[OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Daniel Mezick via OSList
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Wed Apr 29 03:04:08 PDT 2015
Yes, I think Christine's reference to a real/burning/business issue is
an important one. At issue is, on balance, which setting provides a
greater probability that the real/burning/business issue can be clearly
identified before the gathering.
My current belief is that, on balance, all else being equal.....these
real/burning/business issues are much more likely to be found "inside
organizations" rather than "inside conferences."
Once in a while a real/burning/business issue can show up in public
events; these to me are exceptions that prove what appears to be a more
general rule.
Daniel
www.OpenAgileAdoption.com
On 4/28/15 3:57 PM, Michael Herman via OSList wrote:
> i like this example, christine.
>
> and daniel, your latest reminds me that i've seen some very-lite agile
> incarnations of opening space. it might be that the hyper focus on
> process makes the agile folks prone to go deep with it on the one hand
> and to play fast and loose with outer trappings on the other.
>
> as christine's highlighting, the conversation about noticing these
> conditions is valuable, separately from the classifying of events.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Herman
> Michael Herman Associates
> 312-280-7838 (mobile)
>
> http://MichaelHerman.com
> http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:44 PM, christine koehler via OSList
> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
> <mailto:oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>> wrote:
>
> 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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (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 TeamTraining
>> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/>andCoaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>>
>> Explore theAgile
>> Boston<http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSList mailing list
>> To post send emails toOSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>> <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
>> To unsubscribe send an email
>> toOSList-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
>> Past archives can be viewed
>> here:http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Past archives can be viewed here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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
> Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20150429/8b9c58ce/attachment-0003.htm>
More information about the OSList
mailing list