[OSList] Private vs Public OST Differences?

Chris Corrigan via OSList oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Thu Oct 16 11:52:59 PDT 2014 

And Micheals brilliant opening line from the giving conference  was "We put out an invitation and you all came anyway!"  And that is exactly due to the quality of living out and invitation as a verb and not a noun. 

Chris. 

-- 
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Harvest Moon Consultants
Facilitation, Open Space Technology and process design 

Check www.chriscorrigan.com for upcoming workshops, blog posts and free resources. 



> On Oct 16, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Michael Herman via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
> 
> some years ago i facilitated the first illinois food security summit, a public meeting of very diverse group of about 200, convened by a big foundation.  at the end of the event, one of the common reflections heard throughout the space was something like, "i can't believe we didn't know each other already (given that we're all doing such similar work/have similar interests)."  the following year, the two things i heard over and over again were something like "i still have last year's proceedings sitting on the corner of my desk" and "we're all still talking."  i think we have to be careful not to impose internal standards for "action" on more distributed public meeting/working.  having the proceedings (and its priorities and plans) at their fingertips and having so many connections still active was definite progress and was informing all kinds of activity.  there just wasn't a "center" working to score that and own it like there would be inside of an organization.  which makes me wonder if the work in public spaces is not so much about building infrastructure, which people can easily build for themselves and also already exists in many ways, but rather finding ways to point out over and over again through the event that the work of participants does not end with the closing.  
> 
> also, to the challenge of public invitations, we wrote 37 drafts of 6 different editions of the invitation to what we called "the giving conference."  the big challenge was that there was very little language shared among the several very different groups/communities of people we wanted to invite.  in the end, people said, "the crazy thing is that i'm here, because the invitation really didn't say ANYTHING, but when i read it, i knew i had to be here."  
> 
> m
> 
>  
> 
>  
> --
> 
> Michael Herman
> Michael Herman Associates
> 312-280-7838 (mobile)
> 
> http://MichaelHerman.com
> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:07 AM, John Baxter via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>> Amen to the time consuming nature of "invitations".
>> 
>> Of course, if you don't have a discrete list with an established relationship to each member, the material nature of the activity isn't "invitation", but marketing and promotion...  I haven't worked on a public event where the promotion was not the hardest part.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> 
>> John Baxter
>> ​Co​Create Adelaide Facilitator, Director of Realise consultancy
>> CoCreateADL.com​ | jsbaxter.com.au
>> 0405 447 829​ | ​@jsbaxter_
>> 
>> City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen!, Saturday 18 October 2014
>> Connect with your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with others in your community, and Influence the future of the city
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Peggy Holman via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>> I’d echo Christine’s observations about infrastructure. So much of that is something that you can take for granted in an organization and requires some thought when dealing with public settings. 
>>> 
>>> A couple other distinctions I’ve noticed:
>>> 
>>> Organizational events are high context. A calling question is asked within an existing culture. That’s both a blessing and a curse. It means that there’s much that doesn’t need explaining. And it means there are unconscious habits of relating and behaving present. Not bad. Just the territory. 
>>> 
>>> Examples: I was recently with a group that had an internal clock for half an hour meetings. It was interesting watching their rhythm shift over the course of the Open Space. For that same event, I spent about 10 minutes with the leadership team before we started encouraging them to be themselves and participate, like everyone else. They bring a unique and valuable perspective, as do others. And their voices carry a weight they might not appreciate because of their place in the hierarchy. So if they found themselves the center of attention, I suggested that it’s a good time to ask a question that gives the focus back to the group. Or use the law of two feet and go elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> Public events don’t have the context of an existing culture. So the calling question may have a much wider variation in meaning to people who come. And there may be fewer existing relationships and norms. Again, not bad. Just different. 
>>> 
>>> Many years ago I was part of a team that did a public event with a calling question so broad that people had multiple interpretations of it. The question: How do we support a movement toward the conscious evolution of increasingly conscious social systems? (See http://www.thegreatstory.org/ev-salon2.html). A number of people on this list were part of it.  People showed up because they were attracted to the hosts or something about the question spoke to them. It was wild, fun, and creative. And there was a demand on the second day to hear from the organizers what we meant by the question, just for more context.
>>> 
>>> The other thing I’ve learned is that the process of invitation can be much more intense for public events. In organizations, the bulk of participation is internal. While there are certainly issues with ensuring a spirit of invitation, who to invite and how to reach them is pretty straightforward.
>>> 
>>> For public events, I find that if you want a diversity of folks, inviting can be the most time consuming activity of all. I did some work with the Forest Service years ago to look at the future of the forests in the San Bernardino Mountains in California. They were heading into a rough fire season, felt they’d done everything they could do to prepare. While they had the public’s attention, they wanted to look to the future, 50 years out. We worked with them to identify the range of people who cared, including state, local, federal, and regional government, community organizations, chamber of commerce, insurance companies (small, but influential), ranchers who leased land in the national forests, environmental groups, and on and on. Getting the word out to all these folks took some thought.
>>> 
>>> Peggy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _________________________________
>>> Peggy Holman
>>> Executive Director
>>> Journalism that Matters
>>> 15347 SE 49th Place
>>> Bellevue, WA  98006
>>> 425-746-6274
>>> www.journalismthatmatters.net
>>> www.peggyholman.com
>>> Twitter: @peggyholman
>>> JTM Twitter: @JTMStream
>>> 
>>> Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity
>>> Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information ecosystem
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Christine Whitney Sanchez via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Daniel and all,
>>>> 
>>>> In my experience, public events have the same buzz and meaningful results as an in-organization OST.  I’ve facilitated a number of them that were sponsored by a group of organizations in the community.  For instance, Vibrant Phoenix, was a very productive economic development OST, sponsored by two mayors of large municipalities and several local businesses.  One of the business sponsors agreed to be the contact for folks who wanted to take their “actionable ideas” to the next level.  However, there was no budget and no infrastructure to really keep folks connected the the ideas they cared the most about.  
>>>> 
>>>> This is where the public open spaces generally fall short.  Because the ongoing action is not the core mission of any of these organizations, it is hoped that the participants will self-organize going forward.  With very few exceptions, this does not happen.  I believe that sponsorship for the work after the OST is what is called for.
>>>> 
>>>> The Collective Impact model speaks to this.  It’s nothing new, really, but does represent a simple way to talk about the necessary conditions for sustaining collective action.  I now include my version of this model when I talk with potential sponsors to shine the light beyond the meeting so that we can discuss their intentions for providing backbone support for self-organized action going forward.
>>>> 
>>>> I especially love public Open Space events and look forward to working with sponsors who see the meeting as merely the first small step in collaborative action.  There is so much potential!
>>>> 
>>>> Warm wishes from a sunny autumn morning in the rain-greened desert,
>>>> 
>>>> Christine
>>>> <clip_image002.png>
>>>> 
>>>> Christine Whitney Sanchez, M.C.
>>>> Phoenix, AZ, USA • +1.480.759.0262
>>>> www.innovationpartners.com 
>>>> 
>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter 
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings To All,
>>>> 
>>>> I notice that there are many big differences between public-conference-type OST events, and OST events arranged for organizations. 
>>>> 
>>>> Do you also notice this? Maybe I am imagining this....just making stuff up...
>>>> 
>>>> ...maybe not. In many key dimensions, I experience these differences as striking. Even disturbing.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And so I have been poking around inside the GUIDE (3rd edition) and I notice that, in some spots, the implication is that the discussion is about a public event. Up to page 18 for example, this implication is clear:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <THE GUIDE PAGE 18>
>>>> 
>>>> Working With The Client if you ARE NOT the Sponsor
>>>> 
>>>> "To this point I have assumed that you (the reader) will be the sponsor and facilitator of the Open Space, and therefore it is your decision as to whether or not to proceed...(emphasis added.)
>>>> 
>>>> </THE GUIDE PAGE 18>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> My current belief is that having the same person in the Sponsor role **and** the Facilitator role is probably a very bad idea for an OST event inside an organization. For the typical public-conference event on the other hand, this seems to work just fine. Kinda like a Barcamp or Unconference....
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Another current belief I hold is that OST is the essential tool for creating "Development and Transformation in Organizations". It is best suited for use in organizations. 
>>>> 
>>>> It is interesting to note how the Barcamp and/or "Unconference" formats seem to get the same or as-good results as Open Space, in the public conference setting. 
>>>> 
>>>> Not so inside organizations! In fact, as of now, I don't think Barcamp or Unconference has any chance whatsoever at being effective in bringing about Development and Transformation in Organizations the way Open Space can. Something about the Sponsor?
>>>> 
>>>> Daniel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Daniel Mezick, President
>>>> 
>>>> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>>>> 
>>>> (203) 915 7248 (cell)
>>>> 
>>>> Bio. Blog. Twitter. 
>>>> 
>>>> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager.
>>>> 
>>>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching.
>>>> 
>>>> Explore the Agile Boston Community. 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSList mailing list
>>>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSList mailing list
>>>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSList mailing list
>>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSList mailing list
>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> 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/20141016/4c9323cb/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the OSList mailing list