Victor (Hero)

Imagine something that you’ve never imagined before. Or, if you have imagined what I’m about to say: Imagine turning your implicit idea into an explicit act for change.

First question: How might this subject relate to the nightmare of a workplace that you are in?

My Point: Most, if not all, of our decisions emerge through this foundational culture-making model. Geeeeez. I really don’t get a warm fuzzy thinking that may be so! Do you? What might be another model that maybe could work just a bit better? I would say that, if we could become conscious myth-making creatures, then we could design ‘it’ (the model dynamic), rather than the other way around, where we have become the result of “it” designing us.

Here’s a gaseous cloud of possibility to consider …

Villain (Devil, Demon)

So. All models have rotation or spin. Thus each subject within a model becomes one of the others. For example, in my case, I (Vic) have become a ‘victim’ through the ‘victor’ (and its not just because of my name It seems that the victor-villain-victim archetypal interaction has (like all models) a dynamic movement that moves each subject into becoming one of the others. In this (shall we call it) “3V” case, the the victor becomes the victim, the victim becomes the villain, and the villain becomes the victor. And in our society, there is attention placed – not on the hero, but on (unconscious as it may be) are focused on being the villain being the hero. What’s with that?! Anyway, this is the spin – the archetypal movement in action.

Second Question(s):
In a (w)holistic view, do we need to allow the time it takes for each one of us to become the other? If so, then this must be a conscious act, does it not? Otherwise each of us (too often) gets caught migrating from one identity to another and falls into a polarized oscillation – bouncing back and forth (maybe due to DNA recapitulation?) to/from the identity we had for ourselves previously … and previously … and so on. Rather than moving (ahhhh spin action) to the next identity in the mandala-like triad within the archetypal configuration, we instead get kind of stuck.

An Open Conclusion:

Victim (Powerless)

What if we had an archetype for this dynamic – an archetype of archetypes (orrrrr archetype squared)?

Would this allow humanity’s failing displays of destructive expression to be able to move downstream

into other realms of possible life, form, awareness, and consciousness? Don’t know. Right now, I’m writing a book on ‘cultural misfits’, and it seems that this may be its charter – to transmute “objective isolated acts” into “subjective interdependent actions”. Why; you might ask? And what does this all have to do with COLLABORATION? (Or a lak there of?) Well. Call me and let’s have a dialog 831-454-8046, or email me below, or make a comment.

Just wanting to share today’s brain fart with you … LOL ! Mean time … Spin rules! … Hmmmmmm … Wonder what comes after that?

Vic

A story of conflict and healing in human interaction & collaboration

With compassion in his voice, he said (something like) you can be too sensitive. The energy with it was almost as if the conflict was not that big of a deal, and more in your mind; as if it wasn’t real enough. Since there are some similarities between you and me in the area of ‘sensitive’: Do you think we are too sensitive? In what ways? How might we blow things up bigger than they really are? Or how much of this is others projecting the unseen ‘white elephants’ that arise in the room and shoving them onto our backs? Hec, I usually just want to return her to her herd.

It’s hard giving up something that one likes, but I’ve been here before and things don’t change, so I end up alone – either while in the group, or because I feel a need to choose a lesser of two evils, to leave the group. Usually it’s about this white elephant that no one will acknowledge. I love the white elephant. It’s a misunderstood soft but wounded feminine energy that this elephant represents … And it’s a dark feminine energy that rides her. Ahhhh, there’s the conflict.

And this elephant just wants the weight off her back. She just wants to play (participate) and be reclaimed/accepted by her community, but is guided by the reins of her unconscious master. I wonder where her herd is that she longs for? And where does the rider belong; certainly not on this white elephants back.

Somehow she keeps getting lost in the safari, or is it abandoned?, misguided?, forced to leave? (by others, by self?) In that vulnerable place she is bridled. Or when lost on her own, the poor animal gets surrounded by a mash-up of uninitiated bulls that have clustered together from other elephant tribes. Desperate to claim their masculine nature, but un-fathered – their energy is abusive, manipulative, and of war.

If you look closely, you will see a few unusual elephant warriors that seem to be of this turbulent tribe, but are merely seekers who journeyed into the group as they crossed paths. Afraid of this stranger, they know not who the real leader is, and project their dark masculine force in all directions, suppressing the needed insight that arises, seen in reflection through the new one’s presence. Then, when the dark feminine rider smells this musk energy on the rise, she pulls on the reins of her white elephant and leads it into the culminating battle. The pubescent masculine force becomes a gathering of wimps, confused by the intertwined light and dark feminine that overpowers with rage, killing the masculine acts.

In rage, the rider and elephant reach the looking glass. Wonder if the white elephant can see her own reflection in Alice’s mirror? No. She can not see herself. But the rider does. Although it’s too late, as the white elephant stampedes through (rather than step into) the mirror, and shatters it. Too late now for reflection. The rider bleeds to death as the bulls stand silently, and ignorantly helpless; longing and waiting for silence to return.

Ongoing emergent metaphors and questions arise that I’d like to dialog with you about, maybe next time we talk. The story is not clean nor perfectly clear, yet helps me to express my sense of it all better than a summary or review. And it holds its own healing for me, as I weave myth and act into a story to share – a potent potion that helps to return a realm of self and group identity that’s too often hidden – lost within the human psyche.

WHAT COMES UP FOR YOU ABOUT YOUR OWN ‘REAL’ INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS WHEN YOU READ THIS STORY?

For more on the subject of human interaction and collaboration,
go to http://tinyurl.com/FractalContinuums

Vic Desotelle

Imagine a new definition of government. Rather than provider of fixes, it becomes a convener of ‘we the people’ and we generate our own solutions. This act shifts a STATIC ‘government’ institution into a DYNAMIC ‘governance’ system. The governing body becomes a manager (or governor) of the ecology of interactions that happen by us the people. Collaboration then becomes the vehicle that acts as this governor, as it enables the flow of action and change. In this way, collaboration and governance become almost synonymous.

What does this do? Well. We no longer have to wait for government to get on board to see the change we want. Instead the governing body builds the infrastructure that allows connection and decision-making to happen. Decisions are no longer made by them. Instead they are made by us and they merely create tools and processes (many via the internet) that allows everyone much more access to the learning and decision-making process. This then becomes a healthier form of control. Rather than government directing and making the decisions, it instead becomes an enabler and ‘governor’ (as it was meant to be) by acting as policy makers but with a different understanding of the meaning of ‘policy’. Now, government monitors rather than polices the outcomes that occur when publicly induced design occurs. Government evolves along with the society by being entwined in the overall feedback system. They become watchers of the difference between consciously derived guiding principles and actual applied experiences that occur in communities of practice.

This diagram shows how the interaction between PRINCIPLE, PRACTICE, and POLICY. It shows that none of these three can sustain the system on its own but each must instead act interdependently with the other two. Here, the policy box is government, or in other words, the convener of a dialog between principle (which is generated out of desire, need, vision, and design possibility) and practice (which is how the design is experienced in the real world). Policy becomes a way to keep the FEEDBACK going between these two subjects the same way a governing value acts on a pipe – too much or too little puts the system into instability. The people inside the government do not make the decision to adjust the flow of choices. Instead, they create and maintain the channels (or policing) that allow the collaboration process to INFORM itself. This is a self-generative behavior and occurs via the interactions between the engagement of the people involved in each of the principle, practice, and policy domains.

Yes, Collaboration “IS” the New Government.

STOP !!! ... WRONG THING TO DO!

Ethics? Values? Who cares!? “YOU” better care. Did you know that each person’s underlying values and beliefs systems are what drives their actions? Those actions are how things get done by your team members. By linking individual values with your company’s principles, practices, and policies, your world becomes a happier place, with more sustained commitments from staff to get the work done. So, take a journey with us from personal meaning, to group awareness, and into enterprise value creation.

Call us about Discovery Fuel’s ETHICS WORKSHOPS to see if they are right for organization.

AN ONLINE WORKSHOP

.Join Vic Desotelle from DiscoveryFuel.com for an ONLINE collaborative sustainable business planning workshop series.

This session will allow you to preview and inquire about the series, which is for small business social entrepreneurs who have dreamed of owning a sustainable business. Learn how to make a viable business plan that moves your green idea from conception to successful execution. Create a sustainable future for yourself, customers, and community through this sustainable innovation learning series. Click here for more details

CLICK TO SHARE THIS PAGE WITH FRIENDS ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA SITES
.
.

Our future and the mistake we continue to make

You may be surprised to hear this: Taking action on our future is way less about ‘what‘ content and ‘who‘ is in the room, than it is about ‘how‘ we come together to learn. Geez, we’ve had that all wrong for a long long time.

Look below at the photo and see how this climate action conference is setup. See how one person is actively presenting to a whole ton of folks passively listening? Notice the geometry of how they are all lined in rows, which is how you place people if brain-washing is your goal. My point is this: The process and configuration that we presently use to learn when in groups is the MISTAKE that will continue to drive inappropriate choices and unhealthy decisions about our future.

Investors urge governments to address the risks of climate change.

Instead, conferences, meetings, and gatherings need to be taking advantage of the collective mind that’s in the room (and beyond) by developing a vibrant, dynamic, life-generating, learning-exchange marketplace.

In this learning exchange marketplace, a ‘collaborative design’ process is used to shape an environment from which relationship-building and information-exchange is enhanced to a very high level. In this marketplace, information is traded and moved toward meaning using a parallel collaboration process that allows for better choices to be created and thereby better decisions to be made. I call this process a ‘Co-Lab’.

A Colab taps into both a community’s collective emotional state, as well as its co-intelligent capacity, to bring out a diverse head/heart knowledge from people that rarely gets accessed in traditional group sessions. A Colab moves individual agendas into group-mind learning and reasoning by combining story-telling and metaphor-making as a key part of the collaboration process, thereby allowing for the intuitive brain to incorporate what the rational brain can not.

Furthermore, a Colab will transform a stuffy-room full of authoritative egos into a dance-hall of fun-loving folks who are sharing a diversity of ideas, morphing them into a consensus of choices, and turning them into an intelligent, strategic plan that can be rationally assessed and moved toward solution-based action. All this is done in a fraction of the time of traditional approaches (as seen in the picture), with an increased density of content being shared, received, and absorbed more easily by the majority (rather than the minority) of folks in the room.

And guess what? Rather than frustrated, adversarial, and dreading the work ahead, more people leave a Colab feeling accomplished, friendly, and ready to act! Now THIS is how to move ourselves into a future that works!

Drop the suits guys

Oh; and one more thing. Please, please! Let’s get rid of the suits, for crying out loud. Let’s allow our bodies to move with the energy of change, rather than to be stifled by the status-quo of a normalcy that is time to be changed.

For more on change, join our community at ChangingNormal.com.

For more on Collaborative Design, see how to create your own Colab.

In Spirit,
Vic

This is the article that triggered me to write …

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call for Climate Action Now

NEW YORK, New York, January 14, 2010 (ENS) – The world’s largest investors today issued a statement calling on the United States and other governments to “act now to catalyze development of a low-carbon economy and to attract the vast amount of private capital necessary for such a transformation.”
The U.S., European and Australian investor groups, who together represent $13 trillion in assets, called for “a price on carbon emissions” and “well-designed carbon markets” to provide “a cost-effective way of achieving emissions reductions.”

Investors urge governments to address the risks of climate change. (Photo courtesy Ceres )
The statement was announced at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that includes U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, billionaire investor George Soros and former Vice President Al Gore.

The investors said while some progress towards a global agreement limiting greenhouse gas emissions was made at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, “we cannot wait for a global treaty.”

“Policymakers made only incremental progress in Copenhagen, leaving a great deal of work to be done to address the risks that climate change presents to the global economy and to investments,” they said.

Anne Stausboll (Photo courtesy CalPERS )

“U.S. leadership is critical in this regard, including U.S. Senate action to limit and put a price on carbon emissions,” Stausboll said.

“What investors need most from national and state legislatures are transparency, longevity and certainty,” said Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management and member of Deutsche Bank’s Group Executive Committee.

“Until the U.S. Congress passes climate regulation, America will be at a competitive disadvantage in the development of renewable energy and other climate change industries,” he said.

The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors – the Investor Network on Climate Risk, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, IIGCC, the Investor Group on Climate Change, and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

“Given that Copenhagen was a missed opportunity to create one fully functional international carbon market, it is more important than ever that individual governments implement regional and domestic policy change to stimulate the creation of a low carbon economy,” said Peter Dunsombe, chairman of the IIGCC, a network of European investors.

“Time is of the essence and world leaders from both developed and developing countries need to act now to compensate for the lack of progress at an international level,” he said.

In their statement, the investors observed that the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are “both affordable and significantly lower than the costs of inaction,” but said developing a global low-carbon economy will require “substantially increased levels of investment from the private sector.”

The UNFCCC Secretariat estimates that more than $200 billion in total additional investment capital for mitigation is required each year by 2030 just to return greenhouse gases to their current levels by then.

The International Energy Agency estimates that additional investment of $10.5 trillion is needed globally in just the energy sector from 2010-2030 to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at around 450 parts per million, the investors noted.

Mindy Lubber (Photo courtesy Ceres )
“This equates to roughly 0.1% of the total value of world financial assets and approximately 0.23% of the total value of debt and equity securities, so this is certainly an achievable level of investment – and one that would yield returns in terms of energy savings, energy security, reduced capital expenditures for pollution control, and avoided climate damages,” they said. “But it is also well above current investment levels.”

“As powerful as these investors are, they can’t underwrite a clean energy transformation at the critical scale needed without clear rules only government can provide,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a U.S. coalition of investors and environmental groups, and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk.

“Government policy can make clean energy cost-competitive by leveling the playing field with fossil fuels,” Lubber said. “Only government policy provides the long-term certainty that can turbo-charge private investment in clean energy, address the climate change threat and protect our planet.”

Click here to download the Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2010. All rights reserved.

—— End of Forwarded Message

For more on change, join our community at ChangingNormal.com.

For more on Collaborative Design, see how to create your own Colab.

In Spirit,
Vic

<p>I was reading my LinkedIn Groups this morning and came across Mike Smith&rsquo;s &lsquo;Life Back West&rsquo; thoughts on people, teams, organizations, effectiveness and success (thanks Mike!). Now, it may seem that I jump around here a bit, so buckle your seat belt and see if you can stay with me on this …</p> <p>So, after reading his short blurb on leadership that caught my eye, I went to Mike&rsquo;s blog planning to oppose what I anticipated would be a description of an old belief system that suggests, if we are professional, our feelings are to be suppressed in the workplace. Instead, Mike described how his young son has inspired his professional nature to include expression, compassion, and emotion. Having a young boy myself, I can totally relate to how he and I allow each other space for emotional expression. But then, why is it that we are not allowed too much expression at work without being sited as a problem?</p> <p>It seems that our society has become afraid of our own human-ness. Have we lost our sense of how to be with each other in the messiness of our humanity? For me, today&rsquo;s sorely needed emerging leaders can not be likened anymore to the stoic guy on a horse riding off into the sunset after he single-handedly saves the town from Godzilla. Why? Because this guy (usually someone we all aspire to be) rarely shows the kind of emotion that allows for collective transformation. Rather he tends to be about eliminating a problem, along with the people that go with it.</p> <p>What if instead, we began to choose our leaders based (in part) on how well they have learned to express their emotional selves and how well they are exemplars for others by the way they share the messy parts of their humanity and also be able to hold it for others? I propose that we dare ourselves to allow messiness in the workplace by helping to teach and &ldquo;lead&rdquo; groups through spells of negative emotion. Rather than try to find ways to avoid or expel it. Note the key piece here is how to teach groups or teams to hold individuals in their time of need, rather than expecting the so-called leader to do it alone. This is known as collective leadership and I believe that gold can be found within the mines (minds) of our organizations that will generate amazing new forms of innovation. Why? Because the form and function of innovation becomes an expression of&nbsp; the group or company who created it.</p> <p>I think <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3wyCxHtGd0&amp;eurl=http://discoveryfuel.com/team-building-leadership/a-twist-on-the-idea-of-professionalism-in-leadership/” target=”_blank”><object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/r3wyCxHtGd0&hl=en&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/r3wyCxHtGd0&hl=en&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>Daniel Goleman&rsquo;s talk on TED</a> points to this evolved form of leadership that I speak of. And it often starts with what he called a &lsquo;human moment&rsquo;, which are the times when we are paying full attention to the person(s) we are with. Additionally, he suggests that there is zero correlation between intelligence and the awareness of another (compassion). Yet we hire our leaders and managers almost completely based on their level of intelligence and rarely rate them based on their ability to express, show compassion, or hold a group through troubling periods. Why is that? Interesting to me is that he also correlates the rapid growth of information to compassion. And it makes sense! This begins to define a true ecology of thought and being and I feel that this is where we are headed – a collaboration of relationships that connect as we become more present moment to moment in our lives. Now, this is a bit of a paradox because our increased access to information so often pulls us away from being present with another, right? Well, both are happening. Now, I am aware that my writing is moving in a number of directions, but hang in there with me.</p> <p>I am trying to suggest an <strong>ecology of leadership </strong>and the relationships and awareness that make this up. And that the meaning of &lsquo;professionalism&rsquo; is morphing into something completely different. In ecological terms, this means that even the idea of &ldquo;the leader&rdquo; is old, and that we instead need to consider the possibility of what a collective leadership would look like and how this carried into group dynamics can help to generate a deeper form of authenticity within ourselves and our companies.</p> <p>I plan to write about this later on in my blogging. But for now, let us all &ldquo;re&rdquo;consider and discuss what it means to be a &ldquo;professional&rdquo;, and also reconsider what kind of &ldquo;leadership&rdquo; we really need in this new interconnected world of ours.</p>

Learn more about the author, Vic Desotelle.

The intent here is to help organizational change processes be more conscious and more effective by becoming aware that how we communicate with each other strongly effects meeting outcomes, as well as how well thsoe outcomes sustain the desired changes. In short, this is all about how we make conscious decisions that influence positive change.

Our world is in dire need of evolved decision-making techniques that can provide us with a better way for sharing and choosing solutions that are healthier for ourselves and the planet. Effective communication is the glue that allows for real, sustained change to happen. Note that communication colors all levels of organizational development, including its methods of leadership, its ability to learn, team work and collaboration, and the sustainability of innovation itself.

DEBATE = Language is manipulated with the intent to cripple other viewpoints (argumentative). Change is hard to come by with this approach. However, it is useful for keeping an existing systems in place. Energy comes from the lizard mechanisms in the brain, which attempt to protect and defend. The person with the most power over another is seen as the best leader. This process is not good for creating change except at conscious predetermined places in the process where challenge generates a different thought process that can bring clarity and assurance on choices that have been made.

DISCUSSION = Questioning each other comes from a predisposed positioning (having an agenda). Change is possible but usually can not be sustained due to the process being based on a questioning process that makes each feel someone has to win. Others often loose their identity to consensus. It’s based on a sudo-democracy process whereby everyone unconsciously assumes that there is a best answer, thus only one viewpoint is ultimately chosen. Occasionally discussion moves into dialog, but usually it moves into debate.

DIALOG = Collaborative inquiry with an openness to possibilities beyond each others own beliefs and views. Communication about communication happens allowing the creation of a safe environment; a place where the unexpected and insight can happen more freely. Everyone’s viewpoint is allowed whether or not others agree with it. All work to wear the shoes of the one speaking and seek to integrate diversity rather than extract the best answer. It stands for the power of the question is valued more than answers. The challenge for creating change is that too often dialog does not move toward decision-making and action.

TRILOG = Ideally, all three forms of conversation are useful if used in tandem with each other. Dialog is to be used during the early envisioning stages. Discussion during the goals and strategy-making stages, but only at the point when decisions have to be determined. Debate is useful to challenge a new system against an old one. It must be used very consciously however, because otherwise power over can destroy all previous efforts. Dialog should again be used to close a group’s process because it brings us back to our humanity and to what’s most important, which are the relationships. They are as important (or more) than the outcomes generated by the group, for it is what becomes the foundation for sustaining the determined change.

About Room Geometry = One final point to make here is this: Be aware of the geometry of the room in which people gather. If shared views are the choice, be sure to stage the room with multiple small circles in mind. If one person’s opinion is to be impressed upon the group, then line up the chairs in straight lines without breaking up the group. I for one almost always choose to use circular geometries because it seems to appease the need for all to feel like they are participants rather than merely receivers of information. A room’s geometry needs to be considered at all levels of a community’s decision-making hierarchy including company meetings, town hall meetings, city council meetings, board rooms, and living room gatherings.

+ + +

To bring in more of a trilog approach (with an emphasis on ‘dialogue), use this collaborative design tool during your next meeting: Create a ‘Learning Exchange Markeplace‘. For more information, contact Vic Desotelle at DiscoveryFuel.com

Learning Exchange Markets uncover hidden innovation which is often at the fringes of an organization. Within a Learning Exchange Market, a shift of emphasis occurs between the participants from debates and discussions to generative dialogue, which must be in place for true forms of sustainable innovation to emerge. During the learning exchange process, multiple conversations – both strategic and envisioning, are allowed to occur at the same time. This approach actually accelerates results toward action-oriented activities while also empowering the individuals who will become responsible for the deliverables. It works miracles for companies working on becoming a learning organization.

.

One of the primary tools applied to Learning Exchange Markets is called ‘Open Space’ …..

The ‘Open Space Technology’ Concept

(as described from Co-Intelligence Inst.)

” In my experience open space is based on the belief that we humans are intelligent, creative, adaptive, meaning- and fun-seeking. It sets the context for such creatures to come together knowing they are going to treat each other well. When this happens there is no limit to what can unfold.” Alan Stewart

Open Space Technology was created in the mid-1980s by organizational consultant Harrison Owen when he discovered that people attending his conferences loved the coffee breaks better than the formal presentations and plenary sessions. Combining that insight with his experience of life in an African village, Owen created a totally new form of conferencing.

Open Space conferences have no keynote speakers, no pre-announced schedules of workshops, no panel discussions, no organizational booths. Instead, sitting in a large circle, participants learn in the first hour how they are going to create their own conference. Almost before they realize it, they become each other’s teachers and leaders.

Anyone who wants to initiate a discussion or activity, writes it down on a large sheet of paper in big letters and then stands up and announces it to the group. After selecting one of the many pre-established times and places, they post their proposed workshop on a wall. When everyone who wants to has announced and posted their initial offerings, it is time for what Owen calls “the village marketplace”: Participants mill around the wall, putting together their personal schedules for the remainder of the conference. The first meetings begin immediately.

Open Space is, as Owen likes to say, more highly organized than the best planning committee could possibly manage. It is also chaotic, productive and fun. No one is in control. A whirlwind of activity is guided from within by a handful of simple principles.

[For managers with concerns for loss of control, the principles below will seem ridiculous, and the Open Space approach may drive you crazy - but only for awhile ... Once you see how much work actually gets done, and how happy everyone is while doing this process, you'll never have a (so-called) normal meeting again!]

The ‘Open Space’ Principles:

1. Passion & Responsibility: The most basic principle is that everyone who comes to an Open Space conference must be passionate about the topic and willing to take some responsibility for creating things out of that passion.

2. Whoever comes are the right people.
3. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.
4. Whenever it starts is the right time.
5. When it is over it is over.
6. The Law of Two Feet (see below):

“If you find yourself in a situation where you aren’t learning or contributing, go somewhere else” (or move to another level of awareness and participation). This law causes some participants to flit from activity to activity. Owen rejoices in such people, calling them bumblebees because they cross-pollinate all the workshops. He also celebrates participants who use The Law of Two Feet to go off and sit by themselves. He dubs them butterflies, because they create quiet centers of non-action for stillness, beauty, novelty or random conversations to be born.

– - – - – -

Open space conferences can be done in one day or less, but the most powerful go on for two or three days, or longer. Participants gather together briefly in the morning and the evening to share experiences and announce any new workshops they have concocted. The rest of the day is spent in intense conversation. Even meals are come-when-you-can affairs that go on for hours, filled with bustling dialogue. After a few days of this, an intense spirit of community usually develops that is all the more remarkable considering that participants are all doing exactly what they want.

.

Open Space conferences are particularly effective when a large, complex operation needs to be thoroughly re-conceptualized and reorganized — when the task is just too big and complicated to be sorted out “from the top.” On the assumption that such a system contains within it the seeds of everything that needs to happen with it, Open Space provides it with an opportunity to self-organize into its new configuration. For this to work, however, the system’s leaders must let go of control so that true self-organization can take place.

Open Space Technology is also a delightful, useful tool for any group of people who are really interested in exploring something that they all care deeply about, and is one of the simplest, most brilliant combinations of order and chaos that I have yet found. It has been applied in thousands of meetings around the world with between five and one thousand participants. It can be effectively used by virtually anybody. Owen has provided excellent instructions in his books, below.

• Resources: H. H. Owen and Co., Open Space Institute, The Co-Intelligence Institute

• Books: Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Expanding Our Now: The Story of Open Space Technology, Harrison Owen, The Millennium Organization

.

+ + + + + + + + +

HOW TO CREATE A LEARNING EXCHANGE MARKETPLACE

(by Discovery Fuel)

Download Discovery Fuel’s Design Packet For Creating Your Own Learning Exchange Marketplace

.

.

Click on image to download Learning Exchange Market planner

Learning Exchange – SCHEDULE

(3 1/2 hour evening sample)

6:15 Check Bulletin Board for Announcements
6:30 Mission Statement
6:40 Brief Introductions
6:50 How It Works
7:00 The Exchange Market
7:30 1st Period Sessions
8:00 2nd Period Sessions
8:30 Share Learning
9:00 End

Learning Exchange – PROCESS

1. Write Down Session Proposals

2. Questions are as Appropriate as Answers

3. Verbally Announce Your Session
4. Post Session on Schedule Wall

5. Combine Proposals, Negotiate Times

6. Period A Sessions Begin, Take Notes

7. Integrate Notes into One Report

8. Period B Sessions Begin, Keep a Log

9. Integrate Notes into One Report

10. Note Sessions A and B may be Merged

11. Group Reporting of Sessions Begins

12. Bulletin Board To Post Ideas, Notices

13. Info Exchange meetings are bi-weekly.

14. Results Incorporated at Bi-weekly Strategy Meetings and Continued at Next Info Exchange Meeting

Learning Exchange – PRINCIPLES
· Whoever comes is right. Whatever happens … happens.

· Leave personal status outside. Bring ideas and knowledge inside.

· Be passionate about the topics. Take responsibility for creating things out of that passion.

· Law of Two Feet: If you aren’t learning or contributing, increase participation, or move to another session.

· Stay focused on topic

· One person talking at a time

· Shift ‘Yeah-But’ responses to ‘YES-AND’

· Listen with empathy, suspend judgment

· Encourage & build on the wild ideas of others.

.

+ + + + + + + + +

Download Discovery Fuel’s Design Packet (pdf file) for creating a Learning Exchange Marketplace. For more information contact us for a chat.

+ + + + + + + + +

Transformation (deep innovation) occurs through a three phase evolution:

I’ve been thinking about the potential for progressing toward a global mind: My experiences with group emergence have noted that a majority of efforts collapse before the desire is sustained and self-propelled; a progression toward the vision that initiated the group in the first place. I propose the reason for this is that there is only a one or two level strategic plan in place made up of immediate context without the anticipation of collective content; a synthesis from which the incredible happens.

What if we instead provide a guiding framework that allows group migration into deeper forms of connection with each other? Eventually this connection moves into behavioral forms of change and action. I believe this can be done using a 3-phase framework for processing together; thereby allowing a group to consciously see itself go through deep transformation. This would mean for each phase of processing together, there is a SYNTHESIS of its content – a summarizing of what has been done. This would occur as a part of all three phases; thereby generating a thread of synthesis that allows integration.

8 Gate Alignment Map (Click to enlarge)

These three phases are as follows, which can be noted in the 8-gate group alignment map diagram:

1- Establishing Group Intention:
This phase’s nature is chaotic. It is expressed by conversations of desire and passion which drive an unfolding *PROCESS*. A focus on creating +PRINCIPLES+ based on diverse values, which opens of new level of awareness; thereby setting the stage for a loosening of existing physical *structure* and allowing change to occur. Vibrational activity is dissonant (unconscious) and non-geometric.

2- Building a Value Network:
This phase’s nature moves from chaotic to chaordic. It is expressed by individuals linking and clustering around collective ideas – a virtual *STRUCTURE* emerges. A focus on creating +PRACTICES+ sets the stage for individual changes in behavior and an early forming of group identity to occur. Vibrational activity is recognizable (awakening consciousness) but not stable.

3- Experiencing a Community of Practice:
This phase’s nature moves from chaordic into order. It is expressed by the emergence of community (collective) identity PATTERNS to be realized and an acceptance of participatory-oriented activities are in place. A focus on creating +POLICY+ is empasized; thereby a change of governance occurs.

More on this concept later …

Vic Desotelle