Open spacisms

Diane Gibeault diane.gibeault at rogers.com
Tue Dec 1 21:33:09 PST 2009


Hi everyone,

 

The question of Open spacisms raised recently on this list struck a cord
because I had been thinking about some of my experimentations around Open
Space, some that I consider keepers and others that I have let go a while
back.

 

Peggy (Holman) in your recent Nov 23 message about Honouring each other,
you said different things about open spacisms (the shouldn’ts in OS practice
that Kaliya had first raised) and wanting to experiment with them like many
do. I agree with the examples you gave of your personal evolution around OS.
I copied those extracts below to keep a link to that thread. 

 

Here are a couple of my keeper experiments and an experiment that I let go
of.

 

A Keeper I’ve experimented with: Personal action plan. 

 

-       Even for OS events where collective action plans have been
developed, I invite participants to silently work on a few key questions
about what they personally have passion to move forward in relation with the
theme of the OS event. This lasts just a few minutes just before the closing
circle. This gives every single person a chance to leave with something in
hand and ‘’in heart’’. Many participants have said to me that this gave them
their most important ‘’Ah Ah’’ moment of the whole event. Or else they felt
the completeness of the experience with this reflection and better anchored.
I try to plan for an extra 10 minutes or more for an exchange with the
person of their choice. Not only do they go deeper in their thinking and get
some support but the fact of expressing it out loud increases the chances of
moving forward according to studies I’ve frequently heard of around change.
Those who don’t feel like sharing use their 2 feet and are usually found
near the coffee pot in the room where they have other kinds of interesting
conversations.

 

One to let go: Decision Makers communicating their go ahead to priorities
identified by the group.

 

Another to keep: Action Groups choosing mentors within the organization or
the community.

 

Those two come from the same story:  

 

A while ago, an OS facilitator shared this practice he began. After
priorities were identified by the group, participants would do the exercise
of identifying related discussion reports to each priority and have a
coffee. During that 15 minute period, managers would meet briefly in another
room and confirm if they could give a clear go ahead on those priorities.
They would also chose among senior management, a different person to be a
mentor for each priority planning group. The intention was to show the group
clear and strong support from the decision makers, i.e., something good from
the point of view of management. 

 

I thought there was some merit in this intention. The very first time I
tried this, during lunch group representatives came to me one after the
other with strong emotional objections to the specific choice of mentors and
for various good reasons (harassment problems with some, micromanagement
with others etc). They suggested that each group working on a priority
should choose their own mentor, from any level of the organization, based on
their real need and trust relationship. I informed the top manager and their
was quick recognition of the importance to do just that. It worked. I still
offer this option of group selected mentors when the organizers feel it’s a
plus for their organization in follow-ups. 

 

Now about letting go! I continued trying the practice of management
confirming priorities. It gave a sense of security to decision makers who
might be nervous about letting priorities surface without any chance of
intervening if they felt things were going the wrong way. After a while I
realized that it was unnecessary. No one ever overturned a group’s priority.
In reality the management team can be well informed of what is emerging. In
the preparation phase I tell managers they can do that by fully
participating in discussions, being bumble bees and butterflies and reading
reports posted on the wall throughout the event. 

 

I also make available to a key senior person, if there is interest for it,
an advanced copy of the full Book of reports so they can have a complete
overview while reports are being printed overnight. They often feel so
confident about what is happening that they pass. If by the morning they
really feel they have to clarify a given before people made choices on
priorities (much better than after), that can be done informally during
morning news. Still, I’ve yet to see that happen, maybe because during the
preparation, I work closely with the organizing committee and management to
clarify givens – what’s not on the table for discussion. Even if I encourage
them to keep givens to the strict minimum so that newness can emerge, the
exercise of reflecting on this brings a sense of safe space for everyone. 

 

Removing that priority approval step also sends the right message that when
as a leader you open space, you trust the group, you trust the process, you
get out of the way and you allow yourself to be surprised. Greater things do
happen when we let go.  I can almost hear Harrison’s voice here. You are
certainly right on that one.

 

Yes, Harrison does often also say, a system that isn't changing is dead. 

 

I do believe experimenting is good even if messy at times. I also think that
sometimes we keep life flowing best by coming back to what worked well in
the first place, to that wisdom of simplicity and the fundamental truth of
the power of letting go. 

 

This is just another opportunity to say again, thank you Harrison for all
that.    

 

Diane

 

 

Diane Gibeault & Associé.es-Associates 

Ottawa Canada Tel. 613-744-2638 diane.gibeault at rogers.com 

 <http://www.dianegibeault.com> www.dianegibeault.com

Consultation, Facilitation and Training in Support of Transformation

Conseils, animation et formation en appui à la transformation 

 

 

Peggy wrote : (a few extracts)

 

MY STORY

 

When I began working with OS, I fiercely defended the space from all comers.
I worked to keep any pre-work to a bare minimum, sure that people would
understand the brilliant freedom of Open Space the moment they stepped in.
Since then, I've found compassion for those who experience the
disorientation of freedom shock when they first experience Open Space.

 

When I began working more in community settings, with greater diversity and
where there aren't the implicit "rules of engagement", I found that
cultivating a sense of connection and clarity of purpose is part of creating
a welcome, nutrient space.  And contrary to the myth that talks don't work
in Open Space, even Harrison has successfully given them in the morning of
the second and third day of an Open Space gathering.  

 

In other words, as my practice has grown, I treat quite differently "givens"
that I used to take as gospel and defend.  Examples:

 

* Pre-work (clarifying the intention and calling question, identifying and
inviting stakeholders) is trivial.  If you spend a lot of time on it, you're
working too hard.

 

*  Open Space doesn't mix well with other practices.  In fact, I have found
creative, flowing ways in which different practices work together to meet
the needs of the specific situation and culture.  It requires getting
creative with design colleagues and sponsors to meet the needs of a group.  

 

* Once you're in an Open Space event, stay in Open Space. While this is
still my preference, there are circumstances where integrating other
activities, like a morning talk, serves the needs of the group just fine.

 

I want to be clear that I am still there to ensure the space is as open as
possible.  I have just come to believe that what keeps the space open is
more nuanced than I understood when I started working with Open Space
Technology in 1993.  I no longer defend the space.  I co-creatively ensure
it stays open.

 


..Wisdom involves discerning how to navigate the contradictions. 

 

Yes, whatever happens is the only thing that could have.  This is empowering
when used to awaken someone to their own capacity to meet their needs.  When
it is used consciously or unconsciously to maintain the status quo, it
becomes destructive.  It becomes a way to do nothing.  

 

Rather than just saying "who ever comes..." or "whatever happens...", when
someone raises an issue, I now treat it as a potential learning moment for
either or both of us; an opening to understand something more fully  Most
often, exploring the issue leads to them discovering their own power to act.
But through the conversation, they feel heard, respected, met.  And I learn
something about their culture.  

 

With this change in my practice, I have become more fluid in how I open
space, sometimes using other processes as a doorway in, sometimes hosting a
speaker because it serves the needs of the session.  I am less glib than I
used to be about the principles, recognizing both their power and their
shadow.  And I am more wiling to experiment with form, knowing that the real
work is opening space within and among us.

 

What does this sort of experimentation which many of us are doing mean for
how Open Space Technology itself evolves?  

 

Is OST's form perfection as is? It is definitely elegant.  As Harrison often
says, a system that isn't changing is dead.   Isn't this an interesting
paradox?

 

I think that the last OST innovation that has been widely embraced was when
several of us began opening space for convergence following a conversation
at the Toronto OSonOS in 1997!

 

So with all the people experimenting with how we use OST, what might we
learn about the nature and form of our work?  I suspect there's more
fluidity to the nature of opening space than most of us consider.

 

For example, I sometimes hear from colleagues who use other conversational
practices that Open Space doesn't surface the collective intelligence of a
group in easily shared ways.  I can hear the "open spacisms" raised in
objection to this statement.  Indeed, I have seen groups come away with a
deep sense of how they fit together as a system.  Yet, through their words
or the notes, communicating that collective intelligence to those who
weren't there is often a mystery.  

 

How might we approach this as a design challenge while staying true to the
ethics of "one less thing to do" and trusting the people of the system to
find their own answers?  

 

I've become more willing to experiment, to seek simple, natural forms that
meet these sorts of objections.  For example, I have come to appreciate the
intimacy of reflecting in small groups.  Since people don't all return to
the large group at the same time, there's a natural rhythm to starting small
then moving to one circle.

 

I don't pretend to have "the" answer of how OST and our understanding of
Open Space evolves.  Perhaps the evolution isn't in the form but in our
deeper thinking.  It could be that the simple elegance of internalizing the
practice of opening space frees us to experiment more with the form.  After
16 years, I still feel like a novice, learning about the nature of opening
space.

 

I think it is an important, creative question for the evolution of our work
and our community to consider how we evolve rather than dismissing
criticisms and objections by naming a principle.  Is anyone else interested
in such conversations?

 

Kaliya, thanks for calling out open spacisms.  It gave me a doorway to speak
to something that I haven't been able to figure out how to say.

 

from cold, cloudy Seattle,

Peggy

 

 

 


*
*
==========================================================
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/20091202/62a27f8e/attachment-0015.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list