OSD occurs in three groups where each successive group helps the group below, but that’s not to say they’re below! This ensures the development of the group as a whole.
We intrinsically know where we stand, both cognitively and social-emotionally. We know what we know about ourselves, and we know our limits. This is why we need a groupof like-minded people to collaborate on our individual growth requirements. We are looking to fill our “complexity gap” and for those in groups 1 and 2, it is about pattern disruption. As people generally strive for the status quo, and seek groups that conform to their existing thinking bias, the OSD method will disrupt such habituated thinking patterns in favour of “shocking” participants out of said habits.

Closing the Complexity Gap

We intrinsically know at which stage of development our thinking resides. With the use of pattern-disrupting questions that test our thinking from where we are and where we can’t go yet, not only will we recognise our own level, but our group will recognise our level on our behalf, and point out where our thinking needs to grow. We will collectively be responsible for its growth, through dialogue. Open source, collaborative development.

The three groups run concurrently and participants can move between the groups as per the illustration. They are self-selecting and in our experience, a person from group 1 will not place themselves in group 3 as they will recognise, with the help of the others in the group, that their thinking needs to grow first.
For each participant, this is potentially a never-ending programme, with the understanding that participants can stay on as long as they need or want to after they have attained the level of growth with which they are most comfortable. This will be different for everyone.

This is the interplay between the groups. Each connection is a path within and between groups as well as a collaborative connection for growth.

You can see from the image above how this might align over time. Those in group 1 would align with the lower complexity thinking, whilst those in group 3 would be moving towards the right of the diagram. The point being, there is never an end to developmental thinking: there are only milestones along the journey.

Finally, the reason those in group 3 do not pay a monetised fee is because they are effectively paying by virtue of their participation. By moving between groups, helping others to think differently, they offer more than money in terms of return on investment. If they have come through the ranks and progressed from group 1 to 2 and then 3, they have earned their place in group 3.

The ultimate aim? How about a relative Star Trek Utopia where the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom take precedence over the acquisition of wealth?