Dialogue at end of OS

[Parkinson & Gibeault]

Thank you Uwe and Richard for your comments.

Taking into account your ideas, I would like to bring some clarification
to my questions.
This exchange/dialogue/discussion is taking place prior the closing
circle. It addresses specifically the action plans at the end - the
converging part of OS - and not the whole OS event.

You are right to say that the leaders or decision-makers are also
participants and they will be full participants on an equal basis at
that OS event. I also beleive that a lot of leadership emerges in the
course of the OS and normally, I would not have "formal leaders" stand
out of the pack other than setting the tone at the outset. Effectively,
they have a specific role in giving a start to the meeting by providing
the night before, the context and the parameters.

In addition, participants in the case I am dealing with, have had a
previous OS meeting on a related topic and they have expressed the wish
that at this OS event, decision makers give immediate feedback to the
actions plans that will be developed on the last day. D-makers may very
well have given feedback in whatever discussion group they participated
but at the end, everyone gets the global picture on action planning as
they hear reports from the various groups. They are expected not only to
give feedback on specifics and the overall planning but also to
communicate support and reinforce the energy. Since no one wants this to
be a one way thing, other participants will be welcomed to react.

Even if the decision makers were not there or had no particular
intention to give formal feedback, a heated debate could still take
place between the 300 participants and the question of process would
remain. To conclude on the description of the situation, the dialogue
will take place before the closing because it is an "action plan"
specific dialogue, not a closing of the OS event..

Circulating the mike around the circle of 300 would probably attract
more comments and extend the discussion way beyond the level that is
intended here. By the time we did the closing circle, at which point it
is planned to have a corless mike going aroung the circle, it is  feared
that many would be exasperated by the length of the
"mike-around-the-circle-of 300" activities and that furthermore, there
would just not be enough time.

What I had originally thought of - and did not suggest for reasons I
explain farther- was to have a cordless mike in the centre of the circle
and people would be asked to go to the centre one at a time (I have seen
Larry do this for the closing circle). When someone has finished
speaking, another can get up. This is a process that is both
self-organized and respectful. And yes, I like Uwe's suggestion to state
at the beginning that participants only speak in case they have
something significant to say.

I expect people at the beginning would be respectful of those two
"rules" but my concern is that with 300 people, there may be a fair
number that want to comment - especially if the  dialogue becomes
HEATED, and it may - and as the time went by, some would get anxious
about not having their turn and would simply start to line up in the
centre.

Could a group of people in the centre actually control the space?  How
does the facilitator then protect the space (since that is a stated role
at the outset).  It would be pretty delicate for the facilitator to
repeat that only those with something significant to say should be
there. Participants who have just spoken or are about to, could take
offence. I would like to know if anything similar  has happened to other
facilitators or how you would deal with the situation. I know "whatever
happens is the only thing that could happen". How do we reconcile that
principle with the role of the facilitator to protect the space and keep
it a safe space?

The other option is closing the circle after the presentation of the
action plans (before noon for example) and having decision-makers
provide feedback after lunch, in a facilitated discussion. Somehow, this
may limit, during the OS,  spontaneous exchanges on action plans between
participants since people may feel that they need to hold off until the
afternoon. I would be interested to here if anyone has tried this
approach?

Uwe, I would like to hear more about "strictly following David Bohm"
regarding closing OS with a dialogue. I am not familiar with this.

Thank you in advance to anyone who joins in this search.

Diane Gibeault