SECTION 1: ENERGY
CHAPTER 23 - TRUTH IS HUMAN SHAPED
Gather with critics and neutrals to identify everyone's contributions to changes within and outside the system.
Many Western societies base their analysis on scientific objectivity, believing there is only one true answer to every question. This can reduce our perception of risk. However, humans have selective vision and memories. We often lie to ourselves and others. What happens if we find that we’ve made no impact or made things worse?
In Russia there are thought to be two kinds of truth: universal truth, and pravda - human-shaped truth. Everyone has their own truth to tell.
After reflecting on changes in the system, we should value others’ opinions to help us evaluate. This is especially important when considering what has contributed to these changes and any outcomes we've achieved.
Organizations often evaluate their contributions by themselves or hire independent consultants who may be biased. They also rely heavily on numbers to measure success.
There is power in asking and openly checking for bias by seeking opinions from critics, neutrals, and supporters. Let’s connect with allies, opponents, and others in the system we’re trying to change to gather stories, opinions, and anecdotes. Even our enemies might share the same ultimate goal but disagree on how to achieve it. Depending on how high risk the environment for your work, you could consider asking the following stakeholders:
-
A government decision-maker or adviser (it does not have to be the decision-maker you're targeting)
-
A local member of the public affected by the issue but unaware of your campaign
-
A journalist tuned in to discussions in government
-
An employee of a targeted company
We recommend:
-
Ask each stakeholder to share what they believe has been the most critical change in the system as they see it, and why they think it has happened.
-
Gather these answers together and explore them alongside the system chart, deep loop and narrative that you created in the exercise in Chapter 20 or previously.**
-
Debias this process by asking yourself: Are we treating the data fairly? Are we considering this too quickly? Are we seeking confirmation? Are we avoiding some kind of risk in our conclusion?
Read more: To explore deeper methodologies, research the solution-focused approach of Appreciative Enquiry or the anecdotal approach of Most Significant Change.
Source: Rosamond Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility, Transforming Professional and Personal Life (2000), p.4
David Rocks invented the SCARF model to show how our brains respond differently whether we perceive the people or situations around us as threats or rewards. When the brain is in a threat state, it shuts down to new ideas. When it is in a reward state, it helps us to communicate and collaborate more effectively.
According to the SCARF model there are five domains of social threat or reward. For example, feeling respected helps us to feel we have status, and be more open to collaboration; while feeling criticized or like we have lost status, closes us off from interaction or effective collaboration with others.
This sense of threat or reward also influences how we receive ideas, opinions and insights from others - and our ability to evaluate what is valuable information or not. For more on the SEEDS of bias and mental shortcuts that affect what we notice and how we consider, see Chapter 15: Decisions are Learned. [video]
Read more: https://www.mindtools.com/akswgc0/david-rocks-scarf-model
Source of this image: MobLab https://mobilisationlab.org/
Source of SCARF diagram: SEEDS Model from the Neuroleadership Institute, The 5 Biggest Biases That Affect Decision-Making (neuroleadership.com). Take the SCARF assessment: https://neuroleadership.com/research/tools/nli-scarf-assessment/
“Human eyes are selective… We think we can see ‘everything,’ until we remember that bees make out patterns written in ultraviolet light on flowers, and owls see in the dark. The senses of every species are fine-tuned to perceive information critical to their survival.” - Rosamond Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility
If you have no critics you'll likely have no success. - Malcolm X
concept: social threats & rewards
“We cannot escape ideology, but we can strive to be aware of its influence.” - Adam Curtis
“To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.” - Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
.png)
tool: burning through bias
Step 1:
If you did not gather them using the tool in Chapter 20, now gather allies, opponents, bystanders (e.g. journalists, the public) together and ask them to consider the SEEDS of bias questions* when thinking about changes in the system, who has contributed and when sharing honestly in the group:
-
Similarity: Am I choosing to believe what or who I’m used to?
-
Expediency: Does this challenge my thoughts or suit my instincts?
-
Experience: Am I assuming everyone had the same experience as me?
-
Distance: Am I choosing the answer that fits my current mood, or is most convenient?
-
Safety: Am I picking the safest, lowest risk option?
Step 2:
Ask each of them in turn to share what they think is the most critical change to the system over the period of your campaign, and why they think it happened. What’s working?
Ask one person to capture these in full.
Ask another to write each in brief on a post-it and place it on the right hand side of the chart.
Step 3:
Review the loops and connections across the fire together? What does this tell you about how your campaign is doing?
Go deeper: Evaluators use the original Most Significant Change tool to ask affected community members about the most significant change in their lives. The multiple perspectives from this process can challenge the biases of the facilitators as well as identify patterns and causes.
