Not over-converging (a scientific basis?)

[Rhett Hudson/Chris Weaver]

In response to Jimbo's "OS in Asia," Robert Chaffe wrote:

I feel that we need to be very careful as we close a session called Open
Space
that we do not loose the "spirit" by closing things down in the reductionist
way.  The participants need to return to their "normal world" with the
"spirit"
knowing what must be done while understanding that their special
contribution is
a valued contribution but is not the best thing to put the main energy into
at
that time.  Having ideas, issues, concerns clearly visible helps others
develop
relationships by knowing where the passions are.

I have been working with scientific "right answer" people many years and
getting
them to move away from voting is very difficult.  The fact that there is
more
than one "right" answer is the most difficult concept to overcome.


At the last Open Space I attended I thought about this too as the posters
with one or three dots on them were left hanging lonelily out on the edges.

It occured to me that day that there may be an excellent "scientific"
metaphor to help a group value the issues that do not converge into
priorities, and the people who champion those issues.  Maybe those of you on
the list who are well-versed in self-organizing natural systems can help me.

In Leadership and the New Science, Meg Wheatley writes about Ira Prigogene's
work with self-organizing chemical systems.  She describes a moment of
crisis in a system called a bifurcation point, when the system needs to
either restructure in a new way or fall apart.  At such a time of crisis,
the active diversity in a system is critical.  An alternative message
somewhere in the system, even a tiny one, can suddenly be magnified by
positive feedback loops until it effects change in the system as a whole,
driving the change to a new structure.

If I understand this phenomenon properly (I'm not a scientist), it provides
a real lesson for an organization doing a convergence.  The person who
continues to pursue her passion in an area that is not a mainstream priority
may one day in the future hold the key to the organization's evolution.
Whether she continues her work privately, quietly, or openly with some
degree of dissonance around her, she belongs in that work, for the sake of
the whole.  And, perhaps, the more open the organization is to the active
presence of diversity viewpoints or endeavors, the better.

Make any sense?  Could a facilitator explain such a thing to a group?

-Chris Weaver
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000529/683c73c8/attachment-0016.htm>