help

[Diane Gibeault]

Hi,

 

Chris you say: It's not a reticence to have a circle in this case...it's a
purely logistical consideration in terms of a few other things that are
happening around the Open Space - meals and an opening speaker.


Speaker can have a greater impact speaking in a circle as has been said
already; if that person is not comfortable, I've created an oval U-shape
with an opening at the end or a round shape with an opening for the speaker
to stand (where chairs would have been), It's quick and easy to redo the
circle when that part is over - usually during a break before the opening.

Meals: plan the kind of food people can put in a plate and carry with them;
to vary at other meals, have an open lunch box they can fill at a buffet
table. Creates more mobility for multiple conversations during meals - a
plus for communications and building relationship!

 

Walls : Another idea that can help and add a touch of creativity: clothes
lines hooked from posts or existing hard surface if any, lying flat along
the cloth walls to attach topics, posters, reports etc 


Tables : Given many know already of Open Space, the tables may communicate
lack of trust even if that is not the case as you say.  

 

Circle: I'd work really hard at saving the circle for its symbol and power
in communicating principles of equal footing for participation, emerging
leadership from everywhere, openness and a break from the past and usual
hierarchical way of doing things and finally, the effect all this has on
creativity and deeper reflection. Why potentially deprive present and future
participants and organizers of higher levels of performance and results? 

 

Most importantly, what to call it. That is the key question here in my view.
The many suggestions made on the list are good and sometimes, these methods
already go by another name like Lisa pointed out earlier about Birds of a
Feather. So why not do Birds of a Feather and call it that and even add a
few principles borrowed from OST to open it up some more? Given OST is known
to some, I would prefer not to call the process OS if it has tables so
expectations are not created and therefore, set up for a let down.  

 

More importantly, using the name OST or OS circulates a distorted picture to
those not familiar with it and spreads around a compromised more structured
picture of OS to other group settings that will then not benefit of the
power of the circle and messages associated with it. With those
participants, he open approach will be more easily set aside in the future
by citing this example with tables since we tend to do what we are already
comfortable with. 

 

In Canada, we have seen this happen in a some very large organizations.
Again a few weeks ago, I met facilitators - and they have their own internal
network - who say they facilitate Open Space and what they describe has lots
of structure and control as the example they were given over 12 years ago by
a facilitator that preferred the traditional way of facilitation and who did
not trust the process fully. Spreading a perception is like opening a pillow
of feathers. You can't put them back in the pillow once they've gone with
the wind. 


You're right Chris, these conversations with the client make for long days
but it's great to see that you are bringing movement in their thinking.

 

The best to you with this interesting challenge.

 

Diane


*
*
==========================================================
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/20090401/82e5e823/attachment-0016.htm>