Future of OST (was: Re: [OSLIST] honouring each other)

Mon Dec 21 04:40:14 PST 2009

[As many of you probably understood, my answer to Peggy's post was not complete. It will probably never be. But I will profit from half an hour I have free (before trying to run out of the Christmas season) to make some more comments: 

7. OST is mainstream? No, one cannot say it is. But a lot of people speak today about Open Space or even OST without any idea about it, as well as there are other similar techniques (like unconferences, to give only one example). And every person interprets OST in a different way. To give also only one example, I have told this list, some time ago, of a so-called OST meeting of CPsquare, in LA, where the issues were already defined in advance... 

Probably the people that make revisions to the OST entry at the Wikipedia, or convey OST-like (or unlike) meetings are well intentioned. Some of them have not read the book at all. Others may have, but don´t have a good head, or a good heart, or both. Others have their own heretic views (respectable and respected I hope, as I am guilt of that too).   

But the expressions OS and OST are more and more known and give place to many misinterpretations. Probably, we have to learn to live with that.

But there are some clarifications we can make, from time to time. One is to revise and then monitor the OST entry at the Wikipedia. Another is to know when we shall do nothing and when we shall do something, like saying for instance – “No, this is maybe interesting, maybe fruitful, but it is not OST”. That is one reason I thing that to progress in the sense of having some sort of "confederation" (?) of the OSIs (and other similar organizations, be them informal groups, coops, or anything) that can talk at one voice on behalf of OST may be interesting.

------------

Summary of next chapters:

8. Control versus self-organization

9. The true nature of OST is: it is free.

--------------

Have a nice and fruitful New Year 

(those of you that belong to cultures that are approaching the New Year in the next few days) 

Artur
-------------

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Artur Silva <arturfsilva at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Artur Silva <arturfsilva at yahoo.com>
Subject: [OSLIST] Future of OST (was: Re: [OSLIST] honouring each other)
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 3:44 PM

Dear Peggy:

Thank you for articulating this an inviting us to think about the “open spacism”, the future of OST practice and how can we maintain “Open Space” open, hence, evolving and transforming over time. 

The first thing that came to my mind, when reading your post, was a note that Harrison made many times in the past about the future of OST being to stop talking about OST - when every meeting will be an Open Space one, there is no need to talk about OST. 

Unfortunately – or not – IMHO, that time is far from happening. So, we must discuss what will be the future of OST before that time will come or, putting in a different way, what future do we want to construct for OST (*)  in the next (few) years. 

That is where your post invites us to think about. There are so many different ideas in your post that I will not be able to discuss them all. I will not event try. But I would like to add to some of your comments some other (probably even more heterodox) views.   

[The previous part of this mail was already written (and saved), before the post Harrison sent yesterday to some friends about “Wave Riders in the Sky”. What follows is written after that, but I will try to maintain the points I wanted to add, and not be influenced – if that is possible – by his post] 

1.     Some time ago, I have tried to discuss (twice) about the “Foundations of OST”. Let me recall those discussions: The first, on doing self-organization - OST "foundations”, began here: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=oslist&P=R55873&I=-3&X=016DDA0C8CAC43541F&Y=arturfsilva%40yahoo.com. (May/2007). And the main post of the second one, on Anti Laws of OST - Foundations of OST?, is here: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0906&L=oslist&P=R65903&I=-3&X=016DDA0C8CAC43541F&Y=arturfsilva%40yahoo.com (May-June/2009). 
2.     I will not repeat here what I wrote there but the main point of the “Foundations of OST” are, IMHO, to give the major attention to the “Pre-work” (theme, invitation, diversity, etc) and then sit in a circle, clarify the rule of two feet, create a Bulletin Board, a market Place and go on with the Business. 
3.     From here I concluded that the Principles (the main basis for “open-spacism”) are one more thing not to do/state/refer. Harrison himself suggested that more than once. (What about that as a major paradigm shift for OST?) 
4.     So I don’t even understand how someone can say that the invitation/preparation is one less thing to do – on the contrary, I think it is the most important and the most difficult part of OST! 
5.     In what relates to your concern, Peggy, with people that are not prepared for the openness of OST, I don’t think that the solution is to combine methods (say, add some AI in the beginning, or clarify the so called – and IMHO useless – “givens”), but to decide - in the preparation phase - that OST is not (yet) the adequate method for that situation. Some other less open methods (like The World Café or Future Search, to refer only two, may be what is needed in the situation. (If I conclude that the most useful method is TWC I can even facilitate that, as a preliminary approach to arrive later to OST, as I think that TWC is less frightening and opens some space, which can be later enlarged. If I conclude that what is needed in the situation is Future Search – which btw never happened  – I will have to ask the client to search for a different facilitator, as I think that FS is not compatible with OST, because the facilitator is
 always in a central position that disempowers the client – later they will never be prepared to OST, and will be more and more away from it. 
6.     There are so many other things I would like to comment to your post, Peggy, but this is more than enough for a first take 

Warm regards 

Artur 

(*) There is a difference about saying “what will be the future of OST” or “what is the future that we want to construct for OST”. People that prefer the second, probably don’t even agree that “whatever happens is the only thing that could”. What will happen to OST is what we will care (and will be able) to create. Not “the only thing that could” ;-)

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, Peggy Holman <peggy at opencirclecompany.com> wrote:

From: Peggy Holman <peggy at opencirclecompany.com>
Subject: Re: [OSLIST] honouring each other
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 4:19 PM

I've been following this exchange wondering what, if anything, I have to contribute.

I want to tease out a thread that has to do with what Kaliya called "open spacisms".  It also relates to something Holger said: 

> in my experience, the OS folks are among the most
> change resistant people that I have met in my life. 

Before I expand on this thread, just a few words about the exchange itself:

Thank you Karen, Wendy, Lisa, Artur, and Holger for your leadership.  In particular, Karen, I appreciated the distinction you gave in your messages:

> I welcome direct and frank conversations.  What I do not welcome is blaming, name-calling, and yelling.

Kaliya, thank you for being a voice for change.  And, when faced with some very direct feedback, for moderating your tone in your last several posts. I value your brilliance and passion and am glad to see you step in on behalf of this community.  

Michael, thank you for the years of service and being there on behalf of Open Space's online presence.  I hope your dedication to this community continues.  I also thank you for facing a challenging onslaught with, what I thought was doing your best to be squeaky clean in your communication through the last several days.  

It is a challenge to be a lightening rod and I honor the work both of you are doing, Michael and Kaliya, for staying with the deeper purpose I see you both carrying on behalf of us all.

****

So, here's the thread that I want to pursue: how the Open Space principles help us both support and resist change and what that means for the evolution of OST and opening space.

The OS principles are wise and wily (clever).  They are at their best when they remind people to take responsibility for what they love; when, for example, people discover that they really can moderate their own conflicts without a facilitator.  

I think the principles are at their worst when they replace co-creativity with resistance.  For example, someone comes to me when preparing for an OS gathering and says, Open Space goes broad, not deep.  I can turn that back to them quite simply by telling them that they create their own experience.  And that's true.  It also shuts off an exchange about what it means to go deep and how we can create the space so that people come together with greater depth.  

Too often, I have taken the "turn it back" route rather than engaging.  And I don't think I'm alone.  This may sound heretical, but I believe the cues for making this choice are embedded in the Open Space community's culture and to our detriment, that has made us change resistance.   I offer a bit of my personal journey on this and then how I see it relating to this community.

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.

THIS COMMUNITY

So what does this have to do with this community being resistant to change?  

The OS principles contain deep truths.  I think most deep truths contain contradictions.  On a light note, here are a few examples of such contradictions:

1. Look before you leap.  /  He who hesitates is lost.

2. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.  / Out of sight, out of mind.

3. The pen is mightier than the sword.  /  Actions speak louder than words.

4. Better safe than sorry.  /  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

5. Birds of a feather flock together.  / Opposites attract.

6. You’re never too old to learn.  /  You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

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

______________________________
Peggy Holman
The Open Circle Company
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA  98006
425-746-6274
www.opencirclecompany.com
www.journalismthatmatters.org

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

On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Raffi Aftandelian wrote:

> friends,
> 
> as someone who has made both positive and hurtful contributions to the ost community, two more 
> things come to mind:
> 
> i notice myself asking myself what are the ways in which i have showed up at my best in this circle, 
> and also at less than best in this unexpected and wondrous time on OSlist.
> 
> also, i wonder what else seeks to be expressed right now, what remains unfinished?
> 
> thank you all!
> 
> warmly,
> raffi
> 
> p.s. and yes, jon, absolutely vegetarian chicken, my omission
> 
> p.p.s. thank you alan re: good things happen!
> 
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> 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

*
*
==========================================================
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/20091221/080a12cb/attachment-0016.htm>