<html>
<font color="#0000FF">Great conversation! Moving right to the heart of
lots of issues all of us face, and I am sure will continue to face.
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Artur wrote:<br>
<br>
Reading about other "large group methods" the first thing that
comes to<br>
my mind is that with some of those methods<br>
- managers will feel less afraid and<br>
- consultants will seam to do a complex/expert thing that seams (to<br>
clients? to themselves?) to justify the fee they ask for...<br>
<br>
When clients pay a consultant they are paying an "expert" that
will<br>
do "some work" for them. "Doing nothing with
elegance" - is that<br>
payable by a client as consultancy?<br>
<br>
Admitting that it is not (or at least that it is difficult) how can
we<br>
regain<br>
the "expert role" that is so valued in our society? Combining
OS with<br>
other tools, methods or "specialised knowledge"?
Concentrating<br>
in training instead of consultancy? (a trainer is always an
"expert"<br>
by definition - if he "does nothing with elegance" he can
always claim<br>
(or be understood by others) as a specialist in "non directive
training<br>
methods"...)<br>
<br>
Does this make any sense to others?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Artur<br>
<br>
<br>
Hello Artur, it makes a lot of sense to me. I once had folks from
one<br>
business unit in a problem solving exercise. Obviously they did very
well<br>
their boss being absent. When the group realized its success, the
manager<br>
turned up and somebody stated ironically: "Hey, we have done very
well<br>
without him, what is he actually good for?"<br>
Sometimes I get the impression there are managers out there, who create
the<br>
problems they are working hard and long hours to solve. For them OS is
a<br>
threat. So what are the consultants good for? I am sure itīs also my
mission<br>
to convince managers that it is good for them if they let people go
and<br>
forget about managing. Maybe this is what I am getting paid for. What do
you<br>
think out there in open cyberspace?<br>
<br>
Greetings from Berlin - Hape</blockquote><br>
<br>
<div align="center">
*******************************************<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
Not a doubt about it. Things do get out of control in Open Space. And if
they don't, something is radically wrong. All of which is a
definite pain to those who think (suppose, hope, expect to be) in charge.
Generally speaking, such people <font color="#FF0000">Do not want to go
there !</font> And for good reason -- their professional image is at risk
as well as their salary, organizational status, hopes for advancement --
and probably some other things. And for us who consider ourselves as
consultants -- there is a definite, usually painful, mind-twist as well.
particularly if we come from a notion of consultancy where The Expert
rules. As Artur points out -- Doing nothing with elegance is a
questionable "billable." How could you possibly charge for
doing nothing?<br>
<br>
What to do?<br>
<br>
We could try to sell harder. But my experience is that selling Open Space
is rather like teaching a pig to sing. It annoys the pig and sounds
terrible. And the reason is simple. For those who come with an
understanding of management, organizations, and systems in general, as
things which are created by us and therefore under our control -- the
plain fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no logical
connection between their position and the experience of Open Space. From
their point of view, it is at best counter-intuitive which is usually
just a polite way of saying it is wrong, crazy, and bad. Not to be taken
seriously. The fact that we all know that Space has been opened thousands
of times all over the world for all sorts of people with predictable and
comparable results -- in short this is not a new, risky, untried approach
-- just doesn't cut it. What we have here is a classic case of differing
paradigms, and therefore the possibility/necessity of paradigm shift.
Folks with differing paradigms simply do not see the world in the same
way. What makes sense to one is idiocy to the other.<br>
<br>
Well, we could try opening space in some safe places -- read
<i>inconsequential</i>. Good idea -- we certainly wouldn't want to use
Open Space in some area that really mattered, that people cared about.
Like the future of their business or organization. But the strategy comes
back to bite us. 'Cause we know as a matter of first principles that Open
Space only seems to work when people really do care. Demonstrating Open
Space in a nice, safe corner of the organizational environment typically
elicits a response like -- "Is that all there is?" Or maybe,
"That's nice."<br>
<br>
<br>
So what do you think we ought to be doing? <br>
<br>
<br>
Harrison<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<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>
Open Space Training
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.com</a>
<br>
Open Space Institute <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
Personal website <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU<br>
</u></font>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,<br>
view the archives of <font color="#0000FF"><u>oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu<br>
</u></font>Visit: <a href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></u></div>
</html>