Adaptive Communication:

Facilitating a Collaborate Community Process

By: Dani Madrone

"The greatest challenge of community's partnerships is to use their own assets and to internalize the need to better their life styles that can be achieved through individual and community empowerment. The factors that exist in a community are called assets defined by three interrelated characteristics: include the capacities of the members, internally focused and driven by relationships. To empower the community means that it may be able to create wealth and the basis of sustainable development using all the resources and all the vehicles at its disposal."

From: "The Leaky Bucket Principle of Community Development in Global and International Partnerships," The International Journal of Management and Innovation

A community is both an insignificant fraction of the global population and an immeasurable network of support for the individual. Our community will define our personal and collaborative capabilities and at the same time echo our actions out to the world. It is sustained by the willingness of the people to explore processes of adaptation, reformulation, revitalization, and transformation.

With careful consideration and a broad level of understanding, we can collectively influence the natural transitions of our community. Stakeholders will provide all of the resources we need to make a well-informed decision, and together can broaden the conversation and participate in a community-based learning experience. Understanding becomes more than an empathetic gesture, but rather strength and potential for personal growth and community resilience. It is achieved when new and diverse perspectives are woven into the conversation.

Communication is the medium for change in a social system, and flows naturally in a well-connected community free of controversy. When conflict does occur, it is vital to encourage dialogue in a manner that builds bridges of understanding rather than walls of a fortress. A dialogue is a conversation among people of relevant and diverse interests, and is motivated by common goals and values. The purpose of a dialogue is to frame a problem, consider all stakeholders, and build consensus. It is the challenge of the facilitator to mediate and guide this process of human interaction through a natural adaptive cycle that will build the potential for change.

If a social disturbance has affected the community, it is likely that the conversation will be argumentative. An argument can be a useful tool if it is well intentioned, logical, and reasonable. On the contrary, it can also degrade trust and progress if it is deceitful, unreceptive, and rigid. In terms of moving forward towards a solution, the argument must retain a quality of pragmatism, when all ideas and perspectives are considered in a reasonable dialogue to inform a conclusion. The alternative logic is based on semantics; the goal is to prove a perspective right or wrong. This approach is a slippery slope if we are to be a stronger, trusting, and highly connected community in the end.

The first thing to declare is the common ground, a solid foundation of shared values and goals on which we can build productive dialogue with the basis of understanding. This is the home base that we all return to if anyone feels defensive, unsafe, or excluded from the conversation. Beyond the acknowledgement of our innate humanness, what can we establish as the commons? What values and goals do we share that bring us together? What resources do we all rely on? How do we perceive our personal health and the health of our community? How do we appreciate the ecosystems and landscapes that support our ability to thrive? Are we working towards a day that we can be certain that our children will inherit a better world?

Once the group has been united on the common ground, it is important to establish ground rules, boundaries for the social system that will sustain the community. All participants should discuss and agree on rules that will encourage a safe, welcoming, and inclusive conversation. Some examples of ground rules that are easy to agree on and, at times, quite necessary, obligate that each person:

• Commit to open, honest, and straightforward communication
• Bring curiosity and a willingness to let go of certainty
• Listen actively
• Speak from their own experience (use "I" statements, rather and "we" or "they")
• Make respectful challenges and criticisms of assumptions and ideas, not of another person's personality or character
• Understand that the goal is not to agree, but to gain a deeper understanding and to broaden perspectives
• Honestly assess their capability to relate to the opposing side of the issue

Early in the conversation, key advocates for each side of the disagreement will make themselves known. An effective advocate is an individual that has taken a position on the issue, is willing to publicly defend their position, can articulate their research and reasoning, and will distinguish between what is intuitive and what is known. A less effective advocate can mistake intuition for knowledge, spread misinformation to force a negative reaction, claim certainty on the uncertain, engage in games of semantics, and criticize opponents instead of ideas and assumptions. Skilled advocates are a valuable asset for addressing problems in the community because they are driven, passionate, and willing to put in the time to provide research and perspective for a more informed decision. Careless or ruthless advocates have the potential to marginalize, discredit, and drown out a more justified position of their opponents or their allies, thus misleading the community.

In the neutral territory of the conflict are the balancers, those who observe and evaluate the controversy. They are participants that are willing to receive and understand all information and compare the strengths and the weaknesses of the proposed ideas from each side of the argument. Their perspective is valuable because they critically analyze the debate and ask questions without preconceived notions. A skilled balancer will remain neutral until they have made a decision on the matter, rather than waiver from side to side. Once they decide to take a position, they are able to explain their considerations and their reasoning, acknowledging that there is no solution free of risk.

People of all social systems, from the global community to a local public to a casual relationship between friends, engage with each other through conversations that reflect the pattern of the adaptive cycle. Understanding this concept will allow a facilitator to know what they can hope to encourage, the critical points of interception, and how to make the best use of the time and energy that participants contribute to a dialogue.

The figure above (attached as a file in this e-mail) illustrates a representation of the adaptive cycle, with three-dimensional axes labeled as capital, connectedness, and resilience. Capital refers to the resources that define the potential for change. In dialogue it is known as the collaborative capacity. This resource can be simply defined as the number of willing participants, and therefore the amount of mind-power working towards a solution. Of course, it is not that simple, human beings are complex and diverse. We carry a variety of perspectives and skills based on our experiences and observations, a dynamic intensity of our passion and emotional stability, and varying amounts of available time and energy, all of which can change at a moment's notice. Though a lack of certainty makes it impossible to quantify, it is important to maintain awareness of the human resources within our community to approximate our capability for progress.

Connectedness refers to the degree at which our social system can control its own destiny. The stronger the mutual trust and support, the more we are able to come together and build consensus for inclusive and well-informed decisions. If our community is divided and disconnected, there is little chance to come to an agreement. When initiating a dialogue, keen observation of existing and potential relationships between the individual participants is key. Where does there already exist mutual respect and trust between allies? Which interactions indicate levels of frustration and the possible need for reconciliation? In what ways can the communication be improved to drop defenses and invite partnerships?

Resilience is the ability of a system to maintain control and absorb unexpected disturbances. An extreme controversy is a disturbance that, depending on the level of resilience, may tip the scales of the adaptive cycle and demand reorganization. Within the debate, unpredictable and sudden disturbances can erupt. They may arise from global and local socioeconomic strife, issues with transparency or accountability among the stakeholders, unresolved conflicts, or someone's bad hair day. These disturbances can quickly steer a productive conversation off track. A resilient community, and a skilled facilitator, will acknowledge the emotional buildup and return the cycle to the common ground of collectively established values and goals to help the group to find peace.

The inner framework of the adaptive cycle is defined by four stages: growth, conservation, release, and reorganization. Growth, also known as exploitation, can be related to the colonization of a disturbed area of an ecosystem. The controversy is the major disturbance that has brought uncertainty and doubt to the community. Those who are engaged as advocates on the issue reach out to those they trust to form alliances. They research their ideas to back their perspective and distribute their information. By the time participants come together for a dialogue on controversy, there is a strong division and at least two distinct sides of an argument. At this point, it is the responsibility of the facilitator to guide the exploration of the social territory by mapping the common ground, determining the stakeholders, identifying existing relations and partnerships, and framing of the problem. The facilitator is present to mediate the situation and direct the dialogue towards clarity, not to engage in the conversation.

The second stage of the adaptive cycle is conservation, and describes the accumulation and storage of energy, marked by the beginning of the argument. It is essential that, during this part of process, participants commit to engage, articulate their position, and listen. Advocates define and defend their perspectives, and build upon the arguments of their allies. Balancers state their concerns, questions, and observations. As the conversation progresses, assumptions and ideas are challenged and emotional tension and frustration arising from opposing perspectives accumulates.

Release is the third phase of the cycle, and will be evident when the tension of the space has uncomfortably escalated. This stage is critical, and demands careful observation and willingness to take control by the facilitator. It may appear that the conversation has degraded, but it is only a period of creative destruction, an essential element to system dynamics that allows for change. Though high in stress and extreme emotion, is vital to unfold and release deep underlying values and issues that were previously hidden. There may be open confrontations, perhaps regarding listening, understanding, transparency, and intentions. A pragmatic argument can diverge into semantics. The crux of the challenge for the facilitator is to determine when and how to take control and transform the quality of discussion. Usually, this critical point is indicated when the ground rules are being broken, or when a participant directly or indirectly expresses a need to return to the common ground.

The fourth stage, reorganization, is the point where facilitator blows the whistle and has an opportunity to state their observations. Again, the common ground is reestablished, and everyone comes together in a moment of inflammation and chaos. The facilitator acknowledges the justified intensity, recapitulates the new information that has been uncovered, and the need to move from a retrospective argument to a progressive discussion based on moving forward with solutions. Once again, we loop into a period of growth, but this time in a shared space, with aligned values, clear goals, and an opportunity to build trust amongst one another. The social system that was no longer balanced or functional was dismantled, leaving opportunity for a new system to organize.

Our culture it too often engrained with the idea that controversy is something to be avoided to retain friendships and partnerships. We are taught to withhold our passionate opposition under the façade of keeping the peace. Based on the argument I have articulated in this paper, I will advocate that this is an unfortunate way to live. It avoids the creative destruction that is necessary for transformation, and leaves us trapped in a stage of accumulation, capitalizing on one-sided arguments, emotional tension, and a social network that is losing its connectivity and decreasing in diversity. I hope we will realize the need to approach conflict as an opportunity to better understand each other, discover the impacts of our actions, become aware of our opportunities, build partnerships, and nourish personal growth together as a community.

"The contribution of social scientists to this dilemma, however - and we desperately need to contribute more than we do - is measured by our ability to understand how societies generate, acknowledge, are impacted by, and endure, environmental crisis."

From: "The Applicability of the Concept of Resilience to Social Systems: Some Sources of Optimism and Nagging Doubts," Society and Natural Resources