Current e-Journal

Try this
Rooted in radical inclusion, radical possibility, and radical strength, the questions of Catalytic Thinking feel like they were tailor-made for this moment. Creating connection and trust are embedded in those questions.

Let’s start with wondering whether we will even reach out to folks who disagree with us. We’re not talking here about people who have made it clear they have no interest in compromise or conversation. We’re talking about people on the “other side” who actually want to engage and connect, to bridge those divides.

That “Should we or shouldn’t we?” question is easily addressed with the Catalytic Thinking questions about the worst that could happen.

What’s the worst that could happen if you reach out and include them?
And what’s the worst that could happen if you do NOT reach out?

If we exclude individuals and groups who disagree with us, we miss out on the opportunity to connect. We miss out on the potential, as Carol Rasco noted, to find what we do have in common, what we can work on together.

And the worst that could happen if we include them in the conversation? Perhaps the interaction will be uncomfortable, everyone leaving with the same animosity they walked in with. In other words, the worst that could happen if we include them in conversation is that we’ll be right where we started.

We quickly see that including folks is actually the lower-risk choice!

So now let’s look at some of the other questions of Catalytic Thinking. Let’s start with the Inclusion question: Who will be affected by what we are thinking about? And what would it take for them to participate in the decision (at least) or to lead the direction we take (at best)?

Having already considered that it is more risky to exclude than to include, we can begin to use the “conditions for success” questions of Catalytic Thinking to determine what conditions will lead to the best possible interactions.

One of those conditions for successful conversation comes from the questions of Catalytic Listening – focusing on people’s aspirations. When we focus on what people DO want, we are far more likely to agree. Safety, kindness, joy. It is when we focus on the problems that we tend to disagree, as everyone has their own ideas about why they are not feeling safe or joyful. And that, too, is embedded in the visionary questions of Catalytic Thinking.

Another condition for successful conversations (again, from Catalytic Listening) is to understand each other’s values. What is important to each of the people in the room? When all we see is conflict, we label people and discount them. When we realize that conflict is about values, we can be curious about what is important to each of the participants. We seek to understand their “why.”

Lastly, there are the questions of what we have to build upon together. Nothing creates animosity like scarcity. When instead we focus on what we have together, and what we can accomplish together, we begin to bridge those divides. We begin to see the value in each other.

The connection power of the Catalytic Thinking questions is twofold. Obviously there is the power of asking these questions of others. But even more powerful is when we first ask these questions of ourselves.

• Asking ourselves who will be affected, and what conditions would need to be in place to include them.
• Asking ourselves about the worst that could happen if you INclude people who disagree with you, and then the worst that could happen if you EXclude those individuals.
• Asking ourselves about our own aspirations, and our own values.
• Asking ourselves about the strengths we have to build on, individually and collectively.

The questions of Catalytic Thinking are made for times like this. It’s why our mission is to make these questions the go-to in social justice efforts. Because right now, we have the power to create a world that works for all of us – together. And the questions of Catalytic Thinking are the key to unlocking that power and potential.