Footnotes to Crossroads Dispatches

While I adore coworking, incubators... what I want: third mind--mastermind--two or more people, who work toward a definite purpose, in the spirit of harmony

Evan Rosen, in his Culture of Collaboration blog, asks the great question, "Is Coworking Collaborative?" I really like the coworking concept, and have been a fan of Citizen Space since I walked into its cozy environment when it first opened. I recall being thoroughly entranced by its community goals (plus I know and respect both Tara Hunt and Chris Messina). I adore Po Bronson's concoction of The Grotto for similar reasons. The startup incubator model appeals to me too. There is a vital energy in spaces like that.

However, the more I think about when I actually thrive and grow expansively within a work-play environment--it's not freelancing or free agency no matter how many people are buzzing around me, and it's not sitting in an attic scribing the Great American Novel in solitude.

Rather, I thrive in a "third mind" type of environment with others working toward shared goals, shared purpose. I desire immediate feedback and mutual experimentation that escalates toward building something new beyond anything we could have conceived separately. That maybe why I believe that the research laboratory or atelier (artisan workshop) analogy (and, for me, I mean situated in real space, not virtual space) is best suited for me.

I totally related to what Jane McGonigal shared about writing a book. It's too solitary, too much like writing to a piece of paper. For a long time, blogging, for me, was a peer-to-peer cooperative and real-time mutual feedback endeavor (more so during years 2004-2005 when folks had time and inclination to both blog and read each other's works). Blogging reminded me of letter-writing or an intense dialogue in a coffeeshop, but in a many-to-many format rather than just one-to-one. I never wanted to write a book.

"I need to game-ify writing my book...  Writing a book does not provide me with the same kind of real-time feedback, scaffolded challenges, and network of potential allies that a well-designed videogame does....Writing 18 months into the future is just too much like writing in the void!" - Jane McGonigal

I guess I'm seeking to create an environment akin to what Napoleon Hill described in Think and Grow Rich. There, Hill says a "mastermind" or "third mind" is:

"The coordination of knowledge and effort of two or more people, who work toward a definite purpose, in the spirit of harmony.

.... A third mind that asks and answers questions you didn’t know you needed to ask to solve problems and overcome challenges you didn’t know you were about to face!"

Or William S. Burroughs described: "No two minds ever come together without, thereby, creating a third, invisible, intangible force which may be likened to a third mind."

Below Evan Rose explains that while cooperation and camaraderie are wonderful things, they're not necessarily collaboration:

"So, is coworking collaborative? That depends. Undoubtedly, including people engaged in different enterprises under the same roof sparks synergies. And without offices or cubicles, interaction can happen on the fly. An entrepreneur working across from a web designer need only call across the table to get design input. A technical writer can engage a software developer with a tap on the shoulder. Relationships form, and trust may develop.

Collaboration, however, requires many cultural elements including shared goals. In collaborative organizations, people come together across disciplines, departments, roles and regions to create value. The shared goal may involve slashing product development time or closing sales more effectively or curing a disease. Coworking invites input from others, but usually without shared goals. One person has a stake in the input, while the other provides advice as a friendly gesture or deposit in the favor bank. Coworking may lead to collaboration, but collaboration is by no means automatic. Of course, coworkers may discover they share some goals and then join forces to start a business or curb climate change or elect a candidate.

The main connection between coworking and collaboration involves people from different disciplines interacting in an informal physical environment. This, in turn, encourages informal interaction which reinforces, but does not create, The Culture of Collaboration."

Stages of community building by M. Scott Peck

Excerpt from the book A World Waiting to be Born by M. Scott Peck (Bantam Books, New York, 1993) via The Foundation for Community Encouragement's website. I still have this book on hold at the library, and will read next after I finish The Different Drum. My notes from The Different Drum are here and here.

Pseudocommunity

For many groups or organizations the most common initial stage, pseudocommunity, is the only one. It is a stage of pretense. The group pretends it already is a community, that the participants have only superficial individual differences and no cause for conflict. The primary means it uses to maintain this pretense is through a set of unspoken common norms we call manners: you should try your best not to say anything that might antagonize or upset anyone else; if someone else says something that offends you or evokes a painful feeling or memory, you should pretend it hasn't bothered you in the least; and if disagreement or other unpleasantness emerges, you should immediately change the subject. These are rules that any good hostess knows. They may create a smoothly functioning dinner party but nothing more significant. The communication in a pseudocommunity is filled with generalizations. It is polite, inauthentic, boring, sterile, and unproductive.

Chaos

Over time profound individual differences may gradually emerge so that the group enters the stage of chaos and not infrequently self-destructs. The theme of pseudocommunity is the covering up of individual differences; the predominant theme of the stage of chaos is the attempt to obliterate such differences. This is done as the group members try to convert, heal, or fix each other or else argue for simplistic organizational norms. It is an irritable and irritating, thoughtless, rapid-fire, and often noisy win/lose type of process that gets nowhere.

Emptiness

If the group can hang in together through this unpleasantness without self-destructing or retreating into pseudocommunity, then it begins to enter "emptiness." This is a stage of hard, hard work, a time when the members work to empty themselves of everything that stands between them and community. And that is a lot. Many of the things that must be relinquished or sacrificed with integrity are virtual human universals: prejudices, snap judgments, fixed expectations, the desire to convert, heal, or fix, the urge to win, the fear of looking like a fool, the need to control. Other things may be exquisitely personal: hidden griefs, hatreds, or terrors that must be confessed, made public, before the individual can be fully "present" to the group. It is a time of risk and courage, and while it often feels relieving, it also often feels like dying.

The transition from chaos to emptiness is seldom dramatic and often agonizingly prolonged. One or two group members may risk baring their souls, only to have another, who cannot bear the pain, suddenly switch the subject to something inane. The group as a whole has still not become empty enough to truly listen. It bounces back into temporary chaos. Eventually, however, it becomes sufficiently empty for a kind of miracle to occur.

Community

At this point a member will speak of something particularly poignant and authentic. Instead of retreating from it, the group now sits in silence, absorbing it. Then a second member will quietly say something equally authentic. She may not even respond to the first member, but one does not get the feeling he has been ignored; rather, it feels as if the second member has gone up and laid herself on the altar alongside the first. The silence returns, and out of it, a third member will speak with eloquent appropriateness. Community has been born.

The shift into community is often quite sudden and dramatic. The change is palpable. A spirit of peace pervades the room. There is "more silence, yet more of worth gets said. It is like music. The people work together with an exquisite sense of timing, as if they were a finely tuned orchestra under the direction of an invisible celestial conductor. Many actually sense the presence of God in the room. If the group is a public workshop of previous strangers who soon must part, then there is little for it to do beyond enjoying the gift. If it is an organization, however, now that it is a community it is ready to go to work-making decisions, planning, negotiating, and so on-often with phenomenal efficiency and effectiveness.” 

Part II, notes from M. Scott Peck's The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace

More of my favorite notes from M. Scott Peck's book, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace are also located here.

page 60
There is no adequate one-sentence definition of genuine community. Community is something more than the sum of its parts, its individual members. What is this "something more"? Even to begin to answer that, we enter a realm that is not so much abstract as almost mystical. It is a realm where words are never fully suitable and language itself falls short.

The analogy of a gem comes to mind. The seeds of community reside in humanity--a social species--just as a gem originally resides in the earth. But it is not yet a gem, only a potential one. So it is that geologists refer to a gem in the rough simply as a stone. A group becomes a community in somewhat the same way that a stone becomes a gem--through a process of cutting and polishing. Once cut and polished, it is something beautiful. But to describe its beauty, the best we can do is to describe its facets. Community, like a gem, is multifaceted, each facet a mere aspect of a whole that defies description.

One other caveat. The gem of community is so exquisitely beautiful it may seem unreal to you, like a dream you once had when you were a child, so beautiful it may seem unattainable. As Bellah and his coauthors put it, the notion of community "may also be resisted as absurdly Utopian, as a project to create a perfect society. But the transformation of which we speak is both necessary and modest. Without it, indeed, there may be very little future to think about at all." * The problem is that the lack of community is so much the norm in our society, one without experience would be tempted to think, How can we possibly get there from here? It is possible; we can get there from here. Remember that to the uninitiated eye it would seem impossible for a stone ever to become a gem.

* Robert Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart (Berkeley, Calif: Univ. of California Press, 1985), p. 286.

page 61

INCLUSIVITY, COMMITMENT, AND CONSENSUS

Community is and must be inclusive.

The great enemy of community is exclusivity. Groups that exclude others because they are poor or doubters or divorced or sinners or of some different race or nationality are not communities; they are cliques--actually defensive bastions against community.

Inclusiveness is not an absolute. Long-term communities must invariably struggle over the degree to which they are going to be inclusive. Even short-term communities must sometimes make that difficult decision. But for most groups it is easier to exclude than include. Clubs and corporations give little thought to being inclusive unless the law compels them to do so. True communities, on the other hand, if they want to remain such, are always reaching to extend themselves. The burden of proof falls upon exclusivity. Communities do not ask, "How can we justify taking this person in?" Instead the question is "Is it at all justifiable to keep this person out?" In relation to other groups of similar size or purpose, communities are always relatively inclusive.

In my first experience of community at Friends Seminary [when Peck was in high school], the boundaries between grades, between students and teachers, between young and old, were all "soft." There were no outgroups, no outcasts. Everyone was welcome at the parties. There was no pressure to conform. So the inclusiveness of any community extends along all its parameters. There is an "allness" to community. It is not merely a matter of including different sexes, races, and creeds. It is also inclusive of the full range of human emotions. Tears are as welcome as laughter, fear as well as faith. And different styles, hawks and doves, straights and gays, Grailers [spiritual folks] and Sears, Roebuckers [material folks], the talkative and the silent. All human differences are included. All "soft" individuality is nurtured.

How is this possible? How can such differences be absorbed, such different people coexist? Commitment--the willingness to coexist--is crucial. Sooner or later, somewhere along the line (and preferably sooner), the members of a group in some way must commit themselves to one another if they are to become and stay a community. Exclusivity, the great enemy to community, appears in two forms: excluding the other and excluding yourself. If you conclude under your breath, "Well, this group just isn't for me--they're too much this or too much that--and I'm just going to quietly pick up my marbles and go home," it would be as destructive to community as it would be to a marriage were you to conclude, "Well, the grass looks a little greener on the other side of the fence, and I'm just going to move on." Community, like marriage, requires that we hang in there when the going gets a little rough. It requires a certain degree of commitment. It is no accident that Bellah et al. subtitled their work <i>Individualism and Commitment in American Life</i>. Our individualism must be counterbalanced by commitment.

If we do hang in there, we usually find after a while that "the rough places are made plain." A friend correctly defined community as a "group that has learned to transcend its individual differences." But this learning takes time, the time that can be bought only through commitment. "Transcend" does not mean "obliterate" or "demolish." It literally means "to climb over." The achievement of community can be compared to the reaching of a mountaintop.

Perhaps the most necessary key to this transcendence is the appreciation of differences. In community, instead of being ignored, denied, hidden, or changed, human differences are celebrated as gifts. Remember how I came appreciate Lily's "gift of flowing" and she my "gift of organization." Marriage is, of course, a small, long-term community of two. Yet in short-term communities of even fifty or sixty , while the timing and depth are almost opposite, I have found that the dynamics are the same. The transformation of attitudes toward each other that allowed Lily and me to transcend our differences took twenty years. But this same transcendence can routinely occur within a community-building group over the course of eight hours. In each case alienation is transformed into appreciation and reconciliation. And in each case the transcendence has a good deal to do with love."

Page 70-71
It may at first glance seem paradoxical that a community that is a safe place and a laboratory for disarmament should also be a place of conflict. Perhaps a story will help. A Sufi master was strolling through the streets one day with his students. When they came to the city square, a vicious battle was being fought between government troops and rebel forces. Horrified by the bloodshed, the students implored, "Quick, Master, which side should we help?"

"Both," the Master replied.

The students were confused. "Both?" they demanded. "Why should we help both?"

"We need to help the authorities learn to listen to the aspirations of the people," the Master answered, "and we need to help the rebels learn how not to compulsively reject authority."

In genuine community there are no sides. It is not always easy, but by the time they reach community the members have learned how to give up cliques and factions. They have learned how to listen to each other and how not to reject each other. Sometimes consensus in community is reached with miraculous rapidity. But at other times it is arrived at only after lengthy struggle. Just because it is a safe place does not mean community is a place without conflict. It is, however, a place where conflict can be resolved without physical or emotional bloodshed and with wisdom as well as grace. A community is a group that can fight gracefully.

That this is so is hardly accidental. For community is an amphitheater where the gladiators have laid down their weapons and their armor, where they have become skilled at listening and understanding, where they respect each others' gifts and accept each others' limitations, where they celebrate their differences and bind each others' wounds, where they are committed to a struggling together rather than against each other. It is a most unusual battleground indeed. But that is also why it is an unusually effective ground for conflict resolution.

The significance of this is hardly slight. There are very real conflicts in the world, and the worst of them do not seem to go away. But there is a fantasy abroad. Simply stated, it goes like this: "If we can resolve our conflicts, then someday we shall be able to live together in community." Could it be that we have it totally backward? And that the real dream should be: "If we can live together in community, then someday we shall be able to resolve our conflicts?"

Page 74
"People in the early stages of a community-building workshop will frequently ask, "How will we know when we are in community?" It is a needless question. When a group enters community there is a dramatic change in spirit. And the new spirit is almost palpable. There is no mistaking it. No one who has experienced it need ever ask again "How will we know when we are a community?"

Nor will one ever question that it is a spirit of peace that prevails when a community enters community. An utterly new quietness descends on the group. People seem to speak more quietly; yet, strangely, their voices seem to carry better through the room. There are periods of silence, but it is never an uneasy silence. Indeed, the silence is welcomed. It feels tranquil. Nothing is frenetic anymore. The chaos is over. It is as if noise had been replaced with music. The people listen and can hear."

Freedom is the realization that everything and everybody gets to be exactly as they are. - Adyashanti

Part of section, "TRUE FREEDOM IS A GIFT TO EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING" in the book, The End of Your World, by Adyashanti also points out the underpinnings of community: freedom--the unconditional allowing people to be themselves.

"True freedom isn't simply "I'm free." True freedom is "Everything is free." This means everybody has the freedom to be who they are--whether they are awake or not awake, deluded or not deluded.

Freedom is the realization that everything and everybody gets to be exactly as they are. Unless we've come to that point, unless we've seen that this is how reality sees things, then we're actually withholding freedom from the world. We're seeing it as a possession, and we're only concerned about ourselves. How good can I feel? How free can I feel? True freedom is a gift to everything and everybody.

. . . .

The important thing is allowing the whole world to wake up. Part of allowing the whole world to wake up is recognizing that the whole world is free--everybody is free to be as they are. Until the whole world is free to agree with you or disagree with you, until you have given the freedom to everyone to like you or not like you, to love you or hate you, to see things as you see them or to see things differently--until you have given the whole world its freedom--you'll never have your freedom.

This is an important part of awakening, and it is an easy part to miss. Again, if we were fully awake, it would be impossible to miss this, but most people do not awaken all at once. The idea of freedom is very important, however. Everyone gets to be as they are. Only when everyone is allowed to be as they are--when you have given them that freedom, the freedom they already possess--do you find yourself the capacity to be honest and real and true.

We cannot be true as long as we are expecting or wanting others to agree with us. That will cause us to contract--maybe they won't like what I say; maybe they won't agree; maybe they won't like me. When we are protecting ourselves, we are also withholding freedom from everybody else. When we realize that we are the one and only Spirit that manifests as everything and everyone, in the very nature of that realization is total freedom for all.

. . . .

Thus, as a human being, we can't have those childish ideas that enlightenment means "everyone loves me." Maybe everybody will love you, but more likely some will and some won't. But when you have given the whole world its freedom, then you have gone a long way toward finding your own freedom. They are tied inextricably, one to another." - Adyashanti

Agape--unconditional acceptance of the other who is now "one of us," a "no strings attached" commitment to their welfare

I flipped open to this section of Harville Hendrix's book Keeping the Love You Find, in a bookstore and I resonated so much to it I immediately copied it into my journal (my "commonplace book"). Although the book is focused on a specific two-way commited relationship, i.e. marriage, this section is particularly universal to all relationships:

"... [The Greek word] agape, an unconditional concern for the other that elevates the partner's emotional and spiritual welfare to a condition of absolute priority--thus guaranteeing your partner's safety, and paradoxically, your own. (Safety, it seems, is the necessary precondition for optimal life throughout nature.) In a relationship, safety means the end of criticism and all other forms of abuse.

. . .

NO STRINGS ATTACHED

"Unconditional love of the other turns out to be the highest form of self-interest and the key to one's personal welfare. But the catch is that if you do it for the outcome, paradise will elude you. You do it because it should be done.

Agape refers to the self-transformational act of caring absolutely and unconditionally for another in the exact way they need to be cared for. [Agape was conceived of in "the period of Greek tribal wars preceeding the golden age of Pericles."]

Pondering this eternal dilemma of how to end war, they came to the conclusion that war was a function of the perception of the "other"--i.e. the "enemy"--as a "nonperson," or someone who is not human. . . . Furthermore, they argued that the "other"  who was the enemy should be redefined as "kin." That makes him "one of us."

. . . To this new code of international behavior they gave the word agape--meaning unconditional acceptance of the other who is now "one of us," a "no strings attached" commitment to their welfare. This seems to be the origen of the idea of "unconditionality" in the granting of a privilege or the giving of a gift. Agape is not an economic barter or a "trade agreement" in which one or both racks up deficits in the exchange of goods. It is a reciprocal exchange without anyone keeping score.

. . .the unconscious is singularly unimpressed with them [bargains]. It needs and will be satisfied only with unconditional love." - Harville Hendrix, Keeping the Love You Find

The Wisdom of Teams and "high-performance teams"

I'm set to re-read The Wisdom of Teams because I have never truly witnessed a "high-performance team" in the flesh; and also to personally get beyond my disappointment (and disbelief) of a failed team I was part of in 2000--we were reading this book jointly when the team started to unravel.

From the review of THE WISDOM OF TEAMS by Jon R Katzenbach and Doudlas K Smith:

Through their research, Katzenback and Smith identified four stages of team development:

Pseudo team – a collection of individuals for whom there could be significant performance benefits derived from working together, but who have not focused on collective performance and are not really trying to achieve it. [Also read elsewhere sometimes pseudoteams are possible because the nature of their work can be accomplished just fine individually]

Potential team – a collection of individuals for whom there is a clear benefit to be derived from working as a team but who may lack clarity about their common purpose or goals.

Real team – a small number of people with complementary skills who are jointly committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.

High performance team – a group that meets all the conditions of real teams and whose members are also deeply committed, even beyond the team setting, to one another’s personal growth and success."

Ubuntu: An Inspiring Story about an African Tradition of Teamwork and Collaboration, by Bob Nelson

I picked up a book called Ubuntu: An Inspiring Story about an African Tradition of Teamwork and Collaboration, by Bob Nelson at a $1 pile at a great used bookstore in Manhattan. Very simple storytelling, and even though I'd heard of philosophy of Ubuntu before, for some odd reason I was compelled to get it as a tangible reminder.

A few favorite parts:

"Later at lunch, John [manager] is asking [Simon, the African new hire] some questions about his previous life. He owned his own business in Africa [he came to USA to get an MBA].

"What was your business?"

"I had a sewing factory; we manufactured African garments for sale and for export."

"You said 'we'. Did you have partners?"

"Yes--everyone who worked at the factory."

Noticing John's confused look, Simon added, "In the U.S. a small business owner would say "I" to demonstrate ownership. In my tradition we use the word 'we,' because even though I owned the business, at work we were a family, and as such, everyone was important."

During the apartheid period, there was a lot of indignity, banning of black people to live in outskirts of Johannesburg in hovels (the area called Soweto), blatent oppression. Peaceful protests were squashed by gunfire and brutality. After one protest, the African blacks were so afraid they did not even come out of their homes to collect the dead.

However, deep in the psyche of the African people of all races is something of the essence of Ubuntu--"We are in this together"--"It connects all clans."

So after all those years of atrocity, many people sought revenge when the tables turned....

"That is part of the genius of Mandela. His philosophy of reconciliation was built around an idea that existed throughout Africa. Because we are all connected by our humanity, Ubuntu suggests that to harm another person would be to harm yourself. To seek revenge on others would be to hurt yourself. Mandela and Bishop Tutu helped us understand that Ubuntu meant accepting the humanity of our oppressors even as we detested the years of oppression. We had to unconditionally accept the humanity of each human being." - Bob Nelson, Ubuntu

Another favorite snippet:

"My journey stated," Simon began, "with being open to feedback from my employees [remember Simon's the owner of a business back in Africa before he came to grad school]. For example, I had one older woman who worked for me who once asked if she could give me some personal advice. Since I've never had an employee request that before, of couse I said yes. She pointed out that when I was upset with people, I let my frustration and my emotions get the best of me. And it made it more difficult for others to hear what I had to say. I had lost sight of my goal--to get the other employees to work more efficiently. So I learned to wait until I was calm and collected before discussing a problem with an employee so we could focus on what could be done, not what had been done."

"What a great story. I'm surprised she had the courage to speak up." [, John replies.]

"That is part of the Ubuntu tradition. When someone in the village is acting in a way that threatens the harmony and unity of the community, the elders take action. Ubuntu is a compassionate philosophy, but it is not soft. My temper was threatening the harmony of the community, and the woman, as an elder, felt the responsibiity to tell me so." - Bob Nelson, Ubuntu

M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace

I am loving M. Scott Peck's book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace mostly because it feels real and it touched me very deeply in terms of feeling, yes, that's exactly what I desire--community (not the draining fake mascot, pseudocommunity). Community transcends its differences so that each person's uniqueness is appreciated as a gift. In the end, a true community embodies agape, or unconditional acceptance.

However, as Peck says, many groups don't make it to community. He breaks the process of coalescing into a community into four stages:

1. Pseudocommunity: "The basic premise of pseudocommunity is the denial of individual differences."

2. Chaos

3. Emptiness

4. Community

In my personal experience, I've seen groups teeter between Pseudocommunity and Chaos (and back and forth) many times without breaking through to Emptiness. This post only contains a few snippets on stage 1 and 2.  Stages 3 and 4 will be a separate post. 

Below Peck shares a time he was facilitating a community building workshop for a group of psychology-savvy New Yorkers:

"Within minutes they were sharing deep, intimate details of their lives. And during the very first break they were all hugging. Poof--instant community!

But something was missing. At first I was delighted, and I thought, Boy this is a piece of cake... But by the middle of the day I began to grow uneasy, and it was impossible to put my finger on the problem. I didn't have the wonderful, joyful, excited feeling I had always in community. I was, in fact, slightly bored. Yet to all intents and purposes the group seemed to be behaving just like a real community."

The next morning Peck announces, "I have a strange feeling that something's missing, that we're really not a community yet. Let's have a period of silence now and see how we will respond to it."

. . . . Dozens of interpersonal conflicts from the previous day surfaced practically simultaneously."

. . . .In pseudocommunity a group attempts to purchase community cheaply by pretense... it is an unconscious, gentle process whereby people who want to be loving attempt to be so by telling little white lies, by withholding some of the truth about themselves and their feelings in order to avoid conflict.

In pseudocommunity it is as if every individual member is operating according to the same book of etiquette. The rules of this book are: Don't do or say anything that might offend someone else; if someone does or says something that offends, annoys, or irritates you, act as if nothing has happened and pretend you are not bothered in the least; and if some form of agreement should show signs of appearing, change the subject as quickly and smoothly as possible--rules that any good hostess knows. It is easy to see how these rules make for a smoothly functioning group. But they also crush M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, and the longer it lasts the duller it gets." - M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace

After pseudocommunity, typically a group will resort to a Chaos stage' as individuals take it upon themselves to heal or fix or convert the other individuals that differ from themselves even under the mantle of kindness, and other times just plain frustration, bitterness and judgment.

"If your theology or ideology is different from mine, it calls mine into question. It is uncomfortable for me to be uncertain of my own understanding in such basic matters. On the other hand, if I could convert you to my way of thinking, it would not only relieve my discomfort, it would be further proof of the rectitude of my beliefs and cast me in the role of savior to boot. How much easier and nicer that would be than extending myself to understand you as you are." -M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace

Another snippet:

"Recently a man representing a potential source of funds attended a community-building training conference conducted by FCE [The Foundation for Community Encouragement, Inc.]. Toward the very end this man said with visible agony, "I feel torn apart. On one hand this has been a most moving experience for me. I have personally benefited from it more than I dreamed. I am very glad I came and surprisingly sad to be leaving. But as I think about what has happened here, about the essence of the experience and what you are trying to do, I cannot help but conclude that it is really about nothing more than love. And how on earth can I go back to my board of directors and sell them on love?"

That man's problem is ours and yours. It is our task and yours to sell the world on love." - M. Scott Peck, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace (published in 1987 and Peck passed away in 2005, the FCE continues to function)

A safe place is an emotional environment where two or more individuals can feel completely free to take risks.

Excerpted from ,Who's Got Your Back?: The Breakthrough Program to Build Deep, Trusting Relationships That Create Success--and Won't Let You Fail by Keith Ferrazzi. Italics are from the book, boldface and underlining is my emphasis:

"Have you ever watched little kids as they explore the world beyond their parents' reach? They take a few tentative steps away from Mom and Dad, then come toddling back, just to check in, to make sure all's right. The next time, they wander a few steps further--always testing and expanding what they can do and how far they can go as they gradually work up the confidence to venture out further into the unknown. What gives them the inborn confidence to do this? Deep down, they feel safe, and because of that, they are willing to risk exploring their surroundings. Without that grounding, that insurance policy, they would be far <i>less</i> likely to take risks throughout life. (Ironically, they'll spend most of the rest of their lives playing it safe.)

My own experience has convinced me that the key to unlocking our highest personal and professional potential lies in creating an adult version of that safe place, where we get and give back intimate, honest support when both big and small issues loom. Where we can make mistakes without risking embarrassment or fear; where we can try out new ideas (even if they're lousy ones) and gain confidence along the way.

To reach out to others in a professional setting and take the risks associated with establishing an open, honest, caring relationship with another person, we need to first feel safe. We need to know we can have knock-down drag-out arguments with the people we turn to for advice and support, certain in the knowledge that the relationship will remain intact, or recover, or even be strengthened. That safety comes from a deep level of trust in and respect for the other person. It is usually something that is established over a long period of time through repeated experiences.

What am I saying? To create a close circle of relationships with a few key people in your professional (and personal) life--remember, all you need is three people--you need to establish a safe place for others that gives them permission to take risks and be candid without fear of undermining your relationship together.

The problem? Most companies tell their employees, "Be candid," "Take risks toward innovation," and "Hold one another accountable as a team." But that's impossible! It's putting the cart before the horse. You first must create the underpinnings of trust and respect!

A safe place is an emotional environment--not a physical one--where two or more individuals can feel completely free to take risks. It's an environment where we're completely at ease with both giving and receiving criticism; where we're comfortable knowing that the feedback we get comes from a caring place; where we know the other person respects us, believes in us, and wants only the best for us.

It's easy to create a safe place with two like-minded people. It's more challenging when we're unsure if the other person is willing to act in the same fashion.

When I talk to sales folks, or coach people about having tough conversations at work, one way to begin to establish a safe place is to first get the person physically away from her desk or her home turf. To get people to let down their walls, you have to get them away from an environment where they are used to being walled up (and walled off). Invite the other person out for coffee or a drink, or over for dinner. At home, got a bone to pick with your teenager? Get her out of that poster-filled bedroom and out of the house! Take a walk or go for a drive together.

Each is us is responsible for creating the safe place around us. I'm going to repeat that one more time because it is so important. Each of us is responsible for creating the safe place. It is a conscious choice that we make to create the environment that invites others in. It means putting the other person's safety first and making your intentions clear.

You have to be ready to take the first step, even if it means taking a small risk on your part. So start off slow--with generosity, the first mind-set."