Positive space invaders

[Michelle Cooper]

Great questions Dennis.  Some thoughts below:
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Cowan <cowandp at GIL.COM.AU>
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Date: March 08, 2000 4:53 PM
Subject: Positive space invaders



>>The issues raised for me.
>
>Until recently I had felt a degree of guilt over this "change of process"".
>Was this really open space ?
>
I think we tried to define what is and is not open space before on thes
listserve without a clear conclusion.  It seems to me if the whole group
decides to go forward with a different direction, then we leave that to the
group to decide and support them in whatever ways needed.  The beauty of OS
is that that can happen, unlike other structured processes that don't even
permit the issue to come forward.  Like Harrison suggested, I have dealt
with a similar issue by having them post the new direction as a session and
see if everyone attends.  That way, people really can use the law of two
feet and there is true consensus.

As far as guilt, I will share the advice of my best friend.  You do what you
think is best in the situation, learn from it and then let go. That is all
you can do. Chris' words are helpful - having a good heart.  I ask myself
"whose needs am I serving" whenever I am asked or enticed to intervene.  If
I feel satisfied that it is not my own ego, but the needs of the group, I
proceed. Sometimes I am happy with the intervention or non-intervention, and
sometimes not....but each time I grow.  Whatever happens is.......

>At the moment I still have a degree of confusion over what open space
means.
 >If as a facilitator my job is not to control the space but to keep it open
>, then whatever the group chooses to do is their responsibility ?
>
>Is keeping the space open providing the opportunity or is it following the
>process.  I think it is providing the opportunity.
>
>If it is their space - how can there be space invaders ?

I think of space invaders as those people who try to impose their will on
the group (usually a CEO type) and to lead the group in a direction the
majority doesn't want to go.  That is where the posting of the topic and
giving people choice about attending prevents this from happening.

My most recent experience was that one group was meeting about a conflicted
issue. They decided that they would stay on this issue all day (a merger of
two organizations) so that it could be "resolved".  At noon time, some
participants came to me to say they thought that their meeting needed to be
facilitated in order to move the process forward. I did not do that and
explained why.  There were still many other topics and discussions happening
and Imy role was to hold space for the entire meeting.  Instead, talked with
them about their concern....had that been raised in the group?  (It hadn't
been).  Suggested that that was a good starting point.  I encouraged them to
look within themselves to resolve the issue.  If they could not move forward
and did not feel there was anything more they could contribute or learn,
they could use the law of two feet.  Their conclusions or recommendations
might include the use of a facilitator for next steps.  They regrouped after
lunch and did just that....left part of the group to  work through where
they were stuck and others went on to join different sessions.

It was great growth for me to not intervene and facilitate the group (jump
in and rescue syndrome that I am overcoming) and not to have guilt!!! The
intervention was limited to asking them the questions that helped them to
take the initiative themselves.
>
>If we negotiate the theme with the managers only and not all of the
>participants - whose space is it ?
>
>Are participants volunteers in that space ?
>
Setting the theme or invitation is done to entice people to attend.  I
insist that participation be voluntary (although I have learned later that
people were often "volunteered")  However, no matter what happened up front
or how people get there, the space, in my opinion, belongs to the
participants.  If the space is open and people feel safe, the process has
taken care of any issues like this e.g., the person who did not want to be
there used the law of two feet and went back to the office. OS is a great
leveller.

>Will open space eventually go the same way as encounter groups did ?
ie>they lost credibility as a process when they participants were no longer
>volunteers - The law of 2 feet may address this.
>
I don't expect it will go away because it is not just a tool....it is a way
of being.  Between using open space and using process facilitation methods
that honour the spirit of open space when open space is not quite right (a
more defined outcome), there are few other "tools" that I feel I inspired to
use or fit for me anymore.   I do get a little concerned when people tell me
that they have experienced a meeting called open space technology that is
replete with no circle,  tables of 8,  and guided discussion etc.  These
meetings do not usually have the degree of positive impact of an OST meeting
and can colour the opinion of those considering using open space.  However,
when they then experience OST, they know the difference and are its greatest
advocates.

As Harrison and Chris have articulated well (talking sticks and medicine
wheels), the power of open space goes beyond the form of the meeting.  The
whole person gets involved - and there are transformative changes that occur
as a result of the exchanges that happen at many levels and it feels
familiar to us, in our cellular memory.  Perhaps as we evolve, we will
discover even better ways to create and hold space that achieves the kind of
outcomes that open space does.  I think open space might be a way for us to
get to that next level of being.

>Musings of a mad monk ( I am not by the way , mad or a monk - I just liked
>the feel of the phrase)
>
>Regards
>
>denis
>
>denis cowan , brisbane , australia.  fax ** 61 7 32681869 tel ** 61 7
38363056
>email:  cowandp at gil.com.au