<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [OSLIST] when a client hires Open Space Technology, is this what she gets?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
Harrison,<BR>
<BR>
Your message is like a four course brunch, plus blueberry pie.<BR>
<BR>
Chris<BR>
<BR>
----------<BR>
From: Harrison Owen <owenhh@mindspring.com><BR>
To: OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU<BR>
Subject: Re: [OSLIST] when a client hires Open Space Technology, is this what she gets?<BR>
Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2000, 1:23 PM<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>At 10:28 PM 9/2/00 -0400, Birgitt wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"> 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></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">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.<BR>
</FONT></FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">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.<BR>
</FONT></FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">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.<BR>
</FONT></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>
<P 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 www.mindspring.com/~owenhh <<FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><U>http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</U></FONT>> <BR>
Open Space Institute website www.openspaceworld.org <<FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><U>http://www.openspaceworld.org/</U></FONT>> <BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>