[OSList] The 5th Principle - Why I think it is Important

chunili2000 at yahoo.com chunili2000 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 1 10:15:20 PDT 2011


Hello Harrison,

Thank you for writing such a beautiful chapter to point out the obvious :-).

As a new convert, the "unannounced" 5th principle was obvious to me when I got 
the ah-ha!
To me, since the space is always there,it's me who has to open the space inside 
myself; it's me who has to walk into the space that's waving at me; it's me who 
has to deal with the little voice of skepticism; and it's me who has to 
experience the power of self-organization in order to live comfortably in open 
space.

I see the 5th principle as a "hidden" treasure of Open Space and would hate to 
see it "announced" for fear that one might miss the joy of finding this 
gem during his/her own soul searching.   The other 4 principles may require some 
explanation or convincing, but the principle about space/place can be 
"discovered" without much explanation. That discovery can be 
such an enlightening moment! 

Chuni Li
New Jersey the Garden State




________________________________
From: Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
To: OSLIST <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 10:40:41 AM
Subject: [OSList] The 5th Principle - Why I think it is Important


When something sneaks up on you as a Blinding Flash of the Obvious, it is not 
uncommon for it to take a while to understand what happened. Such is the case 
with the 5th Principle for me. I make no pretence that clarity has arrived, but 
I think I am getting somewhere. 

 
I knew in the moment that it seemed like a  GIT (good idea at the time), I even 
had some inklings as to its use and purpose – but hardly more. True it created a 
nice symmetry: 5 Preconditions for Open Space (Real business issue, 
complexity…), 5 Principles, 5 typical results (High Learning, High Play…). And 
of course all that is easy to keep track of with the 5 Fingers on the hand – 
although you might need a third hand. Shiva, Where are you? J
 
The 5th Principle, like the preceding four is descriptive, not prescriptive. It 
does not tell anybody what to do or what should happen, rather it simply alerts 
people to what will be happening in any case. The reason we do this at the 
beginning of an Open Space is to provide a little forewarning that may (will) 
offer some comfort to people along the way. As we all know, OST can seem like a 
strange new world for 1st timers. Just about all of their presuppositions and 
practices regarding meetings will be trashed. No announced agenda, no Leader, a 
facilitator who is most apparent in his/her absence… All the normal Comfort 
Guides for the traditional (boring) meeting are disappeared. We know all that, 
and we also know that when venturing into strange territory, having a few 
advertisements of things to come can make it all a little more comfortable. The 
original principles do just that in terms of the people who might come, 
actions/happenings that might occur, the role of time – and of course, the 
ending of it all.
 
But what about space? Isn’t it odd that in conversation about something called 
“Open Space,” space/place is never mentioned? I am pretty sure that the reason 
it never occurred to me previously was that the venue (space) was simply a part 
of the logistical scene – rather like computers, magic markers and flip charts. 
All needed but hardly worthy of a Principle, if indeed there was any principle 
involved. No reason to even mention it for the comfort of those present. So 
what’s different now?
 
The key difference for me is a growing concern and interest in what might or 
could happen after the event. We have always been interested in the follow-on, 
follow-up of the key decisions and insights that may have emerged during a 
gathering – implementation, so to speak. But for me those specifics are of 
infinitely lesser import than an enhanced awareness that Open Space does not end 
at the venue’s doors. If a group of people leave an Open Space Event, well 
satisfied with their accomplishments, but believing that all of that was the 
product of a special, unique, and rarely to be repeated method or approach, I 
think they have been severely short changed. Such people might naturally think 
that the magic of their moment was due, in whole or in part, to the power of the 
design, the brilliance of its originator (that would be me L), and the 
consummate skill of the facilitator. How wrong can you get?!
 
There was no design, at least in a sense comparable to other “methods” (AI, 
Future Search, etc), which are all are carefully researched and constructed. Yes 
it is true that we “sit in a circle, create a bulletin board, open a market 
place, and go to work” – but none of that came out of years of research and 
practice in Group Dynamics, with a linage to Lewin and other greats in the 
field. It just happened as a result of what seemed to be a good idea at the 
time. Truthfully all of this has been the source of continuing confusion and 
embarrassment ever since the field of Large Group Interventions was identified 
by the likes of Billye Alban and Barbara Bunker. The opening chapters of their 
book described in detail the antecedents of the new methods – and then there was 
Open Space which was only included as a last minute addition, and simply doesn’t 
fit.
 
As for the brilliance of the originator, we know the story of that one! The 
inspiration was actually a desperation play fortified by two martinis! The 
originator was in fact so brilliant that it took him almost five years to 
understand that Open Space was interesting and potentially important. Slow 
learner!
 
Facilitator skills? Useful, but not necessary. The truth of the matter is that 
anybody with a good head and a good heart can “do it.” This does not mean, of 
course, that experience and practice don’t make a difference. But I think the 
major difference is a reduction of the facilitator’s anxiety level, but that 
difference has only marginal impact upon group performance. This seemingly odd 
phenomenon is due to the fact that the facilitator is not “managing,” “running,” 
or “doing” a process. The process “does” itself and is deeply ingrained in all 
the participants, whether they know it or not. The facilitator’s sole function 
is Invitation – to invite the people to do what they already know how to do. And 
then gracefully get out of the way. Making a graceful exit can take years of 
practice.
 
And now we come to a critical question, I think. Why do we do what we do? When 
we facilitate an Open Space what are the goals, objectives, purposes? The 
answers to this question may seem so blatantly obvious as to render the question 
meaningless. Of course, we open space in order to – solve a problem, build a 
building, create a plan, unstuck a dysfunctional organization…  And for the 
individual participants we open space in order to bring a little joy, 
inspiration and renewal to the folks. For ourselves, we open space because it is 
fun, challenging, exciting – and on occasion financially rewarding. These 
answers, and many others of a similar sort, roll easily from the tongue, and 
they are all quite valid. Missing from this list, however, is an answer which 
for me is perhaps the most important.
 
For me the fundamental raison d’être for any Open Space I am involved in is -- 
To enable the participants, individually and as a collective, to more 
effectively navigate the self-organizing world of which we are part. Along the 
way we will hopefully accomplish other good things: a new plan made, a community 
issue resolved, a building designed. And for the participants there should also 
be an experience of accomplishment, ownership, participation, inspiration, to 
say nothing of some real fun. However, if everybody walks out the door on the 
final day with only the completed plan or building design, albeit accompanied by 
some good warm fuzzy feelings – I do not believe the mission has been 
accomplished.
 
The Mission Accomplished sign will be displayed when participants walk through 
the venue doors with the understanding that everything they experienced on the 
“inside” may be used on the “outside.” Actually “inside” and “outside” is a 
misapprehension. It is all one thing! Everything is Open Space – or more 
accurately everything is self-organizing, despite the fact that there is a 
continuing delusion to the contrary. Strange talk? Indeed, such talk in itself, 
would appear to be delusional. After all we all know that somebody is in charge, 
and that our organizations are the creatures of our making. In such an 
environment, playing by the airy-fairy rules (principles) of Open Space is an 
iron clad predictor of failure.  That’s what it says in all the books, and is 
emblazoned on the walls of every “well managed” institution. Under such 
circumstances the average participant might be forgiven for a little skepticism.
 
But skepticism is a healthy thing, and after all we have been there before. I 
suspect that every single 1st time participant in all the Open Spaces I have 
been a part of, entered with some degree of skepticism, and in those instances 
where I actually asked, they all admitted that their confidence level for a 
“successful” outcome was close to zero. Nice idea, but it just couldn’t work! No 
amount of argument on my part ever convinced a soul, and for sure the recitation 
of the 4 Principles did little if anything to change their opinion. They 
remained confirmed skeptics UNTIL they had the experience. At that point, the 4 
simple Principles became useful prods to their critical process. They help 
people to see, really notice – how the “impossible” became common place. From 
that point on, they had some real work to do – but they now had something to 
work with.
 
Now back to the 5th Principle -- which is simply an invitation to notice that 
all the marvelous things which occurred “in” the event needn’t stop at the venue 
door. In fact they can and do occur anywhere. “Wherever it is, is the right 
place!” 

 
Will that Principle convince anybody? No, absolutely not – at least until they 
have had the experience. At that point, the 5th Principle will join its fellows 
as a simple statement of the obvious.
 
So I am stuck with the 5th Principle, not for reasons of symmetry or theory. In 
fact it messes up a whole bunch of great signs that have been make, to say 
nothing of all the books I have written. But what else is new?
 
Harrison
 
 
 
 
 
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
Phone 
301-365-2093begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              301-365-2093      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

www.openspaceworld.com
www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go 
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110601/7aa0f613/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list