[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