From my dear friend Peggy Holman:

A few weeks ago, I spontaneously created a new form of convergence with a group of about 20.   I think it can work well with groups of 60 or less, and perhaps with groups up to 100 or so.

I was intending to do what I always do these days – follow the energy and re-open the space for what has heart and meaning for taking a next step.  Instead, because the meeting  was intended to both give the group a chance to bond as well as set priorities for their work, something else emerged in the moment.  

This was a first meeting of a diverse group that was dealing with a challenging subject: the transformation of the field of corrections throughout the USA.  They had spent an evening sharing stories about their work and a day in Open Space, exploring, “How can corrections, in collaboration with other human services, help cultivate a strong and healthy society?”.  The last morning, we began with a conversation about their work together as a prelude to opening the space to identify their priorities (as established by the sessions that were called).

One participant was very concerned whether this “arbitrary” approach of following the energy would lead to the best priorities.  I suggested that we see what emerged and then determine whether a more rational approach should be employed.  Given the culture of the group, I sensed in that moment that the people in the room needed to know where each other stood – what each of them would choose as a priority.  And since bonding was part of the purpose of the gathering, I asked each of them to write on a sheet of paper the inquiry they felt was more important to pursue, the subject they personally felt most passionate about.  No one hesitated.  

Once they were done writing, each read his or her topic aloud. Then they physically got up and moved to join with others who had said something related to their topic.  The landed in 2 groups, split about 1/3 and 2/3rds.  This degree of coherence was quite stunning for them.  They went off to talk about their topics.  When they returned, we checked in, as promised, on whether these were the best priorities.  The group was almost giddy with excitement.  No question.  They were clear they had the right priorities.

another great day (or two) in Open Space,

I was just putting together some materials for an Open Space training workshop I’m doing in Prince Rupert, BC on Friday and I compiled three useful approaches to facilitating action planning in Open Space.  The first is my own version of moving to action, the second is Diana Larsen’s approach to prioritizing ideas by impact and energy and the third approach is Jack Martin Leith’s approach to project planning, which he blogged here.  

The three are in an easy to download .pdf.  Enjoy.

UPDATE: I would be remiss not to point to Lisa Heft’s site, where she dilligently collected dozens of variations on convergence and action planning.