Feelings and Thoughts on OSonOS Berlin

[Harrison Owen]

At 12:42 PM 11/5/00 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:stp at online.be>Francis Gastmans
>>To: <mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 12:08 PM
>>Subject: Feelings and Thoughts on OSonOS Berlin
>>
>>
>>I experienced little Open Space in the small groups. At home and at 
>>school we didn't learn to listen carefully, we learned to debate, to 
>>discuss, to fight for our opinion. We are not grown up with an open mind 
>>and an open heart, as adults we still have to learn it. Open Space gives 
>>us the opportunity to leave old habits and to open ourselves for the 
>>others. But it is difficult.  When we meet eachother our old habits tend 
>>to come in the meeting.
>>Another observation: people talked and talked, just a few persons asked, 
>>gave me an inspiring question. I somethimes had the feeling that some of 
>>the participants liked to hear themselves talking. For me this attidude 
>>closes the mind, closes the circle. A good question opens the mind.
>>My lessons:
>>A. Together with the Law of the Two Feet maybe its necessary to tell the 
>>Law of the Two Ears: the more you listen the more important words are 
>>exchanged, the less you listen (= the more you talk) the less important 
>>words are exchanged. ..."The Spirit will come to you by listening not by 
>>talking" ... "Questions are more open than answers"
>>B. When I organise an OS, shall I tell people about a few pitfalls or 
>>shall I leave it all open to the dynamics of the group?
>>< When I do Open SPace I usually tell people of what makes up a good 
>>dialogue,(different from discussion) that is: start with a round, use the 
>>talking stick (which I place in the middle of the circle together with 
>>these rules of thumb), listen with 100% attention to the one who is 
>>talking, share the time, don´t gossip, talk in I-statements (at least in 
>>Sweden we tend to use the impersonal word one or man, when we actually 
>>talk about ourselves). and end with a round to have the subject and 
>>process completed.

My experience of Berlin was (sadly) chopped up -- coming in late as I did. 
And I do apologize!!!! But the few groups I participated in seemed to work 
very well. Doubtless there were others... but that is always the case. I 
can't help but wonder whether the number of "non-functional groups" was 
more than usual. Since the data was not gathered, nor can it ever be, that 
is a wonderment that will remain. And perhaps the situation could have been 
improved, had "we" (whoever "we" is) introduced Dialogue, The Four magical 
Principles of Proper Group Performance, or some such other thing. My 
experience to date suggests not. Either such additions are not heard 
(listened to) in which case they do no good -- or the new process "works" 
in that particular group (people do dialogue) but at the expense of closing 
down the space. Personally, I applaud the intent of Dialogue, but feel very 
uncomfortable and constrained when it is used "on me." I guess it is just 
the rebel in me.

So what to do? I believe the Law of Two Feet is key, and key to an 
understanding of use of the law is a profound realization of my personal 
responsibility for the quality of my own learning -- which absolutely 
requires clear listening and clear speaking. All of this (I have found) is 
not something learned by formula or by practicing a specific procedure. 
Life is too complex for any formula or procedure, and exceptions turn out 
to be the rule. All is not lost, however, because I also find that given 
the time, people naturally learn how to exercise the Law of Two feet -- 
responsibly, elegantly, and quite profitably for all concerned.  But it 
does take time, and there is a learning curve.

If I were to have made any changes in Berlin, it would have been to consign 
the whole Convergence Process (the second day) to a group, should anybody 
have cared to convene it -- and let the Space roll on for two whole days. 
There is nothing wrong with doing Convergence, but it is not always 
essential either (in my view). There are times, and I think OSONOS is such 
a time, when what we need and want is just some real, solid, on-going 
conversation. After all, as a group we were not gathered to DO anything -- 
no new project, no implementation on Monday morning. So why bother to 
converge???

Had we had a second full day in Open Space, I think the reactions would 
have been rather different. Indeed, the comments I heard about not 
listening, and too much talking are precisely the sorts of comments I 
anticipate with  any new group at the end of a First Day -- and those 
comments in turn provide exactly the needed launch for a deeper Second Day 
-- with lots of listening, talking and real communication.  And nothing has 
been added -- just more space.

Historically, OSONOS has always been two whole days of spacey Yak-Yak. 
Maybe it is just the conservative antiquarian in me, but I would look 
forward to more of the same. At the same time I salute, applaud and deeply 
thank Michael and the whole crew for giving us something we will always 
remember. It was GRAND.




>>Harrison Owen
>
>7808 River Falls Drive
>Potomac, MD 20854 USA
>phone 301-469-9269
>fax 301-983-9314
>website www.mindspring.com/~owenhh
>Open Space Institute website www.openspaceworld.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20001105/6e7bb5c2/attachment-0017.htm>