In the end, I felt that the structured approach of the individual NR retreats, which brought about a remarkable amount of consensus among many of the same people, and the unstructured approach of the Monday/Tuesday sessions were a useful contrast. Fortunately, what’s needed on the backend is relatively inexpensive and what’s needed on the frontend is granular, so that leaves stations with a lot of flexibility to either buy in or fa d e a w a y.

In the end, I felt that the structured approach of the individual NR retreats, which brought about a remarkable amount of consensus among many of the same people, and the unstructured approach of the Monday/Tuesday sessions were a useful contrast. Fortunately, what’s needed on the backend is relatively inexpensive and what’s needed on the frontend is granular, so that leaves stations with a lot of flexibility to either buy in or fa d e a w a y.

The goal would have been to confine the “venting, whining, blaming, talking without listening, fighting old battles, and defensiveness” into one painful but necessary purge, instead of letting it continue fester and leak into other attempts to push into the future. It would have been a messy and public display of mostly inhibited feelings that are still palpable despite honest expressions of hope for collaboration. Some of this came up throughout the process but mostly obliquely. Rob called us a dysfunctional family and he was right, and he’s been very honest with NPR about the depth of mixed feelings that he’s encountered along his journey into the heart of the system. But perhaps a family needs to confront their dysfunction head on first, before focusing on how to live on and prosper.

In any case, I felt there was a “holding back” dynamic on the part of some of the most thoughtful, influential, and opinionated people in the system.

Ultimately, optimistic as I am, I think significant progress was made and a new spirit of openness and trust was achieved. It’s a spirit that will not last indefinitely if the lofty aspirations voiced at New Realities are not followed up with some real achievements – even small ones – that reflect those values.

The goal would have been to confine the “venting, whining, blaming, talking without listening, fighting old battles, and defensiveness” into one painful but necessary purge, instead of letting it continue fester and leak into other attempts to push into the future. It would have been a messy and public display of mostly inhibited feelings that are still palpable despite honest expressions of hope for collaboration. Some of this came up throughout the process but mostly obliquely. Rob called us a dysfunctional family and he was right, and he’s been very honest with NPR about the depth of mixed feelings that he’s encountered along his journey into the heart of the system. But perhaps a family needs to confront their dysfunction head on first, before focusing on how to live on and prosper.

In any case, I felt there was a “holding back” dynamic on the part of some of the most thoughtful, influential, and opinionated people in the system.

Ultimately, optimistic as I am, I think significant progress was made and a new spirit of openness and trust was achieved. It’s a spirit that will not last indefinitely if the lofty aspirations voiced at New Realities are not followed up with some real achievements – even small ones – that reflect those values.

My public remarks were intended to push people beyond their comfort zones and to remember the mission—it is one that demands courage and willingness to do the uncomfortable, to overcommit in order to really make things change for the better.

I admire some of what Rob has noted: at least there was the rhetoric of common purpose and common dreams.

Let’s see if the house remains on fire, in perilous terms, or if the house is on fire with the passion of new ideas, workable strategies and the urgency to get things done.

My fear is that we didn’t get to the critical items we need to address if we have any chance of success:

* where to find the next generation of passionate producers, creators and managers
* where to find the talented people who can do better than we have
* how to rethink all of our structures and operations so we have faster and more open ways to advance the best ideas
* how do we engage people’s hearts and passions
* as concepts of trust change (the next generation has different defintions than we do), will be be there? What is our response to the ‘Jon Stewarts?’
* what is our role in regard to preserving, presenting, respecting culture in all its forms?
* can we address real threats from within to our credibility? Should we push for no more university licensees?
* why shouldn’t NPR, PRI, APM and PRX all merge? Martin Neeb opened that window and it was powerfully provocative. We do all waste a lot of money, resources, time and talent on competition with not much distinction.
* Can we accept a different defintion of public radio and public media..one not defined by the past and from the top down, but defined more by the listeners who now have the capacity to produce and create?
* We should have the courage to name those stations and centers of innovation that ‘get it’ and ‘do it’ everyday. Hold up models of the best, regardless of offending those who are not on that list. We have to be brutally honest about what works and what we have to do. We need to be courageous.
* We don’t pay enough attention to our audiences except in terms of what they pledge, what checks they write and the aggregate behavior of ratings. We need to listen to those who are listening.
* How can we make risk taking less frightening? Failure is ok if we learn the right lessons and apply them. Failure is not ok if mediocre performance is an excusable standard.
* Public service — mission and leadership mixed with humility and openness — will make public radio and public radio a bedrock of society. Who has the guts to work on that balance every day?

We need to act smartly and quickly.

My public remarks were intended to push people beyond their comfort zones and to remember the mission—it is one that demands courage and willingness to do the uncomfortable, to overcommit in order to really make things change for the better.

I admire some of what Rob has noted: at least there was the rhetoric of common purpose and common dreams.

Let’s see if the house remains on fire, in perilous terms, or if the house is on fire with the passion of new ideas, workable strategies and the urgency to get things done.

My fear is that we didn’t get to the critical items we need to address if we have any chance of success:

* where to find the next generation of passionate producers, creators and managers
* where to find the talented people who can do better than we have
* how to rethink all of our structures and operations so we have faster and more open ways to advance the best ideas
* how do we engage people’s hearts and passions
* as concepts of trust change (the next generation has different defintions than we do), will be be there? What is our response to the ‘Jon Stewarts?’
* what is our role in regard to preserving, presenting, respecting culture in all its forms?
* can we address real threats from within to our credibility? Should we push for no more university licensees?
* why shouldn’t NPR, PRI, APM and PRX all merge? Martin Neeb opened that window and it was powerfully provocative. We do all waste a lot of money, resources, time and talent on competition with not much distinction.
* Can we accept a different defintion of public radio and public media..one not defined by the past and from the top down, but defined more by the listeners who now have the capacity to produce and create?
* We should have the courage to name those stations and centers of innovation that ‘get it’ and ‘do it’ everyday. Hold up models of the best, regardless of offending those who are not on that list. We have to be brutally honest about what works and what we have to do. We need to be courageous.
* We don’t pay enough attention to our audiences except in terms of what they pledge, what checks they write and the aggregate behavior of ratings. We need to listen to those who are listening.
* How can we make risk taking less frightening? Failure is ok if we learn the right lessons and apply them. Failure is not ok if mediocre performance is an excusable standard.
* Public service — mission and leadership mixed with humility and openness — will make public radio and public radio a bedrock of society. Who has the guts to work on that balance every day?

We need to act smartly and quickly.

In the closing open session I saw evidence of a shift in culture to a more self suffficient, confident and adult way of being

For me, the breakout sessions – all 49 of them – were the warm up. What I was waiting for and experienced in the closing last 90 minutes of the Open Space was the following:

1. That many made a decision to take responsibility for what was to happen

2. That no station alone and not NPR alone could do this unilaterally There was powerful affirmation that Public radio had to strengthen itself by coming together as a real system that had a structure that would help the parts and theewhole become healthier and more effective

3. That many acknowledged that NPR, including NPR itself, did indeed have a role in initiating the birth of such a structure. There was acceptance that the work of setting the principles for such a structure would be the work not intially of all but of a few. That such a design process would be open ansd transparent.

4. That as many who could would start to work to do things that would take us down the paths that have emerged from the NR process

Rob Paterson

Thanks for your insightful comments. Did the meeting get better in Day 2?

In the closing open session I saw evidence of a shift in culture to a more self suffficient, confident and adult way of being

For me, the breakout sessions – all 49 of them – were the warm up. What I was waiting for and experienced in the closing last 90 minutes of the Open Space was the following:

1. That many made a decision to take responsibility for what was to happen

2. That no station alone and not NPR alone could do this unilaterally There was powerful affirmation that Public radio had to strengthen itself by coming together as a real system that had a structure that would help the parts and theewhole become healthier and more effective

3. That many acknowledged that NPR, including NPR itself, did indeed have a role in initiating the birth of such a structure. There was acceptance that the work of setting the principles for such a structure would be the work not intially of all but of a few. That such a design process would be open ansd transparent.

4. That as many who could would start to work to do things that would take us down the paths that have emerged from the NR process

Rob Paterson

Thanks for your insightful comments. Did the meeting get better in Day 2?