<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>When something sneaks up on you as a Blinding Flash of the Obvious, it is not uncommon for it to take a while to understand what happened. Such is the case with the 5<sup>th</sup> Principle for me. I make no pretence that clarity has arrived, but I think I am getting somewhere. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I knew in the moment that it seemed like a GIT (good idea at the time), I even had some inklings as to its use and purpose – but hardly more. True it created a nice symmetry: 5 Preconditions for Open Space (Real business issue, complexity…), 5 Principles, 5 typical results (High Learning, High Play…). And of course all that is easy to keep track of with the 5 Fingers on the hand – although you might need a third hand. Shiva, Where are you? <span style='font-family:Wingdings'>J</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The 5<sup>th</sup> Principle, like the preceding four is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell anybody what to do or what should happen, rather it simply alerts people to what will be happening in any case. The reason we do this at the beginning of an Open Space is to provide a little forewarning that may (will) offer some comfort to people along the way. As we all know, OST can seem like a strange new world for 1<sup>st</sup> timers. Just about all of their presuppositions and practices regarding meetings will be trashed. No announced agenda, no Leader, a facilitator who is most apparent in his/her absence… All the normal Comfort Guides for the traditional (boring) meeting are disappeared. We know all that, and we also know that when venturing into strange territory, having a few advertisements of things to come can make it all a little more comfortable. The original principles do just that in terms of the people who might come, actions/happenings that might occur, the role of time – and of course, the ending of it all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>But what about space? Isn’t it odd that in conversation about something called “Open Space,” <b>space/place</b> is never mentioned? I am pretty sure that the reason it never occurred to me previously was that the venue (space) was simply a part of the logistical scene – rather like computers, magic markers and flip charts. All needed but hardly worthy of a Principle, if indeed there was any principle involved. No reason to even mention it for the comfort of those present. So what’s different now?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The key difference for me is a growing concern and interest in what might or could happen after the event. We have always been interested in the follow-on, follow-up of the key decisions and insights that may have emerged during a gathering – implementation, so to speak. But for me those specifics are of infinitely lesser import than an enhanced awareness that Open Space does not end at the venue’s doors. If a group of people leave an Open Space Event, well satisfied with their accomplishments, but believing that all of that was the product of a special, unique, and rarely to be repeated method or approach, I think they have been severely short changed. Such people might naturally think that the magic of their moment was due, in whole or in part, to the power of the design, the brilliance of its originator (that would be me <span style='font-family:Wingdings'>L</span>), and the consummate skill of the facilitator. How wrong can you get?!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>There was no design, at least in a sense comparable to other “methods” (AI, Future Search, etc), which are all are carefully researched and constructed. Yes it is true that we “sit in a circle, create a bulletin board, open a market place, and go to work” – but none of that came out of years of research and practice in Group Dynamics, with a linage to Lewin and other greats in the field. It just happened as a result of what seemed to be a good idea at the time. Truthfully all of this has been the source of continuing confusion and embarrassment ever since the field of Large Group Interventions was identified by the likes of Billye Alban and Barbara Bunker. The opening chapters of their book described in detail the antecedents of the new methods – and then there was Open Space which was only included as a last minute addition, and simply doesn’t fit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>As for the brilliance of the originator, we know the story of that one! The inspiration was actually a desperation play fortified by two martinis! The originator was in fact so brilliant that it took him almost five years to understand that Open Space was interesting and potentially important. Slow learner!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Facilitator skills? Useful, but not necessary. The truth of the matter is that anybody with a good head and a good heart can “do it.” This does not mean, of course, that experience and practice don’t make a difference. But I think the major difference is a reduction of the facilitator’s anxiety level, but that difference has only marginal impact upon group performance. This seemingly odd phenomenon is due to the fact that the facilitator is not “managing,” “running,” or “doing” a process. The process “does” itself and is deeply ingrained in all the participants, whether they know it or not. The facilitator’s sole function is Invitation – to invite the people to do what they already know how to do. And then gracefully get out of the way. Making a graceful exit can take years of practice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>And now we come to a critical question, I think. <i>Why do we do what we do?</i> When we facilitate an Open Space what are the goals, objectives, purposes? The answers to this question may seem so blatantly obvious as to render the question meaningless. Of course, we open space in order to – solve a problem, build a building, create a plan, unstuck a dysfunctional organization… And for the individual participants we open space in order to bring a little joy, inspiration and renewal to the folks. For ourselves, we open space because it is fun, challenging, exciting – and on occasion financially rewarding. These answers, and many others of a similar sort, roll easily from the tongue, and they are all quite valid. Missing from this list, however, is an answer which for me is perhaps the most important.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>For me the fundamental raison d’être for any Open Space I am involved in is -- To enable the participants, individually and as a collective, to more effectively navigate the self-organizing world of which we are part. Along the way we will hopefully accomplish other good things: a new plan made, a community issue resolved, a building designed. And for the participants there should also be an experience of accomplishment, ownership, participation, inspiration, to say nothing of some real fun. However, if everybody walks out the door on the final day with <i>only</i> the completed plan or building design, albeit accompanied by some good warm fuzzy feelings – I do not believe the mission has been accomplished.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The Mission Accomplished sign will be displayed when participants walk through the venue doors with the understanding that everything they experienced on the “inside” may be used on the “outside.” Actually “inside” and “outside” is a misapprehension. It is all one thing! Everything is Open Space – or more accurately everything is self-organizing, despite the fact that there is a continuing delusion to the contrary. Strange talk? Indeed, such talk in itself, would appear to be delusional. After all we all know that somebody is in charge, and that our organizations are the creatures of our making. In such an environment, playing by the airy-fairy rules (principles) of Open Space is an iron clad predictor of failure. That’s what it says in all the books, and is emblazoned on the walls of every “well managed” institution. Under such circumstances the average participant might be forgiven for a little skepticism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>But skepticism is a healthy thing, and after all we have been there before. I suspect that every single 1<sup>st</sup> time participant in all the Open Spaces I have been a part of, entered with some degree of skepticism, and in those instances where I actually asked, they all admitted that their confidence level for a “successful” outcome was close to zero. Nice idea, but it just couldn’t work! No amount of argument on my part ever convinced a soul, and for sure the recitation of the 4 Principles did little if anything to change their opinion. They remained confirmed skeptics UNTIL they had the experience. At that point, the 4 simple Principles became useful prods to their critical process. They help people to see, really notice – how the “impossible” became common place. From that point on, they had some real work to do – but they now had something to work with.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Now back to the 5<sup>th</sup> Principle -- which is simply an invitation to notice that all the marvelous things which occurred “in” the event needn’t stop at the venue door. In fact they can and do occur anywhere. “Wherever it is, is the right place!” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Will that Principle convince anybody? No, absolutely not – at least until they have had the experience. At that point, the 5<sup>th</sup> Principle will join its fellows as a simple statement of the obvious.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>So I am stuck with the 5<sup>th</sup> Principle, not for reasons of symmetry or theory. In fact it messes up a whole bunch of great signs that have been make, to say nothing of all the books I have written. But what else is new?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Harrison<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Harrison Owen<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>7808 River Falls Dr.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Potomac, MD 20854<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>USA<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Phone 301-365-2093<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com">www.openspaceworld.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><a href="http://www.ho-image.com">www.ho-image.com</a> (Personal Website)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas'>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:</span><a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org"><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas'>http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>