AW: 2108 -- Remember the Number

Thu Jun 12 06:16:17 PDT 2003

At 10:09 PM 6/11/2003 -0400, Birgitt wrote:

>The group raised a number of questions that we hope we can do some
>learning from you about.
>1. The next time, would you have had participants announce their topics or
>would you have left the announcing part out? What happened to the energy
>when this part took so long (about two hours?)?

The actual "announcements" took about 30 min. We had, in fact allowed 2
hours from the start until the beginning of the first session -- just to be
safe. As it turned out, the group was a little slow in arrival (big party
the night before) so we got started for real a little "late" -- which of
course was the right time. And so it turned out that everything took place
in the "standard 1 and 1/2 hours. I would never leave the announcements out
-- for lots of reasons. 1) Hearing the topics is a natural "edit" -- if
somebody says "my topic" I don't have to. 2) Announcing the topic is and
act of commitment -- most important expression of passion AND
responsibility. And yes -- it did seem to go on. . . it always does, I
find. But it was truly awesome.

>2. The next time, would you limit the number of topics as you did this
>time. Your agenda wall with its very clear organization for topics  was
>interesting but it is my understanding that you planned for 160 topics but
>many more were generated and there was no planned way to deal with them.
>It didn't look like the agenda wall left any room for the "unplanned". And
>yet, maybe limiting the topics was necessary.

We did not limit the topics. We had guessed (or more exactly Michael and I
guessed) that 150 would be the max. Prior to the gathering Michael and I
placed informal bets (Beer for all team members bought by the loser) -- but
both were off by a wide margin. So we all drank a lot of beer. As for more
spaces -- just blew up more balloons. Seemed to work perfectly.

>3. The next time, would you have used cushions on the floor as you did to
>accomodate the number of people. We thought that there was probably a lot
>of discomfort esp when we became aware of how long people had to be in
>their seats for the agenda building.

Given the space available -- there was no choice but cushions. We did have
chairs around the edges for those who's age or egos prevented sitting on
the floor. Personally i didn't hear any complaints, and for sure the
cushions (along with the balloons and floating signs) contributed to the
total atmosphere. So yes -- chairs would have been nice. But the cushions
were brilliant (Michael's Idea).

>5. Could one of you have facilitated this meeting on your own or did it
>really require the two of you to "open" and then "hold" the space. What
>was your reflection about it being so much male energy in the
>facilitation--two men opening the space instead of one male and one
>female? Did you feel that sharing the opening of the space was a positive
>effect on your own energy or did co-facilitating deflect some of your
>energy to your partner?

One person, speaking both English and German could easily have handled the
situation. But doing it together (speaking just for myself) was a real
treat and privilege. The Program said that I would do the opening, and
Michael would translate. At the very beginning, I made it clear that was
not the case. I said, "Michael will do his thing, I will do mine -- and
with luck we will arrive at the same place." We did. When it comes to the
male/female energy thing I have to say that it had occurred to me to invite
a woman partner, and there would have been a number of wonderful
candidates. I chose Michael for two reasons. First, I had absolute
confidence in his ability to deal effectively with the difficult logistics
and work effectively with the client. Not that others couldn't have -- but
with Michael, there wasn't even a speck of worry. The second reason, and
probably the major reason, was that Michael and I had worked together long
enough and often enough so that I knew there would be an easy flow between
us. Two people in a single dance. I called it a "duet" -- changing
metaphors. But dance or song -- it did flow. And was there too much male
energy? That is a question that somebody else will have to answer, but my
feeling is, no. Male and female energy is something that all of us,
regardless of gender, possess. Effective Open Space facilitation requires
the subtle, conscious, and sensitive use of both. Some people can do this
first time, no practice, just go. Personally I have found that I can "do"
male energy quite well -- but I have to make a special intent to honor my
feminine. It has been an interesting journey of 67 years, but I think I am
making some progress. Perfect, no -- but progress.

>6. What is the real advantage in a large OST meeting such as this one?
>What was accomplished that could be cited as  tangible results? Would it
>have been better to break the large group into smaller ie:600 person
>simultaneous OST meetings? Would that have been better for the
>participants. We noted in the pictures that some of the breakout groups
>had hundreds of participants and we were imagining that it would not be
>very fulfilling---but Erich pointed out that likely these in fact were
>like classes continuing on with masters from the "constellation work" so
>they were not meant to be really interactive.

There is something truly awesome when you have the  Whole System in the
room. There is a richness and energy that you will not find in any other
situation. At a practical level -- our experience in Wuerzburg demonstrated
to me that given the space, numbers aren't an issue. I have tried dividing
large groups in the same area -- and found that they all got back together
again anyhow. Of course, we have also done simultaneous, multi-site OS --
but that was due to budget and travel constraints. And were it possible to
do them again, I would have opted for a single site. The fact that the
break out sessions got rather large does not relate to the total size of
the group. I have worked with groups 1/4 the size (500) and had large (75)
sessions. My learning is that whatever we learned about "Optimal Group
Size" isn't worth much -- The real criteria in not numbers, but does it
work? I have seen groups of 2 being totally dysfunctional and groups of 75+
just flying. And of course there is always the Law of Two Feet. If the
group is too big (multiple issues) use 'em. Of course, there is a learning
curve,. and in a one day OS, some folks are still caught in concrete. But
they learn.

>7. In what circumstances would you recommend such a large OST meeting and
>what could the client expect to achieve?

Criteria for use??? Same as always. Issue of major, common concern, lots of
diversity. mind blowing complexity, presence of conflict... Open Space. The
numbers don't matter.

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/20030612/a4d947d4/attachment-0016.htm>