"modified open space"

CaveOat CaveOat at aol.com
Tue Apr 21 12:45:02 PDT 1998


Kay Vogt here.

I have been in this type of discussion before. In particular within the Carl
Rogers client- centered movement with regard to what is Rogerian therapy. The
same arguments that have already surfaced here have been raging there for
years. What has happened over a history of about 50 years is that his theory
is largely misunderstood and empathic listening gets reduced from a very
difficult to do I/thou dialogue to parroting. This has undermined the whole
movement, and led many people to believe that they are practicing client-
centered listening when they are not. When it fails to work as promised, they
blame the model.

There are purists in the client-centered movement who are insultingly rigid
and this  has further undermined the model.  I don't know what the answer is,
because its seems clear to me that there is a need to preserve and protect the
model as something very special and grossly misunderstood. At teh same time,
it seems important to  ackwowledge that there is always a natural evolution
toward something even better and deviations from the model may be moving
toward something even more beautiful.

My concern with both open space and client-centered therapy is that their
apparent simplicity leads to gross oversimplification and frankly people
trying it without a deep understanding of  what they are doing. And like
Birgitt, I too have experienced quite a few people who say they have
experienced Open Space and don't like it and when I question them it wasn't
even close to being Open Space.

Radical approaches like Open Space, in the hands of someone who doesn't
understand the underpinnings, tend to become watered down techniques. The
approach becomes altered to the point that it bears no resemblance to the
heart of the original model.  When it is used as a technique, it falls far
short of its potential, thereby harming the image of the process. And given
our quick fix nature, it is all too tempting to take something so powerful and
expect to be able to be able to really experience it over a lunch break.

When I hear someone saying they are doing Open Space I am quite vocal about
asking them not to call if Open Space if its missing the element of truly
being open.  I modify the model sometimes, but I don't then call it Open
Space. Next week I'm using what might be called a modified version at a
conference. However, I am not calling it Open Space, I call it self-organizing
because of precisely this problem that Birgitt raises.

So to the 2nd question about the woman who is calling her model something
else, maybe it is something else.



More information about the OSList mailing list