[Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method

[Randy Williams]

Jack and Seth,

You are correct, and Meg even says as much. Here’s what she says about the second question (slightly adapted.):  People offer their interpretations, which are explored for diversity and commonalities. This reveals a great deal of information beyond the incident. The culture becomes visible around hierarchy, communications and trust.

Here’s her commentary on the third question: Here is where the richness of diverse perceptions can be shaped into learning outcomes that build on the complexity of the situation rather than overly simplified analysis.

I really think what she has structured here is a format for dialogue, which the physicist David Bohm called conversations for the sake of learning. 

I do agree that perhaps our most unique contribution to this method was the reflective step. 

Randy

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jack Gilles via OE <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
> 
> Randy,
> 
> Her `R`question seems to be interpretive to me. I think it is hard for most people to see the necessity of the Reflective level. People don’t know how to process emotional responses or associative events. 
> 
> Jack
> 
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:00, Randy Williams via OE <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Colleagues,
>> 
>> In her new book Who Do We Choose To Be: Facing Reality, Claiming Leadership, Restoring Sanity, Margaret Wheatley has her own articulation of ORID in four questions which she calls an After Action Review. They are:
>> 
>> O—What just happened?
>> R—Why do you think it happened?
>> I—What can we learn from this?
>> D—How will we apply these learnings?
>> 
>> We have always said that our methods are “life” methods,. Therefore, we didn’t create them, we discovered them. Each time I come across something like this from Wheatley it confirms that they are indeed “life” methods. 
>> 
>> I’ve seen other variations of ORID—for example from Peter Senge, in Catholic social theory, and even from my old professor of church history, Albert Outler. His articulation was, for me, the most memorable, in just three, not four,  short questions: What? So What? Now What?
>> 
>> As some of you who also sat with him will recall, Outler was not always so concise. 
>> 
>> Randy
>> _______________________________________________
>> OE mailing list
>> OE at lists.wedgeblade.net
>> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20171024/aac78377/attachment-0002.html>