WHAT Tee up for the Norm of Presuming Positive Intentions. WHY To create an anticipatory set by reminding participants that this is one of the Seven Norms of Collaboration required for skillful dialogue, discussion, and collaboration. HOW Remind participants that although this is one of the Seven Norms of Collaboration, it is generally only addressed at a surface level in Foundation Seminar. It is the least behavioral of the seven Norms, because neither intentions nor presumptions can be observed directly. They must be inferred based on the interpretation of behavior. This Norm, focusing on the intentions of others, also requires awareness of our own intentions, the development of which may call for significant consciousness-raising. This Module includes concepts, new research, and a variety of tools for developing the understandings and capacities for Presuming Positive Intentions in working with others. WHAT Three outcomes guide this Learning Module, whose intention is to deepen understanding and enhance skills for Presuming Positive Intentions. WHY These outcomes serve to guide the content of the module, and to focus learning energy among participants.

Adaptive Schools Seminars Learning Module

Presenting Notes for Presuming Positive Intentions

2015 Core Edition

160-240 minutes

Thinking Collaborative – Adaptive Schools Seminars www.thinkingcollaborative.com

2

HOW Display the outcomes on the screen. Read them aloud, in third point fashion. Inquire, “What questions do you have about the outcomes for this session?” Alternatively, chart the outcomes and post them instead of using the PPT. This approach assures that the outcomes are always available to participants. Follow the steps above, using the chart instead of the PPT slide.

WHAT The importance of Presuming Positive Intentions rests on the workings of the brain. WHY Two states that our brains experience, Relaxed Alertness and Downshift, are directly relevant to human learning. Skillful group members learn from one another, calling for attention to how we encourage and support Relaxed Alertness throughout group discourse.

HOW If participants are familiar with this content through prior learning, a brief review may be enough of a reminder. If this is the first exposure to this content, further explanations will be necessary. The state of Relaxed Alertness is engaged when one encounters input that is of reasonably high challenge in circumstances of low threat or risk. Relaxed Alertness is important to engaging the prefrontal cortex in processing the input. This is essential for considering multiple perspectives and constructing new understandings. Downshift, on the other hand, is the technical term for what the brain experiences under perceived threat, or as risk rises – either physical or psychological. When this takes place, we lose resourcefulness and flexibility. In this condition the brain will tend to route new input to the amygdala, our "fight-or-flight" detector, which is guided by feelings rather than rational thinking. Presuming positive intentions supports Relaxed Alertness and discourages Downshift.

3

WHAT A metacognitive map displaying the way that our intentions – some conscious, some not – serve as a foundation for guiding what we attend to, which in turn focuses our actions. WHY To practice the Norm of Presuming Positive Intentions in others, we must first be clear about our own intentions. If our own are less than positive, this will affect the mental lens through which we pay attention. In turn, this will affect our actions, which may prove to be incongruent with the idea of this Norm – presuming positively. Our intentions ground our attention and actions. HOW Demonstrate the pyramid by using the slide’s animation steps to illustrate the linkage of the three elements. Speak the WHY text by way of elaboration. Conclude with, “Let’s look into Presuming Positive Intentions in a bit more detail.” WHAT Activating and engaging prior experiences with Presuming Positive Intentions, also serving as inclusion for participants. WHY We learn from reflecting on our experiences. Learning is social constructed and personally integrated. The combination of the two prompts in the slide lays a foundation for reflection first, followed by an opportunity to enrich experience through partner dialogue. HOW 1. Show the first prompt. Inform participants how much time

they will have for individual reflection. 2. Speak the WHY for shared exploration. 3. Show the second prompt and inform participants how

much time will be allotted for this conversation.

Presenter’s Note A page of Dendwrite at the end of the core reading may be used as an original to make copies for participant handout packets.

4

WHAT An opportunity, with a partner, to explore the key research that will resurface throughout the Module. WHY To provide a brief definition of what Presuming Positive Intentions is – respect for others, and to provide the authors' perspective regarding why this Norm is important. Additional research is also cited. The strategy provides an entry point into the work and also honors all voices in the room. HOW 1. Explain the WHAT and the WHY. 2. Follow the slide's animations to guide participants through

the process.

WHAT A 3.5 minute video introduction to the Ladder of Inference, a metaphor for how the human brain draws inferences from observable data. WHY The Ladder of Inference, first created by Chris Argyris in 1982, represents metaphorically what happens in the mind as the brain processes data. It is important for participants to recognize that this is a natural phenomenon, necessary for survival. At the same time, it can result in unconscious connections and misrepresentations. the Ladder of Inference is a foundational element of this Module.

Presenter’s Note This video, by Edward Muzio, CEO of Group Harmonics, can be downloaded from the following website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9nFhs5W8o8

5

HOW 1. Share the WHY. 2. Participants watch the video. Alternately, you might also

have participants scan the first two paragraphs of the The Ladder of Inference as Conceptual Framework (p. 2) to serve as a foundational read for the video.

3. Reinforce that the focus here is how the brain behaves,

hardwired as it is for survival purposes. The focus is not on right or wrong. However, caution is needed to avoid the recursive loops that are described in the video.

WHAT An opportunity to debrief the video and make connections. WHY The Ladder of Inference may be new content for participants. Partners Process provides an opportunity to construct shared understanding of a complex metacognitive map. Additionally, connections among concepts cement understanding as new neural connections are formed. HOW Display the prompt. Encourage participants to consider any connections they might be making between the Norm of Presuming Positive Intentions and the Ladder of Inference.

WHAT An text-based opportunity extend understanding of the Ladder of Inference as a conceptual framework. WHY The Ladder of Inference serves as a powerful metaphor for aspects of our brains’ functioning as we take in new information. This partner-based text strategy extends interaction about the Ladder, permitting individuals to identify aspects that seem most important to them personally. HOW 1. Explain the WHAT and WHY. 2. Use the slide’s animation to guide participants through the Key Phrases process.

Presenter’s Note If it would better serve the learning needs of participants, the Key Phrases paired reading strategy (two slides down) may be used before the video. The video would then be followed by Making Connections, then Jamie’s Case.

6

WHAT An opportunity for participants to apply the Ladder of Inference to a specific case. WHY To develop skills for pinpointing where on the Ladder a person's thinking resides – the rung on which the person is “standing.” The Module offers multiple opportunities for applying and continuing to enhance these skills. HOW Participants silently read Jamie's case.

WHAT A visual representation of a presenter's metacognitive movement up the Ladder of Inference in the Jamie scenario. WHY To enhance the developing understandings of how the Ladder of Inference operates by offering both visual and auditory descriptions. HOW Display the five slides, one at a time, using the scenario with Jamie to connect specific elements of the presenter's thinking to the respective rungs of the ladder as shown. Participants will have an opportunity to explore and discover, comparing their own thoughts about the metaphorical climb up the Ladder to the written scenario and the visual displays in the PPT. Note: It is possible that not all will agree as to which rung of the Ladder the presenter is on at a given point in the case. The conversation process is more important than an outcome of agreement. Listen for developing specificity and clarity of thinking on the part of individual participants. End with the rhetorical question - "So…at what points might the presenter have gotten into a recursive loop?" Follow with the statement, "Let's investigate further."

7

WHAT An opportunity to “investigate further” into the presenter’s mental process in the scenario, constructing further understanding of how the Ladder of Inference represents actual brain function. WHY Having observed the presenter in the scenario “climb the Ladder of Inference,” this paired reading with the text strategy A-B Say Something offers insight into findings from neuroscience that align with the metaphor of the Ladder. HOW 1. Share the WHAT and WHY, connecting this text-based activity to the mental processing of the presenter in the Jamie scenario. 2. Use the animation of the PPT to provide instructions. WHAT Setting the stage to experience a way to avoid or escape the “recursive loops” of the Ladder of Inference. WHY To connect for participants the learning path that we have been traveling with where we are headed next; foreshadowing the content ahead to support relaxed alertness.

HOW Read the statement and rhetorical question aloud. If it seems useful, make the connection that "what" we do is climb the Ladder of Inference, "why" we do it is grounded in the predictable work of our brains, so now we will be shifting to “how” we get ourselves out of those "recursive loops" that were first identified in the video clip – or even avoid them in the first place!

8

WHAT This experience is credited to Suzanne Bailey, a presenter and professional developer. It has since been honed and developed by Bob Garmston. The major movements reveal themselves somewhat like what occurs in a concept attainment lesson, in this case stimulating thinking through a judgmental allocentric lens, then unexpectedly shifting the experience to an egocentric one. Entitled on the day’s agenda as “Converting Negative Energy” participants look forward to something that will help them with a challenge that they sometimes encounter in group work. The title is vague enough to permit you to proceed with the design described below. WHY When we become engaged in the “recursive loops” of the Ladder of Inference, whether as presenters, facilitators, or facilitative group members, we tend to become judgmental or defensive. On the other hand, seeking positive intentions in others awakens curiosity and interest. When we become judgmental or defensive, we often experience feelings that rob us of our resourcefulness. Finding positive intentions, on the other hand, supports us in accessing our full range of strategies for intervening and problem-solving. HOW The process begins with a four-step Activate & Engage, supported by these two PPT slides. The process develops significant engagement among table group members, relying more on facilitation that presentation by the session leader. The process does not call for PPT slides once the Activate & Engage opens the activity. Following the Activate & Engage, darken the screen and proceed with the steps below. The process calls for two pads of chart paper, and red and green markers for you, and for each table group. Note: The process includes 16 steps altogether. Step 6 begins on the following page.

9

6. Tell the group that for the next stage, a reporter will be

needed in each group, to share the list of behaviors created in Step 3. Ask a volunteer from each table group to stand. When all are standing, instruct them to raise their right hand in the air, and then allow it to fall on the shoulder of the person in their group that will report from the list created by the recorder in Step 5. This generates laughter, which is useful, given the possible uncertainty among participants as to just what is next.

7. Have everyone sit. Get reports from each group’s reporter, one item at a time as a whip around. Record them on a flip chart. • If an item is reported as a concept, pause and ask the

person restate it as a behavior. • Only record behaviors. • If an item such as “a participant is rude” is reported, ask

the person to state the group member behavior that seemed “rude.”

8. When two flip charts have been filled, instruct pairs to work through the items on the list, one item at a time, exploring conditions under which they might engage in each of the behaviors on the chart paper. Stress that you are not asking them to hallucinate about others, only to explore what it would take for them to perform each of the behavior.

9. When participants have engaged in enough of this activity to

personalize possible reasons for behavior, bring the group’s attention to the front.

10. Place two flip charts side by side to create a double size page, with new pages ready for recording. Write in the center, across the two charts in red, “side talk” Choose this because it is generic and appears in the experience of most people.

11. Invite participants to report the conditions under which they would side talk. Explain the reason for doing this is to build a common set of verifiable data. Record ideas in green. Abbreviate to move the process along. • If a person says, “Because the presenter is boring” ask

how the side talk served them. • Listen to syntax and convert all statements to “I”.. or

statements inferring an “I”. Don’t be overly obvious about are doing this.

10

12. When the side-by-side pages are filled, ask pairs to reflect on this question: “If there were a single theme in all the green, what might it be?” Read the green items aloud so people are clear what is on the charts. 13. After pairs have talked for a while, elicit responses.

• Challenge any response that does not apply to ALL the green items. Do this by asking, “How is this applicable to this one?”

• React non-judgmentally to responses, paraphrasing when appropriate.

• If a person says something to the equivalent that each item in green is “about me”, acknowledge and move on asking for other themes even though this is the “right answer” You are doing this because people hear or discover items when they are ready. Keep the inquiry going.

14. Finally, acknowledge that, “all the responses seem to be about taking care of the needs of the person performing the behavior.” Offer participants the following points.

• Behavior is driven by efforts to take care of the person behaving.

• Connect this to the norm of presuming positive intention.

• Counter-productive behaviors, even those that are damaging to the person performing the behavior, are driven by efforts to take care of oneself.

• Suicide is an extreme example of this. The person considering this believes that there are no conditions that will ever relieve the incomprehensible pain being experienced. Be cautious about using this example. It may cause difficult personal associations for participants who have experienced related events or concerns.

15. Invite pairs to play “yes but”. Accepting this concept is so important it is necessary to challenge it if any doubts exist. Have pairs explore possible “yes but” circumstances. In response to any “yes but” points that are raised, invite participants to speculate on how the particular behavior might be intended to serve the person. One doesn’t need to know the actual reason, only assume that one exists.

11

16. Advise that whenever “red behaviors” show up, look to the green. This applies to all the behaviors the group has generated, as well as others. Looking to the green supports the facilitator or presenter, because when one focuses on the red, one tends to become defensive or judgmental. Looking to the green, you can become curious. Your disposition influences the quality of your presence, your interactions, and the responses you elicit. By avoiding the emotional flooding that comes with looking to the red, you have access to your full range of intervention strategies and problem-solving capabilities.

WHAT A transition from the Go for the Green activity to consideration of the Ladder of Inference in a new light. WHY Go for the Green serves both to activate and engage prior experience and to explore and discover a presenting and facilitating strategy for focusing on others’ intentions rather than their behavior. Having explored the Ladder of Inference as a conceptual framework, we’ll look into it as a tool for reflection and inquiry. As a tool, the Ladder can support developing the consciousness that is needed to live into, as Bob Garmston puts it in the slide, “feeling confident that there is [a positive intention] in another.” HOW Read the slide’s quotation in third point fashion. Provide the WHAT and the WHY aloud.

Presenter’s Note You may choose to speak step 16 in your own words, or to display the PT slide to make the central point with Bob Garmston’s quotation.

You may choose to speak step 16 i

12

WHAT A tee up for using the Ladder of Inference for reflection and inquiry to identify and clarify where one is on the Ladder at a point in time. WHY The strategy Key Words provides a platform for modeling the skill set required for this work, specifically the skills of reflection and inquiry. HOW Read the directions on the slide, emphasizing that participants will be jotting words, not phrases. WHAT This quotation offers an expert author’s third point thinking about the central importance of reflection and inquiry in facilitation. WHY This quotation will be the focus of the Key Words text strategy. The human brain is wired to automatically process all new input for both physical and emotional risk without conscious awareness. When the limbic system – the home of our "fight or flight" responses – is aroused, it redirects resources away from the prefrontal cortex where executive functions such as reflection take place. Schwarz points out how challenging it is to identify what is happening, to reflect and inquire, and to consciously intervene effectively. HOW Tell participants to focus for 1 minute on jotting words that are "key" to them – those that stand out as significant to them personally.

13

WHAT An opportunity to practice the challenging and essential work that Schwarz suggests to "increase your effectiveness and that of the groups you work with." WHY Given this "challenging internal work of facilitation," participants will now have an opportunity to engage with these tools and practice their use. We frequently think of inquiry focusing on the thinking and feelings of others. Notice the difference here as Schwarz's focus is on self-inquiry into one's own thinking first. HOW 1. Inform participants that they will now be revisiting each

word on their list. 2. For each word, invite participants to silently inquire into

their thinking as to why they selected that word and what made it important to them. Resist participant requests to once again display the quotation by reminding them of the purpose of the task. The point is not how the words assist in the interpretation of the quotation. Instead the point is self-inquiry into why certain words are significant to a given individual.

3. Allow several minutes for this. You may want to use

Finger Minutes to check to check when to move on. 4. When both partners are ready, partners share thinking,

paraphrasing each other. Partners should take turns sharing words and thinking, and paraphrasing. In the event they do not exhaust their lists, it will still balance the participation.

WHAT A statement of the two tasks that will be important for Presuming Positive Intentions, with a definition of each. WHY Constructivist approaches to learning commonly prioritize experience as the basis for conceptualization. Participation in the Key Words strategy has engaged participants in applying the skills of reflection on and inquiry into their own thinking. This step labels the skills and offers formal definitions in language that participants can share in common.

14

HOW Presenter informs the participants of the WHAT and WHY, followed by a read aloud of each of the definitions. WHAT A series of slides displaying an inquiring prompt aligned to each of the rungs of the Ladder of Inference. WHY The Ladder of Inference can serve as a tool to support both self reflection and self inquiry, two essential and challenging tasks of facilitation. The prompts can be used to understand both how we ascend the Ladder, as well as how we might descend it. HOW 1. Explain the WHAT and WHY. 2. Define the task of exploring the five-slide series. "When

we combine the Ladder of Inference with a set of inquiring prompts, it surfaces thinking for further examination. We will begin at the bottom of the Ladder, working our way up."

3. Display the slides one at a time, elaborating as fits the

experience, interests, and needs of participants:

! At the Observable Data level – “What data are available – experiential data, dispositional data, situational data?”

! At the level of Selected Data – “What data am I

selecting to focus on?” ! At the Assumption level – “What assumptions am I

holding about this person; about this situation?” ! At the Conclusions level – “What conclusions am I

drawing?” ! Even at the Beliefs level – “What beliefs do I hold that

relate to this person and situation? What are my intentions here?”

15

4. Through this use of the Ladder we create a scaffold for assuring that our intentions and our presumptions of others' intentions are grounded in evidence.

5. Segue to the next slide with, "Let's revisit Jamie's case

and see how the Ladder of Inference might have played out through a lens of reflection and inquiry."

WHAT An opportunity to extend shared understanding of how the Ladder of Inference can be used to reflect and inquire through a case application. WHY To support transfer of learning into case application.

HOW 1. Display the first slide. Recall that you are a presenter;

Jamie, a participant. Inform your participants that they will now be revisiting Jamie's case with the Ladder of Inference as a guide.

2. Partners silently read the two paragraphs at the bottom of

page 4 of the text. 3. As partners complete the reading, display the second slide

and provide the directions on the slide. WHAT Transitioning from exploring and discovering the Ladder of Inference as a tool for reflection and inquiry to organizing and integrating. WHY To support transfer of this content from workshop to work place.

16

HOW Speak the WHAT and WHY. Inform participants that there seem to be four common ways to use the Ladder in this way. Use the slide’s animation to display each and offer definitions such as these.

! in the moment – stopping "mid-climb" to reflect and

inquire; ! retrospective – revisiting the Ladder after a situation; ! retrospective with revisions – after a situation, followed

by rewriting how the "script" might have developed differently, and then rehearsing for later use;

! dialogic – engaging in a dialogue with a trusted

colleague about how your reflection and inquiry might have assisted you in the moment.

WHAT Organizing & Integrating the content and process about the Ladder of Inference. WHY To support transfer of this learning from workshop to work place. HOW Speak the WHAT and WHY, then provide the directions using the slide’s animation. Ask what questions participants have and alert them as to how much time to anticipate. WHAT A Pocket Cue Card displaying the Ladder of Inference. WHY To support participants in transferring their learning about the Ladder of Inference from this workshop to their work places.

17

HOW 1. Distribute the Cue Cards. Speak the WHAT and WHY. 2. Elaborate by reminding participants that no one is

expected to have memorized the rungs of the Ladder of Inference. The Cue Card can support their developing fluency, much as similar tools help actors and others memorize new content.

3. Demonstrate the fit of the 3x5 card in a shirt pocket or

other convenient space.

WHAT A process to prompt deep personal reflection. WHY Presuming Positive Intentions calls for investment in developing consciousness and clarity about our own intentions, then in committing to the discipline of presuming positive intentions in others. This Norm, as well as authentic application of tools such as the Ladder of Inference and positive presuppositions that each of us invest in exploring and creating a personal foundation. Our focus now begins with personal reflection on what we do actually believe and value about other people. Personal writing is our strategy of choice. It supports authentic reflection by focusing thinking and providing the psychological safety of privacy.

Presenter’s Note Cue Cards are prepared prior to the session. A master of the Cue Card, displaying four cards per page, is included at the end of these Presenter’s Notes. Cue Cards are most useful when copied onto card stock, then cut to 3x5 inches to fit a shirt pocket.

18

HOW 1. Speak the WHAT and WHY.

2. Tell participants that they will be doing some private

thinking and journaling about their personal views of other people. Inform them that a dialogue will follow, in which each is in full control of how they participate. Some may simply choose to listen. What is most important at this point is that each person searches within to identify, reflect upon, and examine their own beliefs and assumptions.

3. Inform participants that there will be a series of

prompts displayed on the screen to encourage deep reflection. They also have a hard copy of the prompts in their handout packet (Presuming Positive Intentions reading, page 10). Alert them that you will be reading the questions aloud in the event they do not want to look up, preferring instead to keep writing. The prompts are to guide, but not restrict. Participants are invited to respond as deeply as they can to whichever prompts speak to them personally.

4. Invite participants to now enter a calm, private mental space for reflection. Pause while they do so. Note: if the group has practiced the discipline of centering, it could be used to quiet their respective minds.

5. Advance the questions on the next two slides one at a time, reading them aloud as you proceed. Allow about 1 minute of silence between questions.

6. Use Yellow Light to alert participants when it is time to record their final thoughts. When done, invite them to look up and remain silent in order to honor those that are still in reflection.

7. Thank them for their authentic reflections toward creating for each a personal foundation for Presuming Positive Intentions and applying its tools.

19

WHAT An opportunity to debrief the internal reflection experience. WHY It is likely that this internal reflection elicited some deep responses. Some people process more fully alone; some, with others. The writing provides the venue for those who prefer to process individually, while the upcoming sharing provides the venue for those who prefer to process aloud. HOW 1. Display and read aloud step 1 on the PPT. Allow a

couple of minutes for participants to reflect on their thinking in its totality.

2. Display and read aloud step 2. Each participant identifies her or his Most Important Point (M.I.P.), making a note of it at the bottom of her/his Dendwrite.

3. Display and read steps 3-5. Clarify any directions as needed, making sure that participants understand that there is no crosstalk during the process. Note: given that the earlier directions assured that each individual would be free to decide how to participate, provide participants with the option to “pass” when it is their turn. Alert participants that each will have approximately 3 minutes to share. (A 4 person Table Group should take approximately 12 minutes.)

4. As groups finish, display and read items 6 and 7. Groups will now construct a Table Group Most Important Point (T.G.M.I.P.).

5. Instruct each Table Group to select a person to report out, using a strategy of your choosing (e.g.: Fickle Finger, person wearing the most blue, person that got up earliest this morning).

6. Summarize for participants that they have, both individually and collectively, just sampled the work of developing personal foundation for Presuming Positive Intentions, using the Ladder of Inference, and for establishing the essential Internal Congruence for the positive presuppositions that are next on the agenda – aligning their internal beliefs and values with the actions that they anticipate taking.

20

WHAT Tee up for Congruent Positive Presuppositions. WHY Teeing up generates curiosity, while serving as an advance organizer for the work ahead. HOW Speak this thumbnail sketch about Congruent Positive Presuppositions. “Most of us are somewhat familiar with positive presuppositions. They are addressed in the Adaptive Schools Foundation Seminar as one of the tools for posing questions. As we examine this tool more closely, we will look at new research, and uncover a potential trap that we may fall into if we aren't careful! In addition, we will be doing some deep internal work as we begin to examine our assumptions and beliefs about people in general.”

WHAT The first 3 slides about Congruent Positive Presuppositions serve to activate prior knowledge. They are also to generate curiosity by engaging participants with two seemingly conflicting pieces of research. WHY Positive presuppositions are offered in Foundation Seminar as a means of Presuming Positive Intentions. The approach taken in this Module differs. The intention at this point is to alert the brain that novel input lies ahead, and to pique the curiosity of participants. Posing two, seemingly conflicting pieces of research is to get the "dendrites dancing" and generate interest. HOW 1. Display the first slide. 2. Instruct partners to read the quotation from Victor Vroom,

and then engage each other as to what the quotation says to them, what it means to them, how it may or may not align with their own thinking.

3. Display the second slide. 4. Again, partners read the quotation – this one from Daniel

Pink, then engage each other in similar fashion. What does it say to them? What meanings do they find? How does it align or not with their present thinking?

21

5. Use the third slide’s animation to create interest. Read the text, “Hmm, a dichotomy? A polarity?” aloud, then pause. Display the two ideas. Continue with language such as the following: "So we seem to have conflicting ideas here. …

“On the one hand, we have Vroom's theory – that organizations should use external rewards, aligned to expectations, to motivate. The Pygmalion Effect may come to mind: when we expect good things from people, they tend to happen. In fact, most of us have advocated at one time or another that educators hold high expectations for students, in the belief that expectations tend to have a self-actualizing effect on students: they will reach them, given sufficient support of course.

“On the other hand, we have Pink's research. External rewards actually diminishes performance, decreases creativity, and limits short-term thinking – particularly when tasks are complex. So we seem to have a dilemma. Is this a dichotomy, in which only one of the two can be right? If so, which one IS right? Or might this be a polarity, in which case we need to manage both simultaneously?"

6. Invite partners to check in with each other. Then leave the question in the state that Art Costa calls "opensure." There is no reason to close the learning loop at this point. Participant minds will continue to process even as the agenda moves forward.

WHAT An introduction to the topic of Congruent Positive Presuppositions. WHY To support participants in extending their understanding of positive presuppositions, this reading offers a working definition and addresses the potentially empowering effects that they can convey.

22

HOW 1. Use the visual animations of the slide as you provide

spoken directions. 2. When you notice that a small percentage of people seem

to have completed their conversation, pause the entire group and offer the following statement: "Some of you seem to have completed your conversation. The directions for the next steps are about to appear on the screen. If you have completed your engagement with the first two paragraphs, please feel free to move on to these next steps. If you are still in process with the first two paragraphs, that’s fine. Once these new directions are given, you will have an opportunity to wrap up your current conversation so that you are ready to move on." This statement will serve as a respectful prompt to increase the pace for those that have not yet completed these steps. This is to increase the probability that the entire group will finish in approximately the same length of time, without creating anxiety.

3. Give the directions for the next slide – the HOW, and then

remind those that have not yet completed the first two paragraphs to return to that task.

WHAT A strategy for processing the text readings for Vroom's and Pink's theories. WHY Participants have been developing their thinking about two potentially conflicting points of view. The readings are to deepen participants’ understandings by adding substantive content to the intellectual ambiguity created by the two brief quotations and the two potential interpretations – dichotomy, polarity – offered earlier.

23

HOW 1. Use the slide’s animations to provide directions. 2. Tell participants that they will have approximately 15

minutes total for reading, teaching, and conversation. 3. If you have partners that have not completed the prior

reading, remind them that they may wrap up that conversation before transitioning to this task.

4. As partners begin to finish, use Finger Minutes to

determine when it is time to move on. 5. Debrief by asking participants: "Where is your thinking

now with respect to these two seemingly conflicting bodies of knowledge…a dichotomy?...a polarity?"

WHAT A foreshadowing of two traps into which we can fall if we are not conscious with respect to intentions and actions WHY To build suspense by suggesting that upcoming information may be novel or surprising. HOW Inform participants that caution is necessary when using positive presuppositions. Only with conscious capacity can we offer presuppositions that have a desirable effect.

24

WHAT An introduction to the first positive presupposition trap. WHY This visual representation is intended to alert participants to a potential trap that can ensnare a person whose intentions and actions are not congruent. This sets the stage for the concept of Internal Congruence. HOW 1. State the WHY. 2. Introduce this trap with language such as:

"Presuppositions, on the surface, mirror what lies in our own deep structure. Therefore, in order to offer a positive presupposition that is authentic, we must first examine our own values and beliefs about others. Are the words we are about to offer congruent with our own internal beliefs? If not, there is a chance the listener will perceive our words as inauthentic, which would then have the opposite effect of our intention."

WHAT An activator to begin the thought processes around the internal work in which participants are about to engage. WHY To support participants in transitioning from engagement with the readings into the deep personal work that serves as preparation for offering genuine positive presuppositions. HOW Have partners check in with one another by responding to the prompt on the screen. Then inform participants that the next few slides will offer an opportunity for some deep introspection about our own deeply held assumptions and beliefs.

25

WHAT A return to the Pyramid of Influence, a metacognitive map displaying the way that our intentions serve as a foundation for guiding what we attend to, which in turn focuses our actions. WHY The visual representation displays the alignment that defines internal congruence. HOW 1. Invite Table Groups to engage in a quick check in. How

might the three levels of the Pyramid of Influence – Intention, Attention, and Action – be related to positive presuppositions?

2. Share information from the following based on the

interests and/or needs of your participants.

! Positive presuppositions, when spoken, are at the Action level of the Pyramid of Influence.

! People have built-in radar for detecting inauthenticity! ! In order to be authentic, we must truly BELIEVE the

presuppositions ourselves before we state them. ! Our Intentions must be congruent with what we are

paying Attention to in order to facilitate authentic Action.

! A statement that was circulating around Facebook

recently was that: “We judge others by their actions, but we judge ourselves by our intentions.” Sometime or other we have all said to ourselves, "But I meant well..." So did we really "mean well" or was our Intention something else? Conversely, if we really did "mean well," what might we have been paying Attention to that caused our Actions to misalign with those good Intentions?

26

WHAT Application of earlier personal reflection to establish personal foundation for Presuming Positive Intentions and its tools – here, the tool of Congruent Positive Presuppositions. WHY Internal congruence – the alignment of a speaker’s beliefs and values with words that he or she speaks – is essential to positive presuppositions. Without it, the effects of a stated positive presupposition may well be the opposite of what a speaker intends. The earlier personal foundation work is directly applicable to establishing one’s internal congruence. HOW 1. Speak the WHAT and WHY. 2. Speak the instructions as they appear in the slide’s

animation. Alert participants to the amount of time they have for this task. Invite clarification questions.

3. Inform participants that they will be sharing and exploring

their reflections with a partner.

4. Inform participants of the time allocated for this. WHAT An opportunity to explore this new application of the personal foundations reflection with a partner. WHY To enrich each individual’s personal reflections by way of conversation with a colleague. HOW Speak the WHAT and WHY, then read the slide’s instruction. NOTE: Given that the personal foundations reflections were private, it may be useful to inform participants that each may share at a level of detail that each chooses.

27

WHAT A reminder that there are TWO positive presupposition traps. WHY To lay the foundation for the introduction of the second form of congruence. HOW State the following: "We have explored one potential positive presupposition trap related to our own internal beliefs and values. We are reminded that there are two such traps. Let's shift our attention to the second."

WHAT An introduction to the second positive presupposition trap. WHY To establish the foundational understanding of External Congruence. HOW 1. Display the first slide with language such as the following:

"Along with the values and beliefs we hold within, we must also look outside of ourselves."

2. Advance the next slide. 3. As we extend our view to the outside, we find the other

potential trap. Let's investigate what we might want to pay attention to with a brief exploration of 'Positive Presuppositions Gone Wrong.' "

28

WHAT Enriching connections to the readings about Expectancy Theory and internal motivation. WHY Participants have been working with the tension between these two bodies of research since beginning the topic of positive presuppositions. Text provided deepening information about the respective lines of reasoning. We are headed into an opportunity to further enrich understandings about this work, by focusing on applications in real life situations. HOW Use a mini-lecture to share with participants language similar to the following: 1. "So…you have been working with the tension between

these seemingly contradictory ideas. Our intention at this point in time is to offer real life situations in which positive presuppositions are stated. These will offer you opportunities to explore and apply your current thinking, as well as to augment your present knowledge with some key ideas. The purpose of this is to support you in understanding how these two sets of ideas might work in concert.”

2. "How frequently do we state positive presuppositions that

may be a bit pat, or even seem memorized? And how might they produce an effect different from what we have in mind? Let's look at some examples."

3. "Consider the following presupposition – 'Given that we all

want what's best for our students...’ This presupposition does convey an expectation that we will do what's best for students, and may prompt the listener to want to meet that expectation. However, if this presupposition is not an INTERNAL MOTIVATOR for the listener, then it is not likely to have a positive effect."

4. “Consider another situation. Suppose you are at an after-

school meeting and the leader says – 'Given that we all have things to do and want this meeting be brief...' You might think to yourself, '…rather than ending quickly, I want to be sure we hear everyone's thinking, and we move forward together, regardless of the time it might take.' So while brevity may be a motivator for some, it is not connected to an outcome or stance that you, and perhaps others, value."

29

5. Invite partners to briefly check with each other for any

clarity they might need regarding the connections between positive presuppositions and internal motivation.

6. Share other personal examples that you may have

experienced as either the speaker or the listener.

7. Refer participants back to page 7 of the reading, where Pink’s findings are summarized.

! If presuppositions are not aligned with the recipient's

beliefs or values, they may actually be detrimental in any of the seven ways listed, and therefore likely to incur any number of costs.

WHAT A summary of External Congruence. WHY Participants have been working with the tension between these two bodies of research – Vroom’s and Pink’s – since beginning the topic of congruent positive presuppositions. This statement is to provide closing clarity: any expression of positive presupposition must be congruent with beliefs that the listener/recipient holds. HOW State the WHAT and WHY. Our presuppositions will only be effective when they are aligned with the recipient's beliefs and values. In fact, when they do not align, they may even have the paradoxical effect of shutting down thinking instead of opening it up. WHAT Return to the Ladder of Inference: here, as a tool for assuring congruence in Positive Presuppositions. WHY The Ladder can serve for monitoring and adjusting for both Internal Congruence and External Congruence.

30

HOW Use the slide’s animation to illustrate how the Ladder of Inference can support the intention to be congruent in both ways: 1. Internal Congruence: Internally, the speaker can move up

or down the Ladder in either direction as needed. Notice that this is labeled as #1 – a reminder that the personal internal work must precede the external work. Our Intentions will focus our Attention.

2. External Congruence: As we listen to others, what Selected Data might we want to pay attention to in order to make positive or affirmative Assumptions, on which to base effective positive presuppositions? Action, the external work, takes the form of a statement or a question that includes the positive presupposition.

WHAT A Cue Card displaying the internal and external focus of assuring Congruent Positive Presuppositions. WHY To support participants in transferring this learning from this workshop to their work places. HOW 1. Distribute the Cue Cards. Speak the WHAT and WHY. 2. Elaborate by reminding participants that no one is

expected to have memorized the ins and outs of assuring congruence in positive presuppositions. The Cue Card can support their developing mastery, much as similar tools help actors and others memorize new content.

Presenter’s Note Cue Cards are prepared prior to the session. A master of the Cue Card, displaying two cards per page, is included at the end of these Presenter’s Notes. Cue Cards are most useful when copied onto card stock.

31

WHAT An activity for organizing and integrating the engagement about Congruent Positive Presuppositions. WHY This provides participants an opportunity to move from knowledge to commitment as they consider purposeful next steps. HOW Provide participants a few minutes to craft next steps for themselves. If time allows, have them share with a partner.

WHAT A self-assessment strategy for Organizing and Integrating the content and process of the entire session. WHY To support participants in transferring their workshop learning into changes in work place practice with a brief self-assessment. HOW Speak the WHAT and WHY. Use the animation of the slide to provide instructions. Instruct participants to record their responses in their Dendwrite.

Presenter’s Note An alternative approach to Organizing & Integrating the session here is to remind participants of the organizing and integrating they have already done at key sectional points in the session. The first concluded the section on the Ladder of Influence (page 16 in these Presenter’s Notes). The second, a Table Group Debrief (page 18 in these Notes), concluded the focus on developing personal foundation for Presuming Positive Intentions, the Ladder of Inference, and Congruent Positive Presuppositions. The third is the Congruent Positive Presuppositions activity that they just completed.

Presenter’s Note The topic of the following pages is fundamental attribution error. It may be used to enrich this Learning Module, at the presenter’s discretion.

32

Presenter’s Note: This topic, fundamental attribution error, may be used to enrich conversation about Presuming Positive Intentions at the discretion of a presenter. The following text is to inform presenters. How to best introduce its content into the Module’s activity sequence is a matter for a presenter to decide and plan based on participant interests and learning needs.

A tectonic paradigm shift shook the world of physics as the thinking of Galileo emerged to compete with that of Aristotle in the 17th century. Aristotelian physics explained the behavior of objects in terms of the individuating properties of those objects. Heavy objects, for example, possessed gravity, whereas light things possessed levity, and these properties explained why the heavy and light things fell and rose. Galileo's insight was that the behavior of objects can only be explained with reference to the situation in which that behavior occurs. Kurt Lewin advocated, as early as 19311, that psychology was stuck in an Aristotelian mode, and he challenged psychologists to become Galileans. Until psychology stopped thinking of behavior as the expression of dispositional properties of an individual and began to conceptualize it as an interaction between the person and the environment, the field would be doomed to remain in its already-prolonged infancy. His was the first notable advocacy that understanding situations was essential to understanding human behavior. Only when psychology had itself acknowledged the significance of situational variables, he contended, would it be in a position to inquire into how everyday people accounted for the same. 1

It seems that we have yet to complete the transition from Aristotelian to Galilean thinking as we consider human behavior. As we make meaning of events and the actions of others, we tend consistently to explain them in terms of dispositional or personality variables – much as Aristotle might have. This attribution pattern, extensively documented over decades and across situations by multiple researchers, is known as the fundamental attribution error, first named by Lee Ross in 1977. It is so prevalent that we find it throughout the literature about dialogue – see, for example, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, and collaborative teams – see, for example, Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide. Presuming Positive Intentions offers Adaptive Schools practitioners an approach to depowering the fundamental attribution error. A likely example of the fundamental attribution error can be found as Jane observes Rich. As she is watching, Rich trips on a rock and falls. Jane’s likely interpretation is that he is clumsy or careless. “That’s just how Rich is,” a dispositional interpretation. On the other hand, if Jane trips over the same rock, she is more likely to consider the placement of the rock. “What the dickens is that rock doing there?!” – a situational interpretation.

Fundamental Attribution Error: A Human Behavior Pattern that Influences How We Presume Intentions in Others

33

In a second example, Andy is behind the wheel, on the way to the supermarket. He is stopped at a traffic light, which turns green. As he begins to accelerate into the intersection, another car speeds through the red light, crossing just In front of him. The high probability of the fundamental attribution error inclines him to focus on the other driver as thoughtless, careless, or unskilled – dispositional interpretations. In one sense, an attribution error occurs as Andy focuses solely on dispositional variables, to the exclusion of the situational. In another sense it will constitute an attribution error if the other driver had reason to risk running the light, such as rushing someone to the hospital. These examples illustrate two aspects of the fundamental attribution error to which we fall prey as we make meaning of the behavior of others and as we reflect on our own behavior. Diametrically different from the ways that we tend to interpret others – dispositionally, we do tend to assign weight to situational variables when we reflect on our own behavior, as Lewin and Galileo before him might have advocated. For instance, if the driving situation above were reversed, with Andy driving the car that ran the stoplight in the course of rushing someone to the emergency room, he would have understood that the situation called for speed to trump safety. His perspective on the scenario is likely to be significantly more situational. The fundamental attribution error amounts to a shortcoming in perspective taking. Piaget described stages by which children conquer their egocentrism. As individuals develop they learn to recognize the existence of differences in perspectives, and may develop skills for taking multiple perspectives on a situation – empathy. Current social psychological research suggests that this developmental process may not reach fruition. For instance, Robert Kegan’s constructivist-developmental theory describes Ways of Knowing in adult development. In the "social-cognitive" Way of Knowing, individuals can construct their own points of view and grant that others have their distinct points of view, but they cannot accommodate their own and another's points of view simultaneously.

Building on Kegan’s work, Eleanor Drago-Severson also addresses the different Ways of Knowing. Referring to “social-cognitive” as “instrumental,” Drago-Severson validates that those who know the world in this way are challenged to be able to recognize that there are many ways to take others' feelings and perspectives into account. “Instrumental” knowers do not have the capacity to hold, or accommodate, both their perspective and the perspective of another person. Educators face the fundamental attribution error on a daily basis. The perspective taking stretch that an early elementary teacher must make to reach students who are new to reading, writing, science, or any other subject is significant. Imagine such a teacher’s attempt to set aside his own knowledge to reach students new to a subject! On occasion, of course, in spite of this Herculean exercise in perspective taking, some students struggle. While teachers may be unclear and impatient in the eyes of struggling students, they in turn may consider the students inattentive, unmotivated, stubborn, and even stupid (Pronin, Puccio & Ross, 2002. Such attributions are highly dispositional, failing to take account of factors related to teaching, content, prior learning, or students’ life circumstances. The process of identifying positive intentions in others provides facilitators and facilitative group members with an antidote to the ubiquitous fundamental attribution error. As we identify and perhaps modify our own intentions, then as we search out positive intentions in others, we have opportunities to acknowledge our attributions, then step back from the fundamental attribution error.

34

References 1. K. Lewin (1931). “The conflict between Artistotelian and Galileian modes of thought in contemporary psychology.” Journal of General Psychology, 5, 141-177. E. Drago-Severson (2004). Becoming Adult Learners: Principles and Practices for Effective Development. Teachers College Press. R. Kegan (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Harvard University Press. P. Lencioni (2005). Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide. Jossey-Bass. K. Patterson et al. (2002). Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes are High. McGraw Hill. E. Pronin, C. Puccio & L. Ross (2002). “Understanding Misunderstanding: Social Psychological Perspectives.” In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Khneman, Eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press. B. Redmond (2010). Expectancy Theory: Is There a Link Between My Effort and What I Want? The Pennsylvania State University website (https://wikispaces.psu.edu).

35

The Ladder of Inference

Thinking Collaborative – Adaptive Schools Seminars

Selected Data

Assumptions

Conclusions

Beliefs

Actions

Observable Data

The Ladder of Inference

Thinking Collaborative – Adaptive Schools Seminars

Selected Data

Assumptions

Conclusions

Beliefs

Actions

Observable Data

The Ladder of Inference

Thinking Collaborative – Adaptive Schools Seminars

Selected Data

Assumptions

Conclusions

Beliefs

Actions

Observable Data

The Ladder of Inference

Thinking Collaborative – Adaptive Schools Seminars

Selected Data

Assumptions

Conclusions

Beliefs

Actions

Observable Data

36

Return to collect additional

Observable Data

Thin

king

Col

labo

rativ

e –

Ada

ptiv

e S

choo

ls S

emin

ars

The Ladder of Inference in Support of Congruent Positive Presuppositions

1. Internal Work. Enter this work anywhere along the double arrow – to focus first on Assumptions, Conclusions, or Beliefs. Move up or down the Ladder as needed.

2. External Work. Follow the arrow up the Ladder, beginning with Selected Data.

What beliefs do I

hold that relate to this situation?

What conclusions am I drawing now?

What assumptions are underlying the meanings I make?

What data might I focus on – particularly experiential and situational?

What positive assumptions might I make?

Express a presupposition that is positive and held as true by both the speaker and the listener.

Observable Data

Selected Data

Assumptions

Beliefs

Conclusions

Actions

Return to collect Additional

Observational Data

Thin

king

Col

labo

rativ

e –

Ada

ptiv

e S

choo

ls S

emin

ars

The Ladder of Inference in Support of Congruent Positive Presuppositions

1. Internal Work. Enter this work anywhere along the double arrow – to focus first on Assumptions, Conclusions, or Beliefs. Move up or down the Ladder as needed.

2. External Work. Follow the arrow up the Ladder, beginning with Selected Data.

What beliefs do I

hold that relate to this situation?

What conclusions am I drawing now?

What assumptions are underlying the meanings I make?

What data might I focus on – particularly experiential and situational?

What positive assumptions might I make?

Express a presupposition that is positive and held as true by both the speaker and the listener.

Observable Data

Selected Data

Assumptions

Beliefs

Conclusions

Actions

Return to collect Additional

Observational Data