Dear friends, In following the thread of the conversation, I'll share my experience as where re-opening of space for action as described by Harrison works well and where it seems to be less appropriate. I'll also describe a similar alternative method I use and finally but most interestingly I think, I'll describe a great learning I've made recently about democratic leadership involvement on action plans. Re-opening the space for action and Alternative I use at times the reopening of space for convergence but mostly when dealing with a group that does not consistitute an intact organization or where the OS theme is for centered on learning and individual development. In that case I also use another technique: participants who wish to are invited to write on a sheet like at the opening, an action area and post it on the `"action wall". When time is limited, there are no announcement of action topics at the microphone., everyone posts at the same time. People gather at the wall to choose among the actions proposed. They work in solo or they can combine and meet in pairs, trios, or larger clusters of action topics. They can add a large meeting site post-it or page to indicate where anyone wishing to join can find them. The criticism received for these two approaches from intact organizations is that the action areas identified are those of a few people, not necessarily representative of where the leadership or the majority of people may want to go. I know that everyone can post but when many topics are posted, people have felt there was a lack of focus, no organizational vision and that limited resources may not be available for everything individuals may have passion for. Survey on Priorities and Democratic Leadership involvement What I use often for intact organizations is as Harrison describes, posting the reports on the wall. I now refer to the vote as a survey unless participants have a real power of decision on those priorities. Expectations are more alined with reality this way. Dots (or tickets in envelopes posted under each report) are referred to as check marks or survey dots. Priorities are "proposed priorities". Reports are placed in chronological order and before the survey, participants make , desired combinations (to avoid vote splitting). Making combinations after the survey would also be unfair as it would increase the votes for the later combined topics (the same people could have voted twice on the same topic instead of once). After participants have completed the survey, an invitation is made for 1 or 2 participants to go to each report to count, write the total on the dot sheet or envelope and 1 person staying at the wall for reporting. Collecting results is as quick as asking who got X check marks, starting with the highest possible number a report can get and going down by 10 until we get the top X priorities (number predetermined by sponsor and adjusted on site as per results). Following the example of our colleague Chris Comeau, I now ask the leadership team (as discussed with them before the event) to meet during a break that follows immediately the survey results, to see if all of the prioirities are a go or if some are not possible, at least, at this time. Better to give this feedback to the group before they invest passion and time on action plans, than after like at end of the OS event or the next week. As the leader reports back, there can be an exchange in the larger group for clarification and confirmation. Participants all have an action plan guide (What, who, when) with a new item: "Invite a sponsor or mentor among the extended management team, a person that is not primarily responsible for that areas of action and who will bring support to the group and help make links with other sections of the organization." They must confirm with that person on site before reporting on their choice. The objective of this management role is to have and demonstrate clear management commitment and more horizontality - systmes thinking - in communications and planning. Organizations are enthusiastic about breaking down silos. This is an adaptation of Chirs Comeau's model where the senior management team identified amongst themselves who would sponsor a priority to make sure it happened. When I used that approach participants qjuickly asked me to democratize that process so it would be more in spirit with the democratic participation principle of OST. they asked that each action group choose the manager they felt either more relevant to the task as they saw it or with whom they were more comfortable working with. By the participants' reactions, a reaction that bubbled up during lunch conversations following the leaders' announcements of their "delegated sponsors", it was clear that both criteria were crucial to the continued involvement of those who wanted to commit to act on a given priority. After lunch the participants' proposal was presented in the circle and soon the general support was obvious and the process reversed to let groups make their own decisions as to who could best support the different priority actions. Now I avoid such reversals by offereing straight up the democratic approach to leadership involvement. Great learning that was for me eventhough now I think it is so obvious. What a testimony to people creating appropriate structure when they are allowed to experience self-organization and how coherent that is with OST principles. Diane
* * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
