Recent Open Space (long -- yes, another story)
Chris Corrigan
corcom at interchange.ubc.ca
Sat Jun 10 00:05:35 PDT 2000
Colleagues:
Thanks for your kind words about the stories. I'm afraid you've only
succeeded in encouraging them! I get a tremendous amount from this
list, and so I like to share what i have learned along the way. I found
stories a tremendously useful way to get my head around Open Space when
i was first introduced to it, and so I try to share as often as I can in
return.
At any rate, I've had a busy week...opened space on the fly, as you've
already heard on Wednesday and yesterday and today I opened it again for
a one and a half day conference on the future of victim services in the
province of British Columbia.
We had 58 people there, 55 of whom stayed for the full 1.5 days. 35
topics were proposed and 25 were reported upon. The first day was four
1.5 hour dicussions plus opening and closing and day two was a morning
featuring a one hour convergence session, during which ten topics,
encompassing 20 of the original groups were moved forward.
The setting was the 31st floor of a hotel in Vancouver with a 270 degree
view of English Bay, Stanley Park and the North Shore mountains as seen
through floor to ceiling windows. Absolutely breathtaking.
The group was predominantly women, (only four men including me) most of
which were people who provided services to victims and witnesses of
crime. A few victims were there too, marking the first time the
government had actually consulted with "end users" (horribly sterile
term).
The leader, the Director of the Victims Services Division of the
Ministry of the Attorney General, was the model Open Space leader. She
struggled for weeks with the notion of "givens" and then decided that
she truly didn't want any. She opened the conference by explaining this
dilemma, and how I had tried to force her to think of the boundaries
(!), and she stated openly that she couldn't do it, that everything was
on the table, and that she would try her best to breathe life into all
that was presented. She really had come to peace with accepting some
very difficult consequences. This opening leant a lot of credibility to
the process, and I believe people kept their discussions "realistic" as
a result. There was a great deal of respect generated by her honesty
with the result that defining the givens was actually a process that got
transferred to the group.
The discusions proceeded smoothly, and I kept my eye on one in
particular. After 10 or so issues had come forward in the beginning,
someone jumped up and proposed one dealing with a large fund that the
government had set aside for support to victims. There was a lot of
controversey about this fund, and many ooohs and ahhhs were heard when
the issue was raised. The general consensus seemed to be that this was
the real issue, and a hot one at that.
I watched that group as it met, with nearly 20 people (by no means a
majority) gathered in a tight circle. Discussions were very respectful,
very thoughtful and really effective. The group took about two hours to
deal with it and provided a report. I noted the distinct lack of
positional statements and pontificating. One of the sponsoring group
noted that if this issue had been put on an agenda and sent out, people
would have come spoiling for a fight. The issue probably would have
consumed the conference. We both noted that, although it seemed to be
an important topic, nearly 2/3 of the participants found other more
important things to do. Their time would have been wasted had the
agenda dealt only with this issue.
When it came time for convergence, the topic received only four votes,
three of them from one person. To us it indicated one of two things:
either the issue had been exhausted, or people realized that there was
nothing they could do about it anyway, and so they spent their time more
wisely. I think it avoided a lot of frustration in the end, and the
sponsor was very pleased (and VERY surprised) with how pleasant the
discussion was.
Convergence was very natural and as the "voting" wrapped up the
particiapnts took it upon themselves to converge topics. In general,
totally appropriate topics emerged, and I only had to offer my opinion
on the preferably conservative nature of the process once. Despite this
10 groups formed with only five orphaned topics. I'm still not
satisfied with this type of convergence and will continue to search for
something more useful based on a lot of the thinking that has been
shared on this list. I know it's awkward when I get irrepressable
questions as I'm walking the circle, introducing the process. Whether
it's my delivery or the process I don't know, but it's not a comfortable
fit for me yet. At any rate, this was the nicest and most natural
convergence I have yet experienced. It helps to explain to the group
that this is about passion and not preference.
i had great success with the "Open Space Evaluation" which is just a
blank piece of paper taped near the entrance for people to scrawl their
thoughts on. I'm beginning a nice collection of these. Some of the
comments were nice compliments about the process, and some had
suggestions for improvments (none of which were useful -- add tables,
debreif after each session that sort of thing...notably these
suggestions came from people who "expereinced Open Space before" and who
preferred those elements from their last meeting -- grrrr...).
The closing cirlce was very powerful. The First Nations participants
took the opportunity to give eagle feathers to a few of the government
people who had been supportive for many years. This is sort of like
bestowing the Nobel Prize for Good Work, and is an extremely high
honour. This was not lost on any of the recipients who were reduced to
blubbering tears. All of the Aboriginal people at the conference stood
to honour the recipients and hug them after they were given a feather.
One of the recipients asked me why I wasn't standing with them, and I
simply replied "I think I'll just sit here and keep holding the
space." Also, while this was going on two bald eagles circled around
outside the windows. No surprise to me, but some thought that it was an
eerie coincidence.
I used an ending that I learned from Birgitt. When the talking stick (a
red marker) came back to me, I asked everyone to stand and turn around
so they were facing out of the circle. 3/4s of the group were looking
out at the spectacular view. I said simply :"The real Open Space is out
there in the world. This group will never be together again, but it
will always be behind you. When you feel ready, take a step forward and
return to the Open Space of the world taking everything we have done
together with you. Thank you."
That really captured the spirit of the moment, and I thank Birgitt for
this one. I'll use it again.
Sometimes this process is hard and trying and occaisionally nightmarish,
and sometimes I wonder at my good fortune for being able to make a
living doing this. Being prepared to be surprised taxes the nerves a
little, but I'm beginning to think if there is really any other way.
Thanks on this one to Birgitt for the ending, Michelle Cooper and Dianne
Gibault and many others who have been probing the convergence question,
and to all of you who keep me sharp with the great contributions on the
list. And it's probably time for my biannual graitude to Harrison for
giving it away. Twice in the past three weeks I've had people remark on
that spirit of generosity that permeates the process. I trace it back
to the originator...still, a remarkable act of kindness.
Chris
--
CHRIS CORRIGAN
108-1035 Pacific Street
Vancouver BC
V6E 4G7
Phone: 604.683.3080
Fax: 604.683.3036
More information about the OSList
mailing list