[OSList] OST encourages avoidance of conflict

[R Chaffe]

Thank you Michael

The theme so far has avoided the key issue being the fact we are part of a self regulating system in what we have chosen to call open space.   At the same time we seemed to be focused on the event called open space rather than the environment of our business.   An open space event occurs when the participants choose to come, remember the drums,  we as individuals have choice to be part of or not of the meeting.    If the group is ready to discuss the topic/stated reason for the group to get together, they will find a way.

I led the facilitation of a group of industry representatives who had been invited to come together to explore the issues and opportunities surrounding the next round of research funding with in excess of $14 million up for grabs.   The investor asked that we try a different way as past meetings had become quite reductionist and focused on predictable themes that encouraged reinforcing existing programs and reduced the opportunity of new alliances and synergies that may extend the effectiveness of the allocated funds.

Things went well for about two hours and predictably some resisted choice and were uncomfortable with the Open Process.  One very powerful leader of one section of the industry choose to take charge and “unload” on the whole event.   “What ever happens...”. I let him finish as he finally unloaded on the team member who was closest at the time.  The co-facilitator held her ground and also paused.  Sure enough one of the other participators stood up and in effect told the interjector that he had had his say and suggested that he sit down just get on with the job at hand.  Applause.  The interjector resumed his seat and did as suggested.  Yes there was conflict.  Yes the underlying conflict was not resolved.  Yes the sponsor was very impressed and when asked he assured us he had got want he wanted.  There was no revolutionary change but change had begun.  For the interjector, differences were not resolved and he had a choice to change without judgement.  10 years later things have changed dramatically, some of the issues and opportunities became realities and the investor and those who used the opportunity to explore these on the Day were ready for the changes.  The changes involved massive financial changes with over 80% of the industry put out of business.

Remember when the opportunity is provided to Open Space the community involved will self regulate to sustain a dynamic balance.   The facilitators task is to allow this to take place by sustaining the space. Rev Ray Richmond from the Wayside Chapel in Sydney said the hardest part of his job in keeping the first safe injecting house in Australia open was to treat everyone exactly the same while restricting intervention to that that ensured that no harm was done to self and others.   He managed to sustain a living open space where conflict just did not happen, differences were always common place.  

Open Space is not the soft option when conflict is possible, it is an option that brings with it responsibilities and opportunities that often ensures that conflicts dissolve into differences that further dissolve in to synergism to solutions that are owned by all.   I am sure there are many stories out there that confirm “Open Space” is an option that helps to deal with conflict and as always it may not be the best option for you and your current situation. 

If I choose to be somewhere else it just means I need to be somewhere else and the law of two feet, or in my case the law of mobility, ensures this choice is always open to me

Regards
Robert

> On 31 Jan 2018, at 8:42 pm, Martina Roell (Structure & Process) via OSList <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
> 
> Hey Daniel,
> 
> Daniel Mezick via OSList wrote:
>> I am hearing this pointed criticism from some quarters: That OST
>> actually encourages conflict-avoidance via the Law of 2 Feet. 
> 
> Well, even if that were true (which I don't think it is): would it be a
> bad thing? I would rather have "conflict avoidance" than war. I would
> rather have "conflict avoidance" than rips in a community.
> 
>> In other
>> words, people who need to be resolving conflict (or at least discussing
>> it) can just avoid the touchy topic... and each other.
> 
> I wonder who "people who need to be resolving conflict" are. When I hear
> that rhetoric, I think it tells me more about the speaker than about the
> "people" they are speaking about: The speaker seems to have some idea
> about "the people" who "need" to do something: "they (!) should (!) be
> resolving conflict!" "They (!) should (!) not be avoiding (this and that)".
> 
> It's the position of a "leader" who thinks they know better than "the
> people".
> 
> To them, I say: well go ahead and make an invitation for people to step
> into a tight container and "resolve conflict" or "go into conflict" or
> whatever you think is needed. See if anyone shows up.
> Or, if you feel yourself empowered to do so: "force" the people to "do"
> whatever you think "they should" do. See what happens. But why continue
> to whine about Open Space?
> 
> Love,
> 
> Martina
> 
> -- 
> Structure & Process | http://structureprocess.com | @strucproc
> Martina Röll | GSM: +49 178 4984743
> _______________________________________________
> 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