Alternatives for Challenging Morning Circles

Sun Oct 14 21:52:37 PDT 2007

I love the questions you raise, Peggy.

They engage me.

"What best serves the group?" seems to have much to do with the person/people who has/have contracted you. And, the organizational culture along with their understanding of your style should have significantly influenced their decision of choosing you to facilitate.

I feel the same way as you do that there are not right and wrong answers. 

It's more a question of knowing our niche, as practitioners. And, if we have several niches, it's a question of knowing what the sponsor (client) wants. If there is not a clear client/sponsor, I guess it becomes a question for people who are providing leadership of the event or initiative. Thus, it gets more complicated.

I market myself as an open space facilitator. Thus, people who contract me have a certain expectation for how I work. 

In a reference letter re: a World Bank open space I facilitated, the sponsor wrote:  "...the group dynamics are tricky when you are bringing a group of high-powered professionals from 85 or so different countries, working on sometimes vastly different issues, some of whom are highly resistant to being "facilitated."...He didn't over facilitate, but he made sure that the newcomers had the guidance they needed." (reference letter is downloadable at www.johnengle.net)

I resonate with your words: "my bias would have been to  send people out to handle their "stuff" via breakout sessions and butterfly  conversations."

Unless the sponsor was pushing differently--which is unlikely given how i market myself as a minimalist in facilitation--I would have done the same as you.

thanks again for sharing your questions.

John
johnengle.net

Peggy Holman <peggy at opencirclecompany.com> wrote:       Sometimes we know a  highly emotional time is coming, particularly in  multiple day OS's.  What best serves the group when we know this is  coming?

 After years of experiencing the rhythm of groups at work, I almost always  know when people are bringing "downloads" with them into the morning  circle.  (It is particularly easy to predict when something powerful  happens the evening before.)

 For those who read the description of the Story Field Conference (SFC),  Wednesday morning was a turning point.  The morning circle was intense and  very controversial, and for most, highly productive.  As I have reflected  with other colleagues on the choice we made to use the morning circle as a  reflection space, I have wondered if our choice is what best served the  group.  In my conversations, three alternatives emerged, each with its  strengths and short comings.  I've shared them below.  

 I'd love to hear how others have handled such challenging moments.

 appreciatively,
 Peggy

 *************************************8

 When you know there will be lots  to process in the morning, here are three options:

 *  Do it in the circle
 *  Send the energy back out  into the breakout spaces
  *  And a  non-traditional thought:
 Take 30 minutes in groups of 4,  then 30 minutes in the large circle

 Doing it in the large  circle
 The pros:
 *  If it is a well hosted  space, it can the safest space in the room for those who bring a different  voice.  
 *  When there is as much to be surfaced,  the benefit of it being a collective experience can be a turning point, creating  a deep sense of shared experience and community.

 What can be lost:
 * People who find the space too  intense check out.  If the  gathering is held in a location that is easy to leave, they would  likely be gone for good.  
 *  It sets up a dynamic that everything of  significance needs to happen in the big group
 *  This significant opportuity  for people to have the experience of the fractal nature of conversation is lost  
 *  It breaks the lived  experience that this is a system in which the parts that care about someting are  handling it on behalf of the whole. 

 Keep the morning circle  short and send the intensity into the space
 The pros:  
 *  People experience the fractal nature of  conversation
 *  People learn and  experience that ideas can and do filter  back into the whole.  
 *  It allows people to meet their own  needs; those who are focused on "let's get it done" can do so and not be  subjected to stuff they don't want to be subjected to.  There is no tyranny of the whole  operating.  Much easier to follow  the law of two feet.

 What can be lost:
 * a different group of  people check out - the ones who have trouble speaking out because they  don't have a safe space
 *   some people take  their angst into butterfly conversations, which can help it come out in the  larger whole.  By going sideways  first in the small, helps clarity and confidence surface in the large  circle.  
 *  A risk is that the conversations never  happen.   

 Reflect in small groups that feed back into the  whole
 In the context of OST, it is the least known, since it isn't part of the  traditional form.  (Variation:  Having a home group, or buddy; can be a volunteer function)  

 The pros:
 *  It ensures some level of personal processing.  

 What can be lost:
 * a risk is the most important angst is  dissipated
 *  May be most comfortable  because has a foot in both worlds, allows processing time though it may not generate the benefits of disturbance.  
 *  May be best way to  suppress what might be creative dissonance.  

 One last note from the Story Field Conference: my bias would have been to  send people out to handle their "stuff" via breakout sessions and butterfly  conversations.  My colleagues - Mark Jones, Candi Foon and Anne Stadler -  felt that this would have caused the most marginalized voices to remain  silent.  As you reflect on your own experiences, I'm particularly  interested in this aspect of dominant culture voices and those who are least  heard or seen.

 BTW, I don't think there are right or wrong answers on  this.  Each alternative results in something useful and something  lost.  I'm just interested in understanding the consequences of our  different choices so that we can grow in wisdom and consciousness.

 ________________________________
Peggy Holman
The Open Circle  Company
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA  98006
(425) 746-6274  

 www.opencirclecompany.com

For the new edition of The Change Handbook, go to: 
www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook  

 "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get  burnt, is to become 
the fire".
  -- Drew  Dellinger
* * ========================================================== 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/20071014/5e56e4e8/attachment-0007.htm>