when a client hires Open Space Technology, is this what she gets?

[Rhett Hudson/Chris Weaver]

Harrison,

Your message is like a four course brunch, plus blueberry pie.

Chris

----------
From: Harrison Owen <owenhh at mindspring.com>
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OSLIST] when a client hires Open Space Technology, is this
what she gets?
Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2000, 1:23 PM


At 10:28 PM 9/2/00 -0400, Birgitt wrote:

 This caused the manager to go onto the internet to find out a little more,
came upon my website, and wanted to know if she had hired a consultant who
would do a good job and deliver Open Space Technology as she now understood
it to be.

The name of the consultant was unfamiliar to me. I have no idea what the
consultant does that he calls Open Space Technology. I do know he charged a
lot. I said I did not know the consultant, couldn't speak for his work, and
then I e-mailed the manager a list of what key ingredients would be in an
Open Space Technology meeting and suggested questions that she ask of the
consultant. She phoned me back and wanted to know about standards of
performance. She said that she had hired Open Space Technology, in good
faith, because she was convinced it was the right thing to do. She assumed
that this is what she would get from someone who provided Open Space
Technology.

I believe strongly that situations such as this are going to cause a
backlash against Open Space Technology. I stand even more firmly in my
belief that each facilitator of Open Space Technology will facilitate in
accordance with his/her uniqueness as well as with his/her interpretation
and perception of what Open Space Technology is AND that certain key
ingredients must be attended to.

Years ago, when I worked in social services, the various agencies were
working hard, doing good works, and were filled with pride but not
necessarily focused on meeting the needs of the clients, working with the
clients on what the clients wanted. I feel the same at this moment about the
way we are offering Open Space Technology. Are we the ones interpreting the
needs of the clients in the same way social services did? Or are we
listening to what the clients want and meeting their needs? What if one of
their needs is assurance that if they hire Open Space Technology, that this
is what they will actually get? To date, in my experience, we do not offer
this. The client gets whatever the consultant chooses to deliver and calls
Open Space or Open Space Technology.

**********************************

No doubt about it. There are consultants out there who haven't got the whole
picture -- and/or fail to present it for whatever reason. There are also
clients out there who fail to do their homework and end up with an inferior
product. There are even clients out there who intentionally  purchase
something that they know won't work -- just so they can say, ""It didn't
work -- I tried" -- and then go back to doing just what they were doing
before. All sorts of folks, indeed.

And when Open Space is involved in these situations, it is problematic, sad,
and angry-making. All true. But I am not sure that any potential "cure"
would not be worse than the disease -- or something like that. Certainly,
those who write about Open Space should make best effort to provide the
"whole" picture. And those who offer training programs in Open Space (and
Birgitt does some wonderful work here) should do the same. But at the end of
the day there will be consultants who play with less than a full deck, and
clients who fail to do their "due diligence" search. So what about poor old
Open Space?

I think it will survive.

First off, there are also clients that do their due diligence -- and
Birgitt's conversation is a case in point. Secondly, even when Open Space is
done "poorly" it is usually better than what might have been done. And if it
is done wretchedly, doubtless there are disappointed folks, but in my
experience, there are more than a few participants who say to themselves --
This can't be all there is -- and make the effort to find the Real McCoy.
Personally, I love to run into there sorts of people. They are really
receptive, quickly get the picture, and more to the point, usually turn out
to be great advocates. And the "nasty" side of me also indulges in a in a
few chuckles, 'cause I know THAT consultant has just blown their
credibility...to say nothing of future employment.

Then we get to the interesting question of What is REAL Open Space?????
Having devoted more than a few pages to the subject, to say nothing of some
hours and years, I can honestly say -- I am still finding out. To be sure,
there are certain fundamentals, but how about the details? Like
"convergence." Certainly useful, and sometimes close to mandatory -- but not
always. For example, for 19 years we have been convening The International
Symposium on Organization Transformation. And never once have we had a
convergence session. And to the best of my knowledge nobody missed it.
Certainly not me. The several thousand folks who have gathered over the
years were not there to move to "concerted action" -- they came to
participate in an ongoing, always evolving, conversation about
transformation in organization. Certainly there have been definite outcomes,
including what might now be termed the field or practice of Organization
Transformation, a whole mess of books and articles -- and even Open Space
Technology. And never once did we do "convergence" -- a closing circle for
sure which was at once an ending and also a beginning for next year's
conversation -- but no convergence. Looking back, I rather suspect that the
power and accomplishments of the many "OTs" have not be compromised by this
lack, indeed the "lack" may well have been contributory to what I have felt
to be some very positive and useful outcomes.

So am I anti-convergence? Absolutely not -- but I find that the useful
criteria are "context and need." And both change with circumstances. So
what's right? It all depends.

Of course, one solution to the whole dilemma is that "we" (whoever "we" is)
offer some sort of formal certification in OST. But then we would have to
enforce it -- and spend a lot of time bringing the perpetrators of malignant
Open Space to the bar of justice. Actually, I would choose to spend my time
opening good space, and let the folks make their choice. At the end of the
day I suspect that Open Space (Technology) needs lots of Open Space -- and
it will survive -- or not.


Harrison

Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854 USA
phone 301-469-9269
fax 301-983-9314
Summer Phone 207-763-3261
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
website www.mindspring.com/~owenhh <http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh>
Open Space Institute website www.openspaceworld.org
<http://www.openspaceworld.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000904/ad597dcb/attachment-0017.htm>