[OSList] Interdependence and Vulnerability: a delayed reframe re: Trust

[Suzanne Daigle]

Dear Chris,

Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful post on trust.   I was deeply
moved by it.

My humble heartfelt reaction is that life happens in the moment; trust
happens or not in the moment of being together.

Who can predict if trust will emerge? How can we ever imagine hanging on to
it if it does emerge? Like wave riding, we meet the wave and life as it
happens,  trusting we are the right people and the conditions are also
right.

No sacrilege or hyperbole as far as I am concerned. In fact quite the
opposite.

Thank you for sharing. I felt myself in the moment of what you described. A
factual representation with a good head and heart planning,  opening and
holding the space.

Suzanne

P.S. I loved your word inadvertently and also your take on vulnerability
and interdependence.
On Feb 9, 2014 5:05 PM, "Chris Kloth" <chris.kloth at got2change.com> wrote:

> I have re-read the Trust thread several times. I noted the passion and
> thoughtful reflections it triggered.
>
> Like the rest of you, over the many years (decades) I have been engaged in
> working with individuals, groups, organizations and communities the issue
> of trust has certainly been raised as an explicit or implicit source of
> concern when people are having difficulty getting something done.
>
> At the risk of both sacrilege and hyperbole, I think trust is overrated,
> or at least misunderstood. Here is an OST story I hope helps explain my
> perspective.
>
> About 20 years and several governors ago a statewide community mental
> health system I was working with was deeply enmeshed in turmoil. There were
> three major factions: rural agencies, urban agencies and the state
> oversight agency. They were all actively engaged in lawsuits against one
> another. Then the state legislature introduced a piece of legislation that
> all three factions strongly opposed because of the negative consequences
> for people suffering from mental illness. However, a series of highly
> publicized individual tragedies (circumstances beyond their control -
> control is always such an illusion) made it seem likely the legislation
> would pass.
>
> I was asked to help find a way for the three factions to work together to
> defeat or amend the legislation. After considerable pre-work I proposed OST
> as a way to proceed. A group of 6 people (2 from each faction) worked for
> the better part of a day to craft a question to convene a larger group to
> explore. The first half of the planning day was fairly tense and colored by
> the mistrust they all brought into the room. Crafting a question that would
> reflect their shared interests required owning their distinct interests,
> which initially tended to reinforce their mistrust of one another. By the
> end of the day they had a question they all agreed was sufficiently
> compelling to attract a significant cross-section of their world to gather,
> talk and listen.
>
> What they did NOT have by the end of the day was trust of one another.
> What they had determined was that they could not succeed in achieving their
> shared outcome without one another. They were interdependent, which also
> meant they were vulnerable. They had determined that I was trustworthy,
> which I would suggest is short of trust. They were willing to risk
> vulnerability, in part, because I had demonstrated fairness, transparency,
> truthfulness and presence... enough to take a risk on the process.
>
> Approximately 100 people, a credible cross-section of people from all over
> the state, gathered in open space to explore their question... to figure
> out what, if anything, they were able and willing to do together. They were
> the right people doing the right work. I was not surprised they found ways
> to work together to address their shared concerns. What did surprise me was
> that, in the process of addressing their common threat they "inadvertently"
> discovered opportunities to begin to resolve the lawsuits that had been
> pending for years. Of course, all these years later I would not be
> surprised. I might even have expected it, though I would not have suggested
> it as a possible outcome at the front end of the process.
>
> The question remains, did they trust each other during and after working
> in Open Space? I would say they trusted each other and the process just
> enough to risk vulnerability in this particular situation because they knew
> they needed each other. They laid a foundation for building trust over
> time. Over the next several years they experienced gains and setbacks,
> largely due to larger social and political conditions beyond their control.
> (Again, control is always such an illusion.)
>
> However, despite the ebbs and flows in their level of trust, they were
> able and willing to continue to risk vulnerability because they knew they
> needed each other... they were authentically interdependent.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Please note that my new e-mail address is chris.kloth at got2change.com. You
> may also contact me by using the Contact Page at www.got2change.com.
>
> Shalom,
>
> Chris Kloth
> ChangeWorks of the Heartland
> chris.kloth at got2change.com
> www.got2change.com
> phone - 614.239.1336
> fax - 614.237.2347
>
> Think Globally, Act Locally
>
> Please think about the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140209/d278c87d/attachment-0008.htm>