The Delphi Method: What You Should Know. Part 2
This is the second of a three part series about the ways in which groups and committees are manipulated through the use of a "facilitator" to achieve a predetermined outcome as set by those holding the reins of power. I believe that many Gilford committees have long been controlled through the use of the so-called "Delphi Method". The author(s?) of these essays are unknown to me. The person who sent them to me years back remains a friend and mentor. I hope those who read this gain as much insight into the "process" as I have.
FROM A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC TO A PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into focus..In the not too distant past. the hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47.000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and furor from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has bean happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers." The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level .The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter..Sounds innocuous enough. But let s examine this a little closer, Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings.
First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job is supposedly non-directive, neutral, non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true--the facilitator is there to move the meeting in a preset conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, let's move on to the semantics of the meeting.
A good example of this in Gilford was the hiring and use of John Cameron during the FPC II meetings that developed the current middle school/ high school building configuration. John is now the school district moderator.
It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore. the facilitator first works the crowd to cause disequilibrium--establishing a bad guy, good guy scenario. Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the audience that it if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet..The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many different psychological truisms to do this. At the point that the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy—a friend--and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of the same..Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups -usually of seven or eight people -each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator. Usually, participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and disagreements, these to be later compiled by others. Herein lies a very large problem..Who compiles what is written on the sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting." Oh-h! The next question is -How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in the minority.".And there you have the crux of the s situation If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be compiled later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is -you don't..The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this, figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not reflected..So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established? Because it is imperative to the continued well-being of the agenda that " the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome.” If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts..This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to a preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein, when the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the citizen participants.
Does this not seem completely familiar? Stay tuned for part 3. Read part 1 by clicking here.
