<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<STYLE type=text/css>
body { margin: 5px;
font-size:10pt;
font-family:"Arial";
color: black;
scrollbar-base-color: #d4d4d4;
scrollbar-arrow-color: #020202;
scrollbar-darkshadow-color: #4f4f4f;
scrollbar-face-color: #c2c2c2;
scrollbar-highlight-color: #ececec;
scrollbar-shadow-color: #878787;
scrollbar-track-color: #d4d4d4;}
ol { margin-top: 5px;
margin-bottom: 5px;}
ul { margin-top: 5px;
margin-bottom: 5px;}
blockquote { margin-top: 5px;
margin-bottom: 5px;}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=white>
<DIV>Harrison, thank you for this, your honesty and perspective. I only want to
respond to one thread of this rich fabric - how important it is to see the
principles as descriptive. Which is to say how I find that being
non-prescriptive is one of the ways OS is unique from its process peers. I
recently played with the descriptive tone and intention of the principles and
law language a bit: <EM>When people feel free to talk about what matters most to
them, they will; When the right people free free to join the conversation, they
will; When people feel free to do whatever they can, they will; When people feel
free to move on to new conversations, they will.</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Peace,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jack</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>~~~~~~~~~~</DIV>
<DIV>jack ricchiuto</DIV>
<DIV>two.one.six/three.seven.three/seven.four.seven.five</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.designinglife.com/">www.designinglife.com</A> / <A
href="http://www.appreciativeleadership.org/">www.appreciativeleadership.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>------------Original Message------------</DIV>
<DIV>From: Harrison Owen <hhowen@comcast.net></DIV>
<DIV>To: OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU</DIV>
<DIV>Date: Sun, Mar-13-2005 12:44 PM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Principles, Process, and People</DIV>
<DIV>What is becoming clearer to me as this conversation moves along is that
my</DIV>
<DIV>initial discomfort with the "Trust the Process" frame of mind has nothing
to</DIV>
<DIV>do with either the process (whatever that process might be) or the</DIV>
<DIV>principles which under lie it. Rather it is my concern that we have
placed</DIV>
<DIV>our faith in arbitrary abstractions at the expense of some very
concrete</DIV>
<DIV>realities - The People. In a word, process and principles become
primary,</DIV>
<DIV>and the people are left in second place. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have profound respect for many of our processes in group work, and
an</DIV>
<DIV>equal respect for the principles which have been articulated as the</DIV>
<DIV>under-pinnings. However, I think it is important to note that both
the</DIV>
<DIV>processes and the articulated principles are second order derivatives.
They</DIV>
<DIV>are our best guess as to how things might work. They are maps and
not</DIV>
<DIV>territories. But the primary point of reference is, and remains, the
people.</DIV>
<DIV>If we have done our work well, the processes and principles articulated
will</DIV>
<DIV>closely coincide with the actual structures and dynamics of the
people</DIV>
<DIV>(individuals and collective). And the proof of our success appears when
the</DIV>
<DIV>people are enabled to do better what they have always been able to
do.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here on OSLIST we have had multiple and extended discussions of the
process</DIV>
<DIV>of Open Space and its principles. Specifically: The Four Principles and
The</DIV>
<DIV>Law of Two feet. I believe that discussion has been useful and
worthwhile,</DIV>
<DIV>but I also think it is important to recognize that both the Four
Principles</DIV>
<DIV>and the Law emerged from the Open Space experience - they did not and do
not</DIV>
<DIV>create it. In a word, they are descriptive and not prescriptive. As a
matter</DIV>
<DIV>of fact, Open Space "works" very well, thank you, without mention of
either,</DIV>
<DIV>and in the first 3-4 years we opened a lot of space(s) without a
trace</DIV>
<DIV>(verbally) of the "sacred" principles and the critical Law. So why or
how</DIV>
<DIV>did they appear? In all honesty, I have to say there was no
rational</DIV>
<DIV>decision involved - it just seemed like a good idea at the time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But of course, good ideas come and go - and so why does mention of the
4</DIV>
<DIV>Principles and The Law of Two Feet assume such a central place in
the</DIV>
<DIV>introduction? Explaining the mechanics is a five minute deal - but
we</DIV>
<DIV>typically take 15-20 minutes by way of introduction. Reasonable
question:</DIV>
<DIV>Why waste the time? Why not just cut to the chase and get on with
the</DIV>
<DIV>business?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I obviously cannot answer for everybody, but for myself I find it
effective</DIV>
<DIV>to spell out the Principles and the Law NOT to specify what people
should</DIV>
<DIV>do, but rather to acknowledge what will happen anyhow, what is true
(I</DIV>
<DIV>think) in any case. In short, they always apply, whether said or
unsaid.</DIV>
<DIV>However, by articulating both they are brought to consciousness,</DIV>
<DIV>acknowledged for what they are, and welcomed as positive and
necessary</DIV>
<DIV>elements for deep conversations and relationships. The fact that upon
first</DIV>
<DIV>hearing the Four Principles and The Law many participants perceive them
as</DIV>
<DIV>strange or "counter-intuitive" says more, I think, about the
cultural</DIV>
<DIV>baggage we carry than the nature or "truth" of the statements. And the
fact</DIV>
<DIV>that many (most?) people spend a lot of time and energy, supported
by</DIV>
<DIV>multiple cultural strictures, attempting to defeat, avoid, or NOT DO
what</DIV>
<DIV>the Principles and Law affirm and invite is the source of massive amounts
of</DIV>
<DIV>frustration and guilt. Mention of both Law and Principles at the
beginning</DIV>
<DIV>can eliminate mountains of guilt - and guilt in my experience is a
dreadful</DIV>
<DIV>waste of time and energy. And of course, if some people wish to
sustain</DIV>
<DIV>their guilt, that will be their pleasure and problem. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If Open Space had evolved as other such approaches seem to have evolved
-</DIV>
<DIV>after 20 years we would have massive accretions and added complexities
all</DIV>
<DIV>contained in thick manuals of detailed instructions. In point of fact,
Open</DIV>
<DIV>Space Technology is pretty much what it was on the first day. If anything
it</DIV>
<DIV>has been on a strict diet. As I recall it took something like 2½ hours
to</DIV>
<DIV>open the first encounter - and that was without benefit of Law and</DIV>
<DIV>Principles. Lord knows what we talked about - but it all worked. To be
sure</DIV>
<DIV>there have been some additions, particularly at the end of a gathering
as</DIV>
<DIV>the group seeks to move to action. We call that convergence, and the
first</DIV>
<DIV>iterations were pretty complex. Over time simplicity seems to have won
out</DIV>
<DIV>and now the general practice appears to be - just open some more
space!</DIV>
<DIV>(Thank you Chris et al - even I have finally given up voting :-)).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For me the guiding thought has been - Think of one more thing NOT to do.
It</DIV>
<DIV>has been a way of stripping off the non-essentials in order to reveal
what</DIV>
<DIV>is natural and effective. In following this notion I think we (certainly
I)</DIV>
<DIV>have watched process and principles (at least the man-made ones) diminish
in</DIV>
<DIV>importance leaving the people to do what only they can do for themselves.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wisdom and discretion clearly dictate that I should end this missive
right</DIV>
<DIV>here. However, it may have occurred to you that there was present a
certain</DIV>
<DIV>(implied) critique of related approaches such as Appreciative
Inquiry,</DIV>
<DIV>Future Search, or Dialogue (to name a few). The critique is present, but
I</DIV>
<DIV>need to make exquisitely clear that it is a critique offered in
profound</DIV>
<DIV>respect and gratitude for the individuals who have given us those</DIV>
<DIV>approaches, many of whom I consider old colleagues and friends. There is
no</DIV>
<DIV>question that the insights offered and the results achieved have
been</DIV>
<DIV>massively important and effective. Personally I have learned enormously
at</DIV>
<DIV>the feet of these people about the power of appreciation, the elegance
of</DIV>
<DIV>dialogue, and the importance of common ground. But I must also say that
it</DIV>
<DIV>has been my personal experience in every Open Space that the elegance
of</DIV>
<DIV>dialogue, the nutriment of appreciation, and the healing power of
common</DIV>
<DIV>ground have all appeared all by themselves. The people did it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I must also confess, and this really is personal, that every time that
I</DIV>
<DIV>have been in a situation where someone attempted to combine Open Space
with</DIV>
<DIV>one of these processes or insert them in the midst of Open Space, I
felt</DIV>
<DIV>that the result was less than positive. Either there was little to no
gain -</DIV>
<DIV>because the same results show up naturally in Open Space, or the
addition</DIV>
<DIV>was disruptive and counter-productive because it broke the natural
rhythm</DIV>
<DIV>and flow. As I said to my friend Marv Weisbord several years ago, "Marv,
I</DIV>
<DIV>think you are working too hard."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One could certainly view my reaction as an outbreak of ego and a defense
of</DIV>
<DIV>"my" process. As one client told me, "Harrison you are a nice fellow,
but</DIV>
<DIV>you have major ego problems." Doubtless, my ego can get bent out of
shape</DIV>
<DIV>just like the next fellow's - but it never really felt that way. In
the</DIV>
<DIV>first place, how could you call something that showed up in the bottom of
a</DIV>
<DIV>martini glass, "My process?" Especially when subsequent experience
and</DIV>
<DIV>investigation has shown, I think, that the process involved had nothing
to</DIV>
<DIV>do with my invention. I just lucked into something that had been around
for</DIV>
<DIV>14,000,000 years. Drunk and Lucky? Guilty as charged! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So what next? I just hope that we can keep the cart and the horse in
proper</DIV>
<DIV>order. Processes and principles, at least as we articulate them, are
always</DIV>
<DIV>second order derivatives. Very useful as maps or guides, but never to
be</DIV>
<DIV>confused with the rich territory - The People.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Harrison</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Harrison Owen</DIV>
<DIV>7808 River Falls Drive</DIV>
<DIV>Potomac, Maryland 20845</DIV>
<DIV>Phone 301-365-2093</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com <<A
href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/">http://www.openspaceworld.com/</A>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org</DIV>
<DIV>Personal website <A
href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm">http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU </DIV>
<DIV>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives
Visit:</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html">http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>*</DIV>
<DIV>*</DIV>
<DIV>==========================================================</DIV>
<DIV>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU</DIV>
<DIV>------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,</DIV>
<DIV>view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html">http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist">http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist