Hi Peggy, I'm just getting back from a vacation in some sun and am connecting with my e-mails. I very much like the direction that you are going in with this. One other person that I know of is working on the same ideas of using Open Space for the "convergence/prioritizing" process on Day Three. I only have a hard copy of her work, but Diane Gibeault at [email protected] has done some experimenting with this and is most pleased with her results. She has indicated to me that she is editing her story of this and will be posting it to the list soon. At any rate, I think that contacting her for a good conversation about this would be useful.
I also believe that the wisdom of some of the work of Prasad Kaipa and Anne Stadler might inform/frame some of what you are thinking through here--their thoughts on learning and as applied to OS including the last day having to do with convergence, divergence, emergence, and re-convergence. What is it in their thinking with that model that would inform what you are finding with the use of the Open Space for "re-convergence". I too am curious about this because I don't see Open Space as very divergent and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around thinking of it as "convergent" although I agree that it is so (it's just hard for me to really get this). I think there are seeds of something quite important here in where you are going in relation to this and in relation to Diane's work. I would sure like you to keep us posted on your continuing exploration with this. Blessings to you and see you in about six weeks time. I look forward to great discussions! Birgitt ---------- > From: Peggy Holman, Open Space Institute <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: OS as a Synthesis Tool > Date: March 16, 1998 7:51 PM > > As has been demonstrated many times over the last 15 or so years, OS is a > wonderful way to bring openness to closed spaces: to allow the pent up > natural divergence to have room for exploration. > > Over the last 2 years, I've been experimenting with OS in a different way. > Often, I've been in environments where the powers that be found the thought > of opening space far too frightening to pursue. So, I have worked with them > in other ways to make room for new possibilities. > > Whatever route is taken to envision new possibilities, there comes a time > when focusing has value. I believe that focusing is best done through > synthesis. I want to digress a moment and offer a definition of synthesis. > It's the process of looking at the elements of something and putting them > together in new ways. So, it is a creative process that by definition, > creates new mental maps. When we create new mental maps, we think about > things differently. When we think differently, it changes behavior, which > ultimately leads to different results. > > So, when I started to think about better ways of setting priorities, I found > myself guided by some familiar principles: Whoever comes; whatever happens, > etc. And of course, the law of 2 feet. In addition to these familiar > friends, I found two other underlying ideas were guiding my thinking. > > The first: the personal is universal. > The second: when people listen to their own internal dialogue, they have a > remarkable capacity to synthesize vast amounts of information and feelings. > As a matter of fact, I believe that the act of looking inside or using > intuition is an act of connecting with spirit. > > So, armed with these thoughts, I started experiementing with using OS to > bring focus after a space had been opened for exploration. What changed is > the sort of question I use to open the space for synthesis. Rather than an > expansive question, I ask a very personal, reflective question: "Based upon > your view of all of the possibilities discussed and explored, how do you > personally want to use your energy, your two feet to further what's > happened?" I let them know that if someone posts something similar, to work > with them. So, rather than encouraging diversity, at this stage, I ask > people to look for common threads. > > What I find happens is people come forward with practical ways to live out > what they have been discussing. And that there are relatively few items > that come up. The number of areas for focus emerging has ranged from 1 to > 5. The largest group I done this with is about 60. > > The other observation I have about this approach is that it really > reinforces the kind of collective consciousness that often happens in an OS. > People hear articulated what they have been thinking about. It's affirming > and really builds energy for collective action. > > During the last Open Space on Open Space, we had a discussion on "Day 3" a > short-hand name for converging after an OS. Someone had a wonderful quote: > > "When we dream alone, it is only a dream > When we dream together, it's the begining of reality." > > > I would love to hear your reaction to these ideas. > > Peg Holman
