) to “talk” with constituents or stakeholders symbolically and for them to be enabled to “talk back.” All parties in a conversation are biased. But that is a moot point. What is important is the conversation, i.e., the process of communicating ideas among the participants. The democratic process may be more important than the data derived from the questioning. Marshall McCluhan’s statement that, “The medium is the message” is true.96
Communicating opinions for the common good is essential to democracy.
The process of increased citizen participation, providing interested persons an opportunity to contribute their opinion on matters of the public and organizational good, is therapeutic—it reduces organizational and societal tensions and leads toward peace. First, peace of mind for those individuals participating, then organizational and societal peace, and then finally the peace of civilization itself.
Humanity’s Greatest Resource
The exploration of ideas through symbolic dialogue is the mortar that binds a creative organization or society, i.e., an organization and society that is actively trying to solve its problems. That is, when dialogues are conducted rationally and courteously and people exchange ideas, the process (i.e., democratic) provides a “bonding”—and mortar—for the group searching. Again, any organization, institution, community, so- ciety, nation, or civilization which inhibits, innocently or not, the free flow of ideas—and opinions about those ideas—down, across, and upward in its organizational and societal structures, is depriving itself of its greatest resource—human thought—and it is in grave danger of being buried in history by the avalanche of the creativity of others.
The Social Conspiracy and Bureaucratic Inertia
In society, and in the world, there seems to be a natural dynamic that is counter- productive to the equally natural trend toward organization and civilization building.
We have called this dynamic “The Social Conspiracy.” This dynamic is directly re- lated to bureaucratic inertia.
“There are some things gravely wrong with our society as a problem-solving mecha- nism” said John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. “The machinery of the society is not working in a fashion that will permit us to solve any of our problems effectively. In the absence of healthy criticism, every organization tends to end up being managed for the benefit of the people who run it.”97
Lewis Lepham states: “Something is evolving in this country away from democ- racy. There is a fear of democracy (among intelligentsia). Democracy is about con- frontation, people disagreeing with each other.” 98
A Natural Selection Process May Be at Work in Society
People seem to gravitate to positions of leadership and management in both public and private organizations who are kind of “gutsy,” take-charge, ordinal-type person- alities used to working in hierarchical structures. They usually have strong egos and strong ego needs. They are often authoritarian. If their situations allow it, they resist naturally, but negatively, incursions of others into their “turf.” It is probable that the popular stereotype of a leader contains these traits.
Most leaders of organizations and institutions in society are responsible and are trying to do a good job as they see it. There is no big plot to keep people down. However, there may be a natural selection process in society whereby persons gravi- tate toward positions of leadership who have personality traits similar to those who have gone before them and who, in many cases, probably had a hand in their selec- tion.
The Forum Foundation first became aware of this negative dynamic of bureau- cratic resistance to new ideas affecting organizational “turf ” in 1974, when the “Citi- zen Counselor Proposal” — written by Stuart Dodd and Richard Spady, was pub- lished in The Seattle Times on Sunday November 10, 1974 as part of project IN-FORUM of the Church Council of Greater Seattle. The context of the article was: 1) a new idea was presented to improve the participation of citizens in the public planning processes of government, 2) this proposal came from a leading authority in social science research and opinion gathering, Dr. Stuart C. Dodd.
The project was co-sponsored by several responsible community groups, includ- ing Seattle’s Department of Community Development. This was the first time that a scholarly paper had been presented at large in the Seattle community calling for small discussion groups of citizens to participate in interaction with public and community leaders in an ongoing planning process. This was the academic forerunner of today’s “Citizen Councilor” models proposed later in this book.
Yet not one inquiry was received from any political leader. Not one inquiry was received from any community leader. Not one inquiry was received from any educa- tor or university administrator. Not one inquiry was received from any church leader. No one inquired, “What do you mean?” No one said, “It won’t work because ”
In effect, the silence was deafening—and attention-getting!
Over the years we became sensitive to this phenomenon in the continuing research of the Forum Foundation. Thereafter (and even up to the present time), whenever we wrote or otherwise communicated to leaders, for example, political, educational, busi- ness, community, or church—whether they were mayors, city managers, council- persons, bureaucrats, county executives, state legislators, governors, superintendents, university presidents, bishops, etc.—we not only noted their positive or negative re- sponse, we also noted their lack of response. Thus we began to recognize those nomi- nal “leaders” of organizations and society who showed a lack of interest in expanding citizen or member participation as a concept. They were, in effect, exhibiting the characteristic of having controlling purposes instead of freeing purposes.
It did not take long to discover that the “not interested” list, which was the list indicating controlling purposes, was far larger than the interested list which had free- ing purposes. This is especially important when compared against the research of Dr. Arthur Combs in his definition of the helping professions. He defines a characteristic of a poor helper/leader as one who has controlling purposes as against that of a good helper/leader who has freeing purposes.
Looking broadly at the characteristics of bureaucracies, which are one of the pre- vailing institutions in our world, one cannot help but note that they usually exhibit many of the characteristics of “poor helpers” (leaders) as defined by Combs. Bureau- cracies certainly are usually highly involved in control through rules and regulations, in the necessity of order, in the insistence of the use of forms to complete their work properly. And they usually have narrow purposes.
However, in defense of bureaucracies, one would be hard pressed to organize them otherwise.
It is only through a division of labor that a complex task can be broken down into manageable parts in organizations and society. The point is, however, that bureaucra- cies are created to manage a particular environment by some leader above them and are not created to take the place of the leader. The leader in this case is interested in control and so tends to select naturally those persons who can do that job best. There- fore, it appears that there is a self-perpetuating natural selection process in which managers are chosen with some negative traits of leadership.
Since even a casual observance of life in the world indicates that the predomi- nant organizing principle of the present and past is the authoritarian hierarchy, (A>B>C>D>…), many of the managers, perhaps even most, in organizations and society, appear to have controlling purposes. Since bureaucracies are the prevailing organizations in both our public and private sectors, managers with these personality traits are numerous. Subordinates who emulate them are even more numerous be- cause pay increases for most come from being selected as managers.
But what of society as a whole?
Most people probably do not have these traits. Many people are more passive, contemplative persons who seldom seek the limelight, who may be reluctant to speak in large groups, but who provide the dedicated, hard-working, capable, intelligent service that has characterized the American citizen and worker through the dynamic growth of the nation. These same people are the ones we trust to sit on our juries and decide the guilt or innocence, often life or death, of citizens charged by the state.
We do not allow state bureaucrats to both make the charge and decide on the guilt or innocence of a citizen. Only a jury of peers does this. Are such citizens char- acterized by a “lack of leadership” ability? We think not. It is just that up to this time the social invention of bureaucracies and management have not been able to encom- pass a process that could utilize their leadership contribution adequately.
What are the Implications?
This phenomenon of the social conspiracy and bureaucratic inertia seems more pervasive to us all the time. It seems that people may be gravitating naturally to positions of leadership in organizations and society who exhibit in themselves many characteristics of being a poor leader. That is a paradox. They seem to have a natural “Theory X-type” resistance to sharing their leadership function. Such sharing prob- ably feels like diluting their power. It may appear to them to be a threat to their control, in the management of their sphere of organizational or societal responsibil- ity. For example, many public officials and legislators often give the impression that the last thing they want to see is another interested citizen. The prevalent attitude of most public officials still seems to be that “the average American citizen is unin- formed and not capable of making a positive contribution to the solution of my problems.”99
How important will these dynamics be in impeding the growth of citizen partici- pation in organizations and society in the future? It seems exceedingly important as a negative dynamic. It suggests that many political, organizational, and bureaucratic leaders and others will not share their perceived prerogatives of leadership without a struggle. If people are unable to establish participation models through legislative processes, they will naturally do so themselves, probably through the initiative pro- cess. This should be no problem to the people once they understand what is at stake. They have the power in their Zeitgeist, the supreme governor, and in the reality of the Theory of Authority.
Up to now, Government itself has seemed unable to discuss the merits of citizen participation in the public planning processes of government in a substantive man- ner. The effort should be to move beyond “public relations,” “citizenship education,” and even “citizen participation,” and to move resolutely to “democratize planning and civilization building.” These barriers to social progress and participation by citizens everywhere debilitate and devitalize our organizations, institutions, and nations and are a direct threat to civilization itself.
It is possible, however, to remedy this problem in an organization, institution, or society as a whole by clarifying that moral authority stems from the people. Moral authority then begins to influence and direct the legal authority of institutions and their bureaucracies—naturally. It is our belief that Zeitgeist Communication and the Fast Forum® technique can help accomplish this.
The next chapter describes several different ideal models or applications for the Fast Forum®. As you will see, the technique can be easily adapted for a variety of uses.
-