Facilitation disasters or are they?

Mon Nov 23 18:36:02 PST 2009

Hi all

When I initiated the ‘facilitation disaster’ thread I was sitting inside the
wobble space that arose from believing/hoping that I’d acted with integrity
and fearing that I’d missed a simpler way through. The responses and other
topics arising have been so useful, and I’ve mentally tested any option that
was offered. 

At the end of the day I didn’t do what I know to do, that is identify and
consult with the primary client to ensure that we’re facing the same
direction. Most importantly I doubted my own knowing, lulled into thinking
that ‘she’ll be right’ (Australian vernacular).

Thank you all and thank you for your story Peggy. I read through all the
responses again in a day or so before meeting my clients on Thursday.

Best wishes

Robyn

From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peggy
Holman
Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2009 8:22 AM
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OSLIST] Facilitation disasters or are they?

Barbara and Tonnie,

In response to your question of disasters or situations where we feel more
could have happened, I'm re-sending a story I posted three years ago that
completely changed my Open Space practice.  

Ironically, this is the story that launched the shift from defending space
to being co-creative in how I hold it that I discussed in my last post.  

Peggy

On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Barbara Bunker wrote:

I think that this very interesting conversation is moving from disasters to
situations where we feel that more could have happened....sometimes because
we
didn't do all that we might have done in the contracting or in the event
itself
or...??????  B3

Barbara Bunker

Begin forwarded message:

From: Peggy Holman <peggy at OPENCIRCLECOMPANY.COM>

Date: August 23, 2006 9:01:49 PM PDT

To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU

Subject: [OSLIST] Breaking Open (long)

Reply-To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>

During the last week of June, I hosted what turned out to be the most
personally challenging work I’ve done in a very long time.  In fact, I’d say
it broke me open, in a difficult but valuable way.  The primary gift was a
move from a defensive stand around Open Space to a co-creative stand.  I’ll
say more about what this means and how I got there by sharing the story of
what it was like to hold space for Philanthropy, Love, and Evolution (also
known as the Philanthropy Salon).  My intent is not so much to share the
story of the conference, but rather, the story of facilitating the
conference.

To begin at the beginning
the signs that this would be different were there
right from the start.  You know that thing about every group saying, “we’re
different?”, well, based on my experience, transformational philanthropy –
philanthropy intended to make a substantive difference in how systems (e.g.,
health care, education, media, etc.) themselves work – really is different!
But, that shall unfold
.

The idea for the gathering was born in May, 2005, when Michael Dowd, Tom
Atlee, and I hosted the first Evolutionary Salon.  At the end of the
gathering, one of our agreements was to host some “strategic conversations”,
bringing an evolutionary world view (I’ll share some background on this in
another posting) to different high leverage fields.  We decided to start
with philanthropists.  In September, 2005, we each reached out to people we
knew in the field to ask their counsel on how best to reach this audience.
On a conference call, we were met with enthusiastic support.  People jumped
in, saying
”we should do x, let’s try y”
in other words rather than telling
us what WE needed to do, our counselors enlisted themselves in the work!
Seemed like an auspicious beginning, as they agreed to become our planning
group.

Over the next few weeks, we drafted an invitation and identified the
well-respected, well-networked leaders in the field of transformational
philanthropy.  Our planning team thought it looked great
until they realized
that the invitations would be coming from them.  Suddenly, it wasn’t quite
right.  We went back to the drawing board, getting clearer about the purpose
of the gathering.  We wrote another invitation and were met with another
stepping back. 

“Hmmm
.I wondered, is there a pattern here?”  On our next call, I asked
about this approach-avoid pattern.  I was clear to come from a place of
curiosity and non-attachment.  After some self-reflection, people
acknowledged this as a cultural characteristic (understandable when, as one
said, everyone has an opinion on the best way you should spend your money).
Still, it was something of a turning point.  The next version of the
invitation “took” and inviting began in earnest.  It was slow at the
beginning, but as it became the place to be, we ultimately reached the
capacity of our facility with just the sort of mix of folks we had
envisioned coming together.

As the date grew closer, I had my second cultural surprise: more
participants contacted me with opinions and requests about how the gathering
should be designed than I’ve ever experienced before.  In retrospect, I can
describe some of the other cultural characteristics that I believe were at
play.  First, most of these folks spend their professional lives in
facilitated conversations.  They are VERY sophisticated about process.  And
since transformational philanthropy has something of a spiritual aspect to
it, most of them have done deep personal work.  Many were used to processes
that took them into spaces of intimate, collective connection.  Some of the
participants I talked with before the gathering were familiar with Open
Space, and didn’t think much of it (more on this in another posting).
Secondly, though sophisticated, I found some odd blind spots.  My hunch is
that this is a group of people, who are among the “powerful” that many have
trouble speaking truth to (as in speaking truth to power).  I suspect they
may be sheltered from the uncomfortable or the difficult even if that isn’t
their preference.  Finally, while the facilitator is ALWAYS in service to
the group, most groups unconsciously cede their power to the facilitator.
This is a group that fully understands that the facilitator serves at their
pleasure.  Again, this didn’t truly come clear to me until the meeting
itself. 

>From the half-dozen or so conversations I had with participants prior to the
gathering, there were two issues that were most clearly expressed: the need
to go “deep” and the need for agreements so that there was a sense of safety
for marginalized voices. (Thanks to one of the planning group, we had a
wonderful mix of people of color and youth present.)  As is often the case
when working with people who want to fill the space with planned processes,
I was highly protective of the space.  Tom described me as a mama bear.

As I started to appreciate the demands of this group, I was glad to have
some highly skilled partners for the hosting: Thomas Hurley, Juanita Brown
and Tom Atlee.  As we began discussing specifics, they made it clear that
they would do their best to support me.  Though it was not the design that
they would have used given a clean slate, they were there to make it work.
I made the choice that we would not begin in Open Space for several reasons:

*	Our experiences of the 2nd and 3rd salons made it clear that we
needed to set some context with the evolutionary story. 
*	There were enough participants that I knew were hostile to Open
Space that I wanted to start with something more familiar to them (BTW, as I
checked into it, several had experienced multiple day OS gatherings with OS
practitioners that I respected, so it wasn’t a case of inexperienced
support)
*	My hosting partners had gifts to contribute to the mix
*	I had sufficient clues to know I was dealing with a culture that I
didn’t understand.  Since I was working with people who were familiar with
the culture,  I knew I needed to trust their counsel.  (The planning
stretched us all as we made room for each other’s very different beliefs
about facilitation.)

We had the luxury of time - an evening, and 4.5 days.  We agreed that before
going into Open Space, we had two pre-requisites: go deep – creating a
strong sense of intimacy and community, and ground people in the
evolutionary story (a lesson from the second and third evolutionary salons)
so that when we opened the space, we would go broad from depth.  I was
actually quite excited by this, suspecting that with the diverse mix of
people present, that deep connection would increase the likelihood for
breakthrough.  On the issue of agreements, I argued that this would work
itself out in the Open Space, so we didn’t take it on directly.

The first evening, people introduced themselves by taking a “courageous love
name”.  (This was inspired by two sources: the etymology of philanthropy –
loving humanity (or more loosely, loving service); and something we’d done
at Spirited Work one season.  We’d chosen warrior names.  In the spirit of a
broader understanding of philanthropy, rather than warrior names, people
took a courageous love name.  Mine, which I have used since taking it as my
warrior name at Spirited Work, is Standing Still in the Fire.  Little did I
know that I would have quite the opportunity to live into my name! 

Following this step into intimacy, what was supposed to be a 60 minute
presentation on evolution by a cosmologist, ran way over.  While it
contained beautiful animations of galaxies from the Hubble, there was enough
technical information and it was late enough at night, that it turned out
not to be the inspiring introduction to the story of evolution that we had
expected.  (Something that Juanita and Thomas had been VERY concerned
about.)  When it was over, I said to Thomas, that while I knew he would find
no satisfaction in it, he had been right about not doing the presentation in
the evening.)

Following this mixed beginning, Juanita, Thomas, Tom, and I met and
concluded that we should re-think our plans for the next day.  The location
of the gathering, Gold Lake, is very special land.  Traditionally a
gathering place for Native American tribes to put aside their weapons and
meet in peace, this land and its native populations were ravaged by settlers
when gold was found nearby. Its current stewards are working to honor and
restore its special energy to support efforts that heal and transform the
world.  We began the first full day by offering some reflective questions to
people and sent them out to connect with the land and each other, using the
questions as they wished. 

When they returned, Juanita was to host a World Café intended to begin
connecting philanthropy and evolution.  As she introduced the question for
the café, one of the young people, Evon, a man who had been chief of his
Alaskan tribe, spoke.  He was respectful and articulate and named his
discomfort with evolution, a term which we’d incorporated into the question
being used for the café.  More than this discomfort, he was raising the
question of safe space (remember that pre-conference warning that we needed
to create agreements?  I hadn’t counted on this being an issue before the
space was opened!). Juanita handled the situation with grace, ultimately
handing the leadership to Evon and a partner with whom he worked, angel to
create safe space.  We moved back into a council circle and they led a
circle in which people could say whatever they felt they needed to say for
the space to be open for their voices.  While this was frustrating to those
who wanted to get to the content (and they voiced this), it seemed to
accomplish its purpose. 

When Juanita, Thomas, Tom and I met after this circle, we agreed it was time
to open the space.  One other factor now entered the situation for me.  We
were at 8,500 feet of elevation.  I discovered that I couldn’t get more than
3 hours of sleep each night.  And I’m an 8-hour-a-night kind of person.  I
was well aware of being far less centered than I usually am when opening
space.

Tuesday morning, I opened the space.  Something occurred that has never
happened to me in the 12 years of space holding.  The group rebelled.  They
were quite adamant that they wanted to stay together until they had a common
grounding in both the state of transformational philanthropy and an
understanding of the evolutionary story.  I said that all they needed to do
was post the sessions and it would be clear by how people negotiated at the
agenda wall and how they used their two feet if they all wanted to stay
together.  They rejected this; I stepped back and watched as a debate ensued
over whether to do a fish bowl, a world café, or some other form to handle
their desire to stay together.  As I witnessed this, I was mostly marveling
over the passion of this group as it clearly took charge of its needs.
After about 45 minutes, the group fragmented into lots of small
conversations.  At that point, I made the one choice that in retrospect, I
see as my attachment to things.  It was an impulse based in my Spirited Work
culture – I got up, asked for silence, said I’d ring a bell and when they
came out of silence, they would know what to do.  When the sound of the bell
just ended, one of the participants, who was sitting directly across from
me, looked straight at me and said they were doing just fine, thank you and
that my ringing of the bell was completely out of order.  I felt seared by
his words.  I was standing still in the fire and I got cooked.  Shortly
after that, another participant said that he thought they should do what I
had suggested – post their sessions and see what people were interested in.
And that’s what they did.  Vindication of sorts.  They did stay as a group
for the afternoon, with two powerful sessions, one on how the field of
transformational philanthropy had evolved, followed by a session that
finally provided some insight into what the evolutionary world view had to
offer to philanthropy.

That evening, one of the participants hosted an extraordinary storytelling
session that took people into very intimate connection with each other.  The
design was simple:  Tell a story of personal transformation.  People had 3-4
minutes for their stories.  A bell was sounded at 3 minutes and again at 4
minutes.  There was a talking object, so whoever wished to speak could do so
when they were ready to tell their story.

It took 2 days before most folks talked to me.  I realized that in process
work terms, I’d played an important role, making it completely clear who was
in charge - them.  I was basically fine with what had taken place, still, it
was definitely took some deep breathing to be at peace with it all.  I spent
much of the time over the rest of the gathering making amends with the
people who had called me before the gathering, letting them know that I
realized that I needed to work with them in a co-creative way rather than
simply defending the space.  As an example of what I mean by this, on the
last day of the OS, one of the participants approached me with a common
request in multiple day Open Spaces – they wanted people to say more than a
title for their sessions so that they had a better understanding of what the
sessions were about.  My traditional stance for this is to encourage them to
talk to the convener to find out more.  This time, when we began the morning
postings, I named the request and the tension – the more time describing
sessions, the less time to be in them.  I said they were adults and could
make their choices knowing this was the tradeoff.  I felt this honored the
request and the space.  It seemed to work.

This is how I am thinking about what it means to be co-creative: Identify
what, if any, tensions exist between the request and keeping the space open
and then work with the requester to create a response that respects both.

By the end of the conference, a number of the participants talked about it
as a landmark event.  When Michael, Tom and I had discussed our desire for
this gathering before it began, that had been our highest aspiration.  No
matter how personally challenging it was, the outcome was all that I could
have wanted
and more.

Unlike most Open Spaces, I actually wrote a report:

http://www.co-intelligence.org/PhilanthropyES2006.html

Stay tuned for:

·                    The perceptions of Open Space by some of the folks I
met

·                    The evolutionary world view (as offered in the context
of its relationship to conversation)

BTW, one other cultural characteristic of philanthropists – they live their
lives as butterflies, holding many, many private sessions.

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

www.opencirclecompany.com

For pre-orders with a 20% discount on 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 

*
*
==========================================================
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/20091124/2cdad736/attachment-0016.htm>