Volume 20 ● Number 1 ● Spring 2013

Open
Source
Thinking
possibilities for
“yes, and …”
conversations

Journal of
the Association for Management Education and
Development
Guest Editors: Rosemary Cairns and Bob MacKenzie

Thanks to Triarchy Press for their sustained

encouragement for e-Organisations & People.

Special discounts from Triarchy Press for AMED Members

and other e-O&P readers
Triarchy Press have kindly offered a 20% discount on all their
books. Visit www.triarchypress.net and enter promotional code
OP20 at Checkout. The discount is in addition to any offers
already available.

This edition of e-O&P may be downloaded from the

AMED web site www.amed.org.uk , priced at:
 £15.00 for Networkers and non-members or
 £10 for IAF Members and visitors from the
Triarchy Press website and
 £0 for full members of AMED and e-O&P
subscribers

e-Organisations and People is also available on the

EBSCO host database http://www.ebscohost.com

© AMED 2013. ISSN 2042 – 9797. You may freely print or download articles to
a local hard disk, provided they are for your personal and non-commercial use
only. Please ensure that you acknowledge the original source in full using the
following words
‘This article first appeared in e-O&P Vol 20 No 1, Spring 2013 and is
reproduced by kind permission of AMED www.amed.org.uk’.
For permission to reproduce article(s) from this journal more widely, please
contact the AMED Office www.amed.org.uk, Tel: +44 (0)300 365 1247.
The views expressed in this journal by both editorial staff and contributors are
not those of AMED or any of the organisations represented by the editors, but
reflect the opinions of the individual authors only.
© Cover image by Rosemary Cairns

e-O&P Editorial Board:

Bob MacKenzie
David McAra
Creating the conditions for all
voices to be heard
Strategies for working with differences

Rowena Davis
When I read the invitation to contribute to this edition of e-O&P, I had an
instant ‘yes!’. These phrases jumped out at me:

…generative ways of allowing diversity to flourish in groups, ..

helping groups to move towards agreement and even
consensus. .. participatory processes that provide order without
imposing control from the top. … draw upon and honour each
and every contribution from group members, presuming that we
all have wisdom to contribute. ….

Can we afford not to draw upon and honour every possible

contribution that is latent in collective approaches to building
better futures?

For the last decade I’ve been working with these goals and experimenting with how to do this.

Keywords
systems-centred theory, complexity theory, SAVI, functional sub-grouping, communication climate,
integrating differences

Opening up to differences
®
I’ve been using Systems-Centered Theory (SCT) (Agazarian 1997) and complexity theory (Stacey 2000) as
my main maps to make sense of how we co-create dynamics in human systems and how change happens.
Both approaches acknowledge the emergent (and often unpredictable) nature of human interaction, and
while seeing some structure as helpful – and necessary to contain chaos – see too much structure as being
stifling. Potentially novel solutions emerge in the middle space, which Stacey calls ‘the Edge of Chaos’ and
which Agazarian calls ‘the Edge of the Unknown’, if (and it is a big if) we can listen to our differences and
explore the information they contain. This is shown below in the diagram ‘Working with differences’.

What is it about differences?

‘Living human systems survive, develop and transform by discriminating and integrating differences.’
(Agazarian 1997)

Many approaches, from genetics to encouraging innovation and development, recognise the importance of
difference. Difference is central in Systems-Centered theory, which posits that we need differences to
develop and transform even though, on the whole, we hate them!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 23 www.amed.org.uk

23
We can’t help this. We are hard wired to react to differences in the form of our Flight/Fight response.
Neurobiological research shows when our ‘low road’ emotional brain or amygdala detects danger, it acts
within about 10 or 12 milliseconds to trigger a fear response in us.

Joseph LeDoux (2010) gives the example of seeing a long dark object in a wood. Instantly, even before we
even think ‘A snake!’ , our brain begins to respond fearfully to the danger. We are likely to have
physiological responses like rapid heartbeat and raised blood pressure, a diminished capacity to feel pain,
an exaggerated startle reflex, and production of stress hormones.

If we then take a moment to settle our brains down and check reality, we might discover it is only a stick.
This conscious awareness involves another part of the brain – ‘the high road’ or prefrontal cortex (the area
of the brain most responsible for planning and reasoning), which takes more time to come into play. In
LeDoux’s words ‘ …for you to be consciously aware of the stimulus, it takes 250-300 milliseconds. So, the
amygdala is being triggered much, much faster than consciousness is processing.’

Our Flight/Fight response is very useful. As LeDoux says: ‘You’re better off mistaking a stick for a snake
than a snake for a stick’ (Hendrix 1997). However, when we are working in organisations or in communities
(or indeed relating to family and friends), we often get caught in this automatic response and thus lose our
ability to check reality. As a result, we often react to, rather than listen to, differences.

Typically we try to convert, discount or blame/attack those who don’t see things the way we do. This has
potentially high costs societally. Think of RBS’ acquisition of ABN Amro, BP’s Deepwater Horizon, subprime
lending, X-raying pregnant women long after the link to childhood cancer had been proved (Heffernan 2012)
and the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Robert Francis QC, who chaired the inquiry into the high
death rate at Mid Staffordshire, highlighted one of the causes: "It is now clear that some staff did express
concern about the standard of care being provided to patients. The tragedy was that they were ignored and
worse still others were discouraged from speaking out." (Francis, 2013).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 24 www.amed.org.uk

24
We now know from neuroscience that rather than being set in stone, our brains are plastic (Doidge 2007),
and can and do change. The more we use certain behaviours, the more they become engrained which,
paradoxically, means they can change. This is Hebb’s law, often paraphrased as ‘neurons that fire together,
wire together’ (Hebb 1949).

What helps us open to differences?

So how do we interrupt or at least catch our automatic Flight/Fight response before it gets entrenched and
costs us dearly?

From many perspectives – including Systems-Centered Theory, complex responsive processes, dialogue
and Positive Psychology – how we talk to each other (and ourselves) is key.

If we view the communication patterns we co-create as verbal

behaviours – which like all behaviours get reinforced the more we
do them – then (paradoxically again), we also have the potential
to change them. Our verbal behaviours create neural pathways in
our brains so, instead of being triggered into responding
automatically to differences, we can open up to exploring them.

You may recognise these as familiar responses when someone expresses a different view: Yes…but (‘I
agree but I think this is would be better); discounting (‘That’s a stupid idea’); attacking the other person
(‘What! Are you crazy!?’ ); trying to convert the other person to your view (‘Don’t you think it would be better
if we…?); or more radically, getting rid of people who hold different views, as happened in the top team at
RBS during the run up to acquiring ABN- AMRO. The overall impact is to discourage the speaker from his or
her view, to orient to my view (the ‘RIGHT’ view), and to lose the potentially valuable grit in the oyster that is
held within the difference of views.

One of the core Systems-Centered methods – functional sub-grouping – is designed to interrupt these
patterns and instead explore the potentially useful information in differences. Functional sub-grouping
involves stating clearly when we have a difference, and agreeing to explore one side first, then the other.
Systems-Centered Theory also posits that, in a climate of similarity, we will discover just tolerable
differences in what initially seemed only similar, and some similarities in what appeared to be only different.
This process of exploration is more likely to lead to integration and innovative outcomes. (see the short
video Susan Gantt and I produced @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_ZsQgmbAM&feature=player_embedded.)

I use this approach in work contexts with colleagues or clients where we have different ideas of what the
issues are or of how to solve problems. If there are just two of us, it means we both try and get into each
other’s boat. For example, if my colleague thinks we should wait before contacting a client and I think we
should talk to them immediately, we will agree which side to explore together first. Then we’ll both try to find
potential plusses/impacts of going the first route. When we feel we’ve done enough on the first option, we’ll
explore the plusses of the second one. Usually, we come to agreement through the process. If we don’t, we
use other criteria (e.g. whose decision it is). At the very least, we each feel we’ve had a chance to air our
views and to be heard.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 25 www.amed.org.uk

25
Functional sub-grouping is used in many organisational and clinical contexts in the UK, US, Scandinavia,
The Netherlands, Japan and in Israel. Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff (2007: 104) use it in Future
Search and effective meetings trainings. From their experience it is key to keeping groups and teams
working on their tasks.

‘[Solomon] Asch showed that as long as each person has an ally, people maintain their
independence from [group] pressure. Agazarian went further demonstrating that so long as …every
person has a functional ally – someone who carries the same ideas and/or feelings – a group is more
likely to keep working. Members will not distract themselves with side trips into rejecting, rescuing, or
scapegoating those who take risks. Our minimal job becomes helping people experience functional
differences when stereotypes might prevail.’

The impact of our communication climate

SAVI® (System for Analyzing Verbal Interaction) offers another route to fostering more free-flowing
generative conversations. SAVI is a nine box grid (see below) devised by Agazarian and Simon to track and
make sense of communication patterns in any context e.g. individuals, couples, teams and groups in
personal, organisational and wider social settings. It classifies all verbal behaviours according to whether
they are likely to be neutral, to help, or to get in the way of communicating and understanding each other.
(SAVI also looks at whether the content is mainly focusing on the Person or the outside world [Topic]
http://www.savicommunications.com/savi.html).

SAVI helps individuals, couples, teams, and organisations to identify communication patterns, by offering
insights into why certain patterns feel generative and satisfying, and why others feel stuck and dissatisfying.
It also helps identify strategies for shifting patterns – if desired.

SAVI is not a linear model; it offers ways of thinking about and experimenting with different behaviours and
seeing what impact they have in reality. It is also non-judgemental. No behaviours are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The
only question is whether the behaviours are helping or hindering communication, and whether they support
or hinder our goals in the contexts in which we work and live.

SAVI highlights how powerful patterns can be and how our view of people can change, depending on the
climate, rather than the people. The same people, with a different communication climate, appear and
behave differently!

Recently, in a two day SAVI introductory workshop I was leading in Stockholm, we were all researching the
impact of the communication climate on productivity and morale. Four participants were role-playing a
discussion while the rest of us observed. The topic was where to take a visiting client to dinner.

I asked the players to use only certain verbal behaviours over four rounds. In Round 1 they were using
Obscuring, Individualizing and Influencing behaviours. These are typical behaviours at the start of a team
discussion when we are likely to be in ‘Flight’ from our task (Wheelan, 2005; Gantt and Agazarian 2007).

In Round 2, things got a bit more heated with Fighting, Competing and Influencing behaviours – with lots of
Yes-Buts, Interrupting, Opinions and some Attacking and Self-Defence. In this round, one person was also
asked to use Finding Facts – Facts and Figures and asking Questions. One player reported at the end of

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 26 www.amed.org.uk

26
this Round that he had had a strong impulse to get rid of the Facts and Figures person (this illustrates the
scapegoating impulse that is elicited in a ‘Fight’ climate).

(Image: SAVI Grid – reproduced with permission of the author)

Round 3 was ‘As If’ – nice and neutral with Individualizing, Finding Facts and Influencing – but very little
work being done. Finally, in Round 4 using Finding Facts, Influencing, Responding and Integrating squares,
the players came to agreement and felt satisfied with the climate of their discussion. They were very
surprised about how their feelings about each other had shifted from targeting and irritation to feeling closer,
more curious and open to different views.

This pattern – called Problem Solving – has similarities with the impact of positivity, inquiry and ability to see
the wider system on team performance in Losada’s study of 60 Strategic Business Unit (SBU) teams.
Researchers observed over 60 management teams and defined “high performing” teams as demonstrating
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 27 www.amed.org.uk

27
high profitability, high customer satisfaction, and high evaluations by superiors, peer, and subordinates.
They observed teams by capturing statements made during business meetings and coding them on three
dimensions: positivity / negativity; self-focused / other-focused; and inquiry / advocacy.

Losada defined positivity as support, encouragement and appreciation in contrast to negativity (disapproval,
sarcasm, cynicism). ‘A speech act was coded as “inquiry” if it involved a question aimed at exploring and
examining a position and as “advocacy” if it involved arguing in favour of the speaker’s viewpoint. A speech
act was coded as “self” if it referred to the person speaking or to the group present at the lab or to the
company the person speaking belonged, and it was coded as “other” if the reference was to a person or
group outside the company to which the person speaking belonged. The coders were blind to the
performance level of the teams at the time of observation. Performance data were used to categorise the
teams only after their meeting had been observed and coded.’ (Losada and Heaphy, 2004: 745).
Characteristics of high performing teams showed high levels of other-focused and inquiry-based statements,
and a positivity ratio of about 6:1. The findings are summarised in the table here.

Table: Summary of Losada research

Ratios for the Three Bipolar Dimensions

Inquiry/Advocacy Positivity/Negativity Other/Self
High-performance teams 1.143 5.614 0.935
Medium-performance
teams 0.667 1.855 0.622
Low-performance teams 0.052 0.363 0.034
With one major retailer, we used SAVI to role play the product review meetings, using Take 1, Take 2 and
so on, trying out different communication strategies. People were able to see how they contributed to the
dismissive responses they often received about their proposals by often Yes-Butting back or responding
defensively. By Paraphrasing and asking for more information, they slowed themselves down and started to
open up - and so did the climate in the meeting.

Interestingly, recent research (Edmondson 2012) suggests that the behaviours of successful teaming are
highly correlated with verbal behaviours, namely:

 Speaking up – asking and answering questions, acknowledging errors, raising issues, exploring
ideas

 Experimenting

 Reflecting – observing, questioning, discussing processes and outcomes regularly

 Listening intently – paraphrasing, building on others’ ideas

 Integrating – synthesising different facts and points of view to create new possibilities

Conclusion
Being able to engage in healthy conflict is crucial if we are to move past either ‘too much sameness’ so that
nothing changes, or ‘too much conflict’ so that we tear each other apart, or separate from each other in
order to get rid of our differences.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 28 www.amed.org.uk

28
Opening up to difference is not easy: it requires skill, practice and commitment. Part of opening up to
difference involves slowing down enough so that our autonomic response is interrupted sooner rather than
later. For facilitators, it means a commitment to notice and work with our own triggers around difference, so
we can be more open to them. For leaders in organisations and in communities, it means an awareness that
this is not easy and that we need to shift behaviours. Thinking of this in viral terms might be helpful. If we
facilitate the achievement of sufficient critical mass and positive deviance from existing patterns, then things
might indeed shift for the better (Herrero 2010-11).

References
Agazarian, Y M (1997) Systems-Centred Therapy for Groups, New York: The Guildford Press
Doidge, D (2007) The Brain That Changes Itself, New York: Viking Adult
Edmondson , A C (2012) Teamwork on the Fly. Harvard Business Review, April 2012
Francis, R (2013) The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Inquiry
www.midstaffsinquiry.com/pressrelease.html
Gantt, S.P. & Agazarian, Y.M. (2010). Developing the group mind through functional subgrouping: Linking
systems-centered training (SCT) and interpersonal neurobiology. International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, 60(4), pp. 514-545. doi: 10.1521/ijgp.2010.60.4.515 Downloadable with permission
from the publisher at: http://www.systemscentered.com/SystemsCentered/Readings
Gantt, S.P. & Agazarian, Y.M. (2007). Phases of system development in organizational work groups: The
systems-centered approach for intervening in context. Organizational & Social Dynamics, 7(2), pp. 253-
291. Downloadable with permission from the publisher at:
http://www.systemscentered.com/SystemsCentered/Readings
Hebb, D O (1949) The Organization of Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons
Heffernan, M. (2012) Dare to disagree. TED Talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY_kd46RfVE
Hendrix, M. L. (1997) The NIH Record, vol XLIX, June 3
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/06_03_97/story04.htm
Herrero, L (2010-2011) Homo Imitans: Meeting Minds
Losada & Heath (2004).The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams: A
nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740-765
LeDoux, J. (2010) Why you might be scared of X. http://bigthink.com/ideas/20453
Stacey, R (2000) Strategic Management & Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, Harlow:
Pearson Education
Weisbord, M & Janoff, S (2007) Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Wheelan, S A (2005), Creating Effective Teams: A Guide For Members and Leaders, Thousand Oaks: Sage

About the author

Rowena Davis, MSc, is an organisational consultant working with public, private and not-for-profit
organisations internationally. Her work combines coaching individuals and teams; strategic marketing and
planning; mapping systems; and action learning. She holds a Masters in Change Agent Skills & Strategies
(Distinction) from the University of Surrey, is a licensed Systems-Centered Practitioner and a certified SAVI
(System for Analyzing Verbal Interaction) trainer.

Contact: E: [email protected] T: +44 (0) 777 1600 124

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20 NO. 1 PAGE 29 www.amed.org.uk

29
About our associations: IAF and
AMED
Since 1994, the International Association of
Facilitators has been promoting, supporting
and advancing the art and practice of
professional facilitation through methods exchange, professional growth, practical research, collegial
networking and support services, and annual regional conferences. Our 1,300 members work in a variety of
environments and at a variety of tasks.

Believing that the profession of facilitation provides a critical set of skills in the global society of the 21st
century, IAF is organized globally, regionally, and locally. Our seven regions are Africa, Asia, Oceania,
Canada, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the United States. Local chapters of IAF allow
members to participate in activities locally as well as in regional and global activities. Globally, IAF offers a
peer-based Certified Professional Facilitator assessment process, publishes a Journal and a monthly
newsletter, and supports the IAF Methods Database. Several regions also publish their own newsletters.

For more, visit www.iaf-world.org.

AMED stands for the Association for Management Education and

Development, www.amed.org.uk. We are a long-established
membership organisation and educational charity devoted to
developing people and organisations. AMED exists for people who
want to share, learn and experiment, and find support, encouragement, and innovative ways of
communicating. Conversations are open, constructive, and facilitated.

At AMED, we strive to benefit our members and the wider society. Exclusive Member benefits include
excellent professional indemnity cover, free copies of the quarterly journal e-O&P, and discounted fees for
participation in a range of face-to-face events, special interest groups, and our interactive website. We aim to
build on our three cornerstones of knowledge, innovation and networking in the digital age. Wherever we
can, AMED Members, Networkers and Guests seek to work with likeminded individuals and organisations, to
generate synergy and critical mass for change.

To find out more about us, you are welcome to visit our website www.amed.org.uk, or contact Linda
Williams, our Membership Administrator, E: [email protected], T: 0300 365 1247

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e-ORGANISATIONS & PEOPLE, SPRING 2013, VOL. 20, NO. 1 PAGE 94 www.amed.org.uk

PAGE 94