Moaning and Mowing is the social process at the heart of community Causal Maps workshops: first we moan (we name what hurts), then we mow (we trim duplicates, cut through vagueness, and shape the mess into a usable Problem Tree). It is not a polite exercise. It is a method for turning a room full of lived experience into shared structure without flattening disagreement into silence.
# Moaning as data collection The moaning phase is where people say the things they usually only say in corridors, group chats, or on the walk home. The facilitator’s job is to treat complaints as raw data, not as proposals, and to capture them as short statements that describe a negative condition that already exists. A useful prompt is “What is happening, and why does it matter.”. The key discipline is that we are not yet solving anything. We are collecting the vocabulary of pain.
# Mowing as sensemaking The mowing phase is where the group starts to edit itself. We look for duplicates and near-duplicates, not to silence anyone, but to stop the wall filling up with synonyms that hide the true shape of the problem. We cluster similar statements and ask. Are these actually the same thing, or are they different layers of the same story. Is one a cause and the other an effect. Are we mixing a condition in the world with a proposed fix. Mowing is not tidying for aesthetics. It is tidying so we can see.
# The move from piles to links Once the wall has clusters, the group starts to draw arrows. This is where the social intelligence appears. People stop arguing about who is right and start arguing about which influence paths are plausible. The core question becomes “Does this contribute to that, in this context, often enough that we are willing to draw an arrow.”. If you cannot defend an arrow in plain language, it is not ready. If you can defend it, you have just made an assumption visible, which is the entire point.
# Identifying causal relationships without pretending to be physics We are doing structured interpretation, not laboratory proof. A causal link in a community map means “participants believe this tends to influence that, and can offer examples.”. A good workshop makes the quality of that belief explicit. Who has observed it. In which situations it holds. Where it fails. What might sit in between. This is how causal maps become honest enough to guide action.
# Handling duplicates and near-duplicates Duplicates are not just repeated words. They are repeated meanings. A practical mowing test is to ask “If we keep both cards, what distinct work does each card do.”. If the answer is “none,” merge them. When merging, keep the phrasing that is most concrete and most widely understood. If two cards feel similar but are actually different levels, keep both and link them. For example, “staff turnover is high” and “institutional memory is low” may both be true, but one often feeds the other.
# What not to do Do not smuggle solutions into the problem wall. If the card starts with “we need to”, “should”, “must”, “create”, “deliver”, “build”, “launch”, you have jumped to intervention language. Rewrite it as a negative condition that exists now. For example, “we need more training” becomes “staff lack confidence with the tools” or “process knowledge is inconsistent.”. Do not smuggle blame into the structure. Cards that name villains (“lazy staff”, “corrupt managers”, “stupid users”) shut down learning and invite defensiveness. Translate blame into observable conditions (“incentives reward speed over care”, “roles and accountability are unclear”, “feedback is punished.”). Do not smuggle scope creep. If every card is allowed, the map becomes a cosmology. Timebox the moaning, set a boundary, and be explicit about what is in scope for this cycle. Do not smuggle vagueness. Cards like “communication is bad” or “culture is broken” are often true but not useful until unpacked. Ask “What does that look like on a Tuesday.”. Do not smuggle certainty. A causal arrow is a hypothesis the group is willing to act on, not a law of nature. Mark uncertain links, and treat them as learning questions. Do not smuggle hierarchy too early. If you decide what the “main problem” is before the wall is populated, the map becomes a justification exercise. Let the trunk emerge. Do not smuggle donor language over lived language. If the community says “people feel unsafe,” do not instantly translate it to “improved safeguarding outcomes” on the wall. Translation can happen later. First keep the truth.
# The facilitator moves that keep it safe and sharp Reflect and rephrase without reinterpreting. Ask for examples, not speeches. Invite quieter voices early, not as an afterthought. Allow temporary duplicates to preserve voice, then merge with consent. Use “both can be true” as a bridge when disagreements are about level. Separate “is it true” from “is it central”, because some true things are not strategic.
# The output we are aiming for A good Moaning and Mowing session produces. A set of problem statements that describe real negative conditions. A reduced, merged vocabulary with less duplication. A first-pass set of causal links strong enough to become a Problem Tree. A list of assumptions and contested links that the group agrees to test later. It also produces something less visible but more valuable: a shared feeling that the group is allowed to speak truth without turning it into a fight.