Introduction

The CHQ Dialogue team began this journey after the close of the 2023 Chautauqua season in response to what many Chautauquans, including many Trustees, felt was a need to develop better communication and understanding between the Board, the Administration and all members of the community. With the assistance of Amit Taneja and Melissa Spas, the Dialogue Team developed a plan for the Forum Dialogues to be held each Monday during the 2024 season. 

Each Forum session was designed for 40 participants including a minimum of two Trustees, two Senior Staff and two representatives of the CPOA. Approximately 2,100 community members were invited to register and attend one of these sessions. The list of those invited to attend was comprised of past season ticket holders, property owners and leaders of community groups. 

The topics discussed during each session were determined by responses to a survey sent to each week’s community participants who had registered for that week. Only Roger Doebke and Robin Harbage, who facilitated all nine of the sessions, were involved in distilling the results of the surveys to determine the most frequently mentioned topics and making the final determination of how to best express the variety of responses into topic statements to initiate the dialogue each week. 

Each session began with a statement of purpose: “Can we do for ourselves, what we would like to do for the world.” This theme, developed by the Dialogue Team, was intended to address the simple truth. Ultimately, only through a productive collaborative effort, can communication and understanding of each other’s perspectives, create the kind of Chautauqua all of us want. 

Each session also contained a “training” element, which stressed that “how we say something, is just as important as what we say.” After the training, about ninety minutes remained for dialogue. 

---

Part 1: The Individual Experience 

This part of the report is presented in three parts: 

1. How did participants feel about their participation? 
2. How did participants feel about the group experience? 
3. How well did the participants feel the groups were facilitated? 

The weekly assessments were completed by nearly 90% of the participants and include: 

• 96% of participants said they had a good experience.  
• 86% of participants spoke. 
• 94% felt they were heard. Note – some felt they were heard through what others in the group articulated. 
• 98% told us they cared about what others in the group said.  
• 69% viewed a subject differently because of their participation. 

How many people signed up for a session? 

• 5 of the 9 sessions were fully registered, and the remaining four had between 1-4 slots available. 
• 97% of the available spots were registered. 

How many community members attended a session? 

On average, 28 community participants actually attended each week (excludes the 6 leadership reps – two trustees, two executive team members and two CPOA representatives). 

How many participants responded to the discussion topic survey? 

• 194 participants submitted discussion topics over nine weeks. 
• Average of 21 questions per week 
• On average, roughly two-thirds of the registered participants submitted a discussion topic for discussion each week – 194 of 297 registrants. 

---

Our takeaways 

We are very appreciative of the nearly 90% of participants who completed an assessment following their dialogue session. We used the input from each week to make improvements for the following week as well as help us compile this report. The results of the assessments are very encouraging and show us not only a hunger to be heard, but also an ability to engage in a meaningful manner. 

Out of 263 participants who responded, 252 (roughly 96%) reported that the experience was good for them. Statistically, a 1% portion of the participants is three people. 

However, in our opinion the most surprising data gained from these dialogues was that 69% of participants actually viewed a subject differently as the result of attending. Based on our 16 years of experience in conducting our regular dialogue program, we have never experienced such a high result. 

Part 2: The Group Experience 

Of the participants who filled out an assessment, 97% felt the group listened to each other’s perspectives and concerns, with 3% being neutral, and one saying the group did not listen. This was one of the strongest validations of the process, and likely led to the strong response cited previously that more than two-thirds of the participants felt differently about a topic following the dialogue. 

Regarding the question, if we invited generative disagreement, 91% said that we did, with 5% being neutral and 4% saying we did not. Thus, the overwhelming majority felt disagreement was welcomed. Experiencing a variety of perspectives was one of the goals of dialogues. To do this, it is necessary to be open to disagreement. As we described it in the training, we hoped participants could disagree without being disagreeable, and this was largely the case. Specifically, more than three-quarters of respondents said the group demonstrated they were open to new ideas. 

Part 3: Facilitation 

It would appear through the analysis of the data, that the facilitation accomplished the goals of healthy dialogues. The facilitators invited each participant to voice his/her concerns. As a result, 86% of the participants reported that they had spoken. 

As the season progressed, the facilitators themselves became more vocal, by posing more investigative questions to the participants. This questioning then modeled behavior that encouraged more curious questions amongst the group members to achieve a deeper dive into many of the issues that were raised. 

The facilitators welcomed a wide variety of concerns, opinions and suggestions from these committed attendees who were willing to give an hour and 45 minutes of their precious Chautauqua time to this idea/place that all truly cherish. 

Participants Comments 

We have done our best to distill the comments made on the assessment forms. Here is a sample of the representative statements made by participants: 

• “I felt respected, but more importantly, I gained so much perspective from my fellow participants and my respect for them has grown. Thank you.” 
• “Grateful for the atmosphere of respect, engagement and love for Chautauqua. Came away with new ideas.” 
• In response to the question: Did you feel heard? “We’ll see.” 
• “Let’s see what comes of it.” 
• “I am glad I chose to participate.” 
• “Would hope that the issues discussed will lead to serious evaluation of the comments and there will be a willingness to change.” 
• “I thought the dialogues were very effective. I fear that our suggestions and ideas will not result in follow-through.” 
• “Hoping that positive change will come from the thoughts & feelings of the group.” 
• “The group was eager, respectful & engaged. This was really helpful. But – it’s critical that a report come out that can help the Institution & community move forward.” 
• “I still feel anxious about whether the leadership of CHQ is open to make some changes in the direction of what is being shared at these dialogues.” 
• “People want to be part of the solutions. The Institution needs to better explain decisions – such as why and what alternatives were considered, etc.” 
• “Very good discussion. Surprised by how many people had the same concerns. So, hopeful. Things can be done to address them. Thank you.” 
• “Increase communications and respect between the Institution staff and vice versa. How can we effectively communicate with CHQ leaders?” 

Additional analysis 

What were our goals and did we achieve them? 

We shared the following five goals with each group at the start of the dialogues sessions: 

1. Sharing and exchanging of ideas. 
2. Gain insights into how others think and feel. 
3. Experience a variety of perspectives. 
4. Develop effective dialogue skills. 
5. Create productive communication between community, board of trustees and senior staff. 

On a global basis, based on the participants assessment responses, we believe that our goals were met. 

Was the training at the beginning of each session effective? 

Because each week included almost entirely new participants, each weekly Forum Dialogue began with training to set the tone and move us toward our goals. The training included listing the goals, highlighting several of the CHQ Forum Dialogues Ground Rules (a copy of which was given to each participant at the beginning), and a review of five skills for how to be a good dialogue participant. The skills included how to be an active listener, asking curious questions, challenging your strongly held assumptions, disagreeing with respect, and engaging with empathy. 

As discussed in Parts 1-3 above, the participants in their assessment noted overwhelmingly they felt heard and the group listened to each other’s ideas and concerns. This matched well with encouraging active listening. A surprisingly large number indicated they felt differently about a topic after the dialogue, which reflects well on participants willingness to challenge their assumptions.  

The weakest element was encouraging the group to ask curious questions. Most participants in early weeks felt this was not the practice, but the number of curious questions increased in later weeks as facilitators emphasized this in the training. They used a curious question example and also included a “?” on paddles for participants to raise when they had a curious question to ask. Ultimately, the facilitators themselves began to ask more curious questions within the sessions, to explore a participant’s statement in more depth. 

Overall, we feel we met our goals to develop effective dialogue skills and gain insight into how others feel. 

Common discussion topics 

We have also looked at the topics that were discussed to analyze those most shared by participants, over the nine sessions. The following topics dominated the sessions (not ranked) 

1. Guest experience. Hospitality – food & ticketing 
2. Communications: Surprises and lack of consideration by the Board or Administration in providing information about what was considered in making a decision 
3. Listening/Governance/Transparency 
4. Youth programming 

There were a number of suggestions for making changes that seemed to gain traction in the groups. 

Advisory Groups: Groups in general were very positive about how Advisory Groups comprised of community members could contribute to better communication and feedback from the community before decisions were made by the Institution. 

Hospitality: Participants expressed a desire for a more coordinated patron experience by wholistically considering patrons’ interactions across different Institution programs and services. Some participants supported centralized mechanisms to coordinate the guest experience, including expressing a need for a “Chief Operation Officer”. 

Food: Groups generally thought that the availability of food was a very important element that needed attention and suggested partnerships with both corporate food providers and culinary schools as a source for resolving this issue. 

Inclusion: During several sessions participants were vocal about the inclusion of all Chautauquans as members of the community, including the ABC and new, younger, and diverse patrons. 

The topic of Institutional governance relative to the popular election of Trustees was discussed in several sessions. There was very little traction for changing the current form of governance of the Institution amongst the participants. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate the affirmation for this project so many of you in the community expressed. Your support and respect for the work we have done is most appreciated. 

It has been our pleasure to work with the Board of Trustees and in particular, Candy Maxwell. Her report from the minutes of the most recent Board meeting are quoted here: 

“Ms. Maxwell expressed her gratitude to all who participated in the recent Forum Dialogues, with particular thanks to Ms. Spas, Mr. Taneja, Robin Harbage, Roger Doebke and Lynn Stahl for their efforts. The Dialogues were reported to be a positive experience, with participants feeling heard and gaining new perspectives. The key operational issues raised centered on food and hospitality services affecting patron experience, which have also been identified as a priority area of improvement by management. Next steps include sifting through the feedback, organizing and prioritizing issues to be addressed, reporting on learnings to the community, and determining whether to continue the Dialogues in 2025. The topic will be revisited at the November 2024 meeting.”