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
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@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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
Oh, I was just going to say the same thing. The reflective really felt missing. Seth T. Longacre Carlsbad, CA "No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices” Edward R. Murrow ———-O0ooo— ———–(——)— ————)–-/—- ————(_/- —-ooo0O—- —-(——)—- —–\-–(– ——\_)-
On 24 Oct, 2017, at 10:24 , Jack Gilles via OE <oe@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@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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
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@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@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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
Yes, the Reflective level is important since our emotional responses are clues to what's going on. But I'm not sure how unique we are to consider that level. Consider the news interviews: "How did that make you feel?" "How did you feel when...?". Asians consider their feelings to be nobody else's business, but we in the West seem to relish parading them for all to see! Anyway it is a crucial level to address in the ORID conversation format and takes us below the surface. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Randy Williams via OE < oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wedgeblade.net
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
I would suggest John, that the news people who ask HOW don't get the reflective, but beginning interpretive, because in our culture the how question begs for explanation, not reaction. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:33 PM, John Epps via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
Yes, the Reflective level is important since our emotional responses are clues to what's going on. But I'm not sure how unique we are to consider that level. Consider the news interviews: "How did that make you feel?" "How did you feel when...?". Asians consider their feelings to be nobody else's business, but we in the West seem to relish parading them for all to see!
Anyway it is a crucial level to address in the ORID conversation format and takes us below the surface.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Randy Williams via OE < oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
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@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@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@lists.wedgeblade.net
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
Jack, your accurate observation was so obvious that even I got it. My brain was saying, 'Whoa! That's interpretive!' Marshall On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 11:24 AM, Jack Gilles via OE <oe@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@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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
I have found forcing myself to begin each level with the word "What" helps me do all four levels- To me Why asks for interpretation--so I ask instead for What did the author intend, etc. I also find as Randy suggests our ORID is a recognition of what is already present. I would bet we could find ORID in Socrates. I also find the brain research helpful here, O-the lizard brain is always scanning all incoming information (five senses) and determines what needs to be paid attention R-the middle brain attaches emotions to the important information the lizard brain sends forward I-the neo cortex makes sense out of our emotional reaction (interestingly enough it does so to enable us to collaborate more with our community) D-our heart encourages us to our final choice. (The best way I have of talking about the spiritual reality/level) So Objective level gets out *what *we acknowledge is present, Reflective level gets out *what *our responses are, Interpretive level gets out *what *sense we make of it all Decisional level questions get out *what *value we give it. Of course as Joe Pierce would point out, one can also do an Objective level ORID, a reflective level ORID, etc. depending on the emotional maturity of thegroup one is working with. I would be interested in having a dialog about how Wilber's intevral map informs ORID conversations. Warmest regards Don Bushman On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Randy Williams via OE < oe@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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
Hmm. I’d suggest that the R pulling at the patterns that emerge from that which grabs my attention; I see a face, and then recognize who it is in the store. Feelings emerge in the moment, and I try to figure why they’re in this place, and then I decide what to do (greet them? Avoid their glance?) – all happens pretty quick, though… Bill Schlesinger From: OE [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Don Bushman via OE Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:17 AM To: Order Ecumenical Community Cc: Don Bushman Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method I have found forcing myself to begin each level with the word "What" helps me do all four levels- To me Why asks for interpretation--so I ask instead for What did the author intend, etc. I also find as Randy suggests our ORID is a recognition of what is already present. I would bet we could find ORID in Socrates. I also find the brain research helpful here, O-the lizard brain is always scanning all incoming information (five senses) and determines what needs to be paid attention R-the middle brain attaches emotions to the important information the lizard brain sends forward I-the neo cortex makes sense out of our emotional reaction (interestingly enough it does so to enable us to collaborate more with our community) D-our heart encourages us to our final choice. (The best way I have of talking about the spiritual reality/level) So Objective level gets out what we acknowledge is present, Reflective level gets out what our responses are, Interpretive level gets out what sense we make of it all Decisional level questions get out what value we give it. Of course as Joe Pierce would point out, one can also do an Objective level ORID, a reflective level ORID, etc. depending on the emotional maturity of thegroup one is working with. I would be interested in having a dialog about how Wilber's intevral map informs ORID conversations. Warmest regards Don Bushman On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Randy Williams via OE <oe@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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
I'd ask - as a reflective question - what did it affect? -----Original Message----- From: OE [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Randy Williams via OE Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:01 AM To: oe@lists.wedgeblade.net Cc: Randy Williams Subject: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method 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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
Bill, My friend Homayun Taba from India made the Conversation Method into “Well SAID”. S is for the Sensory; see, hear, touch, colors, sounds etc. and A was for Affect. The second level does not have to get people to talk about their emotions directly if that is not comfortable as Epps says. But you can illicit emotional responses with questions such as “Surprise, confuse, puzzle, ring a bell, startle, stand out, unusual, find yourself saying `yes^etc. All of these are affects. “We don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. (Covey) One can also use Stephen Covey’s terms as a short course. He puts his two fists together and speaks of how we have “stimulus-response”; = “reactive people”, and he then pulls them apart and shares what needs to happen in between, when you reflect, judge, weigh-up and decide; “responsible people”. The method is really about Freedom and Responsibility, not right or wrong decision. One needs to dialogue with the values one is holding. Jack
On Oct 24, 2017, at 15:10, Bill Schlesinger via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote:
I'd ask - as a reflective question - what did it affect?
-----Original Message----- From: OE [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net>] On Behalf Of Randy Williams via OE Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:01 AM To: oe@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> Cc: Randy Williams Subject: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
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@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
Another version I heard from an IAF Conferece in the UK some years ago: Facts, Feelings, Findings, Future. The process certainly does not belong to us, but Brian Stanfield's book "The Art of Focused Conversation" provides a fine explanation and 100 examples. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Jack Gilles via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net
wrote:
Bill,
My friend Homayun Taba from India made the Conversation Method into “Well *SAID*”. *S* is for the S*ensory*; see, hear, touch, colors, sounds etc. and A was for *Affect*. The second level does not have to get people to talk about their emotions directly if that is not comfortable as Epps says. But you can illicit emotional responses with questions such as “Surprise, confuse, puzzle, ring a bell, startle, stand out, unusual, find yourself saying `yes^etc. All of these are affects.
“We don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. (Covey)
One can also use Stephen Covey’s terms as a short course. He puts his two fists together and speaks of how we have “stimulus-response”; = “reactive people”, and he then pulls them apart and shares what needs to happen in between, when you reflect, judge, weigh-up and decide; “responsible people”. The method is really about Freedom and Responsibility, not right or wrong decision. One needs to dialogue with the values one is holding.
Jack
On Oct 24, 2017, at 15:10, Bill Schlesinger via OE < oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
I'd ask - as a reflective question - what did it affect?
-----Original Message----- From: OE [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net <oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net>] On Behalf Of Randy Williams via OE Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:01 AM To: oe@lists.wedgeblade.net Cc: Randy Williams Subject: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
John, The problem with that short hand (4 F’s) is that the second level is about your interior, and that has to do with similar events, or experiences etc. They may have an emotional (feeling) attachment, but this is to trigger associations, links, patterns. Jack
On Oct 24, 2017, at 16:29, John Epps via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
Another version I heard from an IAF Conferece in the UK some years ago: Facts, Feelings, Findings, Future. The process certainly does not belong to us, but Brian Stanfield's book "The Art of Focused Conversation" provides a fine explanation and 100 examples.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Jack Gilles via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote: Bill,
My friend Homayun Taba from India made the Conversation Method into “Well SAID”. S is for the Sensory; see, hear, touch, colors, sounds etc. and A was for Affect. The second level does not have to get people to talk about their emotions directly if that is not comfortable as Epps says. But you can illicit emotional responses with questions such as “Surprise, confuse, puzzle, ring a bell, startle, stand out, unusual, find yourself saying `yes^etc. All of these are affects.
“We don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. (Covey)
One can also use Stephen Covey’s terms as a short course. He puts his two fists together and speaks of how we have “stimulus-response”; = “reactive people”, and he then pulls them apart and shares what needs to happen in between, when you reflect, judge, weigh-up and decide; “responsible people”. The method is really about Freedom and Responsibility, not right or wrong decision. One needs to dialogue with the values one is holding.
Jack
On Oct 24, 2017, at 15:10, Bill Schlesinger via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote:
I'd ask - as a reflective question - what did it affect?
-----Original Message----- From: OE [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net>] On Behalf Of Randy Williams via OE Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:01 AM To: oe@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> Cc: Randy Williams Subject: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
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@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net>
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net>
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net <mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net>
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
I have been using ORID to do movie conversations once a month for 8 to 10 months a year at whatever church we attend for about the last 20 years. I find that participants want to jump to the interpretive fast and even the Objective is more important to get inside the movie or issues. Two words above strike me - "happened" and "complexity". Using What Happened as the objective question just seems to encourage the participants to jump to the interpretive level. Also, with movies or books you have to get the objective out (What lines, scenes, characters) in a comprehensive manner especially in complex movies that have multiple plots going on at the same time with many people that all become interrelated. A good example of this is the movie "Crash" that came out some years ago. Shifting from movies to the analysis of the issues in our society today we see that they are are increasingly complex (such as health care, immigration, terrorism, and economics) that you have to stay on the objective and the reflective long enough and comprehensive enough to have any meaningful interpretation, and decisional conversation. David Rebstock On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jack Gilles via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net
wrote:
John,
The problem with that short hand (4 F’s) is that the second level is about your interior, and that has to do with similar events, or experiences etc. They may have an emotional (feeling) attachment, but this is to trigger associations, links, patterns.
Jack
On Oct 24, 2017, at 16:29, John Epps via OE <oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
Another version I heard from an IAF Conferece in the UK some years ago: Facts, Feelings, Findings, Future. The process certainly does not belong to us, but Brian Stanfield's book "The Art of Focused Conversation" provides a fine explanation and 100 examples.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Jack Gilles via OE < oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
Bill,
My friend Homayun Taba from India made the Conversation Method into “Well *SAID*”. *S* is for the S*ensory*; see, hear, touch, colors, sounds etc. and A was for *Affect*. The second level does not have to get people to talk about their emotions directly if that is not comfortable as Epps says. But you can illicit emotional responses with questions such as “Surprise, confuse, puzzle, ring a bell, startle, stand out, unusual, find yourself saying `yes^etc. All of these are affects.
“We don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. (Covey)
One can also use Stephen Covey’s terms as a short course. He puts his two fists together and speaks of how we have “stimulus-response”; = “reactive people”, and he then pulls them apart and shares what needs to happen in between, when you reflect, judge, weigh-up and decide; “responsible people”. The method is really about Freedom and Responsibility, not right or wrong decision. One needs to dialogue with the values one is holding.
Jack
On Oct 24, 2017, at 15:10, Bill Schlesinger via OE < oe@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
I'd ask - as a reflective question - what did it affect?
-----Original Message----- From: OE [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net <oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net>] On Behalf Of Randy Williams via OE Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:01 AM To: oe@lists.wedgeblade.net Cc: Randy Williams Subject: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
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@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
participants (8)
-
Bill Schlesinger -
David Rebstock -
Don Bushman -
Jack Gilles -
John Epps -
Randy Williams -
Seth Longacre -
W. J.