Comparing methodologies (was: That American bloke in France) (long)

Sat Sep 13 08:59:16 PDT 2003

Martin:

Thanks for your information about OST in France and for your notes on
methodologies.

Some comments on this last topic:

When I was trying to understand the "method" I was using to "Teach
Management to Engineering Students" - that was an unknown method (even to
myself...) - I come across Bunker and Alban's book on LGI. And then I
ordered - and I red - books on RTSC, FS and OST. Indeed I have chosen OST
against the others!

I have not attended sessions with the first two methods but the books were
very lively and, with my experience of other facilitation methods, I think
that I made a clear idea of each of them. Of course, I would like to attend
sessions on both - mostly to confirm (or not) my opinions below.

What I disliked in both of the other methods was the fact that the
facilitators "choreographed" the scene and acted in a "directive way", and
the role of the other meeting participants was very limited and not
self-organizing at all.

Those other methods claim that they are non-directive. But, IMHO, they are
directive - and maybe even the worst case of directiveness - because it is
a directiveness that simulates that it is not such. In my country we call
that "paternalistic" facilitation methods. The facilitator that says "this
is a democratic process - everyone MUST talk!" is similar to the parent
that gives a child the order "be spontaneous!" (An impossibility, as
Watzlavsky pointed out long ago)

Having said that, I agree that the idea that having a mix-max design team
to prepare for an OST meeting is not impossible and is similar with what we
normally do in preparation work with the sponsor team - and I even use the
"design team concept" in some of my "Interactive IS methods". But I have
some other small doubts...

At 10:10 08-09-2003 +0100, Martin Leith wrote:

>One of the explicit principles of RTSC, "Reality is a key driver",
>is to redesign this sequence of events at any given moment if what is
>happening in the room suggests that such a redesign is called for.

The design team is monitoring, controlling and directing the event, isn't
it? They act as if the participants were not competent and grown ups...

>To put this another way, RTSC is a philosophy and a set of
>principles, whereas the other Category 1 methods are, if you like, recipes.

I can't see the difference. They all seem recipes to me. But I never saw
some of them "happening". Can you clarify why RSTC is not a recipe? Having
read Jacobs' first book I felt I was reading a cookbook - which is not
necessarily bad. But I preferred Harrison's cookbook

>Note that
>there is a still a pre-designed sequence (circle, session offers, sign-up,
>OS sessions, more OS sessions, and so on) but that the activities taking
>place within this very tight and explicit structure are designed by the
>participants. Or rather, by a subset of the participants - i.e. the ones
>that choose to offer sessions. I'm just noticing that this isn't so very
>different from RTSC, where the activities are designed by ... a subset of
>the participants!

I agree there is a "tight and explicit structure" in OST. In my opinion it
is that "rigid structure” that allows for the "even more rigid and implicit
structure of «normal» organizations and conventional meeting methodologies"
to be (partially) displaced for the duration of the meeting. OST doesn't
try to "change" the normal habits and mental models of the participants. It
offers, for the duration of the meeting, another rigid structure.
Experience shows that within this second structure new self-organizing
behaviors are elicited and metanoia happens - the old mental models are -
at least in some cases - changed by the participants themselves, mainly
because the structure - and NOT the facilitator - is the regulator of the
meeting.

In what concerns your point that in OST (like in RTSC) it's a subset of the
participants that "design" the activities, in my opinion there is a big
difference. In RTSC a design team appoints itself as the only controller of
the event. In OST, ALL participants can propose a session and all have the
opportunity to decide if they will propose or not an issue. And every
participant can participate in changing what is happening speaking out at
the two diary circles. Or speaking with the two feet

Again, IMO, there is a big difference in everyone having that possibility
or only some auto-appointed ones working as the masters (facilitators) of
the choreography.

>In fact, if someone were to suggest that RTSC is _more_ emergent than OST,
>it would be hard to disagree. Using the RTSC model, if things start going
>what we quaintly call "tits up" here in the UK, the design team calls a
>break and quickly redesigns the agenda. Under OST, if something similar
>happens, the facilitator does little or nothing, trusting (hoping? praying?)
>that matters will resolve themselves.

Again the same difference already pointed out. And, as a small comment, I
think that the OST facilitator that really "trusts" the process and the
people in very different from the one that only "hopes" and completely
different from the one that "preys" or the other that "intervenes". Again,
in my opinion, the point in "holding the space" is to be able to "do
nothing" (with elegance), instead of intervening.

The facilitator that trusts the process is the opposite to the facilitator
that intervenes during the event or beforehand (for instance, "reminding"
the participants that they MUST let everyone speak or they MUST speak from
"I" statements, etc) - this is not OST, as the facilitator is not
"invisible" and is tacitly "saying" that he/she doesn't trust the
participants and the process.

>OK, I'm being a bit provocative here, but viewed from the client's
>perspective RTSC and its siblings can look much more attractive than OS.

Yes, Martin, I have noticed that. And thanks for your provocations. I have
added some ones of my own. Let us see what will happens next ;-)

Best regards

Artur

PS. Indeed I love provocations - as I also love the "Po" word of Edward de
Bono. And I think that quite often, against the clear expression of
provocation, disagreement and even discussion (a very useful tool that the
Greeks invented 25 centuries ago), and under such names as "dialogue" or
"appreciation" what really happens is what Argyris and Schon called "Model
2" - a model for never discussing the real important questions, under the
name of "dialogue". And when dialogue doesn't work, people is so unused to
"discussion" that the only resort is to send there the army :-((

*
*
==========================================================
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