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

Harrison Owen owenhh at mindspring.com
Tue Sep 5 13:44:18 PDT 2000


At 04:14 AM 9/5/00 +0700, you wrote:
>Hi Harrison,
>
>I'm back with my questions,
>and they are very close to the point you are discussing now.
>
>If the whole process as we discovered with you - just 20 minutes of saying
>rules, then self-organizing, so how it came to the process of action planning?
>
>that is just people intentions and movings. right?

Action planning usually needs to get specific. So you certainly start with
people's "intentions and movings" -- but I would get them to write it down,
and best of all make a public commitment to take the necessary action.
Typically this comes from the conveners of the groups, and then other
people can sign on as well to help.

>
>so how facilitator should start the second day or finish the first one? is
>there any special "pushing" or the closing evening session is just a
>discussion of what people want to discuss?

sometimes it helps to review what happened the previous day -- but I
wouldn't spend much time on that. What I  would do is to ask the people to
dig deeper and make sure that EVERYTHING that they really care about has
been put on the wall. If they were a little timid the day before, just
remind them -- this is the last call. And if they don't put it up -- they
can't go home saying, "But they never talked about what I was interested in."

>What is real opening space? - that is the question of Birgitt to me. I
>like to learn it as well... if possible, what is it just for YOU.

Goodness --- you certainly ask the hard ones!!!! I guess for me, real open
space is safe enough so that people can really talk about what they care
about, and start on the process of taking useful action. Safe Space
requires that they have the time too -- for a complex, conflicted issue,
there has to be time to work. But it can't be too safe -- there is a risk,
life is a risk. And here is where passion is important. I guess a useful
criteria is that the space is safe enough for passion to show up. How''s that?

>
>best wishes
>
>Elena Marchuk, Novosibirsk
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU]On Behalf Of Harrison
>Owen
>Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 8:24 PM
>To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
>Subject: Re: when a client hires Open Space Technology, is this what she gets?
>
>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
>Open Space Institute website www.openspaceworld.org

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
Open Space Institute website www.openspaceworld.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000905/98d4cfd0/attachment-0017.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list