[OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?

Tue Apr 28 10:44:07 PDT 2015

hi Dan

Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real « business » issue.

Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event, sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very strong , and reminded the context  to everyone : the lowering of public funding for more than one third within a few years, and also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation.
Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but also via email of relevant networks.
And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the event, but it’s intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening. And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also even before the event started and announced at the event. 
The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects. 
One of the result was that they collective changed its name and form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and meetings and they  did a few months later another OST, to keep that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in conversations.

It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor ones, although the group had some real issues.  That was obvious . 

Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way they work every day.

Christine 

> Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All,
> 
> First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion.
> 
> And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. 
> 
> After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about "public vs private" events is.... 
> 
> .....my limited experience in Open Space. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. 
> I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. 
> I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days.
> That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change...
> 
> ...And so here is my "aha", and related confession: almost all of my OST experience has been part of the Agile community (public conference events) or using OST with Agile adoptions (private OST events.)
> 
> And the differences are very striking. And that's where I am starting from when I discuss the divergences between public vs private events. My entire experience is around Agile stuff. In in this space, the differences are, well, striking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The role of the Sponsor being an obvious example...
> 
> ...Chris contributes:
> "My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation."
> 
> And with respect to private corporate events: you can say that again! 
> 
> Now if we look at the role of the Sponsor in a public event, say, an annual confab, like in a community of practice, like the Agile community for example, we can see some striking differences there. 
> 
> In a public event, almost anyone can stand up and welcome the group and discuss the context, introduce the Facilitator, etc. So for example if the conference Chair wanted to delegate this temporary Sponsor role to someone else, they could, and the OST will not likely suffer from that. Because the cohesion is low. The folks are only there for 1,2,3 days, that is the risk or the investment or commitment to it. 
> 
> But if this Sponsor-delegation stuff happened in org, and someone with little authority sent the invite, did the Sponsor role stand-up, welcoming etc, the signal is clear: this event is not authorized and therefore has no oomph. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sponsor role:
> ----------------
> With Agile-adoption clients, I've seen this Sponsor-delegation stuff suggested and have strongly guided against doing it, based on the hypothesis that for process-change and other kinds of triggering transitions in organizations, the OST event must be clearly and highly authorized. 
> 
> The Invite:
> ----------------
> Plus: n most Agile-conference OST events, there IS NO INVITE WHATSOVER. The invite is implied via the conference offer, and attending the event constitutes acceptance of that "invite." Add to this the fact that the theme is often emergent in nature, defined not weeks in advance but instead days or hours in advance. 
> 
> The Proceedings:
> ----------------
> Finally, the proceedings. In public events, they are often nonexistent or an afterthought. In private events...WOW they are all over it. 
> 
> 
> Regarding Agile-related OST events: Not a whole bunch of people have experience observing public vs private OST events in the Agile space. If they do, they are not documenting or publishing them. Harold Shinsato has some experience here and I think Tricia Chirumbole also has a bit of this experience with both. As I say previously, most all my experience with OST is inside Agile-related situations, both public and private events....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...In the end what I am saying is:  the way the Sponsor plays, the Invite, and the Proceedings are all very different in my experience when comparing public vs private (all Agile-related!) events.
> 
> I think what I am calling "low cohesion" is a real factor in typical public Agile events. Does this pattern carry to non-Agile spaces? Circumstantial evidence includes the fact that BarCamp and Unconference formats have proliferated via public events; I view these formats as "OST Lite" derivatives of OST. 
> 
> I wonder of this creation of more bare-bones OST-related gathering formats like Barcamp and Unconference for conference events tends to support what I am saying? 
> 
> ...so there you go. I wonder what y'all think about this...
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/27/15 11:35 PM, Chris Corrigan wrote:
>> Daniel…
>> 
>> I think what you are proposing is interesting, measuring the conditions and how much of each there are.  I say generally, that the more of each you have, the better OST works.  But I’d never be able to really put a number on it.
>> 
>> And my experience is that there seems to be no difference between the likelihood of public or private events being anymore or less likely to exhibit these conditions. There is nothing inherent tin the ontology of these two kinds of events that would predict that.  The five pre-conditions do seem to point at specific factors in the ontology of an event that would make for a potentially richer OST event.  Radical transformation is rare and is never guaranteed.  But we can work with conditions to create potential.
>> 
>> in fact for me it comes down to the pre-work.  My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation.  (and this pre-work includes being clear about what they are NOT doing as well)
>> 
>> Like any event, the quality of the container matters.  Paying attention to the constraints and the attractors builds a container where a real need is allowed to produce real conversations which can create real action and ultimately change.  If you don’t break people’s patterns and expectations of a meeting or conference beforehand, it’s unlikely they will come prepared for transformation.  And that is the biggest predictor of “flat feeling” OST events for me.  
>> 
>> I think your text tagged <HERESY> below is actually <HYPOTHESIS> and needs to be tested in some way.  But the test will apply to your practice, your context and the particular events that you are drawn or invited to.  The practice of working with clients in Open Space is impossible to standardize.  It is an artisanal practice.  There are a few basic skills and talents one needs to have developed in order to assure quality, but nothing can take the place of experience and the path of mastery that is individual and practice based.   
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Jeff Aitken via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org <mailto:oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> <HERESY>
>>> And that is why I think OST is for "development and transformation in organizations" (that actual subtitle of the SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms of impact, when implemented in a public conference. 
>>> </HERESY>
>>> 
>>> I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always be lower in a public vs. private event. 
>>> 
>>> Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences doing OST inside corporations...)
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Mezick, President
> 
> New Technology Solutions Inc.
> 
> (203) 915 7248 (cell)
> 
> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>. 
> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game  <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the Agile Manager.
> Explore Agile Team Training <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
> Explore the Agile Boston  <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org <mailto:OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org>
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org <http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org>
> Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org <http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20150428/ac54067d/attachment-0003.htm>