On Monday, I attended a meeting of lawyers, doctors, community workers, government officials, people from umbrella organizations for service/support providers.  This group meets monthly to discuss and agree shared lobbying priorities in relation to mental health provisions in Illinois.  Not surprisingly, a dominant topic was the public spending cuts – very different healthcare systems between the UK and US, but we are grappling with similar issues/challenges.  Yet, what is on my mind now are the people dynamics I witnessed during this two-hour meeting. The meeting ended on a sour note, with a very long and tense exchange between a few people out of the approximately forty people in attendance. The group covered less than half of the agenda. Rather than thinking about healthcare policy, I reflect on the meeting and I am compelled to consider what makes for a constructive, time-well spent meeting?

I found out about this meeting the night before, from one of the participants whom I was scheduled to meet for the first time that day.  I came in and sat down – anticipating I would simply be an observer.  For a two hour meeting, they had eleven items on the agenda. We got through four. I later learned this happens regularly.  Reminder: keep agendas realistic, doing a few items well rather than a lot of items poorly or not at all. It is much more inspiring and motivating to go to meetings where you can experience the satisfaction of delivering on the purpose of the meeting.

The first agenda item was about whether or not to hold a public rally around spending cuts, and in particular closure of facilities. The Chair asked if anyone would volunteer to be the lead organizer. No one came forward initially, though as the discussion continued covering topics such as who might speak at it, the person next to me quietly (though within earshot of the Chair) offered himself up. The next key question was if people would go back to their organizations and use their networks to ensure attendance - a rally needs people. This question was put out to the group and ignored. People continued to talk about possible speakers and the need for a theme, and then went off in another direction on a different subject. After about twenty minutes, the Chair asked: ‘We’ve moved onto the second agenda item, but have we finished on the rally?”

I was so frustrated by the disarray I raised my hand in a request to speak. I observed what I had heard: The person next to me is willing to be lead organizer but a critical issue is getting people to the event. I suggested that they take a show of hands to see how many people were willing to commit to going back to their orgs to rally people if someone agreed to take a lead on organizing. This was done, and a date set for the Rally. Reminder: be clear on what decisions need to be made in a meeting and get decisive answers as needed. Know what must be/is best decided at the meeting and what can be decided outside.

On the next subject, a participant – via speaker phone (a great arrangement, where the speakers/microphones were built into the ceiling and the sound is extraordinary) spoke at length about critical aspects of the issue of facility closures, including the importance of having a concrete plan for patient care in the event of closures. The Chair responded by saying, I think we all agree with you.  The speaker had been responding to a formal motion for the group to send a letter to legislators (later extended to also include a briefing for the media).  For me, the exchange lacked constructive engagement. What would I have liked to see? I wanted an explanation of exactly what the Chair believed everyone was agreeing with, further to that one woman’s extensive comments – that is, in a few sentences, he could have summarized the speaker’s key points so she and others would be clear as to what he meant by saying ‘We agree’ – in order to gauge for themselves if he was fairly reflecting the group’s overall views. I also wanted a decision on how what the speaker said would impact on the motion made to write a letter – for example, did they need to change the initially proposed content of the letter, given they agreed with her comments?

It is really important to me that in meetings people feel heard and comments (particularly if they are well thought out and detailed) are not left hanging – you know, with ‘Thank you, that’s interesting or well said….next…’ In fact, I was agitated enough that I ventured – again – to speak up. I took the opportunity to repeat what I thought were the key points of what the speaker had said and asked how it impacts on the letter to legislators the group proposed to write. Reminder: it benefits a meeting to check that we are hearing each other correctly and to distill any concrete/practical implications of what we’ve heard.  

Discussion continued over the content of the letter and a media briefing (notably, with a couple of people newly beginning their sentences with ‘What I’m hearing is…’) and they agreed broad outlines. The meeting then moved slowly along with the agenda. However, it ended up being dominated in the last fifteen to twenty minutes by a back and forth exchange primarily between a small number of people, one of whom became visibly and increasingly frustrated. It got to the point where I felt I was watching someone throw a quiet tantrum; for example, when someone in a very tense voice responds with a question to ‘Fine. Do whatever you want.’ – which means, ‘Not-fine, you aren’t listening to me, you don’t care about what I’m saying, and I’m really angry.’  After later learning more about the substance to the exchange, it seems that the person who was frustrated has over the years been at odds with the others involved in the exchange – including the Chair  – which might explain why he did little to mediate the exchange and also, the extent of her frustration and anger. 

The exchange was tied to a formal motion that had been put forward to the group, though I lost track of how it all related. At one point, the woman who was frustrated kept talking at length and I wanted to know what her request was – what she was asking of the group and in particular in relation to the motion at hand. It struck me that it seemed like different people were saying their observations, and perhaps even disagreeing with each other – but little effort was being made by anyone to draw conclusions for the group on what it meant for their advocacy positioning.

When we are working on sensitive issues which we are passionate about, we can get wrapped up in our own words and in our desire/need to be seen and heard. We can also – when sparring with familiar colleagues – stop listening. We assume we already know what they are saying. After the meeting, I had the opportunity to talk to the woman who was very frustrated. I started to see that the layers to what she was saying did not come out clearly during the meeting and that some of the issues she raised went beyond the parameters of the discussion they were having at that moment.  I also got the sense she hadn’t been really listening to what people were saying in response to her comments. In fact, I sensed that in some aspects of the matter, they were not totally in disagreement.

What I did not get during the meeting was a sense that people had seen and connected with the different layers of the discussion. In fact, at some points, I think people were talking at cross-purposes because of the lack of clarity about the range of specific issues being packed into a rushed and emotionally fraught conversation. What’s more, underlying the discussion seemed to be very important differences in fundamental beliefs and assumptions - despite the fact that the people in the room were part of an advocacy alliance.

I tend to believe that when someone is repeating themselves in a meeting – as it seemed was happening, though perhaps it was also a matter of raising slightly different, but related issues – it is because they are not feeling heard. A useful response in such an instance is for someone to play back what they think is being said and why it is important to the discussion. Reminder: when people start doing the ‘I’m fine’ or ‘Whatever, I’m talking too much’ statements, it is usually a sign that they could do with some active listening. 

Actively listening not only is a tool to engage with people in a way that they feel understood and heard, but also can be used to re-frame points to help clarify content for others and it can be a bridge to managing the dialogue. That is, for example, if an exchange needs to be cut short and continued elsewhere, another participant or Chair can join up active listening with a re-routing which people are comfortable with, because they feel they’ve been heard and understood.  Reminder: People talk to be heard. If they are not sensing they are being heard, they’ll either try to keep talking or express frustration in some shape or form, often bringing a constraining energy into the room. Also, active listening can be a bridge to making connections – connections that help join up what is being said to the wider discussion in ways that assist people to consider (a) concrete ideas for action to be taken or agreements to be made and (b) identify significant points of contention that impact on consensus-building and group action.

What struck me most about this meeting is that one issue – the proposed closing of a particular facility – seems to be a recurring debate/battle with policymakers, perhaps taking place every few years. It made me wonder what this alliance could do to break the cycle. Specifically, as I type now, I’m wondering if part of their strategy should be to reform their habits of engagement. I suspect, for example, that different - perhaps more creative - policy and advocacy approaches would be generated if they had more connective and expansive ways of communicating with each other.

But I would say that, wouldn't I?

I've got a lot of reflections moving around in my head about the riots and looting, about community relations, about empathy, about stops and searches, about restorative justice, about moral reasoning and ethical values.  I'll bring them out onto the page in the coming weeks. But in the meantime, I want to re-post something I wrote in June 2011 - it feels particularly relevant right now, along with the following question: "What can we do to see our selves and each other more clearly?"

Here I am in the leafy Chicago suburb of Glenview. Here I am, while London's streets have literally been burning. London is where I live. East London - Bethnal Green, to be exact. I've lived in the East End for fifteen years, a marked contrast to Glenview where I grew up. I love London. Like many, I'm sure, I am experiencing a mixed range of emotions as I follow the happenings.  My initial reaction to what happened in Tottenham was outrage - outrage at the individuals who turned peaceful protesting into random acts of violence. I was sad – sad to hear that someone had been fatally shot by the police. I was also sad to see that certain groups of people are so disconnected from where they live and the lives around them that they enthusiastically participate in random violence. And now I'm a feeling a combination of frustration, cynicism, and hope. I am hopeful because I see in the riots an opportunity to shift, to start moving in a different direction in order that we might create a new story for our selves. I am frustrated and cynical because I can see the situation playing out as it always has, though cyber social networking has admittedly radically changed the community organizing dynamic.  Conflict is always an opportunity, provided we can engage with it constructively and creatively. 

Where are we now? Where can we go?

I’m sitting here some three thousand miles away from London and here are the highlights of what I’m observing:

•  Ken Livingstone is talking up the need to be more caring of young people and blaming the cuts. He is making comparisons with the London riots during the recession in the 80s. He sees jobs as being a major part of the solution, applying the formula social programme cuts + unemployment = riots. He is being criticized for political opportunism.
• David Lammy, Tottenham MP, is focusing on condemning the violence in his constituency and emphasizing the destructive forces a small group of ‘mindless’ people have unleashed on the vast majority.
•  Stella Creasy, Walthamstow MP, (where there has also been rioting) is focusing on how her constituency is rallying together to condemn the violence and also to support each other in the aftermath, e.g. creating a respite centre with homemade cakes etc.
•  A Turkish professional from the East End highlights on Facebook that Turkish shopkeepers in Dalston, North London have been doing their best to protect their shops and writes: “if anyone had a reason to riot these people have...but they are protecting the neighbourhood according to Tweeter reports...in the meantime a rioter/looter will be on the front pages of tomorrow's papers, face covered, holding a can of beer in his hand...”
• In Tottenham, according to media coverage, some residents will tell you the riots in their locale are the result of   continuous mistreatment of Black people by the police. Some suggest the riots were stoked not by racial tensions but by more general tensions between young people and the police. Some say the public spending cuts are the cause. Some say the violence was the result of criminals and thugs from all backgrounds simply taking advantage of the situation.   
• The responses in Tottenham are typical: leaders, e.g. the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, in no uncertain terms condemning the rioting; some people saying ‘this has been a long time coming’; the police highlighting progress made over the years in community relations and standing by their policies and practices; a large number of people nodding in agreement that there are tensions, yet are also being confused, bewildered and saddened by the violence and damage done in their struggling community. An investigation into the shooting will take place to handle the matter of whether or not the police shooting was justified. To handle the wider issues such as distrust of the police I wouldn’t be surprised if a working group or commission might be set up – adding the existing groups/partnerships establish to strengthen police and community relations.
•  In the rest of London and other British cities, the rioting is in the form arson and looting on high streets. Some commentators are saying this rioting is simply part of raw opportunism by a small group of criminals, facilitated by technology and social networking; it has no political motive.
•  People seem to fall into two camps in terms of their response to the rioting generally: we need to understand why these young people are doing this and be sympathetic to their plight – they are jobless and frustrated (thoughtless cuts by the current government are of course part the cause) vs. these people are criminals and need to be held responsible for their actions (empathy-schmemapthy – how can you make excuses for criminal behaviour?)

When it comes to this last observation, I observe that The Prime Minister’s formal response to London riots 9 August 11 falls into the latter camp. He said:

I am determined, the government is determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions. And I have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality: you will feel the full force of the law, and if you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment.  And to these people I would say this: you are not only wrecking the lives of others, you're not only wrecking your own communities – you are potentially wrecking your own life, too.

Here’s what I thought when I read the PM’s statement:

Are you kidding me? ‘Potentially wrecking your own life, too’ he is saying to the looters. Surely, if a young person is compelled to go smash a store window, steal and commit arson their life is already pretty wrecked, no? A strong message of tough punishment -  Okay, you can show the British people (and the world) that you are tough on crime, will not tolerate such behavior, that you won’t let the delinquency of a few destroy the peace and harmony of the many. Then what are you going to do? And finally, I couldn’t help but take the PM’s words and apply them to another set of people who wrecked the lives of others – high fliers in the financial services sector. Not because I want them blamed and punished, but because I want to point out that people from all walks of life can and do wreak havoc on those around them - can and do have a total disregard for the impact of their actions on others. Are the attitudes of the looters really that different from those who took high-risks with other people’s money for personal financial gain?  

I want to ask the PM: What role do we all play in creating a culture that gives rise to such groups – looters and white collar profiteers - in the first place?  What kind of responses to the riots will start to dismantle that culture - and what kind of responses will feed it?

We’ve seen this story before. We know it all well. And I’m sure I’m not alone in  wondering: How can the outcomes be different, how can we move on to tell another story? How can we avoid going through the motions of having dialogues where people generally continue to feel that that they have not been heard, seen or recognized for their experiences and their views? How can we avoid reaching the point – again - where people explode in order to release the pent up energy, anger, frustration, and confusion?

Britain has a golden opportunity to shift its national and local conversations, to take what's happening now and use it as a progressive transformative moment - but will it? Or will leaders and residents (wherever we sit on the political spectrum) simply do what we often do and are doing right now: blame, judge, score points, accuse, condemn rather than understand, collaborate, rise above the 'Us vs Them' and 'Right vs Wrong' mentalities? Riots - even if only done by a small few - are a symptom of a deep illness within our social body. How can we heal the body and not just temper the symptom?

We can already see how discussions are shaping in ways that steer us away from compassion, collaboration and creativity. We are locking people into specific camps – for or against, us vs them, right vs wrong.  We are, or at least those people who have power and voice, usually starting dialogue with solutions and entrenched positions. Ken Livingstone, for example, will say ‘We need to create jobs.’ Does that kind of response really give us something concrete to work with? Are, for example, people prepared to loot going to undergo an inner transformation upon learning that they have an opportunity to work? The Prime Minster wants to focus on making arrests and showing his iron fist. But what happens afterwards generally and what eventually happens to the people arrested? Do they leave prison interested and equipped to make a valuable contribution to the community they once violated?

Of course, where people have committed crimes, arrests ought to take place. But what about the bigger picture? What approach can help us construct a different story for the future? I suggest we endeavor to create a different story by stepping out of our entrenched roles, positions and perspectives – by holding spaces where people can take risks, be able to move beyond our fear and anger, and enter the messy, complicated ‘grey’ areas that take us into deliberations beyond ‘right vs. wrong’ and ‘us vs. them.’ 

How do we do this? We could start by asking questions instead of giving pre-fabricated solutions. Most of the solutions we will be hearing in the coming days are likely to be nothing new. We are, after all, approaching the future with the same mindset that has brought us to the present. One obvious question to ask is ‘Why the violence? ‘ And I’d like to put this question to the rioters. Policies do not cause riots – people’s emotions, beliefs, attitudes and values do. Why have the people involved made such destructive choices? And let’s do it properly here – ‘I don’t have a job’ is not an answer; let’s find out what is truly alive in people.  

What other questions can we ask, and what stories do people need to tell? And by people, I mean everyone - the shopkeepers, the rioters, the police, the politicians, your average person minding their own business and waking up to find their neighborhood in tatters. It isn’t just the rioters who are frustrated. We, the majority of people, are in a time of massive discontent (fear, anger, frustration, cynicism). Everyone has a story that lays out what's alive in them and why.

We also need to stop making observations about everyone else – unless we can back them up. We need to have more people speaking for themselves, and doing so reflectively (as opposed to reflexively)– to dig deep into their emotions, beliefs, behaviors, values, attitudes and assumptions. We need some honest conversation where people can speak without being boxed in and judged. Some might argue that a focus on conversation, honesty, openness is an inappropriately soft, fluffy response to what has been a time of harsh, violent behaviors. Let’s be realistic here - where have hard-lines and overly moderated exchanges gotten us? In many dialogues and deliberations tied to equity and justice, people come to the table (and it is very few who actually are ever at the table) with anger, frustration, distrust, sadness, and hurt. Yet, the dialogues at the table tend to give little scope for people to be heard and understood. You say what you say and are either disparaged, refuted or simply given a nod and a thank you and then it is on to the next person.  

Conflict is always an opportunity, provided we can engage with constructively. This means, creating spaces where we:

• Practice empathic dialogue, listening to and understanding all parties without judgments – putting aside momentarily our disbelief and our frustration or anger over someone else’s choices/behaviors
• Start dialogue without pre-conceived solutions and answers
• Openly engage with our emotions, values, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions
• Deliberate and question what we mean by justice, freedom, responsibility and the ‘greater good.’
• Strive to find common ground, e.g. shared ethical values
• Be prepare to see the situation from multiple perspectives.

Conflict resolution can also include work with restorative justice. What is after all, our goal? Many political leaders will say ‘Jobs, economic growth and prosperity.’ I say it is to sow seeds and lay a stronger foundation for compassionate, caring, thriving and creative communities.  A judgment and punishment-oriented approach will not do that. Demonizing people will not do that. Focusing on guilt and blame will not do that. 

As long as people feel unheard, undervalued, overlooked, excluded, disconnected and invisible, we will be living in a society that is ‘us vs them’ and we will certainly not ‘all be in this together’. Or more accurately, we won’t be acting as if we are – you see, the truth is – we are all in this together. It is a question of whether or not we behave this way. Currently, we often do not. It is also a question of whether or not we take on individual responsibility to scrutinize and challenge our beliefs, attitudes, choices and behaviours. Only by doing so can we collectively change the cultures, systems, and structures that feed the destructive behavior we are experiencing.

Who is responsible for these riots? One way or another, we all are.  Who is responsible for change: one way or another, we all are.

It's all about communication! How successful we are likely to be in achieving what we want to achieve is all about communication. Well, maybe not ALL, but a fair portion of our success lies in how and what we communicate with others. Here's the story that has me focusing on this today:

I live on an estate managed on a day to day basis by us residents - we have a resident run company. En route to my stairwell this evening, I passed a fellow resident and said "Good Evening!' He asked if I had seen Ed. I hadn't and asked him what was up, as he was frowning. He - le'ts call him Jack - explained that he was having plumbing problems and was looking for Ed to help him out. Jack's kitchen sink had not only been blocked but had been spewing out awful, smelly stuff. For the time being the problem had been solved - Jack had used really strong chemicals to clear it out after plunging didn't work. After explaining this all to me, Jack then said:  "If it happens again I am going to call the police and say someone is doing drugs on the estate!" I did not quite get the connection, so asked him to elaborate. His rationale was that it can only be drugs that would be blocking up the drains like that.  

Hmmm.

My response: 'Well you don't know that drugs have anything to do with your sink problem and I'm not sure calling the police would help anything. Have you told Pete?" Pete is the resident Director of Building Maintenance. "Yes, and he told me to find Ed', Jack replied with a slightly raised voice and added "Typical, always passing the buck on to others." Knowing that Pete takes his Director role very seriously, I suggested it wasn't the case and that we go knock on Pete's door and have a chat.  

As we walked up the stairwell, Jack asked me: "So you think he'll listen to you more than he did me?" I said I thought that two residents are more powerful than one and that it is a matter of how the issue is communicated. So, we knocked on Pete's door, and I explained that I had bumped into Jack and that Ed was not home. Pete explained that a plumber needs to determine the cause of the overflow - whether or not it is the external drain pipe or something in someone's flat - and that Ed is a plumber. Pete also talked about a previous problem there had been on the estate and how it had long costly process of getting it fixed, how old the plumbing was and so forth. Jack responded to this by focusing on the fact that it clearly wasn't his fault and told his story of all that he had to go through to deplug the train, emphasizing that he had heard someone wandering up the landing the day before with a similar problem. 

What was I doing while all this was going on? I reframed the dialogue. For example, I clarified for Jack (because I could tell that Jack wasn't hearing this from Pete's explanation) how the process works here - that internal plumbing matters are the resident's responsibility. We are obliged to call in a plumber and if they conclude the source of the problem is external than the Management company gets involved. But the first step is identifying the source of the problem. I stressed that Pete was offering up Ed as person who would have a look for free, when Jack said that calling in a plumber would cost a fortune. I empathised. For example, I said to Ed that I could see he was frustrated and fearful - what if this happened again and was something he couldn't fix?  I also reminded him it was frustrating for all us residents that this is how the process works - with the aim of helping him feel connected with others in his experience.

By the end of the conversation, Jack suggested to Pete that he thought the cause might be someone's dishwasher and the food waste going through it. I assumed - that being the case - he no longer thought a call to the police would be appropriate should he have plumbing problems in the future. Pete gave Jack Ed's mobile number and told him to give Ed a ring and say that they had spoken. He assured Jack that he would get to the bottom of this matter.

Why did I get involved? I'm a qualified and practicing mediator. I suspected that a a conversation at the end of a workday between an angry, frustrated, sceptical and worried resident and the Maintenance Director (who I knew had the spent the past week grappling with the tough and costly issue of window repairs) would not go well if they were left to their own devices. With this suspicion in mind, I made the suggestion to Jack that we go talk to Pete together. I wanted to facilitate expansive and constructive communication. I wanted Jack to feel satisfied that his concerns had been heard and taken seriously. Jack shook my hand as we parted and I said if he bumped into me again he must let me now how it all unfolds. As I was walking away for him, he paused to ask another resident who was just coming home if he was having plumbing problems. In fact, he was - and I found myself thinking that perhaps now Jack will feel less isolated in all this and that will be a source of comfort. As for Pete, I didn't want him to be shouted at and/or bullied for what Jack had felt was a dismissive response when he first raised the issue. I don't think it was dismissive to tell Jack to find Ed. Rather, it lacked a necessary full explanation and an exchange that would have given Jack the sense of being heard and taken seriously. 

Generally, I wanted success, peace, and satisfaction for both of my fellow residents - and I knew that the key to getting that would be how they communicated with each other. And that a little help with that could go a long way.

I volunteer with Common Ground, an East London community mediation service. I came into mediation as a result of my social policy work, which was increasingly giving me the feeling that we are stifling our individual and collective creativity - the primary cause being poor communication (see 'Why See & Connect'?).  In 2007, I came to the conclusion that mediation skills would be a valuable asset in my future policy-making and advocacy work. I didn't intend, when I trained, to practice formal dispute resolution. But it turned out that formal mediation is something I love doing. Also the art of mediation has provided me with skills that are proving very useful across all my professional activities and in my personal life - and it is all about communication.

This morning I witnessed the power of good communication while I co-mediated, with my colleague Kweku, a dispute between neighbours. Kweku and I both thoroughly enjoyed the experience, agreeing that it was a quintessential example of our capacity to forge connections with each other - even with the people we see as our adversaries or 'enemies'. When we take the risk - and it often does feel like a risk - to see and connect with each other in different ways, we open up possibilities we previously did not believe could exist. 

Wow. When I started to type this post, I thought I was simply going to describe this wonderful mediation we experienced. Now, having written the above paragraph, I am choosing to focus on one aspect of it: risk and vulnerability. And I thank Kweku for this, because in the course of the mediation it was he that openly articulated to all of us the risks the parties had been taking - and commended them for it - too right; they were courageous. Let me explain.

The issue at hand, at face value, was that a couple was feeling threatened by their next door neighbor's behaviour. This is not the place for the details, but suffice to say the session began with the two parties in different rooms.  The plan was for Kweku and I to shuttle between the two.  Thankfully, very quickly, everyone agreed to meet and talk directly to each other.

In the course of the dialogue, emotions went up and they went down. Most importantly, honest questions were asked - and honest answers were given. Thus, the question 'Why did you do x, that just does not seem normal?' was met with reflection and the answer 'I'm not sure, but I agree it is not right.' To ask direct questions - questions that can make the person doing the asking and the person being asked uncomfortable, is brave. Answering them by being thoughtful and not defensive or judgmental is also brave. The three people sitting across from each other at the table took risks in being forthright - they allowed themselves to be vulnerable to being disbelieved, to being judged for what they were saying/asking, to a defensive or angry response, to the process not giving them what they wanted.   

We ended up with a list of five agreements - practical steps to sustain an on-going amicable relationship between the neighbours. Kweku and I watched as tense shoulders lowered, as looks of puzzlement, frustration and confusion turned into smiles and we even had an occasional laugh shared by all. We heard sincere apologies and conclusive 'we agree to disagree' statements.  We saw how supposedly opposing sides had a lot in common in what was important to them, e.g., freedom in their personal space, friendliness among neighbours, a respect for personal property, direct and honest communication. 

I confidently assert that we all have way more in common than we often think. We have shared values. However, when we feel these values are being undermined and ignored, we understandably become angry and defensive. In turn, our creative possibilities for changing the situation become stifled; we become suffocated by our focus on everything different between 'us' and 'them' and all that is wrong about the current situation. How do we move beyond this? By being prepared to take off our masks - and accept the risk that comes with honesty, openness, and self-reflection. This applies equally to disputing neighbours, co-workers in the office,  government officials and politicians designing policy, and the campaigners/advocates trying to influence them - just to name a few situations.

Of course, getting to the point of risk-taking is a journey. The people involved need to feel safe and in this mediation we had to build up to a face to face meeting. The people holding the space for others need to be fully present and prepared to ask expansive and challenging questions, to listen carefully for what is alive in everyone in the room and to reflect back what they are seeing/hearing. Today I had the honour, with Kweku, of holding a safe space for three people who were willing to journey and take risks. They and we reaped the benefits of it. What a gift.