Focused Dialogue with OBREAU

Outwardly Facing – Developing a Richer Understanding of an Issue, to Support Action

Focused Dialogue with OBREAU is a structured process designed to help a group think more clearly and work more constructively with an issue that’s complex, uncertain or challenging.

Rather than moving quickly to explanations, judgments or preferred solutions, participants work progressively with the three OBREAU practices – Observation, Reasonableness and Authenticity.

The process is designed to be undertaken in around two hours. The two-hour structure is a practical response to the reality that bringing people together for longer is often difficult in organisations and communities.

The aim is not to have everyone agree or “solve” the issue; it’s to improve the quality of the group’s collective understanding and clarify areas needing further attention.

There’s also a full Dialogue with OBREAU process, not described here, which takes half a day or more and enables a wider-ranging and deeper exploration.

Yet a Focused Dialogue can help significantly shift a group’s thinking on an issue. Within the 2 hours, participants can develop a broader, better-grounded picture of the issue, explore significantly different perspectives, and consider what now seems important to acknowledge, question, or say.

The Process

The process involves:

• Introduction – especially clarifying the issue or question for exploration and outlining the sequence of activities

• Phase 1: Observation – generating and exploring observations about what is actually happening

• Phase 2: Reasonableness – considering different perspectives and testing emerging interpretations

• Phase 3: Authenticity – identifying what now seems important for participants to acknowledge, question or say

• Conclusion – identifying areas for further attention, inquiry, experimentation or other action.

The Observation phase draws on core elements of Intentional Observation Dialogue. The Reasonableness phase similarly incorporates key aspects of Perspective-taking Dialogue. Yet there’s no attempt to squeeze either of these fuller processes into the 2-hour time.

Authenticity then adds something different: it invites participants to consider, in light of the exploration so far, what genuinely matters and what now needs to be spoken about more openly.

Useful outcomes can include: a clearer understanding of what the group is dealing with, a better appreciation of significant differences, and a stronger basis for deciding what to do next.

More on the Main Phases

The aim is not to explore every aspect of Observation, Reasonableness and Authenticity. It’s to bring enough of each practice to the issue to make a meaningful difference to how the group sees and understands what it is dealing with.

Observation – developing a better-grounded picture

The first phase asks participants to step back from immediate explanations and solutions and consider what they are actually observing about the issue.

Participants generate relevant observations and explore patterns, relationships and contextual factors that may help enlarge the picture.

The aim is not simply to collect facts. It is to help people notice more carefully and become aware that different participants may be attending to quite different aspects of the same situation.

Where greater depth is useful, a fuller dialogue might explore further:

• how observations and interpretations are becoming mixed together

• wider patterns, context or changes over time

• what may be missing from the group’s current field of attention.

Within the focused process, the aim is to establish a sufficiently rich observational foundation for the dialogue to move forward.

Reasonableness – exploring different perspectives

The second phase turns to the different ways in which the issue might reasonably be understood.

Participants are encouraged to become curious about perspectives other than their own. Attributing reasonableness does not mean agreeing with another view or deciding that it is correct. It means exploring what might make that view understandable from the standpoint of the person or group concerned.

The focused process concentrates on perspectives that appear especially significant to the issue, rather than attempting to explore every possible standpoint.

Where greater depth is useful, a fuller dialogue might examine further:

• assumptions underlying different interpretations

• experiences, interests or circumstances shaping particular perspectives

• how participants’ own explanations look when considered from other standpoints.

Even a relatively contained exploration of different perspectives can significantly change the way a group understands an issue.

Authenticity – bringing forward what matters

The third phase asks participants to consider what, in light of the dialogue so far, now seems important to acknowledge, question or say.

This is not simply an invitation to state opinions more forcefully. Authenticity involves considering what genuinely matters and what contribution might help deepen or advance the group’s understanding.

By this point, participants may be seeing the issue somewhat differently from when the conversation began. Matters that previously seemed obvious may appear more uncertain; concerns that had remained in the background may have become more significant.

Where greater depth is useful, a fuller dialogue might explore further:

• concerns or differences that participants have been reluctant to voice

• ways in which participants themselves may be contributing to the situation

• how difficult or sensitive matters can be expressed both truthfully and constructively.

Within the focused process, the aim is to bring forward what now seems most significant, without requiring people to undertake a deeper personal exploration than the circumstances warrant.

Bringing the Three Practices Together

The three phases are related rather than separate exercises. What participants notice through Observation affects the perspectives they are able to explore through Reasonableness. Those different perspectives may then influence what participants feel needs to be acknowledged or voiced through Authenticity.

Towards the end of the dialogue, the group steps back and considers what has changed in its understanding.

Questions might include:

• What has become clearer?

• What are we seeing differently?

• What important differences or uncertainties remain?

• What now seems to deserve further attention?

• What might be worth trying, investigating or doing next?

By the end of the session, the group may have made progress in several respects: identifying practical next steps, framing questions needing further investigation, or perhaps recognising that parts of the issue warrant deeper dialogue.

Or people might leave with each or most having a richer and more deeply shared understanding of the situation. All these outcomes can make the effort worthwhile.