<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Chris;</P>
<P>I'm glad you are biting... Until now, I have always ended the closing circle with a vote... and it is, indeed, as getting "back to normal" or, as you say it "put the genie back into the bottle". In never occurred to me that I could manage the closing circle in other way... feels like an unaccomplished task. How do you "wrap up" in non-convergence? Voting serves me well, because at the end I can say to the attendants: "today we have worked hard, had fun, and this is the result: those are the issues we care about, and in that order". Top managers see the proceedings and the prioritization as an useful input to take further action... it means, power -or at least control- doesn't goes to the masses; but the people has spoken and IF top management is clever, they'll build on that. Putting it this way, OST can be a "massive listening of clients" (if speaking on Language Ontology terms) or an "strategic planning process that involves the whole organization and generates appropiation in the people involved". <BR><BR>Greetings,</P>
<P>Johann</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Chris Corrigan <chris.corrigan@gmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: chris@chriscorrigan.com
<DIV></DIV>>To: OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Non-convergence, action planning and strategy
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:44:50 -0800
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Sorry I hit send too soon...
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:30:12 -0800, Chris Corrigan
<DIV></DIV>><chris.corrigan@gmail.com> wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:55:20 -0500, Harrison Owen <hhowen@comcast.net> wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > > FS will certainly work – but it is also a lot of work to prepare for. I
<DIV></DIV>> > > think you would get the same results (better? J) with the process of simply
<DIV></DIV>> > > opening space once again around the dominant issues. Chris Corrigan has some
<DIV></DIV>> > > material on how to do that.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>OK...I'll bite...but I'm changing the name of the thread because I
<DIV></DIV>>have a practice question that goes along with this, the answers to
<DIV></DIV>>which will probably be useful in this context.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The basic non-convergence process is this:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>1. Participants receive a copy of the proceedings with the
<DIV></DIV>>instructions to review them and note pieces of action which stand out,
<DIV></DIV>>things that must be done, projects and patterns that seems to want to
<DIV></DIV>>emerge from all this work.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>2. Participants are asked to reflect on which of those pieces of
<DIV></DIV>>emergent action grabs their attention and passion to the extent that
<DIV></DIV>>they feel like they could take responsibility for moving it forward.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>3. Open Space, as per usual, and with comments about how this is a
<DIV></DIV>>space for action planning, and that anything that happens in this
<DIV></DIV>>space wants to find a way out of the room. So invite maximum
<DIV></DIV>>responsibility. The resulting bulletin board represents an agenda for
<DIV></DIV>>action.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>4. The recording form for the discussions should have spaces for
<DIV></DIV>>things like "Next steps" "Who/when" "resources needed" "Other
<DIV></DIV>>people we need to bring into this project."
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>5. The results are posted or added to the proceedings. In the closing
<DIV></DIV>>circle people are invited to share their next steps as well as their
<DIV></DIV>>reflection on the process.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The theory behind this is straightforward:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>* Divergent OST represents passion, convergence represents responsibility.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>* Moving from OST to voting feels to participants like we are going
<DIV></DIV>>from something amazing to "business as usual." Not always a bad
<DIV></DIV>>thing, but my experience says that once people taste OST they want
<DIV></DIV>>more of it. Creating categories of action based on proceedings from
<DIV></DIV>>the previous day (the traditional convergence process) limits the
<DIV></DIV>>patterns that might emerge as people step up to take leadership. Also
<DIV></DIV>>it often happens that things become so converged that there is no real
<DIV></DIV>>target for responsibility. It seems like there is often a group or
<DIV></DIV>>two which everyone agrees is important but not important enough to
<DIV></DIV>>champion. That never happens with non-convergence.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>* Non-convergence therefore IS convergence, except that instead of the
<DIV></DIV>>convergence process happening outside of individuals, it happens
<DIV></DIV>>within individuals, as people each perceive patterns and feel the pull
<DIV></DIV>>to realize them collectively.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>* Voting doesn't always tell us where the action commitments will
<DIV></DIV>>actually lie. But using your two feet to move to the groups that are
<DIV></DIV>>creating next steps is a very concrete and personal statement of
<DIV></DIV>>commitment.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>There's lots more theory, but that's the basic take on it.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Now for my question to practitioners. Whether you have used
<DIV></DIV>>convergence or non-convergence, in OST you end up with lots of people
<DIV></DIV>>wanting to do lots of things. In organizations where there is a
<DIV></DIV>>vision or a leadership that wants to be sure that all of these pieces
<DIV></DIV>>of action are somewhat aligned, there is often a time when the
<DIV></DIV>>leadership needs to examine what has been committed to and make
<DIV></DIV>>decisions about, for example, assigning resources to these action
<DIV></DIV>>groups.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>My question is, what follow-up practices have you used to help leaders
<DIV></DIV>>support the emergent leadership and energy and spirit that comes from
<DIV></DIV>>OST, while remaining good stewards of their organization's resources
<DIV></DIV>>and vision? I'm obviously looking for approaches that are open, and
<DIV></DIV>>that continue to work with the dynamics of OST.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Any answers are much appreciated, and might find their way into a
<DIV></DIV>>paper on "Life after OST" in which it may be gently suggested that the
<DIV></DIV>>genie cannot be put back into the bottle, and so organizations may do
<DIV></DIV>>well to pay attention to strategy and process in the spirit of what
<DIV></DIV>>has just happened. Anyone wishing to collaborate on a paper like this
<DIV></DIV>>should let me know too.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Chris
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>--
<DIV></DIV>>-------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>CHRIS CORRIGAN
<DIV></DIV>>Consultation - Facilitation
<DIV></DIV>>Open Space Technology
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot
<DIV></DIV>>Site: http://www.chriscorrigan.com
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>*
<DIV></DIV>>*
<DIV></DIV>>==========================================================
<DIV></DIV>>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
<DIV></DIV>>view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
<DIV></DIV>>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAEN/2740??PS=47575" target="_top">MSN Messenger</a> Download today it's FREE!</html>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist