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

[Harrison Owen]

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 301-365-2093

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>
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/20110529/198c3f3c/attachment-0007.htm>