PLAYBACK OST- To converge or not to converge

[Diane Gibeault]

Hi Chris,

This is always a good topic to revisit. Convergence seems to me to be a
very important part of any transformational process. OS and other group
interventions for that matter are generally done with the intent or hope
that some form of change to the present state will occur.

The closing circle and convergence are two complementary but different
levels of closure to the exploration created by OS. Convergence provides
a focus, a concrete stepping stone for the future. Some groups who had
experienced OS without convergence told me that they felt they ended
with a long shopping list and no way to answer collectively their
question "What now?"

The group may really just want for that given meeting to explore but I
always try to incorporate a way of doing some minimal convergence, even
at an individual basis (people writing an interest / commitment down for
themselves).

I agree with being flexible to people's energy at the end. I also think
it is important to announce to participants at the outset that some form
of convergence is planned as this can affect their discussions.

I find that the two examples of convergence you described ("twice around
the circle" and "writing then grouping individual commitments for
planning") are very interesting and give you that flexibility of
choosing what fits best at the moment. It would work well with
relatively small groups, maybe less with large groups -time and numbers
at the wall if all post a commitment, then regrouping by topic.

In addition to these individual commitments, I feel it is also important
to have a picture of the collective reading of what the top hot issues
to act on are for the group or organization. Clients have been very
interested also. This is information that comes at a level which is
different from the personal commitment about a given issue. A people
may not have the possibility to commit themselves to more than one issue
but may want to share with the group their perception of what else they
feel is important. That collective view is a very different and useful
piece of information for the group or organization.

That is why I like to invite people as they read the discussion reports
or reflect on the day to identify what they feel "with passion" are the
top 3 or 5 top issues for themselves and the organization. A quick way
of getting that picture is the old sticky dot or check mark on the topic
issues on the wall. If new issues or different formulation of issues
need to be added, participants post theme to the wall at that time.
There is rarely a bottleneck of people voting at the wall since everyone
does it at their own rhythm during the reading period. Then a quick
glance usually tells you what the top ones are and if desired, a quick
count of dots on those gives you more precisely their hierarchy of
importance.

Then, to action plan on collective issues and on people's personal
passion you could use one of the two approaches you described or
Harrison's approach which goes roughly like this: people can regroup
under the top 5 - or more-  issues or any other if they care to, so they
can note related issues, share their thoughts on next steps, and
communicate their individual commitments. Consistent with OS principles,
people can go to more than one issue group if they so wish.

I always enjoy exchanges on convergence because I always discover new
options on how to converge while being flexible with the group's energy
and needs.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Diane Gibeault




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dgp.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 339 bytes
Desc: Card for Diane Gibeault
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20010130/847c8419/attachment-0017.vcf>