modified open space

[uwe weissflog]

Dear Birgit:

You are bringing up a very fundamental and important question. From my point of
view, Open Space is about one of the basic states of the human condition, i.e.
our desire to be related to others and to be collectively creative. These, I
believe have always been attributes of our existence. Open Space creates the
possibility to be consciously in this state. In this context I agree with a very
"pure" view of Open Space, i.e. because it deals with fundamental human behavior it
needs to be taken very serious. I even think calling it a "technology" is already
creating an impurity.

On the other side of the coin is the fact that Open Space is something that
individuals have always done when they wanted to be in"community". Unfortunately
specifically the western societies, since the beginning of the industrial
revolution have been conditioned to forget about this. If you put it in most simplistic
terms; power, control and the emphasis on total expression of the self are
really in conflict with openness, dialogue, and equality. Harrison, in my view
rediscovered a truth that is already there. But others have done this too, in
different, but related ways. Just look at the work of Krishnamurti, Bohm, Senge, Bloch,
Wheatley, Covey, Peck, ..., the list goes on and on. Harrison's contribution in
my view is the simplicity of the "package", i.e. a set of steps, that taken
seriously results in group consciousness. But, is there only one road? I do not
think so. All of this can be traced back thousands of years, just read the Tao!!!

Based on this, my point of view is as follows:
- When we use the term "Open Space" we refer to the process steps as defined by
Harrison. In this context we have to keep it pure. If we use something else or
mix it with something else, let's call it something else.

- But we have to be aware that one can come to the same spot using different
processes. This is what we also need to acknowledge.

I also found Kay's comments to strike a cord with my own views. Specifically
the observation how "uninformed" audiences form opinions.

Thanks again for bringing this up.

regards Uwe




On 4/21/98, OSLIST wrote:
>Hello friends and colleagues,
>I am having a huge struggle and hope that we can get some dialogue
>going
>here that will help me out. The topic is "modified open space". Within
>me,
>I have clarity that we either "Open Space" or we do not. For me there is
>no
>such thing as modified Open Space. It can be longer, it can be very
>short,
>yet it needs to be opened with care and honouring of what is
>possible.Wonder, creativity, innovation, imagination and emergent
>organization happen. Kind of like love---I either am in love or I am not in
>love; I surely am not in "modified love" to suit the circumstances. Open
>Space like love needs to be kept whole, with its integrity intact. Or it
>falls apart. I am wondering if my thinking is shared by this open space
>community or if I am on a tangent?? I would love some discussion on this
>list about this.
>
>Harrison is clear that anyone with a good head and good heart can do
>OST. I
>agree. He also chose not to copyright or to "certify" those who have been
>trained. For good reason. I agree. What I am less clear on is what the
>response should be when OST becomes modified OST.
>
>Three examples of the kind of stuff I struggle with on this one.
>1. A conference is being planned that will have many corporations
>represented. A session in a lunch hour was billed as Open Space. I
>called
>to ask about it and was told it was modified Open Space. These people
>were
>very well intentioned. They just didn't think about what the ramifications
>might be for Open Space. I was fearful that hundreds of businesses in our
>area would feel that they knew what Open Space was after this
>conference,
>be most unimpressed with it, and not give us the time of day to use Open
>Space with them in the future. This has happened before when modified
>Open
>Space was used as an evening "catch all" session at the ODN
>conference
>1996. Senior staff locally who witnessed what they thought was Open
>Space
>then blocked the use of Open Space in their organizations. Not
>understanding the great good it could do, and feeling they had witnessed
>all there was to it. In the case of this present conference, the organizers
>were gracious enough to meet with me and together we are recouping
>that
>lunch time to present a bit about what Open Space is and to show its
>benefits. They will ensure that nothing like "modified open space"
>surfaces
>to cause problems for those of us promoting Open Space in the future. I
>am
>grateful to them. Did I have a right to say that there is no such thing as
>"modified Open Space" or is that just me with a "bee in my bonnet"?
>
>2. A consultant read OST: a user's guide and did a modified Open Space
>in a
>large city locally. Didn't think that walking the circle, etc. was
>important to the process. It would be easier just to get the topics up. She
>worked with a diverse group in the health sector that experienced
>union/management conflict. Folks showed up. She called it Open Space.
>It
>fell apart quickly with her trying to control the process that quickly got
>out of hand. The reverberations persist two years later. Not one of those
>organizations will consider the use of Open Space after their experience
>of
>"Open Space" which really wasn't.
>
>3. And another twist on things that doesn't harm the name of Open
>Space yet
>feels not okay to me. A colleague in the US is promoting a new
>methodology
>of hers. "Invent a Session" that speaks about an innovative process to
>produce meetings with less pre-planning and effort focusing on passion
>and
>responsibility>action>results. She has been trained in Open Space.
>Now,
>this doesn't harm the reputation of Open Space, yet doesn't feel quite
>right to me.
>
>I realize that I can be guilty of black/white thinking and I can be like a
>dog with a bone. Until I have the discussion that helps me see things
>differently. I appreciate any feedback/discussion you will enter into with
>me on this. I ask that we keep the discussion on the listserve as a
>community discussion. I realize there is no one way to do Open Space.
>Myself, I never do it the same way twice (mostly because I always forget
>at
>least three things). I am not talking about the quality of how we Open
>Space--we all have good days and bad days. I am talking about
>"modifying"
>it.
>
>Thanks for considering these thoughts,
>Birgitt Bolton (Canada)
>
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>Status: U
>Return-Path: <owner-oslist at listserv.idbsu.edu>
>Received: from heimdall.sdrc.com (sdrc.com [146.122.132.195])
>       by mailhub-cvg.sdrc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA26708
>       for <uwe.weissflog at heimdall.sdrc.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998
>10:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from listserv.idbsu.edu (listserv.idbsu.edu [132.178.16.100])
>       by heimdall.sdrc.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA07631
>       for <uwe.weissflog at SDRC.COM>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:38:36 -
>0400 (EDT)
>Received: from listserv.idbsu.edu (listserv.idbsu.edu [132.178.16.100])
>       by listserv.idbsu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA14980;
>       Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:31:30 -0600
>Received: from LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU by LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU
>(LISTSERV-TCP/IP
>          release 1.8c) with spool id 51828 for
>OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU; Tue,
>          21 Apr 1998 08:31:29 -0600
>Received: from barb.worldchat.com (root at barb.wchat.on.ca
>[204.138.239.65]) by
>          listserv.idbsu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA15951 for
>          <OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:30:43 -
>0600
>Received: from birgitt (as-1-p28.hamilton.wchat.on.ca [207.61.164.108])
>by
>          barb.worldchat.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA26911 for
>          <OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:25:32 -
>0400 (EDT)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Priority: 3
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Approved-By:  Birgitt Bolton <birgitt at WORLDCHAT.COM>
>Message-ID:  <199804211425.KAA26911 at barb.worldchat.com>
>Date:         Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:22:25 -0400
>Reply-To: OSLIST <OSLIST at listserv.idbsu.edu>
>Sender: OSLIST <OSLIST at listserv.idbsu.edu>
>From: Birgitt Bolton <birgitt at worldchat.com>
>Subject:      "modified open space"
>To: OSLIST at listserv.idbsu.edu
>
>