advanced butterfly

[Harrison Owen]

Justin -- There are obviously places in this world for therapists and coaches, and the good ones can be extrodinarily helpful at particular moments in our lives. I am not sure that Jim Rush considers himself to be either, but it seems to me that the role he has set for himself falls somewhere under either or both of these models. I think that the function of Open Space is perhaps different and certainly broader, although a number of people (myself included) have found Open Space to be very powerful therapy, and for sure I find myself coached by masters in every Open Space, even if they never thought of themselves as "coaches." I have also heard it said among my coach and therapist friends that they are at their best when they do the least -- and best of all when it seems that they do nothing but open some doors and windows (space) so that the client/patient can do "it" all themselves.

Harrison

 
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD  20854
USA
301-365-2093
207-763-3261 (summer)
website www.openspaceworld.com
Personal Website www.ho-image.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Justin T. Sampson 
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:18 AM
  Subject: Re: advanced butterfly


  Harrison Owen wrote:

  > I suppose where I may take some issue with both Reinhard and
  > Josef concerns the need to provide additional services,
  > methods, techniques (in the Open Space environment) in order to
  > facilitate the emergence of whole people. Part of the
  > difficulty is that when such "services" are provided the people
  > (participants) tend to see their emergence as whole people as
  > the product of that service -- and not be fully aware that in a
  > very real sense they did it all by themselves, and further that
  > they are ultimately responsible for their own emergence. I am
  > sure that neither Reinhard nor Josef would fall into what I
  > might call the "Do-Me syndrome" -- in which people come to some
  > gathering or event and expect to be "done-to" by the "experts."
  > But that happens, and I see no value added, only the
  > continuation of a destructive dependency on "The Experts."

  Similarly, Michael Herman wrote in another thread:

  > i'm not interested in bringing others in to do things that we
  > think participants can't do for themselves. i want to invite
  > participants to do it *all* for themselves. that, to me, is
  > what open space is for... discovering that we can do it for
  > ourselves... that we have the bullet points, the artful sketch,
  > the passion, the responsiblity, the vision and the action
  > within each and all of us.

  These comments are very interesting to me. As a new learner in the
  group process arena, trying to feel out the root wisdom of the
  various process gurus, I find myself drawn most strongly at once
  both to Open Space Technology and to Dynamic Facilitation (a la
  Jim Rough), which is very different in this sense. That is, DF
  relies heavily on a facilitator actively drawing out and
  reflecting each participant's feelings and ideas. Both approaches
  start a meeting with no agenda, and both have some notion (maybe
  not the same one?) of self-organization as a fundamental
  principle, following the energy of the group as it moves and
  evolves.

  As a shy/quiet person myself, I really like the idea of having a
  facilitator present to effectively hold the space open for me
  right then and there when I have some thoughts to get out.
  Otherwise the thoughts might just fester and keep me distracted
  while I try in vain to find the right/safe time to jump in. On the
  other hand, the times when I've felt this need most intensely have
  been not in Open Space, but in work or personal settings in the
  presence of some kind of dominance relationship (such as a
  manager/boss).

  Come to think of it, I also felt this need in the NCDD workshops
  where there was a presenter with some structure for the workshop,
  but not in the sessions of the brief Open Space. Do you all find
  that to be the case, that the simple fact of convening
  spontaneously in Open Space makes a more active facilitator less
  necessary? Do you still see circumstances where you'd prefer or
  recommend a small-group meeting with a more active facilitator
  over a larger-group Open Space event?

  As another angle, actually the most affecting and inspiring thing
  for me at NCDD was the Playback Theatre showcase session. After a
  day of intellectually interesting but otherwise somewhat stale and
  disconnected sessions, Playback snapped me right back into
  presence and connection both with the actors and the other
  audience members in a very powerful way. Playback could be seen as
  being another "active facilitator" process -- the actors stand
  before the audience to draw out and reflect their feelings and
  stories and ideas through improvisational acting. How do you all
  see this relating to the issues above? In a perfect Open Space
  event, how might a Playback Theatre session take place?

  Cheers,
  Justin

  *
  *
  ==========================================================
  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/20060823/548d8971/attachment-0016.htm>