I. BACKGROUND

The founding of the Northern Forest Dialogue Project (NFDP) was inspired by a comment made by Charles Neibling of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners' Association, quoted in the Northern Forest Forum (Spring, 1993). Neibling said, "Representatives of the various groups that have often been at loggerheads should retire to the woods to get to know each other, develop some trust, and see if we can move beyond the 'us vs. them' mode." Grady McGonagill, an organizational consultant with special interests in effective communication and team building, spoke to several stakeholders about the possibility of convening a dialogue retreat of the sort envisioned by Neibling and found that many key stakeholders were interested. The dialogue initiative was created as a complement to a more public and formal process that was ongoing at the time, the Northern Forest Lands Council.

During the summer of 1993, McGonagill organized a Steering Committee for the Northern Forest Dialogue Project that consisted of people involved with the timber industry, environmental organizations, local government officials and community groups. When McGonagill invited the Public Conversations Project (PCP) to collaborate with him on this project, PCP offered the involvement of one of their five team members, Margaret Herzig, as an in-kind contribution to the minimally funded project. After that first phase, and through the summer of 1996, McGonagill and Herzig co-led the project under the auspices of the Public Conversations Project with funding from the Surdna Foundation, the Henry P. Kendall Foundation, The Moriah Fund, the Philanthropic Collaborative, the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, and the Davis Conservation Fund.

II. REGIONAL DIALOGUE

The Fairlee Retreat

The first meeting of the NFDP took place in Fairlee, Vermont in February of 1994. There, in a fireplace-heated lodge, with space heaters working against the zero degree outside air, twenty-three participants met to discuss their concerns, fears, hopes and visions for the Northern Forest. Their letters of invitation had asked them to come as individuals, not as representatives of organizations; to bring with them a willingness to listen openly and speak respectfully; and to set aside the urge to make persuasive speeches. At the meeting, the group made some other agreements about their process, including a confidentiality agreement; they decided that they would "spread the word" about what was discussed and accomplished, but they would not attach names to particular ideas or statements. Among the outcomes of the meeting were:

identification of sources of tension and distrust, e.g., fears of hidden agendas; histories of misunderstanding and misinformation; and frequent use of buzz words;
some very preliminary steps toward identifying areas of common ground;
greater understanding of the Adirondack history on the part of those who hadn't lived it;
greater mutual understanding on the part of people in the forest products industry and environmentalists about each other's views on various forest practices; and
the decision to continue the dialogue process.
In their written evaluations, several participants commented on their new attitudes and skills. One person wrote, "I learned to listen. I learned to wait my turn. I know that new friendships were formed, one with someone I previously perceived as the enemy." Another person appreciated the "opportunity to demystify adversaries." Another liked the lack of "organizational rhetoric." Another said, "I learned that there are two specific areas in forestry where I can work with others. These were new areas of opportunity that I was unaware of."

The Craftsbury Common Retreat

The second meeting took place June 29-30, 1994 at Sterling College in Craftsbury Common, Vermont. The participant group of twenty-two consisted of most of the people who attended the first meeting, plus a few people who were new to the process. The group delved into substantive issues related to private and public land ownership/stewardship; the impact on local economies of environmental regulations; tensions between short and long term approaches to enhancing the quality of community life; and the systemic pressures that small communities are under to maintain or undertake certain patterns of growth. The group also addressed patterns in their own relationships. They chose to spend part of the second day addressing the threats they felt in relation to each other, not in the abstract or in the past, but in the here-and-now of the meeting.

Participants reported learning about the values and concerns underlying each others' views, and some volunteered that they found themselves to be more hopeful about working with "the adversary." One environmentalist said that he gained new appreciation for the complexity of decisions about forest practices and that this appreciation arose when he found industry representatives "willing to have an open discussion." Another noted that people from industry were philosophically closer to his way of thinking than he had imagined. He attributed this learning to being outside "the usual forum" which is "for public consumption" and in which "they are forced to defend their practices because we are attacking them." He and other participants later reported that the new patterns of communication and new feelings of trust that emerged in the dialogue had been maintained. A number of participants have reported calling each other to check out rumors, rather than simply assuming those rumors were true.

When the June meeting was being planned, the facilitation team thought that different levels of interest in state vs. regional dialogue might create some division in the group. This was not the case. Participants recognized that on any level where political action takes place and where polarization threatens to inhibit productive decision making, dialogue is needed. The group made clear that they were interested in dialogue, not as an unusual or special event, but as an integral part of their work. It seemed to them particularly timely to establish opportunities for dialogue, given the imminent "sunsetting" of the Northern Forest Lands Council.

The Pinkham Notch Steering Committee Meeting

In February of 1995, we brought together several current and former members of the Project's Steering Committee for a one-day meeting in Pinkham Notch, NH. Although a very general plan of action for the Project had been charted at the regional retreat at Craftsbury Common, enough new information had become available about the political context of the region and the scope of the project's continuation to warrant a face-to-face meeting among a subset of the Project's participants.

The meeting began with participants saying something about their interest in the Project and their hopes and concerns about its future. The facilitators encouraged the group to be candid and to consider all options for the future, including the decision not to go forward if a compelling agenda and significant motivation were lacking.

Opening comments indicated a strong appreciation of the benefits that had already accrued from the first two dialogue meetings and the Project's potential to further benefit the region. The first person to speak expressed hope that the Project could help stakeholders in the four states to "move beyond the barriers and impediments" that may come up around the implementation of the Northern Forest Lands Council’s recommendations2. One participant commented that although people tend to focus on the product of the Northern Forest Lands Council, its process represented a significant contribution to the region. It offered "lines of communication, a forum to bring people together, a place to develop relationships around activities, and a conduit for information sharing."

Several comments were made about the importance of continued relationship-building. One person saw the Project as reducing the "unnecessary aggravation" that is created when "people don't talk to each other and don't learn what they need to learn from each other." Another described the dialogue meeting he had attended as "one of the most productive meetings I’ve been to in a long time, and I’ve been to a pile of them." He and others offered anecdotes about people from different "camps" who, after engaging in dialogue, had been able to pick up the phone to talk about emerging tensions, or ask each other for feedback about a proposed initiative.

Concern was expressed that the lines of communication opened by the Council process and the dialogue meetings were fragile. "It will be easy to become re-polarized," said one participant. Another said, "there will be a natural tendency to drift back to the corners, especially if a DC ?agenda gets formed. To the extent that we can define strategies now to mitigate against re-polarization, we will have accomplished a lot."

The ease with which re-polarization can occur was underscored when one person mentioned a particular small, unfacilitated meeting in Maine in which people with diverse interests came together "with good intent" but left with significant misunderstandings. It was acknowledged that some of the people who left feeling misunderstood bore some responsibility for poor communication and a problematic agenda, but it was also acknowledged that misunderstandings are sometimes the result of "willful misconstrual." Several people nodded when this term was used and someone said, "We’ve all done it. It’s easy when you’re with people of your own mindset to misconstrue the objectives and agenda of the other." The NFDP was seen as a vehicle for steering people away from "acting on their worst instincts."

Much discussion centered on the question of the topical focus for a future regional meeting. One suggested topic was "developing leadership capacity, authority, and energy for state-focused dialogue." Another suggestion was to convene a regional meeting in the spring of 1995 to give various stakeholders an opportunity to discuss federal legislation that would "address those aspects of the Council’s recommendations that would be served by it." Now is the time, it was suggested, for meaningful input. Although several participants felt that a regional meeting focused on federal initiatives might bring people out, many were concerned that a focus on federal legislation would be too polarizing – "a lightning rod." With this focus, attendance might be largely motivated by fear. The tactic of motivation through fear – one commonly used by interest groups to keep their own constituents "worked up" – was seen as part of the problematic dynamic that dialogue seeks to correct.

In the course of this discussion, the tendency to undervalue preventive options for conflict resolution was lamented by many participants. One said, "It's too bad that we don't get together and deal substantively with the issues until there is a crisis and then we behave in a reactive way." Some participants noted the tendency of political stakeholders to "wait for a crisis" then complain if decisions have been made without collaboration and input.

By the end of the meeting, participants decided to approach the future of the project in two phases. First, the project would foster dialogue on the state-level, where most of the post-Lands Council energy and action would be concentrated. Later, they would bring together the original dialogue group, along with others who had become involved in the state-level dialogues, to share progress and lessons from the state-based efforts, and to address whatever regional issues were threatening to polarize stakeholders.

The Regional Planning Meeting in Franconia

In July of 1995, after we had set into motion initiatives in New York and New Hampshire, we brought together a subset of dialogue project participants, each of whom was a current or former Steering Committee member, for a one day meeting in Franconia. After a round of re-introductions, an agenda was set that included 1) reporting on activities in New York and New Hampshire, 2) discussion of plans for Vermont and Maine, and 3) discussion of what should happen next on the regional level of the dialogue project. The group discussed dilemmas related to finding the right balance been "pure" dialogue and action-oriented collaboration. By the end of the meeting there was consensus that it would be valuable to bring together the original regional dialogue group of about twenty-five people, supplemented with some other people who had become involved with the project more recently through the state-oriented work. The goals of the meeting would be: 1) to share the learnings of the state-oriented work, 2) to compare notes across state borders on collaborative efforts, and 3) to address whatever regional issues were "hot" at the time. A regional dialogue was planned for February of 1996.

By the time the February meeting date drew near, it was clear that polarization was emerging in the state of Maine over a forest practices referendum; thus we were especially interested in having a diverse group of participants from Maine. RSVPs to the meeting revealed that a diverse group of eighteen people planned to attend but the diversity within the group from Maine was not adequate to make the meeting worth their while. Industry representatives from Maine were able to attend; environmental activists were not. (Those who had been expected had either personal conflicts or commitments to attend state hearings.) The confirmed participants from Vermont were a diverse group, but some key people who had expressed strong interest in fostering dialogue in Vermont had conflicts with the dates of the dialogue. For these reasons, with input from the Steering Committee, we decided to cancel the regional meeting and to direct the project's remaining funds to state-based efforts.

III. STATE-LEVEL DIALOGUE

We approached the state-level work of the NFDP with an appreciation for the differences that existed among the four state's needs and interests. As will be evident from what follows, our work in New York State was much more extensive than our work in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

The Adirondack Park and Tug Hill Regions of New York State

The regional dialogue retreats in Fairlee and Craftsbury Common were a source of inspiration, and new relationships for many participants from New York. These participants had been together at several meetings in New York, over a time span of several years, and had never been in an environment where they could examine what they might have in common and what beliefs they might hold about each other that were inaccurate. After the regional dialogue retreats, they were so surprised to learn something new from each other and to begin to work together better, that they seized upon the opportunity to "bring dialogue back home" to the Adirondacks. As soon as the regional planning group had created its two phase plan, putting state-focused work first, four of the New York-based regional dialogue participants recruited two other key stakeholders and formed a planning group of six for a New York Dialogue. These six people were involved with environmental organizations, town governments and the forest product industry.

In the late Winter of 1995, Maggie Herzig had phone conversations with these individuals (and others) to learn about 1) the "old conversations" that characterize the polarization in the Adirondacks and 2) their hopes for moving toward new, more productive conversations. She also learned about and read some books about the history of the area. During the next three months (March-May 1995), she had four conference calls with the planning group during which they collaborated to plan a two-day dialogue retreat in June. Together, they created an invitation list, set general goals, responded to a draft invitation, responded to a draft meeting design, and fine-tuned the list of invitees as responses came in from the first set of mailings. This retreat turned out to be the first in a series of three, all held at Garnet Hill Lodge in North River, NY.

The First New York Retreat: June 1995

On June 25, 1995, nineteen people with diverse interests and perspectives attended a two-day retreat. Grady McGonagill and Maggie Herzig worked with two facilitators from New York, Sandy Schumann and Fredda Merzon.3

The meeting began with a review of the ground rules that had been proposed in participants' letters of invitation. This was followed by an introductory go-round and a structured exercise on stereotypes. We then engaged the group in an agenda planning exercise during which they identified several issues of interest, five of which were given priority for attention at the meeting: Goals for the Mix of Public and Private Land; Representation on the Adirondack Park Agency (APA); Property Tax Reimbursement to Towns; Economic Development; and Shoreline Protection. After two rounds of small group discussion, participants were pleased to discover that they fully agreed that the issue of economic development was crucial to the Adirondack Park and its residents. One participant, who was serving on the APA Economic Affairs Committee, offered to send some materials to all participants to elicit their feedback. On the subject of tax policy, the group formed a subcommittee that would further discuss reform of the Forest Taxation Program and report ideas back to the full group at a future dialogue. Discussions on the topic of the public/private mix appeared to lead to an appreciation for the complexities of the issue and greater understanding among people with different perspectives. There was general agreement that the APA needed to be reformed, and ideas were generated about ways the APA could interact with landowners and residents in a more helpful manner and with a more open process of decision-making.

Regarding shoreline protection, the group acknowledged that this issue would require more dialogue. This was in part because of the multiplicity of values associated with shoreline protection, and in part because the people and organizations that, potentially, could partner to protect shorelines, have suffered such deep distrust in the past. Trust building emerged as an important goal of the dialogue group.

The dialogue participants asked members of the Planning Group to continue their work with the facilitators to plan a second meeting. They all accepted this charge, a sign of their strong commitment to the dialogue process. Evaluations indicated that several participants came away from the meeting with new understanding of opposing views and with greater hope for the Adirondacks. Some participants noted that they found the small group sessions and the stereotyping exercise4 to be especially helpful; some felt it was particularly noteworthy that such a diverse group had formed a task force on forest tax reform, an area on which they sensed there was considerable common ground.

The Second New York Retreat: October 1995

The New York Dialogue group held their second retreat on October 18-19, 1995. At that retreat the group of seventeen spent all of their time in one group. They considered over a dozen topics for discussion, then selected the four topics of greatest interest to the full group. These were: 1) how we communicate; 2) what's our vision (or what are our visions) for the Park; 3) property taxes; and 4) similarities and differences between the Park and the Tug Hill Region. The first and second topics were integrated into an exercise in which vision statements were generated in the group and then discussed with an emphasis on people asking each other about the meanings of their visions and the language they used to express them. Participants inquired about the meanings of such terms as "hamlet," "prosperous local community," "wilderness," "access to wilderness." They also discussed local vs. regional planning and control, and local access to land use information. Strong interest was expressed in accessing information that would shed more light on, and invite fewer polarizing speculations about, the relationship between land use regulations and economic sustainability. During the final sessions of the meeting, the forest tax group gave a report on the work they had done. Bob Quinn, Executive Director of the Tug Hill Commission, at the invitation of the full group, gave an informal presentation about the Commission which was followed by discussion. At the end of the meeting, the participants asked if the planning group and facilitators would convene a third meeting.

The Third New York Retreat: June 1996

A third retreat was held June 3-4, 1996. As in the first two meetings, the participants set their own agenda. The first session was spent engaging in dialogue about a topic that was currently polarizing the region: proposed cuts in the Adirondack Park Agency's budget and staff. We facilitated this dialogue in a structured format to elicit concerns in a manner that would reduce blaming and negative attribution and equalize "air time." The second session was spent discussing issues that could be resolved in an update of the state land use master plan; such an update, all agreed, was long overdue.

In the evening, the group heard a report from its "spin-off" committee on reform of forest taxation policy and they discussed two additional topics: joint action to reduce acid rain and the limitations of constitutional restrictions with regard to the forest preserve when "health and safety" is of concern. Dialogue on the latter topic, which was a key issue in debates about the blowdown of 1995, demonstrated the limits of the usual, divisive formats for public debate. Through dialogue, participants came to a much better understanding of the assumptions with which each person had entered the public discussions and cleared up misconceptions they had formed about each other's values and motivations during the public process.

The discussion about the divisive public debates at the time of the blowdown probably heightened participants’ motivation for discussing the final agenda topic that had been chosen on the first day, entitled: What should be our process for effecting change in the Adirondacks? Recognizing that distrust and aggravation is heightened when people feel confused and/or shut out of policy making discussions, the participants brainstormed about improved processes for public input. The ideas generated by this dialogue group were taken back to the relevant agencies by the officials who were in attendance at the dialogue. Later that summer, they wrote to all participants about efforts they were undertaking to create new mechanisms for inter-agency networking and to improve public participation practices.

New Hampshire: Support for a Consensus Building Effort

At the Pinkham Notch Steering Committee meeting, when we were assessing how best to support dialogue and consensus building in each of the four states, Charles Neibling of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association described a common ground meeting that had been convened the previous November by his organization (NHTOA), the North Country Council, and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Out of that collaborative meeting, and the task groups formed there, came the idea to bring together key stakeholders in New Hampshire to define forest sustainability standards for New Hampshire's forests. Charlie encouraged the Northern Forest Dialogue Project to offer its support for this effort, the New Hampshire's Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team (FSSWT), and we did. We worked with him to write a grant proposal to the New Hampshire Charitable Trusts to support this work, and we donated to this effort some meeting design and facilitation services. Maggie Herzig of the Public Conversations Project worked with Jim Varn of the University of New Hampshire's Project on Consensus and Negotiation to help design and facilitate a "scoping" meeting at which various people with interests in the forests of New Hampshire could offer feedback and guidance to the FSSWT team. In 1997, the FSSWT published a manual entitled: Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practice for New Hampshire. (For more information, contact the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests: 603-224-9945.)

Maine: Consultation to the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project

In Maine, it wasn't clear that any new dialogue process needed to be initiated. The Maine Forest Biodiversity Project (MFBP) was bringing together many of the people we would hope to involve in a dialogue, they were doing valuable work, and none of them were looking for more meetings to attend! The MFBP had been, however, short on funds for process consultation, and it was at a point in its development where a consultation was advisable. Therefore, participants in the Franconia planning meeting decided to allocate resources for the MFBP to get process consultation before its next major meeting, scheduled for November of 1995. With the help of one of the MFBP's small group facilitators, John Goodrich, Grady McGonagill and Maggie Herzig (lead facilitators for the MFBP) designed a process whereby each MFBP Steering Committee member was interviewed by phone about their understanding of the challenges faced by the project. We then met with the Steering Committee to 1) present our summary of the challenges, 2) conduct a brief dialogue among the Steering Committee members, and 3) suggest ways in which the design of the next full MFBP meeting could address the challenges. Specifically, we designed a consensus building process that allowed for relatively quick generation of detailed information about how close the participant group (of ninety people) was to consensus on particular issues, and what their questions and concerns were. This design was successful as a means of "taking the pulse" of a very large group on several issues without losing any information about the concerns and questions of a single member.5 This exercise was used several times during the remaining two and a half years of the MFBP. For more information about this process, see Maine Forest Biodiversity Project, on this web site.

Vermont: Two Half-Day Dialogues

A small group of diverse stakeholders in the forests of Vermont worked with us to plan a half-day meeting to assess dialogue needs in Vermont. At that meeting, held on April 24, 1996 in Montpelier, participants identified patterns of interaction among diverse groups that lead to:

the "same 100 people" in the state filling their schedules with meetings and pursuing overlapping goals in a fragmented set of organizations, (thus the reluctance to start yet another set of meetings);
people with diverse interests using the legislature as their "battle ground" and difficulties sustaining follow-through on collaborative efforts (like the Northern Forest Lands Council).
At the end of the April meeting, the group appointed an ad hoc committee to work with Maggie Herzig and co-facilitator Powell Woodward, to plan a follow-up meeting. This committee began by considering the broad goals that dialogue might serve in the Vermont forestry community, drawing upon what had emerged at the April 24th meeting. Those broad goals included:

fostering more cohesion, coherence and communication among the many efforts and organizations in the state that have related and overlapping missions;
fostering continuity after the Forest Resources Advisory Council (FRAC) completed its process;
building trust among diverse stakeholders so the legislative process could be more constructive and less a forum for battle; and
creating a forum for adequately and collaboratively discussing issues that haven't been "on the table," or have been on the table only in a peripheral way.
The June 5th meeting focused on generating ideas about ways to break through old patterns of interaction among key interest groups - patterns that lead to battles at the legislature and distrust and animosity between stakeholder groups. The following spring, we received a note from one of the participants reporting that the two half-day dialogues we convened had contributed to collaborative processes through which the environmental community and representatives of the forest products industry "hammered out" joint recommendations on "heavy cutting" in the state.

IV. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Occasionally we are contacted by people who are planning dialogue initiatives on environmental issues. Our consultations with these people have helped us to better understand what is common and what is distinctive about our work - work which blends Grady McGonagill's experience as a communication skills trainer in the organizational development field and Maggie Herzig's experience working with the Public Conversations Project, whose dialogue work draws upon approaches to family therapy. Some of the most salient principles are as follows.

1) We collaborate with participants.

In the Northern Forest Dialogue Project, we worked closely with planning groups comprised of a diverse subset of participants. We brought expertise about meeting design and facilitation. They brought their knowledge about what the old "stuck" conversation looks like, what has been helpful or unhelpful about other meeting formats, etc.6 We shared our knowledge with them and they shared theirs with us. Together we decided how large a group to aim for, what the duration of the meeting ought to be, who, specifically, ought to be invited, what the general goals of the meeting should be, when and where the meeting should be held, etc. Once we were in the meeting, our collaboration continued with the planning group and with the full participant group.

2) We resist premature conclusions and adopt an inquiring stance.

In the planning phase we set aside any guesses we might be tempted to make about the situation and we ask a lot of questions, e.g. what usually happens in debates on the topic, what would participants like to see happen (or not happen), what ideas or experiences they can share with us about the conditions in which something new can happen, etc. We often ask about suggested reading that will help us understand the history of the conflict and past attempts to resolve it.

3) We ensure that those who choose to attend a dialogue retreat do so with informed consent.

Some meeting planners have asked us how we "get people to attend." Although we work hard, with the planning group, to achieve a balanced participant group in terms of diversity of perspectives and interests, we never pressure any individual to attend. We encourage each potential participant to choose freely whether or not to attend, based on a significant amount of information that we provide in the letter of invitation about the nature of the event and the proposed groundrules. If any potential participants have serious concerns about their willingness or ability to commit to the proposed groundrules, it is generally in the best interest of the group if they self-select out, especially if the meeting is the first in a series. Those same individuals may wish to stay on the invitation list in the event that future meetings are planned. In such a case, after the first meeting, they can talk to trusted colleagues who attended to see if the concerns that led to their reticence seem warranted.

One positive approach to encouraging participation, is to work with a planning group that has the same range of diversity as the potential participant group. Listing the members of such a planning group on the invitation lends credibility to the meeting and its objectives. This is often important, especially for potential participants who might think of a non-product-oriented "dialogue" as "a waste of time" or who might think that the "other side" isn't worth listening to. Seeing that a trusted colleague thinks the meeting is not only worth attending, but worth planning is a strong statement about its expected value. In the Adirondacks, where polarization was deep and long-standing, four of the planning group members had attended regional dialogue meetings. Their positive responses to the regional meetings and, in some instances, the "humanization of the other" that occurred there, put them in a good position to talk with others in their own interest groups about how different, refreshing, and productive dialogue could be. The very fact that people who normally took adversarial positions on Adirondack issues were co-operating on a project - any project - lent an air of freshness and hope to a divisive situation.

4) We place a premium on responsiveness and we resist the comfort of "control."

Our interest in collaboration, and in attending at all times to the specific needs and hopes of the participants, leads us to design dialogue retreats with heavy reliance on "emergent design." This means that we arrive at the meeting with a specific plan for opening it. The opening session always includes pre-planned welcoming or "framing" remarks that remind participants about the nature of the meeting they have chosen to attend. It also includes reviewing and perhaps revising groundrules, and an opening "go-round" through which people can introduce themselves, say something about what brings them to the meeting, and respond to an opening question or two.7 Plans for the opening phase may include a provisional plan for structured exercise or a specific agenda setting procedure. Beyond that, the facilitators trust themselves, with guidance from the planning group, to have the tools and the resources on hand at the meeting to design next phases in response to what occurs in early phases.8

We are highly sensitive to the pitfalls of detailed pre-planning of dialogue retreats. We believe that if we pay close attention to the ways participants talk with each other and what they say about their concerns, hopes, and interests, we will be better prepared to assist them during the meeting to design their process than if we pre-plan structures and agendas.

5) We foster and protect participant ownership of the dialogue process.

As indicated above, when we plan and facilitate meetings, we resist attachment to particular ideas about how a meeting will unfold or how it "should" unfold. We also resist predictions about whether there will be "spin-off" activities or future meetings. We see ourselves as creating contexts in which each dialogue group can set its own goals and create its own story. We want each dialogue group to own its own successes and its own difficult moments. While we bring to each new project some general principles, and an array of tools we've developed for other groups, we avoid taking a "cookie-cutter" approach to process design or over-generalizing from other "successes." As described above, we collaborate with participant groups and planning committees to discover what they need and want. The plans made through such collaboration then enjoy the benefit of ownership by the participants. At difficult times, participants who own their process are less likely to say, "This doesn't work," and abandon the process as somebody else's bad idea, and more likely to say, "If we've gotten this far, we are creative and committed enough to move through this difficulty."

We foster participant ownership in many ways. For example, when a dialogue initiative is set into motion by an ad hoc planning group, and the full participant group at the meeting decides to hold another meeting, we ask the full participant group to authorize a planning group for the next phase. They may ask the original planning group to continue its work, as was the case in New York, but by reviewing the governance structure of the project, at the end of the meeting, in the full group, full ownership of the project is enhanced.

Fostering participant ownership was a central message that Grady and I communicated in a consultation to a leader of a major project on collaborative land use planning. She and her colleagues had crafted a plan whereby towns and cities that had "succeeded" in their collaboration across interest groups were paired with similar towns and cities that hadn't started their process, as providers of a "model." While we applauded the idea of experience sharing, we offered two caveats. First, we cautioned against de-valuing the interactive process by which the initial town invented and developed commitment to their collaboration. Second, we cautioned against assuming that what would need to happen to foster collaboration in one town would be the same as another town, based on a small set of factors such as town size.

6) We interact with participants from an appreciative, curious and collaborative stance.

Occasionally participants tell us that they like our facilitation style and that we facilitate differently than some of the other professional facilitators they have encountered. We are always curious to know what differences they experience. In an extended conversation with one of the New York participants we learned that, with many facilitators, she felt that the facilitator was the manager of ideas on flip charts. In contrast, she felt that we were people who were genuinely curious to know the individuals in the room and to help them explore with each other their beliefs, concerns, hopes, and the meanings of what they say.

7) We assume that positive shifts in relationships will create openings for collaborative action and "products."

We have seen much evidence that trusting relationships developed in dialogue lead to informal collaboration outside of the dialogue room. For example, people tell us that if they have developed a relationship, in dialogue, with someone from another interest group, when they hear or read something that concerns them about that person or his or her organization, they will pick up the phone and test out their assumptions about what they have heard, rather than react in anger. In addition, we have seen many specific task-oriented "spin-off" groups grow out of dialogue.

V. REFLECTING BACK

In 2003, Grady McGonagill wrote a reflection on how he came to be involved in the Northern Forest Dialogue Project and what the personal meaning of the project was to him. As a supplement to Grady's story, Steve Blackmer, then of the Appalachian Mountain Club, wrote a commentary about some of the longer-term impacts of the project. Click here to read their reflections.

ENDNOTES:

1) This report is written with virtually no names of participants because the meetings described were off-the-record dialogues. For any reader who would like to learn more about this project from participants involved, I would be happy to facilitate contact with participants who are willing to speak about their experiences with the project. (E-mail: mherzig@publicconversations.org, Phone: 617-923-1216) Grady McGonagill and I appreciatively acknowledge the participants, and especially those who served on steering committees and planning groups, for their hard work, dedication, and wisdom. It was an honor to work with them. Maggie Herzig

2) Although several participants in the NFDP hoped to see the dialogue process build upon the work of the NFLC, it was clear that not all participants were supportive of the NFLC's recommendations and that the topical focus of each dialogue in each state would have to be geared to the needs, interests, and concerns of the participants.

3) One of our objectives was to involve local facilitators who could carry on the work over time. We were happy to find Sandy and Fredda through the New York State Forum on Conflict and Consensus

4) Click here for a description of the exercise on stereotyping (Adobe Acrobat Reader required). (A description of the exercise, as it was used at Congresses of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, appeared in Creating Systemic Interventions for the Socio-Political Arena, by Richard Chasin and Margaret Herzig, published in B. Berger-Gould and D. Demuth (eds.), The Global Family Therapist: Integrating the Personal, Professional, and Political. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon, 1994.

5) Our definitions of levels of consensus were adapted from Great Meetings: Facilitating Like a Pro by Dee Kelsey and Pamela Plumb, Hanson Park Press, 1997.

6) This is not to suggest that participants come with no knowledge about process, in fact, as it becomes more common for corporations and other organizations to participate in trainings on mediation and communication, more of our participants bring sophistication in this area. We were pleased to learn that the New York "spin-off" group on tax policy was hosted byChampion International Corporation and they received training in "Yes-Yes" negotiation from an in-house trainer.

7) The phrase "opening questions" has a double entendre for us. Opening questions are asked in the opening phase of the meeting and they - if designed well - create openings for people to learn something new about themselves and others. For more, see Beginning a Dialogue Session: Go-Rounds and Questions (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).

8) Typically, in a two-day dialogue retreat, facilitators and planning group members sit together at meals to co-evolve proposals for the formats and topics of the next sessions.