lights &/ shadows?

[Harrison Owen]

At 10:14 AM 7/3/2003 +0200, Susanne wrote:
>I have the image, that open space works always on the "mass of people",
>because it´s great, as we all know. What is with the ones, who are not able
>to take really part, cause of language problems, who gave up by life
>experience they could try to make a difference without being punished, who
>just depend so much on their job (children, bad education ...?) they wouldnt
>dare to put it on any risk, who just, as Marlene Walker Daniel reports in
>her great ethnologic field study for 1 - 10 percent of the people:
>"they just didn´t have anything they feel passionate about. 
 they would
>have been happier going back to their jobs after the first morning session
>when they saw the issues that were to be addressed by work groups. They
>preferred doing their jobs as they had always done and leaving others to
>work on the big picture." (Daniel, 1994)
>Yes, these people could be butterflies, and maybe they were beautiful. But
>being not passionate about anything and leaving others for the "big things"
>sounds to me more like "give up" then "beautiful" and attractive for even
>smalltalk. (hm... nice judgement though)
>But is it alright to say: you are responsible for what is happening here
>than? Maybe causing even more giving up, like selforganisation is for people
>who can speak, who dare, not for people like me?

I think what really is at issue here is the definition of "works." In the 
case of Rockport Shoes, about which Marlene wrote, that was a high energy, 
creative blast for sure -- and I would not dispute Marlene's estimate for a 
minute -- that 10% of the folks in attendance were less than obviously 
passionate, and may well have wanted to go home after the first morning -- 
but they didn't, and they could have. But even if they had gone home, as 
far as I am concerned Open Space "worked." I often think of Open Space as a 
Rorschach Test. What you see is what you got -- there is no predetermined 
content. If space is opened and everybody goes home -- OS still worked -- 
it is just that the people were passionate to go home. I have told the 
story of a company that invited me to do an Open Space about their future. 
We opened the space, and the people discovered that they had no future (one 
of those things that everybody knew -- but nobody was talking about), and 
so they effectively dissolved the company. Seems to me Open Space worked 
just fine. When we Open Space (alright, Michael -- the Sponsor opens Space) 
we take no responsibility for the people (participants) being or doing any 
particular thing -- except being totally and completely themselves, at 
least as far as they dare and care. The remarkable thing for me is that it 
seems that the people are always infinitely more wonderful, powerful, 
creative, innovative. . . than anybody ever thought. And the reason is a 
simple one -- until that moment, the people were kept (kept themselves) in 
small boxes and spaces so that nobody could see (including themselves) just 
how wonderful, powerful, creative, innovative. . . they actually were. That 
is what usually happens -- but if the space is opened, and everybody 
reveals themselves to be nothing but a dufus (I don't know how you would 
translate that) -- the Open Space worked fine -- the people are all dufuses.

For me Open Space works because self-organization works -- and has been 
working for 13.7 billion years. And the proof of that is that we are here 
to complain about how some things are not "working." In most cases, what we 
really mean is that things are not working according to our plan and 
preferences. But where did we ever get the idea that the cosmos was created 
for our personal gratification? Certainly it is true that some people in an 
Open Space environment seem to be miserable -- I confess to some sorrow 
about this, but my wish for them is that no matter what they choose to be 
-- that they be that with authenticity. Really get in touch with it, have a 
completely awful miserable day. Sounds awful, but I think it beats the 
hollow numb sleepwalking that many call life. After all, if they really see 
their true condition, they might just take the appropriate steps to change 
it. People who work in dictatorial environments and do so under heavy 
anesthesia are the truly sad ones, I think. Under such circumstances, I 
would hope that they might wake up -- get a life so to speak. And if they 
have to be miserable to get there...

Worrying that Open Space doesn't work because some people are miserable 
(even less than happy) is rather like feeling that life doesn't work 
because some people die. Of course, everybody dies -- and that's life! Now 
I grant you there are some folks who dream about freeze drying us, or 
finding the Fountain of Youth, but for myself, I will take the journey 
pretty much as it is. And when it is over, it is over -- at least in this 
realm of existence. And in the interim my experience is that whoever comes 
is the right people, whatever happens is the only thing that could have, 
and whenever it starts is the right time. That's life. It is also my 
experience of Open Space.

Harrison

>Harrison Owen

7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854 USA
phone 301-365-2093
Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com
Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm

OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu
Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html




*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20030703/d7fba70e/attachment-0016.htm>