This is one of my favorite topics. I think that convergence is part of breathing. Diverge (outbreath - the bulk of an OS), emerge (that place in-between out and in - this is when I begin to notice the same subjects are showing up in virtually every conversation), converge (inbreath - voting, flowing from ideas to action, that elusive shift in gears we're talking about here). Isn't that one of the original design elements of Open Space? (Actually, I always wonder about that unspoken 4th point in the cycle -- the other in-between point when inbreath starts turning to outbreath, but that's another conversation...)

Peggy Holman, The Open Circle Company
Seattle, Washington, USA
http://www.opencirclecompany.com

As far as the breathing, i see it just opposite... opening is diverging, as you say, but it's an inbreath... taking in as much of the bigger body, the whole organization or issue as each one can... holding it in the space of who each of us is... and then releasing back out into the world, in action. so opening... working (in the event)... documenting... closing... reopening... working (in the world)... and the documenting is maybe just a little holding of the breath, a momentary savoring... but still fleeting... as we have to let go soon enough of that story too...

Michael Herman, Michael Herman Associates
Chicago, Illinois, USA
http://www.michaelherman.com

Identifying Priorities for Next Steps

I feel that we need to be very careful as we close a session called Open Space that we do not loose the "spirit" by closing things down in the reductionist way. The participants need to return to their "normal world" with the "spirit" knowing what must be done while understanding that their special contribution is a valued contribution but is not the best thing to put the main energy into at that time. Having ideas, issues, concerns clearly visible helps others develop relationships by knowing where the passions are.

I have been working with scientific "right answer" people many years and getting them to move away from voting is very difficult. The fact that there is more than one "right" answer is the most difficult concept to overcome.

At the last Open Space I attended I thought about this too as the posters with one or three dots on them were left hanging lonelily out on the edges.

It occurred to me that day that there may be an excellent "scientific" metaphor to help a group value the issues that do not converge into priorities, and the people who champion those issues. Maybe those of you…who are well-versed in self-organizing natural systems can help me.

In Leadership and the New Science, Meg Wheatley writes about Ira Prigogene's work with self-organizing chemical systems. She describes a moment of crisis in a system called a bifurcation point, when the system needs to either restructure in a new way or fall apart. At such a time of crisis, the active diversity in a system is critical. An alternative message somewhere in the system, even a tiny one, can suddenly be magnified by positive feedback loops until it effects change in the system as a whole, driving the change to a new structure.

If I understand this phenomenon properly (I'm not a scientist), it provides a real lesson for an organization doing a convergence. The person who continues to pursue her passion in an area that is not a mainstream priority may one day in the future hold the key to the organization's evolution.

Whether she continues her work privately, quietly, or openly with some degree of dissonance around her, she belongs in that work, for the sake of the whole. And, perhaps, the more open the organization is to the active presence of diversity viewpoints or endeavors, the better.

Chris Weaver, Springbranch Facilitation
Asheville, North Carolina, USA
http://www.springbranch.net