meg, michael, joelle, et al... my guess is that sometimes the language in which we propose topics on day one is either a bit too visionary for action or a bit to encumbered by the limits of immediate, short-term consciousness.
my current experiment with re-opening the space for action on the last day or in the last 1-2 hours of a shorter event is aimed at allowing people to re-language what it is that they will do next, so they're not overwhelmed by and not bound by the language used at the openintg of the event. we've called this non-converging... because it's different from user's guide 'convergence' but of course convergence does happen... i think it happens 'in time' meaning that the 'to do' items and projects get written in a language/scope that is perhaps more consistent with participants most current understanding of time and work pace. to the extent that time and working pace have been stretched in open space, people will attempt more... but in the end it is their choice and their language that sets the pace going forward. all of this is conjecture, mind you, but i think this is mostly how it feels when i have done non-converging, re-opening with groups. if you want real data, you can compare the topics posted in teh first morning of the imagine conference and the topics posted in the last morning, for action. some same. some sequels with detail. some newly positive. some still broad and opening. lots of different paces, to fit lots of different people, which seems most consistent with lots of things happening afterward... but that last jury is still out. imagine conference topics at http://www.globalchicago.net/imagine/wiki/wiki.cgi?ImaginationSummitConferenceProceedings2002 Joelle Lyons Everett wrote: > In a message dated 9/4/02 10:40:25 AM, [email protected] writes: > > << Could others comment on this pattern? Sometimes it seems too overwhelming, > > sometimes people feel they can do nothing about it. Sometimes, it is sort of > > an all-encompassing "umbrella" type statement that could have many > > sub-components. Other views??????? > > >> > > Meg-- > > I also see issues that seem overwhelming, and the too-big, too-general > statements are common. I think that sometimes the problem is fear--the new > behavior required to address an issue feels too risky, or is outside the > individual's beliefs about what he can do. > > One of the "hooray"s from a recent Open Space is that a manager heard a lot > of feedback about how the negative and repressive behavior of one of his > supervisors (who had chosen not to participate) was affecting his employees. > The manager has now found the courage to confront the supervisor with some > new requirements about his job performance. We will see what behavior > actually changes--but the issue is now out in the open, instead of driving > everybody crazy behind the scenes. > > Fortunately, the director has given this manager a lot of support in dealing > with this issue. This might be something to explore explicitly in > contracting meetings--what support will be given to meeting needs that are > revealed by the Open Space. > > Joelle Everett > > * > * > ========================================================== > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of [email protected], > Visit: > > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html -- Michael Herman 300 West North Avenue #1105 Chicago IL 60610 312-280-7838 voice 312-280-7837 fax http://www.michaelherman.com ...an invitation. * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
