<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Great way, Peg, of explaining the differences and
advantages of a highly participative approach to introducing change, versus the
traditional cascade approach. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Picking up on one of your points, "it can be a
huge leap of faith for senior managers unfamiliar with the idea of sharing
power." One way to reassure the first time sponsors of an Open Space event
is to explain that it's not necessarily an either/or situation. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>You can't quite turn Open Space on and off, but you set limits
on what it will be used for. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Birgitt Williams tells the story (please correct me
if I've got this wrong, Birgitt) of an Open Space event she was facilitating for
the military, where the commanding officer told the participants in the
opening that "democracy ends at 5:00 pm on Thursday." When people
understand the boundaries clearly and if they see the boundaries as reasonable,
they are usually content to work within them. Traditional approaches can
still be used in other areas, or in combination with Open Space over time, if
the climate calls for it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Patrick McAuley</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Guelph, Canada</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="mailto:patrick.mcauley@sympatico.ca">patrick.mcauley@sympatico.ca</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>