From 1970 to 1984 I spent a lot time sitting around tables with a unique group of people and rank a lot of coffee. The most significant things that happened during those years grew out of conversations: Artform, ORID, scripture/news, psalms. Everything else seem to flow out from those converstions. In the last 30 years I have stumbled on many other methods. None of them seemed to have the ability to move any group I have been involved with into the future or to make decisions that evoked positive change.

In regard to your link to the Dreyfus model, I found a new verb - problematized. I wonder how or if it relates to the noun - problemat? -David Walters Steve wrote: To my taste nurturing roots and growing new shoots is actually a timely task in the face of a 50 year vision. Nurturing roots and shoots for ways of leading in complex situations is a good thing. Debating the reliability of ORID with facilitators is like listening to a group of carpenters argue about whether hammers put nails in boards. Studying Brian's new version of Chapter 10 would be delightful, especially online with generous hearts and open inquiry What new shoots for 50 years? Building a house with only a carpenter and a hammer seems silly. Plumbers and Roofers would be good. Bending history with only a facilitator role and an ORID conversation seems daunting as well. I'm thinking more roles, conversations and tools are needed: Facilitators facilitate knowing Pedagogues and Story-Makers grant being Navigators, Coaches, Mentors cause action outcomes Mathews's NRM and Jenkins's 9D book don't only belong to facilitators. Might be a good point of departure for some new thinking. Did you read Kaze Gadway's post this morning? She's hard at work in the Being-Doing mode. She is mentoring those indian kids on behalf of the next generation. She's granting new being side by side with those kids. There is no facilitation in sight. Not everyone needs to think, be, do it al, all the time either. Seems like it is a time for more appreciative inquiry and more innovations not less. --re presuppositions-- The assertion that ORID is THE way the mind thinks doesn't pass the "no-smiling allowed" test in Buddhist circles. It would be a topic for generous respectful inquiry, maybe a testable hypothesis. Heidegger asserted that most people don't actually know much about hammering, especially carpenters, they are just being in the world hammering. Not too much reflection goes on until the hammer hits the thumb for most carpenters. Kind of sets those Cartesian abstractionist back a step or two. Carpenters have skillful means they don't need to do an ORID they just have the experience of hammering skillfully. Some people focus on knowing, some on doing, some on doing. I assert that the world needs more leadership roles, and facilitators have great skill set. It isn't the only leadership skill set. Mathews had a fine insight when he separated out the phenomena of knowing being and doing. What new leadership roles and conversations and skillful means? What happens when you take up a practice like facilitating, teaching, coaching, mentoring, story-making skill sets? You practice being skillful until you get it right and you get it automatic. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition If you plot leadership roles on Mathews's NRM triangle as updated by the Jenkins it might look like this https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlNTut28MXqLnv-_Xd2yPoHONBHlOAJLC8AmwL_O... Seems like some new skill sets might evolve too. What do you think? Steve _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net