[OSList] OS/Village Care/etc skype notes - 5/7/13

[Tricia Chirumbole]

Hello all!

The Village Care inspired skypes have continued and the notes from our
second to most recent chat follow. Notes from most recent talk last week
will follow in the near future ;)

*OS skype 5/7/13*

* *

*Participants:*

Linda Stevenson, Celia Bray, Pernilla Luttropp, Paul Levy, Tricia
Chirumbole, David Glenwinkel’s shadow – he was on, but then lost in
cyberspace….



*Discussion:*

*Next steps in OS and implementation criteria* – can be a part of the
invitation.

OS is never a free for all; there is a theme, an invitation.

Someone queries: “What’s the best thing about open space?”

Someone responds that they resonate with something HO talks about, “The
nexus of caring”.



*Disseminating OS principles/philosophy/practice*

There is interest among some to contribute to disseminating the practice of
OS to a larger and broader audience.

Suggestion: One day events to talk about these things?

Linda: I do open space every year, but it is not enough money to live on. I
would like to see it more out there.



*Messaging/branding: *David [Glenwinkel] doesn’t highlight the term, “Open
Space” – does it make sense for the OS community to discuss calling it
something else?

Are practitioners interested in collaboratively exploring messaging and
ways to communicate and connect with a wider audience?

We [OS practitioners] are talking about what we’re excited about [using the
terminology that works for us] because we’ve experienced it – when you are
talking about sales and marketing – what’s going to get those interested
who have not experienced OS?



*Purpose vs. means: *Paul Levy references Forum Theater to illustrate some
reasons why it can be difficult to communicate the value of OS and similar
practices to payer’s/financial stewards in an organization.



Paul discusses how a Forum Theater practitioner (a founder?) feels that it
is to be used at the community or village level, but not to be used in
capitalism. Paul disagrees that it should never be used in the world of
capitalism, but identifies conditions under which it is less likely to make
sense and be effective: at a time where an organization and/or participants
in a circle are experiencing a *misalignment of purpose with means.*



More and more organizations find that the *purpose* of the organization
does not match the *means*

For many, the purpose becomes the maximization of profit, which is separate
from the means.



In leadership conversations, they know to justify the expenditure on the
OS. They have to convince the people who are paying that it will justify
the purpose, which often is to make money. When you get most people in the
room in an organization, their goal is to do their job well, to innovate,
etc. - the means – but this may not be serving the purpose of the
organization, which may be the maximization of profit, or perhaps the
unreasonable maximization of profit.



Unless you can get the shareholders in the circle in a meaningful way the
engagement will not be effective – there is no circle if the focus is
solely on the profit and not on the means.



Linda and Pernilla share that they both have had experiences where the
initial discussion has had a lot to do with profit and financials, but when
it came down to creating a marketplace, no issues raised were solely
profit-focused.



There are loads of “means” type stories to sell – I [Paul, I think] thinks
they [clients] are booking him because they have “means” type questions.



An engagement may be untenable if the organization/leadership is too
unhinged and detached from the means and the employees on the ground are
spiritually committed to the means – our purpose [as facilitators] is not
to stand in between the groups.



*Communicating/messaging: *What is the *point of pain* you are seeing when
working with a client/prospective?



*NGOs’ pain* - Key donors feel disconnected, founders – sense of mission,
sacrificing, no sense of economics. The compassion model imho is upside
down and wrong – I can’t change that [uncertain of contributor, think it is
Paul].



In the *business world*, money is the point of pain that attracts them;
There needs to be some frustration in the leadership for them to be willing
to come to a meeting to work things out – you can then sprinkle in open
space principles.



*Organizations are often confused about the true nature of their problems
and the solutions/interventions needed: *The problem and the solution are
often not what they think it is. Is that something they have to find out
for themselves?



*Money is never your solution* at the end of the day – it does not solve
all of your problems. When the prime purpose is not the same as the means,
you can chase the money like Ebeneezer Scrooge and not solve your problems.



*Self-organization* as the main brand or tool – this can be a put off
leaders, can be seen as an act of subordination.



Talk about potential, about opening space for possibility or for
________whatever resonates with the group/organizations.



In David’s Village Care model entitled, “Outcomes, Practices, and Open
Space” – OS is reported to be the least attractive term. Lead with, what do
you want to achieve? How are you going to achieve it? How are you going to
organize it? …then the last part is OS.



Should we explore branding term that works, WOM referrals, and success
stories to spread OS?

-- 
Tricia Chirumbole
US: +1-571-232-0942
Skype: tricia.chirumbole
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20130601/5e95422c/attachment-0007.htm>