2008 (November) A Professional Commentary

Dr. Wolfgang Looss, Darmstadt, Germany

1. The Basics: who is your” expert sounding board”?

My remarks are based on my experience and my learning: For 28 years I have worked as a consultant for organizational development. My customers were and are NGO’s off all sort, companies of all size, governmental institutions, schools, professional associations and the like. I have founded and co-managed several smaller training institutes in the area of professional development. I supported the restructuring of one of the largest German welfare organizations, including the reformulation of statutes and bylaws. I studied business administration (major in organizational theory) and wrote my doctoral dissertation about “optimal organization structures” in the seventies. For three decades I have been a scholar, teacher, writer and reflective practitioner around the questions of people in organizations.

2. My information base

I have read the various reports and papers (Final Report Part B from IWG, Position Paper of the FVD Germany, legal opinion, SRC Working Draft, Advice for the SRC, Letter from SRC to TABs and Governing bodies , individual papers of SRC members) and had a longer Telephone conversation with Sabine Merz.

3. My intentions

Consultants at the same time have to “deconstruct” the status quo-thinking and be appreciative to what has emerged so far. I would like to be as straightforward and concrete as possible. I do not want to criticize anybody, in the contrary, I deeply appreciate and admire the huge amount of work that has been done already. At the same time I am fully aware of the fact that we are dealing with very sensitive topics: There are cross-culture issues involved plus several dimensions of the collective identity of the Feldenkrais community. So, whenever you feel irritated while reading the text please take for granted that I am respecting the history, the identity, the desires and emotions of anybody involved.

4. The irritating core message

The IFF and the SRC seems to look for a structure which carries the characteristic of being “good” or “better than the present one”. This search is futile because such a structure “as such” simply does not exist. More than that: No structure whatsoever will solve the problem. In other words: The Feldenkrais community does not have a shortage on conceptual thinking but a lack of implementation power. There are many concepts around already which are impressively clear and differentiated. There is nothing new to be discovered in the field of structural organizational architecture. It is all said and mentioned in a remarkably professional discourse.

So, the whole endeavor is not about finding “a good structure” and then implementing it. The effort to be completed lies in the process of “setting out on a journey with unknown destination” and – by doing so - face the effects of carefully deconstructing the status quo. What is therefore needed is the creation of a whole set of powerful and solid “communicative containers” (that is a technical term from the field of dialogue; see i.e. William Isaacs’s book “Dialogue and the art of thinking together”).

The “communicative containers” created so far by the SRC appear way too weak: You can’t live through a proper clash of concepts with all the emotional and intellectual turmoil during a teleconference. You need several meetings of several days each to “go through” the material face to face, learn, let go, look inside your individual “Self” and expose your ideas with the risk of an unpleasant echo.

That sounds pretty prosaic and is at the same time very practical: If you as the SRC want to come up with a solid concept in 2009 you have to go through conflict and uproar first. That is why the task has been delegated to you as a task force. The IFF plenary meeting cannot go through this itself without proper preparation which you have to provide. Only when you are through with your process you can support the plenary in going through the process as well. The idea of the IWG to have a special townhall meeting exclusively for that (“International special Assembly”) seems very appropriate if not inevitable. You might consider using the large group approach created and well tried by the former Gestalttherapist and specialist for townhall meetings Carolyne Lukensmeyer as described on her website www.americaspeks.org.

5. The issues

From going through the material and the history of the Feldenkrais community it becomes clear that practically all the issues are mentioned and on the table. The questions are raised and listed repetitively and they point to some deeper issues which will hit the “DNA” of your community. Some of these deeper ambivalences and questions are:

• The community seems to be obsessed with “quality”. Please remember: You can not “define” quality, it is a political concept. Nobody knows and has the given right to define what makes a “good” Feldenkrais practitioner/assistant trainer/trainer. There are “only” opinions which need to be discussed/debated in political bargaining processes. So either you leave that to the regional/national/local levels to clarify or you define a “committee of wise people” of some sort like the security council in the UN.

• Shall we have a separation between the professional association for the practitioners and a accrediting authority of some sort? In the very end the difference is minimal from a steering perspective: Even if you have both purposes under one “umbrella” you would have to establish a special section within that overall organization which then deals with the difficult questions of developing, monitoring and ensuring “standards”. The problem cannot be solved by structural means.

• Do we define a “development pipeline” for the Feldenkrais career, monitor it and exert power to ensure it? Are we ready to take on the role of sharing out professional chances and sources of income to other people? Who among us is strong enough to do that?

• Do we foster the accreditation of “programs”, of “program providers” or do we accredit people in their different roles and privileges? In the end it is all about trust: whom do we trust and how do we develop that trust? As people say: trust is he result of a chain of kept promises. Which promises do we need to be kept and for how long before we trust?

• Should the process of “getting there” rather incremental or better disruptive? Shall we dissolve the IFF and the TABs and then reboot in a fresh start approach? Or shall we change the IFF in a slow and step-by-step-process with all the ongoing debates and the long phase of insecurity and instability? It very much depends on the amount of reverence you have for your organizational tradition and on the amount of financial and personal energy you are willing to devote to this major renewal.

6. Practical steps

• Issue management: Create a “long list” of issues, conflicts, open questions

• Priorities: Create a “short list” of issues, conflicts, open questions: Must-Should-Nice to have

• Set up at least three to four two-day meetings for the SRC at a nice location

• Get yourself a facilitator for these meetings

• Learn everything about dialogue that you don’t know yet (David Bohm’s work)

• Begin to work:

  • Disclose your thoughts and feelings

  • Define your personal “water line” which separates debatable issues from sacrosanct issues

  • Disclose your intentions

  • Be ready to be confronted, confirmed, asked

  • Listen carefully

  • Discover

• Write down what you have achieved