Ten Equity & Action Tools from Everyday Democracy

Our organizational partners at Everyday Democracy recently shared a compilation of their top 10 resources for dialogue and deliberation practitioners that we highly encourage you to check out. They provide guidance on issues from incorporating racial equity into our work to training youth facilitators and are valuable tools for deepening our work. You can read more about the resources below or find EvDem’s original post by clicking here.


EvDem LogoOver the past 25 years, our most important source of learning has been from the deep partnerships we have had with formal and informal leaders in communities from every region of the country. People come to us from places of all sizes and demographics, and with a wide variety of histories, assets and concerns. As we have coached them, we have learned with them, and as a result have created and adapted advice and tools that others can learn from and adapt to their particular situations.

Some of the lessons we have learned from our community partners include:

  • How community coalitions can work together to organize large-scale dialogue and action;
  • How to recruit a broad diversity of residents for dialogue, facilitation, and action;
  • How to engage those who are often left out or marginalized;
  • How to frame an issue so that people of all backgrounds and views can find their voice in the conversation;
  • Ways to use an intentional “equity lens” so that organizing, dialogue and action can take into account and address the underlying inequities and power dynamics of the community;
  • How to bridge dialogue and intentional action strategies;
  • How community voice and participation can change the way public instutions such as school systems and police departments work;
  • How to link community voice with policy-making;
  • How to embed dialogue and change processes in the regular culture and practices of the community.

Many of these lessons are captured the tools and advice you will find on our website. The tools that were most frequently clicked on in recent months reflect an interest in applying these lessons in other communities. Here is a sampling of our “readers’ favorites” of the recent past:

1. Facing Racism in a Diverse Nation

This six-session discussion guide helps all kinds of people take part in meaningful dialogue to examine gaps among racial and ethnic groups and create institutional and policy change.

2. Action Road Map Planning Tool

This Action Road Map will help communities walk through the steps we need to take to carry out a plan for action. Using this worksheet, you will think about the people, places, and things in your community that can help you reach your goals. Each action team should create their own Action Road Map.

3. Protecting Communities, Serving the Public

This five-session discussion guide is designed to help communities bring police and residents together to build trust and respect, develop better policies, and make changes for safer communities.

4. Guide to Training Public Dialogue Facilitators

A Guide for Training Public Dialogue Facilitators is a comprehensive training curriculum. This guide includes advice for creating a training program for both youth and adults, with expanded facilitator training, plus suggestions for ongoing support and evaluation of dialogue facilitators.

5. Organizing Community-Wide Dialogue for Action and Change

This comprehensive guide will help you develop a community-wide dialogue to change program from start to finish.

6. Personal Cultural Timeline Exercise

This activity will help the group get to know each other better and understand our histories. The facilitator should post large sheets of paper with the timeline written on it for participants to add their events. Follow the instructions in the handout below to facilitate the discussion.

7. Building Prosperity for All

Building Prosperity for All is for people in rural communities and small towns who are working to move from poverty to prosperity. This resource was designed to benefit communities that participated in dialogue-to-change programs using the guide, Thriving Communities: Working Together to Move From Poverty to Prosperity for All. However, no prior experience with Thriving Communities is necessary to get involved.

8. Strong Starts for Children

This five-session discussion guide helps people get involved in an important issue facing all of us: the well-being of our youngest children. The guide looks at how we are connected to the lives of children in our community and the “invisible” effects of racism and poverty. It also guides people in developing plans for action.

9Focusing on Racial Equity as We Work

Organizing groups should review this list of questions, occasionally, to make sure they are working well together.

10. Facilitators’ Racial Equity Checklist

Following each dialogue session, facilitators should take some time to debrief and make sure they are working well together.

Please let us know what tools and supports you are using in your community, and what you are learning as you apply democratic principles and practices. We look forward to working and learning with you, and to sharing your practical insights with others.

The original version of this post can be found at http://everyday-democracy.org/news/top-10-resources-creating-change#.U37rSPldUlr.

7 Lessons in Addressing Racism from Everyday Democracy

Our organizational partners are Everyday Democracy have been working for 25 years to make racial equity a central piece of their work in dialogue and deliberation, and they recently condensed some of the key insights that work has taught them. We learned a lot from ED’s lessons and share their belief addressing racism in our communities is a key to advancing democracy, so we hope you will take a few moments to read and reflect on their piece. You can read it below or find the original here.


EvDem Logo

When we were created as the Study Circles Resource Center twenty-five years ago, our founder, Paul Aicher, gave us a fundamental charge – to find ways to make dialogue compelling, routine and powerful for everyone in the country. He envisioned community settings where people of all backgrounds and views would engage with each other on pressing issues, form relationships across divides, create community change together, and improve democracy in the process.

In our quest to bring this vision to life, we began asking informal and formal community leaders about their hopes and the kinds of support they needed. Early on, people from all backgrounds and regions told us that people in their communities wanted to talk about race but didn’t know how. They told us that they needed ways to recruit people from different groups and bring them together. Within three years of our founding, we had decided to address the issue of racism head-on as we worked with and learned from community groups.

At that time, we were a small, all-white organization, just beginning to learn. Our journey led us to deep collaboration with community partners of every ethnic background, working on many different issues, in every region of the country.

As we learned from their experiences, we came to see that racism is more than just another issue area. We learned that systemic structures rooted in racism stand in the way of making progress on all types of public issues – and on realizing the promise of democracy. To meet these challenges, we became a multi-ethnic organization explicitly committed to inclusion and racial equity in all aspects of our work.

These lessons and organizational commitments enable us to support communities in developing their own capacity for large-scale dialogue that leads to personal, cultural and institutional change. As we partner locally and nationally, we reflect, learn, coach, write and talk about the need for equitable opportunities for voice and impact. We often serve as a bridge among the fields of deliberation, racial equity and social justice.

We are still learning, but at this 25-year milestone we want to highlight some lessons from along the way:

1. Diversity is essential across all phases of dialogue-to-change, whether in organizing, dialogue, or action. In addition to racial/ethnic diversity, it’s important to consider other kinds such as education level, economic status, gender, age, sexual orientation, and language. But racial/ethnic diversity is often the hardest to achieve. Tackling it first will help with all other forms of diversity.

2. Diversity is just the beginning. It’s important to build an equity lens in all aspects of organizing, dialogue, and action. Understanding the structures that support inequity (with a particular emphasis on structural racism) is essential for effective dialogue and long-term change on every issue.

3. Personal change and relationship-building are critical to addressing racism. Sharing personal concerns and stories throughout organizing, dialogue and action processes helps make it possible to address issues of privilege, power and inequity.

4. Personal change and trusting relationships are just the beginning. They bring energy and persistence to long-term democratic processes aimed at institutional, cultural and systemic change.

5. Measuring and communicating progress toward community change is essential.Doing so makes it possible to keep engaging new people in dialogue and action, to build on the change that has already happened and to sustain the work.

6. Racism affects all of us personally and in our communities, no matter what our racial/ethnic background is. We all have something to gain by working together and addressing racial inequities. Addressing it is hard work, and requires empathy, self care and long-term commitment.

7. We all need to be part of the change we are trying to create. At Everyday Democracy, we have been learning how to apply an equity lens to all our work. We are committed to “walking our talk.”

We have discovered that fighting racism goes hand in hand with creating communities where everyone has a voice and a chance to work together. We look forward to the next 25 years of learning and change.

See highlights of our journey to address racism.

You can find the original version of this piece from Everyday Democracy at www.everyday-democracy.org/news/7-key-lessons-25-years-addressing-racism-through-dialogue-and-community-change#.U1nEMvldUlo.

Group Decision Tip: More wagging, less barking

Group Decision Tips IconIn principle, you know when a dog is happy to see you, and when not. People wag and bark too, in different ways. When two dogs approach each other wagging, expecting friendship, the outcome is almost always good. When one or more dogs are barking, it is hard to make good group decisions.

Practical Tip: Approach people wagging, expecting good things. Carry a sunny disposition. Look for the good in every person and in every situation…and let your optimism show.

Wag more. Bark less.

Managing Extreme Opinions During Deliberation

We are happy to share the reflective piece below from one of our newest NCDD supporting members, Donald Ellis of University of Hartford’s School of Communication. Donald’s post came via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

Even during those heavy late-night conversations in college about God the guy with an unmovable opinion, who just couldn’t see outside his own boundaries, was annoying. Extreme voices, and the harsh opinions and rigid sensibilities that accompany them, are always a problem during deliberation or any attempted genuine discussion.

The practicalities of deliberation require manageably sized groups that are small enough for sufficient participation in genuine engagement with the other side that is not defused throughout a large network of people. In fact, smaller deliberative groups provide a more empirical experience one that is more easily observed and measured.

Originally, deliberation was associated with existing political systems working to solve problems through liberal democratic means that include all of the normative expectations of deliberation. The “rationality” associated with deliberation is most realistic for intact political systems.

Deeply divided groups – groups divided on the basis of ethnicity and religion – were thought incapable of such discourse. But in the last few years authors such as Sunstein and myself have made a case for deliberation and ethnopolitically divided groups on the basis not of rationality but of the “error reduction” that communication can provide. And as the empirical work in deliberation has evolved numerous practical issues focusing on how people actually communicate has been the subject of research attention. Moreover, researchers form smaller deliberative groups that are more practical.

One of the variables or issues that emerged from the research that the smaller deliberative groups make possible is the matter of extreme opinions. Deliberators in the true sense are supposed to be engaging one another intellectually for the purpose of preference formation, along with all of the normative ideals of deliberation. But in the “real world” of deliberation people behave differently and sometimes badly. Individuals with polarized opinions and attitudes are supposed to moderate them and work toward collaboration, but this is an ideal that is not often achieved. There are individuals who do not fully appreciate or respect deliberative ideals.

This difficulty of extreme opinions is particularly pertinent to conflicts between ethnopolitically divided groups where the conflicts are deep and intense. Conflict such as that between the Israelis and the Palestinians is characterized by highly divergent opinions and tension. People hold firm and unshakable opinions and discussions between these competing groups are filled with individuals who hold rigid and extreme opinions.

At first glance, you would think that rigid opinions would be disruptive and certainly damaging to the deliberative ideal. And, of course, that is possible. Research has shown that sometimes when groups get together and talk the result is a worsening of relationships rather than improvement. Efforts to reduce stereotypes by increasing contact with the target of the stereotype can sometimes simply reinforce already present stereotypic images.

Almost all decision-making groups of any type, deliberative or not, struggle with the problem of members who have extremely rigid opinions and cannot be or will not be moved. Subjecting one’s influence to the better argument is an ideal of deliberation and this is thwarted if group members resist exposure to the other side. Those with rigid opinions typically pay little attention to any collaborative strategy since their goal is the imposition of their own opinions. But the communication process can once again come to the rescue and at least increase the probability of moderation mostly through the process of continued exposure to information, ideas, and counter positions. And although it’s more complex than that the basic communicative process is the initial platform upon which change rests.

It turns out that educating people about how policies and positions actually work tends to increase their exposure to other perspectives and improves the quality of debate. This is one more weapon in the “difficult conversation” arsenal that can serve as a corrective and ameliorate the polarization process. Rigid opinions will not disappear but improving knowledge promises to be an effective unfreezing of attitudes procedure.

The Importance of Completed Conversations

This reflective piece was submitted by NCDD member Katy Byrne, MFT Psychotherapist, columnist, radio host, and public speaker, via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

“We live in a time when there are so many sophisticated means for communication: email, telephone, fax, yet it is very difficult for individuals, groups, and nations to communicate with each other. We feel we can’t use words to speak, and so we use bombs to communicate.” – Thich Nhat Hanh, Calming The Fearful Mind.

Hairballs aren’t easy.

Why do we leave, abandon, disappear, walk away or never talk to someone again?

Those silly fights or sudden break ups, what’s that about? Twenty, thirty, forty years and vamoose… gone. What‘s up with that? Sometimes it’s a wife, a sister, a friend who just blows up and loses it. “Hey, what happened?” we ask ourselveswhile reading multiple emails with words in black and white.

Some of the past loves of our lives were important .Some died and we lost the opportunity for final closure. A few had unhappy endings. But don’t many of us have a couple past relations that were torn apart like a ripped sleeve?

As we age, don’t we want to be at peace with old friends or family? Don’t we want to feel complete with loved ones when we die? But it takes courage to reach out before it’s too late. It’s not easy to listen to unpleasant feedback or to risk speaking up.

I usually fear folks who yell or blame me. So, I excuse myself, “nuff of that…I’ve been around the bend and I don’t want to go there again.” Is it a way of letting myself off the hook? Or, is it time to let go? If I don’t step up to difficult conversations, who will?

Sometimes I still felt this edgy, lonely feeling inside about some people I cared for
who disappeared or maybe it was me who left them. So, what to do?

Hey, I wrote a book about the courage to speak up, but I have a helluva time doing it myself sometimes. I was writing about the importance of communication and self-responsibility, so I knew that I might have a part in these separations.

I wanted to risk knowing whatever I could about relationship rifts. It was for my own healing but also for the world – since splitting off from others and anger seems to be the problem of the planet. So I started a campaign.

With one old friend all it took was a phone call and we’re fine now. Later, I was a “wuss” with a relative and sent a hand-written letter using my skills to dwell on intention and wishes. I never heard back.

Another person didn’t want to talk about our break-up because she’s into meditation and love. I thought “what’s love got to do with it?” No, really I thought bridging gaps was love.

Anyway, to an old colleague, I said I didn‘t like doing this on email. Could we talk by phone? She insisted on computerized hairballs! So, I tried it, reluctantly.

Umpteen emails later we had different views of our split. She insisted it was nothing personal… just a new stage of life. I felt better that at least we “talked” about it.

Another acquaintance claimed he was just busy. I said, “Do you think there might be some other teensy, eensy thing, since I don’t hear from you anymore?” Bless his heart, he did finally send a loooooong  email saying he was surprised to find that even though it was twelve years later, sure ‘nuff… he did have unexpressed feelings but needed more time to sort through them. It kinda left the hairball up in the air, but at least I practiced bravery.

One old pal surprised me. He came over for coffee after my call and we told the whole truth- judgments, different perceptions and all. We talked it through and ended laughing with deep belly laughs– hairballs gone!

This old world is so full of blame and separation; can’t we do our part to mend it? What matters most?

John Donohue says: “Your way of life has so little to do with what you feel and love in the world but because of the many demands on you and responsibilities you have, you feel helpless to gather yourself; you are dragged in so many directions away from true belonging.”

I believe completion is better, can it always occur? Maybe not. But, do we have the courage to try?

Position Opening with InterFaith Works of CNY

We recently heard about a position opening with our friends at InterFaith Works of CNY that we wanted to share. IFW is seeking a new Program Director for their Center for Dialogue, and the position sounds like a great fit for some of our NCDD members, so we hope some of you will be interested in learning more about the opening.

IFW describes the position this way:

Creation of the Center for Dialogue: IFW is creating the Ahmad and Elizabeth El-Hindi Center for Dialogue (CfD) to build upon several successful models of dialogue that are currently part of the agency: Community Wide Dialogue to End Racism, Courageous Conversations about Race, Seeds of Peace, Sustained Dialogues for Communities in Conflictual Relationships, InterFaith Dinner Dialogues, Interfaith World Harmony Assembly, and InterFaith Dialogues to Understand Islam. The Center for Dialogue will build the capacity within the organization and within the community to more fully actualize the use of the dialogue-to-action model to address critical issues through cross-cultural dialogues…

Position Summary: The Program Director, under the guidance of the IFW Executive Director, is responsible for the overall operation of the Ahmad and Elizabeth El-Hindi Center for Dialogue.

Qualifications: Individual should have experience in the practice and philosophy of dialogue as a tool for human and community transformation; skills in human service administration and program development and delivery; demonstrated management experience including supervision of staff, budget, finance and fund development; awareness of and interest in the Central New York region; high level of initiative and creativity; proven ability to be an effective manager and leader; ability to handle a variety of tasks and responsibilities simultaneously and effectively; ability to work with diverse groups of people with diplomacy and discretion; ability to assume leadership in planning and programming for all areas of the Center for Dialogue.

You can find more info by visiting InterFaith Works’ website at www.interfaithworkscny.org, or you can find the full job description and application details at www.interfaithworkscny.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Director-Center-for-Dialogue.pdf.

Good luck to all the applicants!

Featured D&D Story: Respectful Conversations Project

Today we’d like to feature a great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, the Respectful Conversations Project. This mini case study was submitted by Jerad Morey, Communications and Program Manager of the Minnesota Council of Churches via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool (add YOUR dialogue story today!).

Title of Project:
RespectfulConvProjectRespectful Conversations Project

Description
When the state of Minnesota was facing a ballot question defining marriage, people were divided. Churches found themselves in sharp internal disagreements that mirrored those in the broader community. Fearful of the end result of a year’s worth of polarizing media campaigns on Minnesota’s civic discourse, churches decided to build peace as a way to love the communities they were in and strengthen Minnesota’s civic culture.

The Minnesota Council of Churches, with support from the Bush Foundation and in partnership with The Public Conversations Project, Twin Cities Public Television and The Theater of Public Policy, designed a conversation model not to change minds, but soften hearts. Respectful Conversations on the Marriage Amendment were conducted across the state in rural, exurban, suburban and urban communities. One thousand five hundred fifty Minnesotans participated in 54 conversations. 62% of participants reported experiencing more empathy for those with whom they disagreed. That figure grew much higher in those conversations were the array of viewpoints was most diverse.

People were excited to participate in these conversations and they have proven to be generative. In level 2 evaluations, participants reported improved listening skills, facilitation skills, reduced tension in home conversations, improved parenting skills and paradigm shifts. Many congregations have gone on to create peace in their communities around other divisive issues and sectors such as higher education, government and public health have studied the model for future implementation.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?
Public Conversations Project dialogue

What was your role in the project?
Program co-designer and communicator

What issues did the project primarily address?
Gender / sexuality

Lessons Learned
Budgeting more for evaluations that captured people’s stories of the experience in multiple media would have been a great idea — we were surprised by all of the good will and gratitude generated by the project, and the thirst for follow-up activities. Had we captured it better to better report on it then we would have had a great storytelling tool that Minnesotans could be proud of.

Where to learn more about the project:
http://www.mnchurches.org/respectfulcommunities/respectfulconversations.html

Review of Rosa Zubizarreta’s New Book, “From Conflict to Creative Collaboration”

We are happy to share the post below from NCDD organizational member Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Institute, which came via our great Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

I just finished reading NCDD member Rosa Zubizarreta’s new book From Conflict to Creative Collaboration: A User’s Guide to Dynamic Facilitation. I’m quite excited. I’ve known about “DF” for fifteen years, and I’ve never seen it described as clearly and compellingly as in this book.

It’s an oddity: DF generates a remarkably effective creative group conversation whose nonlinearity makes it seem very peculiar indeed. Many NCDD practitioners have found it hard to grasp or turn away from those who unduly evangelize it. But I want to say that it is definitely worth checking out – and that finally we have a book that makes real sense of it without overselling it and with good attention to contextualizing it within the larger field of group process.

Furthermore, like many other excellent books focused on one process – notably Juanita Brown et al’s The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures through Conversations that Matter – Rosa’s book provides deep insights into group and facilitation dynamics that we would all be wise to attend to, regardless of which methods we love and use.

This particular unusual facilitation approach is built around a few deceptively simple practices like fully hearing each person, reframing conflicts as concerns, being truly open to every perspective and to the range of human emotions, and always inviting the best solutions from each and every person. I say “deceptively simple” because – like the deceptive simplicity of “following your breath” while meditating – the power of these practices comes from their persistent and courageous application. So, as with so many processes, it’s good to have access to a facilitator skilled in the practice.

Because when these practices are applied persistently and courageously – and with empathy and faith – I have seen them produce the seeming miracles for which I think Dynamic Facilitation is becoming increasingly appreciated. These practices have a pretty good record of transforming difficult and conflicted people into creative collaborators, and thorny resistant problems and disputes into breakthrough insights and effective new directions.

This alleged “magic” of Dynamic Facilitation is, like all magic, impressive because it does things we don’t believe are possible with actions that could not possibly produce those results. The nonlinear power of DF seems to defy logical understanding – a puzzle that, thankfully, begins to dissolve as we read Rosa’s book.

She makes it clear what’s going on and why, and how to perform these miracles ourselves. She also makes it clear that, while all the magician’s secrets are here and some people – the “naturals”, we might say – can perform them right out of the book, for most of us it takes practice. Practice… and authentic respect for people – genuine curiosity about what people think and feel and a faith in their ability to find their way together in groups when they’re given the right support. These are the qualities of the master Dynamic Facilitator – of whom Rosa, I quite seriously suggest, is one of the best. She’s also a dynamite observer, theoretician, and writer.

DF is filled with nuances and extraordinary phenomena and assumptions, all of which become vividly obvious to us in the gentle flow of Rosa’s prose. The subject unfolds in foreshadowed layers: She gives us a good glimpse of a vista and then takes us down for a more detailed examination of the landscape which, in turn, has its own smaller vistas and finer-grained details. Layer upon layer she guides and invites us. At each step of the way, she grounds us both in the simple overriding mechanics of the process and the underlying spirit of the whole thing. We learn about chart pads for people’s Problem Statements, Solutions, Concerns, and Data; reflecting back to each person their meaning and caring; asking for solutions and concerns; and many other techniques. We also learn that what we’re doing at every stage is making a space safe enough for the perspectives and problem-solving impulses of diverse individuals to evolve quite naturally into collective big picture insights, innovations and transcendence.

Rosa wrote this book especially for existing and prospective facilitators and for people seeking help with group work. And so, for us NCDDers, she offers a section clarifying the important differences between DF and practices like Open Space Technology, Focusing, and brainstorming. But aside from that one specialized section – which can be readily skipped by a lay reader (or they can look up these practices online), the rest of the book is nearly jargon-free. From my view straddling many methods and lay perspectives, Rosa says it like it is in ways that will allow most readers to gain a wholesome, satisfying understanding of this remarkable topic regardless of their facilitation experience.

From the history of Dynamic Facilitation to its technical details, from its unfolding stages to its proper application, this book covers the ground and covers it well. It ranks among the best books I’ve seen on group process and human – in this case collective – potential. I like to think that that its widespread use could make a big difference in the nonlinear and often troubling trajectory of our civilization. In the simplest terms, the innovative tool it describes could help us co-create our future with much more wisdom and effectiveness.

I am so excited that the curious magic of DF is now out of the closet and at everyone’s fingertips.

Thoughts on “Place” from Pete Peterson

We wanted to share a thoughtful note that Pete Peterson sent to our transpartisan listserv the other day. Pete is not only the executive director of the Davenport Institute and an NCDD organizational member, but he’s also running for Secretary of State in CA, and he has some great insights to share on “place” from a newly released book…


DavenportInst-logoAll,

I thought you might be interested in knowing about a new book project on the subject of “Place” and its relationship to civic engagement…

Why Place Matters: Geography, Identity, and Civic Life in Modern America was just released on Thursday at an event at Pepperdine (reviewed here in today’s Sacramento Bee). I have an essay in the book about how we should be incorporating an understanding of place into public policy formation and education.

Of particular note to this group is how the essays in this volume address the issues of ideology from a communitarian perspective. My experience has been that many friends from the left-side of the aisle see conservatives as viewing the world from a “rugged individualist” perspective, and that they are the more “community-minded.” You hear this many times from our President, who, when met with opposition to some of his policy prescriptions describes his opponents as those who say “you’re on your own.”

There is certainly a growing libertarian movement in America (that has both left and right components), but there is also a long history of conservative communitarians. A tradition that begins with Edmund Burke and runs through De Tocqueville to Russel Kirk, Wilmoore Kendall, Donald Davidson and (especially) Robert Nisbet, through to today’s Rod Dreher, Ross Douthat, and others.

I’ve thought for some time that one way to find some “common ground” between ideologies is in this communitarian arena. I see many strands of this way of thinking in the recent Slow Democracy by Susan Clark and Terry Teachout. And while I may draw the line differently in how centralized policies either inhibit or promote the creation of something called “community” than folks like Susan and Terry, I think we’re all trying to get to (nearly) the same… place.

Best,

P.

Group Decision Tip: Detachment

In principle, detachment is the key to peace.

Group Decision Tips IconSometimes we are so attached to things that we are apt to fight for them, so attached that when they disappear it brings great pain, so attached that our judgment is clouded to the point where we see and feel only conflict.

While right-sized compassion brings comfort, oversized attachment to people, ideas, or feelings brings turmoil and tension. While right-sized determination brings achievement, unwavering attachment to goals or ideals brings conflict.

Practical Tip: Do not be too attached to your group’s cause or decisions that you think the group should make. Do not be too attached to how you think things should be or how others should behave.

It is often those group members who are unreasonably dedicated — those who give an unreasonable amount of time or energy — who cause the most conflict.

Give your best without conditions. Speak your truth without expectations. Use the key, find peace.