A space for OST language, region or thematic based Communities
Opening Post
Here's the post from the OSlist that inspired this group:
How do the Open Space principles help us both support and resist change? What does this mean for the evolution of OST and opening space?
The OS principles are wise and wily (clever). They are at their best when they remind people to take responsibility for what they love; when, for example, people discover that they really can moderate their own conflicts without a facilitator.
I think the principles are at their worst when they replace co-creativity with resistance. For example, someone comes to me when preparing for an OS gathering and says, Open Space goes broad, not deep. I can turn that back to them quite simply by telling them that they create their own experience. And that's true. It also shuts off an exchange about what it means to go deep and how we can create the space so that people come together with greater depth.
Too often, I have taken the "turn it back" route rather than engaging. And I don't think I'm alone. This may sound heretical, but I believe the cues for making this choice are embedded in the Open Space community's culture and to our detriment, that has made us change resistance. I offer a bit of my personal journey on this and then how I see it relating to this community.
MY STORY
When I began working with OS, I fiercely defended the space from all comers. I worked to keep any pre-work to a bare minimum, sure that people would understand the brilliant freedom of Open Space the moment they stepped in. Since then, I've found compassion for those who experience the disorientation of freedom shock when they first experience Open Space.
When I began working more in community settings, with greater diversity and where there aren't the implicit "rules of engagement", I found that cultivating a sense of connection and clarity of purpose is part of creating a welcome, nutrient space. And contrary to the myth that talks don't work in Open Space, even Harrison has successfully given them in the morning of the second and third day of an Open Space gathering.
In other words, as my practice has grown, I treat quite differently "givens" that I used to take as gospel and defend. Examples:
* Pre-work (clarifying the intention and calling question, identifying and inviting stakeholders) is trivial. If you spend a lot of time on it, you're working too hard.
* Open Space doesn't mix well with other practices. In fact, I have found creative, flowing ways in which different practices work together to meet the needs of the specific situation and culture. It requires getting creative with design colleagues and sponsors to meet the needs of a group.
* Once you're in an Open Space event, stay in Open Space. While this is still my preference, there are circumstances where integrating other activities, like a morning talk, serves the needs of the group just fine.
I want to be clear that I am still there to ensure the space is as open as possible. I have just come to believe that what keeps the space open is more nuanced than I understood when I started working with Open Space Technology in 1993. I no longer defend the space. I co-creatively ensure it stays open.
THIS COMMUNITY
So what does this have to do with this community being resistant to change?
The OS principles contain deep truths. I think most deep truths contain contradictions. On a light note, here are a few examples of such contradictions:
1. Look before you leap. / He who hesitates is lost.
2. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. / Out of sight, out of mind.
3. The pen is mightier than the sword. / Actions speak louder than words.
4. Better safe than sorry. / Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
5. Birds of a feather flock together. / Opposites attract.
6. You’re never too old to learn. / You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Wisdom involves discerning how to navigate the contradictions.
Yes, whatever happens is the only thing that could have. This is empowering when used to awaken someone to their own capacity to meet their needs. When it is used consciously or unconsciously to maintain the status quo, it becomes destructive. It becomes a way to do nothing.
Rather than just saying "who ever comes..." or "whatever happens...", when someone raises an issue, I now treat it as a potential learning moment for either or both of us; an opening to understand something more fully Most often, exploring the issue leads to them discovering their own power to act. But through the conversation, they feel heard, respected, met. And I learn something about their culture.
With this change in my practice, I have become more fluid in how I open space, sometimes using other processes as a doorway in, sometimes hosting a speaker because it serves the needs of the session. I am less glib than I used to be about the principles, recognizing both their power and their shadow. And I am more wiling to experiment with form, knowing that the real work is opening space within and among us.
What does this sort of experimentation which many of us are doing mean for how Open Space Technology itself evolves?
Is OST's form perfection as is? It is definitely elegant. As Harrison often says, a system that isn't changing is dead. Isn't this an interesting paradox?
I think that the last OST innovation that has been widely embraced was when several of us began opening space for convergence following a conversation at the Toronto OSonOS in 1997!
So with all the people experimenting with how we use OST, what might we learn about the nature and form of our work? I suspect there's more fluidity to the nature of opening space than most of us consider.
For example, I sometimes hear from colleagues who use other conversational practices that Open Space doesn't surface the collective intelligence of a group in easily shared ways. I can hear the "open spacisms" raised in objection to this statement. Indeed, I have seen groups come away with a deep sense of how they fit together as a system. Yet, through their words or the notes, communicating that collective intelligence to those who weren't there is often a mystery.
How might we approach this as a design challenge while staying true to the ethics of "one less thing to do" and trusting the people of the system to find their own answers?
I've become more willing to experiment, to seek simple, natural forms that meet these sorts of objections. For example, I have come to appreciate the intimacy of reflecting in small groups. Since people don't all return to the large group at the same time, there's a natural rhythm to starting small then moving to one circle.
I don't pretend to have "the" answer of how OST and our understanding of Open Space evolves. Perhaps the evolution isn't in the form but in our deeper thinking. It could be that the simple elegance of internalizing the practice of opening space frees us to experiment more with the form. After 16 years, I still feel like a novice, learning about the nature of opening space.
I think it is an important, creative question for the evolution of our work and our community to consider how we evolve rather than dismissing criticisms and objections by naming a principle. Is anyone else interested in such conversations?
How do the Open Space principles help us both support and resist change? What does this mean for the evolution of OST and opening space?
The OS principles are wise and wily (clever). They are at their best when they remind people to take responsibility for what they love; when, for example, people discover that they really can moderate their own conflicts without a facilitator.
I think the principles are at their worst when they replace co-creativity with resistance. For example, someone comes to me when preparing for an OS gathering and says, Open Space goes broad, not deep. I can turn that back to them quite simply by telling them that they create their own experience. And that's true. It also shuts off an exchange about what it means to go deep and how we can create the space so that people come together with greater depth.
Too often, I have taken the "turn it back" route rather than engaging. And I don't think I'm alone. This may sound heretical, but I believe the cues for making this choice are embedded in the Open Space community's culture and to our detriment, that has made us change resistance. I offer a bit of my personal journey on this and then how I see it relating to this community.
MY STORY
When I began working with OS, I fiercely defended the space from all comers. I worked to keep any pre-work to a bare minimum, sure that people would understand the brilliant freedom of Open Space the moment they stepped in. Since then, I've found compassion for those who experience the disorientation of freedom shock when they first experience Open Space.
When I began working more in community settings, with greater diversity and where there aren't the implicit "rules of engagement", I found that cultivating a sense of connection and clarity of purpose is part of creating a welcome, nutrient space. And contrary to the myth that talks don't work in Open Space, even Harrison has successfully given them in the morning of the second and third day of an Open Space gathering.
In other words, as my practice has grown, I treat quite differently "givens" that I used to take as gospel and defend. Examples:
* Pre-work (clarifying the intention and calling question, identifying and inviting stakeholders) is trivial. If you spend a lot of time on it, you're working too hard.
* Open Space doesn't mix well with other practices. In fact, I have found creative, flowing ways in which different practices work together to meet the needs of the specific situation and culture. It requires getting creative with design colleagues and sponsors to meet the needs of a group.
* Once you're in an Open Space event, stay in Open Space. While this is still my preference, there are circumstances where integrating other activities, like a morning talk, serves the needs of the group just fine.
I want to be clear that I am still there to ensure the space is as open as possible. I have just come to believe that what keeps the space open is more nuanced than I understood when I started working with Open Space Technology in 1993. I no longer defend the space. I co-creatively ensure it stays open.
THIS COMMUNITY
So what does this have to do with this community being resistant to change?
The OS principles contain deep truths. I think most deep truths contain contradictions. On a light note, here are a few examples of such contradictions:
1. Look before you leap. / He who hesitates is lost.
2. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. / Out of sight, out of mind.
3. The pen is mightier than the sword. / Actions speak louder than words.
4. Better safe than sorry. / Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
5. Birds of a feather flock together. / Opposites attract.
6. You’re never too old to learn. / You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Wisdom involves discerning how to navigate the contradictions.
Yes, whatever happens is the only thing that could have. This is empowering when used to awaken someone to their own capacity to meet their needs. When it is used consciously or unconsciously to maintain the status quo, it becomes destructive. It becomes a way to do nothing.
Rather than just saying "who ever comes..." or "whatever happens...", when someone raises an issue, I now treat it as a potential learning moment for either or both of us; an opening to understand something more fully Most often, exploring the issue leads to them discovering their own power to act. But through the conversation, they feel heard, respected, met. And I learn something about their culture.
With this change in my practice, I have become more fluid in how I open space, sometimes using other processes as a doorway in, sometimes hosting a speaker because it serves the needs of the session. I am less glib than I used to be about the principles, recognizing both their power and their shadow. And I am more wiling to experiment with form, knowing that the real work is opening space within and among us.
What does this sort of experimentation which many of us are doing mean for how Open Space Technology itself evolves?
Is OST's form perfection as is? It is definitely elegant. As Harrison often says, a system that isn't changing is dead. Isn't this an interesting paradox?
I think that the last OST innovation that has been widely embraced was when several of us began opening space for convergence following a conversation at the Toronto OSonOS in 1997!
So with all the people experimenting with how we use OST, what might we learn about the nature and form of our work? I suspect there's more fluidity to the nature of opening space than most of us consider.
For example, I sometimes hear from colleagues who use other conversational practices that Open Space doesn't surface the collective intelligence of a group in easily shared ways. I can hear the "open spacisms" raised in objection to this statement. Indeed, I have seen groups come away with a deep sense of how they fit together as a system. Yet, through their words or the notes, communicating that collective intelligence to those who weren't there is often a mystery.
How might we approach this as a design challenge while staying true to the ethics of "one less thing to do" and trusting the people of the system to find their own answers?
I've become more willing to experiment, to seek simple, natural forms that meet these sorts of objections. For example, I have come to appreciate the intimacy of reflecting in small groups. Since people don't all return to the large group at the same time, there's a natural rhythm to starting small then moving to one circle.
I don't pretend to have "the" answer of how OST and our understanding of Open Space evolves. Perhaps the evolution isn't in the form but in our deeper thinking. It could be that the simple elegance of internalizing the practice of opening space frees us to experiment more with the form. After 16 years, I still feel like a novice, learning about the nature of opening space.
I think it is an important, creative question for the evolution of our work and our community to consider how we evolve rather than dismissing criticisms and objections by naming a principle. Is anyone else interested in such conversations?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Artur Silva on -
Peggy:
Thank you very much for including here your though provoking post to the OSLIT. For me, having here an OSI/US forum and this post are an honor and an encouragement. And indeed I had already the intention to answer to your post at the OSLIST. I have even a draft initiated - with only 1 sentence until now :-(
The point I would like to have your opinion about here and now is a different one. Shall we have this discussion here or shall we have it at the OSLIST?
My intention, when proposing the creation of this NING, was not to replace the OSLIST but to complement it, mainly by giving a space for groups that can have dialogs in languages different from English (and I know, from myself, that even if I can understand 5 or 6 different languages there is only one where I can express my thoughts and feelings in a complete and rigorous way - my mother tongue) and to regional or thematic matters, that are not interesting to the all community.
Even if I understand that my initial intention is not very important as, later, things evolve and self-organize in their own ways, I would like to explain my point.
1 - I think that the OSLIST is still, and will probably continue to be, the main point of discussion of subjects that interest all the community.
2 - I feel comfortable with different threads at the OSLIST being similar to different breakout rooms, and I only follow (rarely and when I have time) the ones I am interested in.
3 - I think that lists have some advantages over the NING discussions (I can explain that very clearly and rigorously, if you allow me to write in Portuguese ;-)
4- I don't think that HO has special rights over the evolution of OST. But in this particular discussion, I would not feel ethically comfortable in discussing this subject and saying very heterodox things I plan to say, in a forum where I know that he is not present and cannot reply, if he so wishes.
Considering all this, what do you think, Peggy? -
-
Permalink Reply by Kathie Wallace on -
Artur Silva said:Peggy:
Thank you very much for including here your though provoking post to the OSLIT. For me, having here an OSI/US forum and this post are an honor and an encouragement. And indeed I had already the intention to answer to your post at the OSLIST. I have even a draft initiated - with only 1 sentence until now :-(
The point I would like to have your opinion about here and now is a different one. Shall we have this discussion here or shall we have it at the OSLIST?
My intention, when proposing the creation of this NING, was not to replace the OSLIST but to complement it, mainly by giving a space for groups that can have dialogs in languages different from English (and I know, from myself, that even if I can understand 5 or 6 different languages there is only one where I can express my thoughts and feelings in a complete and rigorous way - my mother tongue) and to regional or thematic matters, that are not interesting to the all community.
Even if I understand that my initial intention is not very important as, later, things evolve and self-organize in their own ways, I would like to explain my point.
1 - I think that the OSLIST is still, and will probably continue to be, the main point of discussion of subjects that interest all the community.
2 - I feel comfortable with different threads at the OSLIST being similar to different breakout rooms, and I only follow (rarely and when I have time) the ones I am interested in.
3 - I think that lists have some advantages over the NING discussions (I can explain that very clearly and rigorously, if you allow me to write in Portuguese ;-)
4- I don't think that HO has special rights over the evolution of OST. But in this particular discussion, I would not feel ethically comfortable in discussing this subject and saying very heterodox things I plan to say, in a forum where I know that he is not present and cannot reply, if he so wishes.
Considering all this, what do you think, Peggy? -
-
Permalink Reply by Kathie Wallace on
-
HI Peggy,
Yes I would love to engage in a pondering on this topic! This site allows us to see the whole thread of the conversation. -
-
Permalink Reply by Peggy Holman on -
Artur,
I am more than happy to pursue this topic on the OSlist. Your fourth point is a compelling and important reason to do so.
I have a feeling that Harrison hasn't read my message. I say that because he made that comment on the list about coming home to a huge number of messages and hitting "delete". I contemplated sending it to him because, as you say, the evolution of opening space and OST have been and continues to be influenced by Harrison.
Still, if you respond to my message, presumably he'll see what I wrote then. If the conversation continues on the list, great. And if there seems to be a reason to take it this Ning group, then we'll continue here.
BTW, I opened this group encouraged by Harold Shinsato. The list seemed to have moved on to other topics so I was willing to try this experiment. If it ends up making sense to end the group, that's fine with me.
I look forward to your comments on the OS list. -
-
Permalink Reply by Diane Gibeault on -
Hi Peggy,
You think Harrison has not read your posting and that is likely so. I know Harrison has not read my posting under the topic "Openspacism" that followed and in which I copied for continuity, the "openspacism" of yours. I changed the topic title to focus on this part since your message covered many other points and that topic title had been circulating for a while, covering many different topics. But maybe that was not a good idea. In any event, I contacted Harrison directly to pursue it with him and he told me he had not read it; it seemed for reasons you described above. My next posting on the topic "Less", continued with clarifications, that thread of "the need to experiment to learn but keeping OST simple" So thanks for posting here your message that has attracted more reflection on how to create interest for an exchange on this question. I will also contribute and see if the discussion takes on a new life on the OS List and keep in touch with this smaller group too.
Thanks for posting again.
Diane -
-
Permalink Reply by Harold Shinsato on
-
Diane - thanks for posting here. I found your posts on openspacism and "less" provocative and interesting - but as I've said elsewhere - I'm not that comfortable posting to 600+ people on a list I find I simply am not able to always keep up with.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Diane Gibeault on
-
Hi Harold - thanks for your feedback. I understand your comments about posting on a list of 600 people and keeping up with it. It can be somewhat intimidating to send out a message to the list when there is not much reaction to it. It is easy to wonder if your comment has been valued or not. It is easier to let go of that concern and take a chance of writing once in a while when we adopt a letting go perspective and accept that most people prefer just reading the messages and that it's hard for most of us to keep up with reading all the messages let alone respond, given the amount of messages and given other essential activities of our life such as earning a living and having a balanced life. I'm a perfect example having taken several weeks (with regret) to respond to your message. Christmas preparation and holidays and a very bad cold did add to the regular time factors but eventually someone shows up. Here I am to wish you as well a happy, healthy and satisfying new year.
Diane -
-
-
Artur, I respect your intention but I do not agree with it - and strenuously. One of the beautiful things about Open Space is that it allows for a place for people who have passion and responsibility to make things happen. There is limited open space in a single solitary 600+ member forum!!!!
Yes, there are things on the OSList that everyone cares about. You can announce a topic on the OSList, and then have people come here to talk about it who care to do so - and then we can post our findings back to the OSList - or just a pointer to this particular thread.
I will not feel free to express all my feelings about this topic if it is brought back to the OSList. I only want to talk to the people who care enough about it to make a little effort to "convene a session".
This is kind of a meta discussion about the topic Peggy started - but I think I'd hate to see it killed by the founder of this openspaceworld.ning.com resource from a philosophical disagreement. I think that would be a sad state of affairs if that happened, but that is just my own desire and I know I'm not the only one in the room. I just hope that folks will stay a bit to explore this here. -
-
-
Hi Peggy, thanks for bringing this discussion here. I don't care if it happens on OSList too. But every time I post on OSList - I feel like I'm grabbing the microphone from Bono or something. Yikes!
This is such a rich post, and there are so many juicy topics here. It would be great to hear from Harrison about it - but maybe we can give Harrison more of a community voice around this.
I love the Open Space format, and I find myself almost powerfully resistant myself to wanting to change it. It has a beautiful elegance. It seems like a container that is very beautiful and simple, and which gives a lot of room for experimentation. While at the same time, it feels woefully inadequate too for many circumstances. And that bugs me - because I want to be in that Open Space feeling all the time. I want to be ONLY where I am learning or contributing and preferably both at the same time.
For me, learning is so shallow when I can't participate deeply with the material. And I can't do that when I have to sit through a lecture.
But I also know that I have learned much from being a really great talks by great story tellers like Harrison Owen. I don't like lectures. I get frustrated all the time. And at the same time, it was weird being at Leadership in a Self-Organizing World and seeing Harrison totally commanding the central space in the middle of an Open Space Technology format for over an hour. And I loved it. So where's the clear boundary? Your post and your questions go right into the heart of it.
There's so much going on in this topic. The only real contribution I feel I can make here, and I do want to contribte, are some parallels to what I see in the Agile/Lean software development community. There is a self-organization style project management technique called Scrum. A wise guru programmer, Robert "Uncle Bob" Martin spoke at a keynote at Agile 2008 in Toronto, and said that Scrum is the "Open Space" of software development methodologies. It trusts that everything you need is present, that things happen at the right time, etc. But the Agile Alliance's conference came out of two separate communities that joined forces - the Scrum community and the eXtreme Programming (XP) community. Uncle Bob called out how XP is very prescriptive, and he made fun of it saying with a fake nazi accent, "You Vill do Pair Programming", etc. etc.
The main point here is that Open Space is so non-prescriptive (although there are some clear boundaries), that in some ways it leaves a lot of questions unanswered about how you really can make things work. How do you get people to show up for your sessions? How do you get people to show up for your Open Space? What does a session convenor do to really make their session successful? It feels like there should also be a strong array of practices for Open Space communities to really help their work be successful in the world.
There are also much more disciplined convergent mechanisms. Open Space seems to be great for divergent explorations. But if a community needs to make a decision, maybe a great facilitator like Harrison will attract groups passionate and skilled enough to have unconscious competence at self-organizing. But I'm not so sure everyone can do it so easily. Maybe there needs to be more conscious competence about this, and not just leave it to look like magic? Or maybe not?
What do you think? -
-
Permalink Reply by Peggy Holman on
-
Harold,
As you can tell by the slowness of my response, this particular Ning experiment is tough for me.
On the list there are enough voices that someone would feel inspired to respond to the wonderful mix of questions you've posed.
I can give you my take on these questions:
How do you get people to show up for your sessions? How do you get people to show up for your Open Space? What does a session convenor do to really make their session successful?
The simplicity of Open Space makes it so clear when new skills are needed. If someone hosts an OS gathering or a session and they're not satisfied with who and how many show up, they begin to ask themselves about what it takes to get people to show up. And they start to learn.
Same if they aren't satisfied with how a session went.
It all assumes that it isn't just a one time thing. The simplicity of OS just opens the door to the exploration of deeper practices. I've seen the growth and change in myself.
And OS works just fine for convergence. It is all a matter of the question you ask and context you create.
The competence grows with practice.
So that's my two cents.
Peggy -
-
-
Thanks Peggy for your reply - it's ok that this thread can take a long time. It doesn't have to happen all at once. I do wish that NING would send out replies through email like the OSList - and not just a notification that a reply came in. That does make it a bit harder to stay engaged. It would be so great if we could have more flexible infrastructure to adjust the platform for the conversation as needed. But that's for another thread.
I've not used OST for convergence, nor have I seen it done - but I'm remembering that part of the book and I've heard folks talk about it - so I trust it works just fine for that as well. Thanks for the reminder.
I appreciate your two cents that Open Space "makes it clear when new skills are needed". It reminds me of the "inspect and adapt" philosophy in agile software development. But does it have to stop at that? Coaching someone through the challenges of bringing forward a successful Open Space event and just saying, learn as you go, I think is a bit unfair especially to new people. It means that the people who happen to have the needed skills will do ok, but those who don't, well, they get to learn by failure.
Having facilitated and instigated a few Open Space Events, I do notice that some of the successful skills and practices could be "added in", not as part of Open Space itself, but as part of the support lore - and what the heck - maybe it could be done in an organized way. Not as a cannon, not as dogma, not as "here's the answer for all time", but hmm, maybe here are a few things you can try.
For example, I've noticed that face to face presence in a community makes it much more likely to be successful getting folks to come to an Open Space event. Maybe this is obvious to most. Maybe for people good at this, it's too obvious. But it could help some to be successful by saying you need to spend time in relationship. Go to community events. Introduce yourself.
There's also more to say about getting people to come - and this isn't just to an OST, it's to any kind of event, but when it comes to Open Space - it helps to know about ideas like the patterns in "Fearless Change" as written by Mary Lynn Manns and Linda Rising. OST is still for most people an innovation, and it takes time for innovations to be introduced. Awareness of where your audience (or client) lies in the innovation diffusion curve (early adopter, early majority, late majority, etc.) means that different practices might be more beneficial.
Alas, I raised questions and now it looks like I'm just answering them - but for me the questions aren't answered. They're still burning questions. I'm not really seeking clients as an Open Space facilitator - but I'm wanting the human race to be in conversation, to hear the best ideas, and to adopt them for peace, love, and understanding. But I've my own work, and maybe that's what I should be working on right now ... but thanks for reading. Any tips and ideas are welcome! -
-
Permalink Reply by Artur Silva on
-
Harold Shinsato said:Artur, I respect your intention but I do not agree with it - and strenuously. (...)
This is kind of a meta discussion about the topic Peggy started - but I think I'd hate to see it killed by the founder of this openspaceworld.ning.com resource from a philosophical disagreement. I think that would be a sad state of affairs if that happened, but that is just my own desire and I know I'm not the only one in the room. I just hope that folks will stay a bit to explore this here.
Harold:
I have neither the power, nor the will, to "kill" anything that happens in this NING. I was only explaining to Peggy, why I will answer (when I have the time) to her post in the OSLIST.
But, that said, I have nothinhg againts the same discussion beeing held here, or even later copying my post here. -
Thanks for your contibutions to keep our community site advertisement-free and opening more space
Videos
© 2013 Created by Artur Silva.
Powered by
