Dialogue at end of OS
Richard C. Holloway
learnshops at thresholds.com
Tue Sep 1 12:29:49 PDT 1998
good comment, Peggy. the problem with my e-mail was in the addressee response.
Diane's message didn't have the "reply-to" set up for OS-LIST distribution. My
response went off to Diane directly before I realized the error. This is just a
setup problem--senders can help by ensuring that the OS-LIST is the recipient of
the message. In the case of the message you sent, OS-LIST was a reply-to
Peggy Holman wrote:
> I gather from Diane's message that Uwe and Richard responded to the original
> message "off-line." Would you please bring this wonderful discussion on to
> the listserv? My belief is the value of this list is greatest when we can
> all "listen" to the richness of your speaking. It may even trigger some who
> are silent to jump in!
> Peg Holman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parkinson & Gibeault <dgp at CYBERUS.CA>
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU <OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU>
> Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:38 PM
> Subject: Dialogue at end of OS
> >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
> >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
> >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
"A key to self-management is the capacity for self-observation. It is important
to realize that self-observation is not the same as over criticism,
judgmentalism, paralysis of analysis. It is rather a consistent monitoring of
one's performance." -Charles Garfield
Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/masters.html>
Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Astoria, Or & Olympia, WA USA
ICQ# 10849650 voice 360.786.0925
More information about the OSList