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

Tue Feb 11 17:34:53 PST 2014

Thank you for your question, Eric.

I was going to make a quick response when I tripped over an artichoke  
full of thoughts and feelings I am trying to get to the heart of.  
Please be patient as I try to honor your very good question with a a  
worthy answer.

-- 
Shalom,

Chris Kloth
ChangeWorks of the Heartland
254 South Merkle Road
Bexley, OH 43209-1801
ph 614-239-1336
fax 614-237-2347
www.got2change.com

Quoting Eric Hansen <ehansen917 at gmail.com>:

> Hi, Chris:
>
> I know I am a stranger on this list. My wife, Elaine Hansen, I think is more
> active, and is friends with Suzanne Daigle, who also responded to your post.
> I did not respond on top of Suzanne's response so as not to "muddy the
> waters." None of which matters except to provide some context for who I am.
>
> You're email caught my eye for several reasons. The comment that struck me
> most is this one:
>
> "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."
>
> I am wondering: Could you tell me (us) more about why, for you,
> trustworthiness falls short of trust.
>
> I am not asking you to justify the distinction, only to explain it more. At
> this point, I do not understand.
>
> If you do decide to provide an answer, I would then invite you to answer one
> more question:
>
> Why is that distinction important to you?  Again, I am not asking you to
> justify that distinction. I am, instead, inviting you to reflect on why the
> distinction has meaning for you and then to share that meaning with the
> list.
>
> Eric Hansen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
> [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Chris Kloth
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:05 PM
> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
> Subject: [OSList] Interdependence and Vulnerability: a delayed reframe re:
> Trust
>
> 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
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.