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

Tue Sep 5 22:26:06 PDT 2000

SOUNDS CHALLENGING. THANKS!
  -----Original Message-----
  From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU]On Behalf Of Harrison
Owen
  Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 3:44 AM
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
  Subject: Re: when a client hires Open Space Technology, is this what she
gets?

  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/20000906/080bf1d1/attachment-0017.htm>