Sandra Janoff

New York City.

Are you recording this, Martin?

Well, Audrey, hello. I'm Sandra Janoff. I hope you know a bit about my work, because I've been doing some reading, listening and preparing, and I keep having the sense that you and I have been worrying at some of the same questions for a long time, though from very different places. I'm curious about what we might discover in the chance we have to talk together. I want to thank Peggy, Martin, Tom and Jennifer for making this happen, and all of us for showing up. It's good to be in the same place.

The question I have been working on is what it actually means for a human system to develop. We named this whole-system development very purposefully. It's not just about making a better decision or solving a particular problem, but about becoming more capable of acting together over time. And there's a similarity here, Audrey, from what I've heard you say and read in your work: we know we can't get there by trying to change people. We've spent decades learning what it means to design the conditions for this to happen, so that people can build the capability to act. In our approach, the future defines the task. The task tells you who needs to be in the system, and those people need the opportunity to encounter the whole, including realities very different from their own, before they act on their part.

What has become really interesting to me lately, to both of us, is what happens to that developmental process as technology becomes increasingly able to help people participate, listen, translate, find patterns, and coordinate at scales we haven't reached before. I don't know how far we'll get, but I think we'll dip into two questions. What does technology make possible that we couldn't do before? And what work do people themselves still have to do for the capacity to become theirs? That's my inquiry right now. Audrey, I'm very curious where it meets what you're learning. It's a joy to be in this place with you. Thank you.

May I ask, speaking of tools: Marvin Weisbord and I co-developed Future Search decades ago, in the early '90s, and we have been growing and evolving that practice, and the community of people working with its principles, ever since. Are you aware that we have been working in a very aligned way, philosophically? You named what we call common ground, and we insist on common ground. I don't know how much you've learned about my work. Have you?

Yes. Because of these similarities, we are speaking a very similar language. We've enabled this around the world for decades, in numerous places and in almost every sector, but not at the scale you are able to work at, and that's the big question mark we hold. So everything you say makes a great deal of sense to me, and not only sense: I believe it. In fact, Audrey, you won't believe this, or maybe you will, but I've watched your interviews, and I stole your idea and built a Rosetta Stone.

I did!

Between your current thinking and whole-system development.

After everyone has spoken, I'll show it to you on the screen, if that's all right.

I can put it on the screen right now, or after everyone has introduced themselves.

Should I put it on the screen for one minute?

I just dove into the excitement of being in conversation with Audrey.

Thank you. I had looked at the purpose that was sent out in the email. Maybe you saw it too. The first thing that struck me was that we are not the right people to address that purpose. We don't have the whole system in the room. I've felt that as we've been talking, as all of you have named what matters to you: depolarizing communities, the intelligence we all hold, and how we go forward.

My purpose has been very narrow: to look at Audrey's work, her current thinking and everything she has done to date. I have read your work and listened to your interviews, Audrey, so I know what you have done, and I hold it with deep respect. My hope is that you'll get to know whole-system development, through the essay as well, and that we look at what it means to bring just these two schools of thought into the foreground, because maybe there is a way for what we hold to take a next step. That's a big question mark. I don't know. But that's what I'd like to zero in on, because we are the people to answer that question.

So let me put up this lovely Rosetta Stone that my dear AI friend put together. Where is my share button? Audrey, it has a question mark on it. I wouldn't go anywhere without a question mark, because this has to make sense to you. So why don't you just read it? It combines everything my AI was able to glean, and it does that well, with my own work of the last thirty years. I'd love for you to respond or react. What do you think? Does it make sense?

I want to respond to one or two things you said. One thing that gets missed when we talk about diversity in the system, maybe because it's the default, we have to reach for what we don't think is reachable, but we're really talking about a system in its context.

When we speak of embracing humility toward our own community and toward other communities, nothing is done in isolation. We are task-driven, meaning there is a future that people want to build, but it doesn't exist without its context. Our principle is "everybody improving the whole system." Everybody means those inside the system and those outside it who have a stake in the future, however the system's boundaries are defined.

That is one of the ways we have been very different from what I'll call large-group interventions: we are purposeful about who's there. If there is an intention to move in a direction, to use our shared intelligence, our superintelligence, to do what we were not capable of doing before, that means giving everyone the opportunity to learn about the diversity of the system as it is in real life: its parts, its environment, the environment's impact on the system, and the system's potential to influence its environment. The breadth of that learning, the deepening opportunity to understand the complexity, is the journey. Then comes the convergence: what do we believe, and what do we have the will to go forward on?

And then there's the word itself. "Common ground" has been so distorted and misused, but we didn't change it. We didn't get into the cleverness of calling it uncommon ground. I appreciate that you did. But we have taught it and acted on it. When we work around the world, common ground for us is what is explicitly agreed to, 100 percent. If someone in the system says "no, that is not common ground," we hold that boundary. I know the term gets played with loosely by most people, but in our world, common ground means explicit, 100 percent agreement. Then, when people go out to work on their parts, they do it under a shared umbrella of values, propositions and intentions, knowing that it has been agreed to by all.

Yes, that's frustrated me through the years, so I've appreciated what you've done. But that's yours.

Oh my gosh, of course. If we keep going, and if you don't have other reactions, I'll keep talking. This has to do with scale, with bringing technology into our world, and with the meaning-making part. I know you've been able to use technology to identify patterns. Am I right?

This is the biggest question for us. Building capacity, for us, has to do with people making meaning together and discovering, I really want to highlight that word, discovering that there is common ground they share. You see that, don't you?

So, granting that AI could do the meaning-making, and granting that AI could say, "Here is the bridge you stand on," the question we hold is this: where does that leave capacity in human beings, if they haven't taken that journey together?

Thousands of Future Searches have been run around the world over the past thirty-some years. I have trained over 9,000 people in those years. And there has been great depth. I can point to organizations, communities and sectors where the principles, the capacity, have become so deeply embedded that the system can solve problems as they arise or get the help it needs. So capacity has been built in systems. Maybe it's on us. We've written books and people know about the work. But in terms of where you are, influencing on a very large scale, the point is that we really are human beings who can do this. We know a lot gets in the way. It is dialogue, but it is also learning about the complexity, being grounded in reality, and having the people with authority and the people impacted by the outcomes in that conversation together, which may be a struggle.

Thank you. I didn't want to generalize, but it is always a struggle.

But if the conditions are right, these players, these human beings, have the experience of moving through the struggle to a place where they can hold the differences that are not yet integrated and still work on the common ground: a common future that all of us want, 100 percent, to go forward on. I want to emphasize that not all differences are resolved or integrated. They remain in the system, because it's an ongoing process.

So, given that we have done this, and given that you probably hadn't heard of it, some people hear about Future Search, many don't, and given that the world is broken, let me say that: at this moment, 12:14 pm East Coast time on September 25, 2026, this is not the world most of us want to be living in, and we can do better. We are people here who can, and want to, create opportunities for people to find those places in themselves and to have the conditions where they can learn, discover, act and implement healthy, productive futures in an ongoing way.

What do you hear in that? I would like Audrey to interrupt me.

Everything you're saying resonates deeply. One thing stands out in what you said about building muscles, and I don't want to lose that metaphor. I think we lose muscle when we ask people to meet and the right people for the purpose aren't there, so they end up frustrated. That's what we're pushing against, Audrey. We are not about recommendations. We are not about good ideas. We are not about what you want others to do. When the right people for the task are present with one another, the outcome is action they can take steps on themselves. It may only be a next step, but it is a step. Meetings that don't accomplish what people hoped they would are frustrating, and I think that frustration depletes muscle mass.

It happens all the time: we ask people to come together, and unless the purpose is getting to know each other, understanding communication processes or higher consciousness, if that's the purpose, fine, it falls short. The world is in desperate shape, and those at the ends of the spectrum, whatever it happens to be, have a lot of energy for noise and opposition. And Audrey, I think I can say that you and I both know what it means to enable a conversation among all of them, with whatever differences are out there, so that they discover: yes, there are things we truly own and want to go forward on. That's our purpose.

So I get very frustrated when people say, "Oh, it's okay that this group was missing. They're just too busy." I don't think anyone can be too busy these days for an important gathering that could possibly do something constructive in this world. We all have to make the time. That includes the people we say have authority, who are very busy, and the people who are impacted, who are also very busy. And we are all being impacted. I'll stop there, but we want these gatherings to matter.

Absolutely. And as for power: power implies that I could do something that harms you, or have influence over you that I shouldn't have. Authority is different. You can call it power, but we speak of people who have authority in relation to the task. The task defines the system: who has authority, resources, information and expertise in relation to the task, and who is impacted by it. Because I don't want to be in a meeting saying, "This would be wonderful, if only they were here."

I'd like to know, Audrey, whether you have a question about our work that would be helpful to explore. When I read what you wrote, especially about the next frontiers, I loved the participation officers. Is that the name?

They're the integrators. That's a beautiful name for that role. Each of the parts has to be differentiated according to its goals and needs, but a system also needs integration, and participation officers are a beautiful way to establish it. I also hear you talking about the legislative level: how do we move there, and how do we include it? I think that's a great thing to explore.

Peggy, one second. Audrey, this is really exciting and brilliant, and we have to share our learning on this. We know there are personality and emotional elements built into why leaders are afraid to give up control, or hesitant to act in this way. We've worked with visionary leaders, but of course those whose ears are closed to everything you're talking about are not ready. What you are doing is evidence that we can still work this way: leaders can step into this and survive, maybe even thrive.

I don't know if you know this book. Marvin Weisbord and I wrote Future Search , now in its third edition, and in it we interviewed the leaders who get it. We've told the stories, and we have stories all over our website and in our community. So we have stories. But I'm with you. Maybe I'm a little more impatient. I contain my impatience, but we have to make the circle bigger. We have beautiful stories and very deep engagements. I've worked across IKEA, which embeds these principles. I've worked across Northern Ireland, and in many different countries. We have to make the circle bigger.

Let me just say, lastly, that it's truly wonderful to be in the same moment and the same place with you. You're doing exceptional work, and I'm very proud that we're in the same place in time on this planet. Thank you, Audrey.

I'll jump in. It has to become a default way of working. I know it when I see it, and there is real evidence. I'll share just one example. A number of years ago I was working in a health system, enabling this work: we were running Future Searches across the system on patient care delivery. Off to the side, outside the conversation, I overheard the vice president of nursing talking with a colleague. She said, "We have this meeting next Thursday. Do we have the right people coming to it?" That had become the default. And those are very structural questions: Do we have the right people coming to the meeting? Do we have enough time for what we set out to do? They're structural, and they're doable. When we don't ignore them, that becomes the default.

I'm in Philadelphia, Audrey. If you want to come visit, that would be splendid. It's only an hour and a quarter by train.

Anytime. Keep it in mind.

Yes, that would be wonderful.