Dear Lisa, This is a great recounting of an extraordinary event. I believe that your work with this group makes an important contribution to the evolution of convergence design.
Let me reflect back to you some of the things that fascinate me. I don't understand all of it, of course, and when I am designing my next big convergence, expect me to call you up (or even better, fly out there and knock on your door). First, you had "the time in between" - a week between the opening OST and the convergence. And during this week, a team of participants worked very hard to organize and condense all the issues on the huge wall into a more accessible, color-coded format. The decision to have this "down-time" in the middle of a single event seems new and risky to me. Your story indicates to me that the in-between time and the collaborative work done on The Wall facilitated great results in the end that would not have been achieved had the convergence followed the first event immediately. Do you think so? Second, I am excited about your application of the color-card consensus tool. In a community school where I did my first seven years of OD practicum training (without knowing what it was), we used a consensus process called "fist-to-five" - holding up a hand and showing fingers - five being strong support and taking active leadership; four = strong support; three = it's fine; two = I have some reservations; one finger (careful which one) = I think it's a bad idea but I commit to not subverting it; and a fist, or zero fingers = consensus is blocked. We used this tool both for decision-making (sometimes with over a hundred people), and also as a sort of a "check in" about an issue on the table, which sounds like the way you used the red, yellow, and green cards. As you mentioned, it was also our practice that anyone holding up two or one finger would be invited to share their reservations with the group so that a proposal could be re-worked. In our work I found this process to be enormously useful -- but I have never used it as a part of a convergence process. I am interested to learn more about how you used the three cards - was this only a whole-group tool, or did the smaller planning groups use it also? Third, I notice the rituals of scripture, song, and reflection time as the convergence reached its climax. Alas that I WASN'T there with my concertina...it sounds so extraordinary. To me it's an example of infusing the process with the deep values and rituals of the "local culture" of the organization, which to me has infinite possible manifestations. Fourth (and this part I am not clear on but am deeply curious about) is the interplay between the collaborative process and the hierarchical structure of the organization. On the most basic level I think, "What did the Bishop think of all this?" and even more basic, "Was he there?" From your description it appears that the priorities articulated by the planning group will receive the resources they need to move forward, and that many of the people involved in the event will be the ones to develop and implement the plans. Extraordinary! Do you think that the work of the people in this group will encounter obstacles and much dissonance as it moves into action in the diocese and involves people in the church/strata in the organization who did not take part? That's all for now. Thank you Lisa so much for your report. I DO have some convergence design puzzles on my horizon three months hence, so you'll hear from me again. Bravo. Chris Weaver Swannanoa, North Carolina * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
