Mr Smith ... good on you ... also might be helpful if practitioners asked their
clients what structure they preferred ... I look forward to the constellation
you propose .. we need to be clear about the desired end results .. whats in
the clients best interest ... in the groups best interest and the facilitators
best interest ..
the next peer group meeting? .. sounds like a fabulous agenda item
all the best from healesville
D
Pearls from the South Seas
On 15/03/2013, at 5:31 PM, Dawn and Doug Smith wrote:
Bert Hellinger includes in his "Aphorisms and little stories" a story of a
polar bear owned by a circus, which was caged in such a narrow cage that it
could only move forward and back, and could not turn around. Years later
when given to a zoo, only walked forward and back a few paces in its large
zoo enclosure. Could I suggest that there may be many other ways of thinking
about exchange for service than capitalism. One of the parables of Jesus
(which is an aphorism) reflects on this, commonly known as "The widows mite"
Luke 21: 1-4, if you want the whole story. The essential element in the
parable is the comparative value of a tiny offering of a very poor person,
compared a to substantial offering of a super wealthy person, and what the
gift means and does for the seeker. I think the conversation that runs
through this theme on Constellation Talk is about valuing our clients and
our clients valuing the work and the "investment of the group members and
the facilitator". It would be interesting to "constellate" rather than
"conversate" this issue.
(Doug Smith) Doug
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barbara Ashley
Phillips
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013 4:12 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Re: I need Help...
Thank you Chris for this clear statement about the value and benefits of a
single fee structure for constellation workshops.
It is a good reminder of how we communicate value by prioritizing and that
all of the details matter. Much appreciated.
Barbara
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-03-14, at 4:46 PM, Chris Walsh <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:chris%40cwalsh.com.au> > wrote:
Dear Jackand
It may be that you have created a self fulfilling prophecy by creating the
two different levels of workshop participation in the first place. In that
way you have devalued one level of participation in relation to the other.
This is reflected in the different pricing. Becasue that level has been
devlued people then feel justified in paying the lower price for that.
To have one leevel of participation with no guarantee of a participant
getting their own constellation would take courage on your part. You would
also have to put up with a period of low enrolments because of the
expectations that have already been set up in your clients. One way to
reduce the intensity of this response is to send out a brief but clear
explanation of the reasons behind the change. Also it would help to make
the charge for attendance somewhere between to current two levels.
I really think this is worth it as it would allow your workshops to flow
with greater integrity where you could really be open to selecting the
person who is truly ready to work rather than having to select someone who
has paid a higher amount to guarantee their own constellation. A nice side
effect is that out of necessity you will become more attentive to group
processes and to the benefits accrued by participants when representing
when sitting in the holding circle.<mailto:travelerjbjb%40yahoo.com> >wrote:
Cheers
Chris Walsh
Melbourne, Australia
ph +61 (0)3 9487 4647
www.cwalsh.com.au
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM, jack blackwell <travelerjbjb@xxxxxxxxx
**
I want to thank all of you who have answered my call on this issue. For a
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
