An even more demanding tool can be engaged. This is a divergent process like brainstorming and the group circle process I have just described. Originally engaged by George Prince, this process (called spectrum analysis) is particularly well aligned with the purpose of collateral design. Through his organization called “Synectics”, Prince offered a spectrum perspective that might today be called “appreciative.” It is assumed in a spectrum analysis that there is at least the seed of a good idea embedded in everything that is suggested. All ideas can be placed somewhere on a line (spectrum) from great to poor—it is not either/or. This being the case, every person who speaks up must first indicate three reasons why the idea offered by the previous speaker can be viewed as a positive contribution. Frequently, when this restriction is imposed, the collateral participants end up building on each other’s ideas rather than offering opposing suggestions. If a diverse population of participants is invited to this collateral setting, the spectrum analysis is likely to yield particularly interesting, innovative and even “breath-through” outcomes.
We can offer yet another example of how a collateral organization might look quite different from a traditionally operating organization. In this case, the facilitation addresses the differing perspectives held by subgroups in the collateral organization. Originally used as a conflict-management tool, an intergroup perception process requires that a specific subgroup (I will call it “A”) produce a list of its own distinctive characteristics, a list of what it believes are the distinctive characteristics of the other subgroup(s) is (are) (Group B, C etc.) and a list of what it predicts the other subgroup(s) are likely to include on their list of Group A’s characteristics. The same assignment is given to each of the other subgroups. These lists are shared and discussed. In many ways, this process builds on the theory of mind I identified earlier in this essay. A much richer (and more accurate and constructive) theory of mind can be built collectively though the use of this process—especially if it is engaged early in the life of a collateral organization. This tool is of particular value when the collateral organization is composed of participants from different “camps” and polarizations.
Future Search: There are a wide variety of more comprehensive models regarding the design of a collateral organization. One of the most notable of these models is called “Future Search.” Originally developed by Marvin Weisbord, a noted organization consultant, Future Search is a planning meeting procedure that is task focused. It builds on the basic principle that the meeting (collateral organization) should bring in a large number of people (as many as 100) from diverse backgrounds. In this way, the “whole system” is represented when a specific problem is being addressed.
Typically held over several days, Future Search begins with creating a picture of the past (often graphically portrayed on a long sheet of butcher paper). As is the case with most of the Future Search activities, small group discussions are held first. Report outs from these groups to the whole group follow (thus ensuring the initial contributions of all participants in the small groups). Bringing the focus to present time issues, a “mind map” is often produced (once again often making use of graphic portrayals on a large sheet of paper). Butcher paper often “reigns supreme” at a Future Search meeting.
The mind map includes not just current issues, but also anticipated trends as viewed from the diverse perspectives offered by Future Search participants. Given these varying views of the future, participants break again into small groups to imagine themselves in the near (and more distant) future. What would their life and work be like in a very positive future—and how would they get to this future? Consensus is reached in the small groups and their findings are reported out to the entire group. The primary task of the Future Search group is now to find “common ground” and to build an action plan that enables participants to take steps required (or at least identified)as a way to reach a shared positive future. Connections have been created during the Future Search process that make possible the ongoing collaboration among participants in working toward realization of the steps envisioned during the Future Search meeting. Follow-up activities and “check-ins” are identified, and the Future Search meeting is concluded.
