<html>
At 10:28 PM 9/2/00 -0400, Birgitt wrote:<br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2> This caused the manager to go onto the
internet to find out a little more, came upon my website, and wanted to
know if she had hired a consultant who would do a good job and deliver
Open Space Technology as she now understood it to be.<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite cite> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2>The name of the consultant was unfamiliar to
me. I have no idea what the consultant does that he calls Open Space
Technology. I do know he charged a lot. I said I did not know the
consultant, couldn't speak for his work, and then I e-mailed the manager
a list of what key ingredients would be in an Open Space Technology
meeting and suggested questions that she ask of the consultant. She
phoned me back and wanted to know about standards of performance. She
said that she had hired Open Space Technology, in good faith, because she
was convinced it was the right thing to do. She assumed that this is what
she would get from someone who provided Open Space
Technology.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>I believe strongly that situations such as this
are going to cause a backlash against Open Space Technology. I stand even
more firmly in my belief that each facilitator of Open Space Technology
will facilitate in accordance with his/her uniqueness as well as with
his/her interpretation and perception of what Open Space Technology is
AND that certain key ingredients must be attended to.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Years ago, when I worked in social services,
the various agencies were working hard, doing good works, and were filled
with pride but not necessarily focused on meeting the needs of the
clients, working with the clients on what the clients wanted. I feel the
same at this moment about the way we are offering Open Space Technology.
Are we the ones interpreting the needs of the clients in the same way
social services did? Or are we listening to what the clients want and
meeting their needs? What if one of their needs is assurance that if they
hire Open Space Technology, that this is what they will actually get? To
date, in my experience, we do not offer this. The client gets whatever
the consultant chooses to deliver and calls Open Space or Open Space
Technology.</font></blockquote><br>
**********************************<br>
<br>
No doubt about it. There are consultants out there who haven't got the
whole picture -- and/or fail to present it for whatever reason. There are
also clients out there who fail to do their homework and end up with an
inferior product. There are even clients out there who
intentionally purchase something that they know won't work -- just
so they can say, ""It didn't work -- I tried" -- and then
go back to doing just what they were doing before. All sorts of folks,
indeed. <br>
<br>
And when Open Space is involved in these situations, it is problematic,
sad, and angry-making. All true. But I am not sure that any potential
"cure" would not be worse than the disease -- or something like
that. Certainly, those who write about Open Space should make best effort
to provide the "whole" picture. And those who offer training
programs in Open Space (and Birgitt does some wonderful work here) should
do the same. But at the end of the day there will be consultants who play
with less than a full deck, and clients who fail to do their "due
diligence" search. So what about poor old Open Space?<br>
<br>
I think it will survive. <br>
<br>
First off, there are also clients that do their due diligence -- and
Birgitt's conversation is a case in point. Secondly, even when Open Space
is done "poorly" it is usually better than what might have been
done. And if it is done wretchedly, doubtless there are disappointed
folks, but in my experience, there are more than a few participants who
say to themselves -- This can't be all there is -- and make the effort to
find the Real McCoy. Personally, I love to run into there sorts of
people. They are really receptive, quickly get the picture, and more to
the point, usually turn out to be great advocates. And the
"nasty" side of me also indulges in a in a few chuckles, 'cause
I know THAT consultant has just blown their credibility...to say nothing
of future employment.<br>
<br>
Then we get to the interesting question of What is REAL Open
Space????? Having devoted more than a few pages to the subject, to
say nothing of some hours and years, I can honestly say -- I am still
finding out. To be sure, there are certain fundamentals, but how about
the details? Like "convergence." Certainly useful, and
sometimes close to mandatory -- but not always. For example, for 19 years
we have been convening The International Symposium on Organization
Transformation. And never once have we had a convergence session. And to
the best of my knowledge nobody missed it. Certainly not me. The several
thousand folks who have gathered over the years were not there to move to
"concerted action" -- they came to participate in an ongoing,
always evolving, conversation about transformation in organization.
Certainly there have been definite outcomes, including what might now be
termed the field or practice of Organization Transformation, a whole mess
of books and articles -- and even Open Space Technology. And never once
did we do "convergence" -- a closing circle for sure which was
at once an ending and also a beginning for next year's conversation --
but no convergence. Looking back, I rather suspect that the power and
accomplishments of the many "OTs" have not be compromised by
this lack, indeed the "lack" may well have been contributory to
what I have felt to be some very positive and useful outcomes. <br>
<br>
So am I anti-convergence? Absolutely not -- but I find that the useful
criteria are "context and need." And both change with
circumstances. So what's right? It all depends. <br>
<br>
Of course, one solution to the whole dilemma is that "we"
(whoever "we" is) offer some sort of formal certification in
OST. But then we would have to enforce it -- and spend a lot of time
bringing the perpetrators of malignant Open Space to the bar of justice.
Actually, I would choose to spend my time opening good space, and let the
folks make their choice. At the end of the day I suspect that Open Space
(Technology) needs lots of Open Space -- and it will survive -- or
not.<br>
<br>
<br>
Harrison <br>
<br>
<div align="center">
Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854 USA<br>
phone 301-469-9269<br>
fax 301-983-9314<br>
Summer Phone 207-763-3261<br>
Summer Address<br>
189 Beaucaire Ave.<br>
Camden, ME 04843<br>
website
<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
Open Space Institute website
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
</div>
</html>