Principles, Process, and People

Sun Mar 13 10:31:44 PST 2005

Harrison, thank you for this, your honesty and perspective. I only want to respond to one thread of this rich fabric - how important it is to see the principles as descriptive. Which is to say how I find that being non-prescriptive is one of the ways OS is unique from its process peers. I recently played with the descriptive tone and intention of the principles and law language a bit: When people feel free to talk about what matters most to them, they will; When the right people free free to join the conversation, they will; When people feel free to do whatever they can, they will; When people feel free to move on to new conversations, they will.

Peace,

Jack

~~~~~~~~~~
jack ricchiuto
two.one.six/three.seven.three/seven.four.seven.five
www.designinglife.com / www.appreciativeleadership.org 

------------Original Message------------
From: Harrison Owen <hhowen at comcast.net>
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Date: Sun, Mar-13-2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Principles, Process, and People
What is becoming clearer to me as this conversation moves along is that my
initial discomfort with the "Trust the Process" frame of mind has nothing to
do with either the process (whatever that process might be) or the
principles which under lie it. Rather it is my concern that we have placed
our faith in arbitrary abstractions at the expense of some very concrete
realities - The People. In a word, process and principles become primary,
and the people are left in second place. 

I have profound respect for many of our processes in group work, and an
equal respect for the principles which have been articulated as the
under-pinnings. However, I think it is important to note that both the
processes and the articulated principles are second order derivatives. They
are our best guess as to how things might work. They are maps and not
territories. But the primary point of reference is, and remains, the people.
If we have done our work well, the processes and principles articulated will
closely coincide with the actual structures and dynamics of the people
(individuals and collective). And the proof of our success appears when the
people are enabled to do better what they have always been able to do.

Here on OSLIST we have had multiple and extended discussions of the process
of Open Space and its principles. Specifically: The Four Principles and The
Law of Two feet. I believe that discussion has been useful and worthwhile,
but I also think it is important to recognize that both the Four Principles
and the Law emerged from the Open Space experience - they did not and do not
create it. In a word, they are descriptive and not prescriptive. As a matter
of fact, Open Space "works" very well, thank you, without mention of either,
and in the first 3-4 years we opened a lot of space(s) without a trace
(verbally) of the "sacred" principles and the critical Law. So why or how
did they appear? In all honesty, I have to say there was no rational
decision involved - it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

But of course, good ideas come and go - and so why does mention of the 4
Principles and The Law of Two Feet assume such a central place in the
introduction? Explaining the mechanics is a five minute deal - but we
typically take 15-20 minutes by way of introduction. Reasonable question:
Why waste the time? Why not just cut to the chase and get on with the
business?

I obviously cannot answer for everybody, but for myself I find it effective
to spell out the Principles and the Law NOT to specify what people should
do, but rather to acknowledge what will happen anyhow, what is true (I
think) in any case. In short, they always apply, whether said or unsaid.
However, by articulating both they are brought to consciousness,
acknowledged for what they are, and welcomed as positive and necessary
elements for deep conversations and relationships. The fact that upon first
hearing the Four Principles and The Law many participants perceive them as
strange or "counter-intuitive" says more, I think, about the cultural
baggage we carry than the nature or "truth" of the statements. And the fact
that many (most?) people spend a lot of time and energy, supported by
multiple cultural strictures, attempting to defeat, avoid, or NOT DO what
the Principles and Law affirm and invite is the source of massive amounts of
frustration and guilt. Mention of both Law and Principles at the beginning
can eliminate mountains of guilt - and guilt in my experience is a dreadful
waste of time and energy. And of course, if some people wish to sustain
their guilt, that will be their pleasure and problem. 

If Open Space had evolved as other such approaches seem to have evolved -
after 20 years we would have massive accretions and added complexities all
contained in thick manuals of detailed instructions. In point of fact, Open
Space Technology is pretty much what it was on the first day. If anything it
has been on a strict diet. As I recall it took something like 2½ hours to
open the first encounter - and that was without benefit of Law and
Principles. Lord knows what we talked about - but it all worked. To be sure
there have been some additions, particularly at the end of a gathering as
the group seeks to move to action. We call that convergence, and the first
iterations were pretty complex. Over time simplicity seems to have won out
and now the general practice appears to be - just open some more space!
(Thank you Chris et al - even I have finally given up voting :-)).

For me the guiding thought has been - Think of one more thing NOT to do. It
has been a way of stripping off the non-essentials in order to reveal what
is natural and effective. In following this notion I think we (certainly I)
have watched process and principles (at least the man-made ones) diminish in
importance leaving the people to do what only they can do for themselves. 

Wisdom and discretion clearly dictate that I should end this missive right
here. However, it may have occurred to you that there was present a certain
(implied) critique of related approaches such as Appreciative Inquiry,
Future Search, or Dialogue (to name a few). The critique is present, but I
need to make exquisitely clear that it is a critique offered in profound
respect and gratitude for the individuals who have given us those
approaches, many of whom I consider old colleagues and friends. There is no
question that the insights offered and the results achieved have been
massively important and effective. Personally I have learned enormously at
the feet of these people about the power of appreciation, the elegance of
dialogue, and the importance of common ground. But I must also say that it
has been my personal experience in every Open Space that the elegance of
dialogue, the nutriment of appreciation, and the healing power of common
ground have all appeared all by themselves. The people did it. 

I must also confess, and this really is personal, that every time that I
have been in a situation where someone attempted to combine Open Space with
one of these processes or insert them in the midst of Open Space, I felt
that the result was less than positive. Either there was little to no gain -
because the same results show up naturally in Open Space, or the addition
was disruptive and counter-productive because it broke the natural rhythm
and flow. As I said to my friend Marv Weisbord several years ago, "Marv, I
think you are working too hard."

One could certainly view my reaction as an outbreak of ego and a defense of
"my" process. As one client told me, "Harrison you are a nice fellow, but
you have major ego problems."  Doubtless, my ego can get bent out of shape
just like the next fellow's - but it never really felt that way. In the
first place, how could you call something that showed up in the bottom of a
martini glass, "My process?"  Especially when subsequent experience and
investigation has shown, I think, that the process involved had nothing to
do with my invention. I just lucked into something that had been around for
14,000,000 years.  Drunk and Lucky? Guilty as charged! 

So what next? I just hope that we can keep the cart and the horse in proper
order. Processes and principles, at least as we articulate them, are always
second order derivatives. Very useful as maps or guides, but never to be
confused with the rich territory - The People.

Harrison

Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, Maryland   20845
Phone 301-365-2093

Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com <http://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 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:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist

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

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20050313/51f55ae0/attachment-0016.htm>