Nothing ever happens according to the plan. And OS helps with those elements that take us by surprise.
-- CHRIS CORRIGAN Harvest Moon Consultants Facilitation, Open Space Technology and process design Check www.chriscorrigan.com for upcoming workshops, blog posts and free resources. > On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:06 PM, "Harrison Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris – I love your story, but I guess you have never built a bridge. Neither > have I. But I have been involved in a whole mess of large construction > projects (The CIA, Dulles International, etc) and I can tell you NOTHING ever > happened according to The Plan. Open Space the whole way! > > Harrison > > Winter Address > 7808 River Falls Drive > Potomac, MD 20854 > 301-365-2093 > > Summer Address > 189 Beaucaire Ave. > Camden, ME 04843 > 207-763-3261 > > Websites > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com > OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > OSLIST Go > to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: OSList [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:58 PM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization > > I seek simplicity in trying to describe where and how Open Space does it’s > magic. > > One of the ways I have had excellent success over the years in describing > this work is derived from David Snowden’s work on the Cynefin framework. > > The short story is this: > > We are faced all the time with problems that are basically knowable, and > problems that aren’t. Knowable problems mean that with the right knowledge > and expertise, they can be fixed. A technical team can come together and > analyse the causes, work with what’s available and craft a solution. Then > they can get an implementation plan in place and go ahead and do it. These > kinds of problems have a start line and a finish line. When you are done, > you are done. Building a bridge is one of those kinds of problems. You > build it and there is no tolerance for failure. It needs to be failsafe. > > Open Space doesn’t work well for those kinds of problems because the solution > is basically already known, or at least knowable. > > Then there are problems for which no know solution exists, and even if you > did get a solution, you can’t really “solve” the problem because the problem > is due to a myriad of causes and is itself emergent. For example, racism. > Look around and you will find very few people that identify themselves as > racists, but look at the stats for Canadian society for example and you see > that non-white people are trailing in every indicator of societal success. > Essentially you are seeing the results of a racist society but no racists > anywhere. This is an emergent problem. Racism itself is a self-organizing > phenomenon, notwithstanding the few people that actively engineer racist > environments. Such a problem didn’t really start anywhere and it can’t > really end either. What is needed is a way of addressing it, moving the > system away from the negative indicators and towards something else. > > In other words, this is a complex problem. > > The way to solve complex problems is to create many “strange attractors” > around which the system can organize itself differently. Open Space nis the > best method I know of for creating such strange attractors, as they are born > from the passion and responsibility of those that want to create change, and > they are amplified by people coming together to work on these things. > > It’s “post and host” rather than “command and control.” > > And because you can’t be sure if things are going to work out, you have to > adopt a particular mindset to your initiative: one that is “safe to fail.” > In other words, if it doesn’t work, you stop doing it. If it does work, you > do more of it. And all the way along you build in learning, so that the > system can see how change is made and be drawn towards those initiatives that > are currently making a difference. Certainly this kind of problem solving is > not useful for building a bridge, as you cannot afford a failure there. But > for problems with no known solutions, it is brilliant. > > Harrison has spent decades outlining this simplicity in even less words than > I have now and his writing and thinking is, and continues to be far ahead of > it’s time and maybe a little under appreciated because it is delivered in > simple terms like “don’t work so hard.” But ultimately this is the best and > most important advice for working in complex systems. > > Open Space. Do it. Learn. Do it again. Don’t work so hard. > > More than that really starts to build in the delusion that people can > possibly know what to do. From that place solutions will be deluded. That > they may work is pure luck. Open Space offers us a disciplined approach to > addressing complexity in an ongoing way. Don’t be fooled by its simplicity. > > Chris > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Love what you are saying... and I think you may be working much too hard. > From where I sit, the basic reality is that all the World is self-organizing. > That includes all the stuff we think we “organized.” So the bottom line is – > we are all self organizing, and some of us are doing it better. Which is to > say that some folks are struggling to invent what is already happening “all > by itself,” and others are allowing (appreciating) what is happening all by > itself. For me, Open Space is simply a great way of “practicing” what is > already happening. Even if we think it isn’t. Or something. > > Harrison > > Winter Address > 7808 River Falls Drive > Potomac, MD 20854 > 301-365-2093 > > Summer Address > 189 Beaucaire Ave. > Camden, ME 04843 > 207-763-3261 > > Websites > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com > OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > OSLIST Go > to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: OSList [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > agusj > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:25 PM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization > > Hello Harrison, David S and David O, > > I find the thread of this conversation very interesting and inspiring. In my > opinion, the success of using OS to transform businesses in self-organizing > organizations depends of the way you do it. It is very different to use OS as > a means to experience a different way of organization than using OS as a > means to allow organizations to have an experience of themselves from a > context of self-organization. > > An option of the first approach is to use OS as an isolated practice in the > "old system". This way maybe it can help to fix something, but it is very > possible that it is not going to make a real difference, if the organization > does not transfer in any way the underlying conditions of OS to its everyday > environment. > > An example of the second approach is to use OS as a Trojan horse, acting like > a hacker. Under this scenario, the organization adopt OS as a common practice > because its effectiveness to solve problems or to foster innovation, or > whatever. This way, its continued use over time probably generates a new > cultural context that facilitates the emergence of self-organization. It > could take time, but the chance that self-organization put down roots is > higher than with the first approach. > > Agustin > PS - Recently I read a book that shows the cases of some organizations that > are defying the "old system" very succesfully. The name of the book is > Reinventing Organizations written by Frederic Laloux. > From: Harrison Owen <[email protected]> > To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list' > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:09 PM > Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization > > David, Listen to your words... “we're exploring the question of how can we > have some structure and boundaries and yet provide space for > self-organization. It's hard to find models that enable both.” > > I hate to say it, and you won’t be surprised, but I think you are working > much too hard. Sounds to me suspiciously like a variant of “organizing a self > organizing system.” Especially that part about “find(ing) models.” The > systems you are contemplating (your business and the Association) are their > own best models. Nothing else will even come close because they are unique. > And if self organization is anything like I think it is, one of its major > activities is the creation of “structures and boundaries.” That, by > definition, is what self organizing systems do, along with a few other > things. So the key activity for me would be to stop looking for models, and > start paying careful attention to how your two self organizing systems > naturally express themselves in structure and form. > > Initially your task will be complicated by all those “other” structures and > forms that have been laid on, arbitrarily I would say, just because it seemed > like a good idea at the time – in accord with the latest “models,” or > “accepted practice.” After all, we think we all know what an organization > SHOULD look like.J > > But there is a way through the forest, I think, which is actually the “design > principle” I employed in the development of Open Space Technology. You’ve > heard it before. Think of one more thing NOT to do. Just keep striping away > those forms and procedures that you thought to be essential for your > organizations’ function. Don’t try to do it all at once, and start with what > I might call the low hanging fruit. Those things that just get done, even > though nobody can remember why. > > Then notice what happens. If something comes back, that is pretty good > evidence that it was a natural form or structure, and your systems, in their > own wisdom, felt the need. On the other hand, if it stays gone, just say bye, > bye, enjoy the new space, and get on with your business. > > It is true, of course that some structures and forms are required by external > authorities: Taxes, annual reports, and the like. In those situations, I have > found it helpful to ask, “What is the minimal level of form and structure > required to get the job done?” For some reason, people seem to make the > simplest things unendingly complicated. In extremis there is a presumption > that if it is simple, it can’t be any good. I’ve noticed this on more than > one occasion with the public perception of OST, especially among those who > have never been involved. I suppose this has something to do with the Expert > Syndrome – if you make it complicated enough you will surely require the > services of an Expert to help you through. For a fee of course. And to be > honest, we in the OS community sometimes seem to be guilty of the same thing. > > So there are some suggestions to get started. If you want more, and probably > more than you want – you might take a look at Part II of Wave Rider, “A Wave > Rider’s Guide to the Future.” And for a slightly different slant see Part IV > of the Power of Spirit, “The Care and Feeding of the Interactive > Organization.” And just to be clear, an Interactive Organization is my term > for a conscious, self organizing system. > > Harrison > PS – And for the record, all of the above are by yours truly and available > from Amazon.com and the publisher, Berrett-Koehler. > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Dr. > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > Camden, Maine 04843 > > Phone 301-365-2093 > (summer) 207-763-3261 > > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST > Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Osborne > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:57 PM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization > > Harrison, > > I had to laugh at my own words as I re-read them.. ."support leaders in > adopting approaches that move toward greater and greater levels of > self-organization." The system of course is self-organizing all the time > !!! > > Opening space enables the system it to move closer and closer to high > performance versus stuckness, stagnation, decline and death. If I restate > what I was trying to express, I think we can Open Space in big ways as an OS > does and/or in small ways through the openness in leadership approaches that > provide more space for passion, creativity, personal responsibility etc. This > is working at the micro-level though versus the full paradigm shift you > describe. I agree with your description whole-heartedly. > > You raise for me very pragmatic questions. Both in our small company, > ChangeFusion, and in a global membership organization I'm involved in we're > exploring the question of how can we have some structure and boundaries and > yet provide space for self-organization. it's hard to find models that enable > both. > > I'd love to hear if others have suggestions of examples. > > David > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello David O. and David S. I’ve re-titled to give the thread a new name if > only because I think it is headed in some new directions with hopefully a > long and useful discussion in prospect. > > This discussion may get a little difficult as we attempt to define and > understand the words we are using, “Management,” for example. I had in mind > the more common garden variety of Management’s role in organizations. As > Wikipedia (that source of all useful information) notes, “Despite the move > toward workplace democracy, command-and-control organization structures > remain commonplace as de facto organization structure.” (Wikipedia). Back in > the old days a common definition of a good manager was one who, “Makes the > plan, manages to the plan, and meets the plan.” And we all know how that was > supposed to be done. Single word: Control. Lots of Command and Control. > > David has moved in new, interesting and effective directions saying, “What I > have found is that as I'm able to share the conditions that support > self-organization and how they can be integrated into individuals leadership > approach that the leaders move toward approaches that support greater and > greater self-organization.” > > I applaud the effort, but it seems to me it may be rather a half step. If I > hear David’s words correctly, the fundamental understanding of “organization” > remains unchanged (predesigned structure and controls with Leaders/Managers > in charge) and the new effort is to enable “leaders (to) move toward > approaches that support greater and greater self-organization.” Tactically I > can certainly understand the approach, but what if organization is > fundamentally, essentially, in totality – Self Organizing? If that is the > situation, “greater and greater self organization” makes little sense for a > very simple reason. It is all self organizing to begin with! But I guess that > is just splitting hairs, and for sure the heart is moving in the right > direction. > > The revolutionary in me (and yes there is some of that J) would dearly love > to shake the organizational world by the scruff of the neck saying something > like, Move on, Wake up! You just can’t get there from here. And for a > certainty, such an approach would have no chance of success. There needs to > be a change in view, I am sure -- but forced change, were it even possible, > falls back on the old way which wasn’t effective then and won’t work now. And > there is another way which unfortunately requires some patient waiting. But > we may not have to wait that long. > > It is a very common lament -- that, “things just aren’t working.” What > “things” and the nature of their dysfunction are often left unsaid, but the > universal uneasiness is pretty clear. To date, the usual response has been to > do more and more of what we’ve always done, but maybe with a different name > (Quality Circles, Process Re-Engineering, Dialogue, maybe even AGILE when > mandated etc.). The results have not been inspiring. Some would even include > Open Space Technology as a new tool. But I don’t think that works either if > the intent is to fix the old system. > > As the lament continues, some strange things are happening. Every now and > again something actually WORKS! And it works even when the plans are busted, > the leadership is incompetent, the environment sour and threatening. Who > knows how or why – but it worked. The Brits usually call this Muddling > Through, which is what happens when everything goes a different way than it > was supposed to – but it all turns out fine. Phew! > > There is another name for this strange phenomenon. Anomaly. Anomaly literally > means being outside the law (lawless) from the Greek a (without) nomos (law). > Anomalies cause one to scratch the head in wonder...How on earth could THAT > happen? Most often, we just pass them by with a dismissive, “weird!” I think > that is a mistake. > > Peter Vaill, an old friend and colleague, had a knack for seriously noticing > anomalies. He observed that some organizations performed at levels of > excellence that definitely blew away the competition. He called them High > Performing Systems. The problem was, these systems broke all the rules of how > organizations were supposed to work. As a Professor of Management, Peter > could be accused of a flawed effort because instead of attempting to analyze > how they worked, Peter contented himself with a delightful description of > what they did, which he captured in a short paper (1977), The Behavioral > Characteristics of High Performing Systems. I say delightful because he wrote > in a totally colloquial fashion, and definitely not in the style of Academe, > even though he was the (then) Dean of the Business School at George > Washington University. > > Writing almost 10 years before Open Space Technology, Peter seems prescient, > for his “Behavioral Characteristics” are a perfect description of the common > behavior at every Open Space I have ever seen. Taking a tall leap in logic, I > have argued (Wave Rider) that the link between Peter’s High Performing > Systems, and what we have experienced in Open Space is the phenomenon of self > organization. Or put somewhat differently, High Performing Systems are well > functioning self organizing systems. And in function and effect they are > definitely anomalous for according to the accepted wisdom, they simply could > not happen or do what they do! > > On the subject of Anomaly and the importance of same, the work of Thomas Kuhn > comes to mind. Author of, “The Structures of Scientific Revolutions,” Kuhn > gave us that wonderful concept, “paradigm,” as in Paradigm Shift. As an > historian of Science, Kuhn describes how the scientific world grew in wisdom > and stature, passing through several understandings of the nature of things, > on the way to new (and presumably better) ones. That passage he called, > Paradigm Shifts. According to his story, the scientific or learned community > held a certain view of reality for a period of time, which worked very well, > and seemed to explain most, if not all, of the phenomenon of their > experience. This view (paradigm) was taken as The Truth, and defended with > ferocity. For example, everybody “knew” at one time that the Earth was the > center of everything and those who disagreed were considered heretics, and > often dispatched. Galileo, for instance. Then funny little anomalies began to > show up as people observed the heavens. If the anomalies were not an illusion > then Earth centeredness was false – which everybody knew must be wrong, > insanity, or worse. But the anomalies refused to go away, which made people > more and more uncomfortable, to say nothing of angry. Then one shinning day > the view shifted. Same old heavens as before but seen with totally new eyes. > Paradigm shift. Very powerful and never comfortable. > > This brief sojourn into the History of Science can be helpful to our present > concerns, I think, for we are facing a very similar situation in our > understanding of organizations, as well as management. The traditional > understanding of organization, and therefore management, has been around for > a long time. As with all paradigms, it is taken to be The Truth, and those > who challenge will inevitably be subject to dismissal at the beginning, > changing to discomfort, and perhaps ending with anger. The reason is very > simple. The investments in this particular paradigm are enormous, and include > ways of life, ways of making a living, and for some, life itself. Messing > with all of that cannot be done lightly. > > And yet the anomalies persist. Some are quite subtle and are perceived only > as a growing sense that “things are not working as we expected.” However, > when the system/organization seems broken, it is clear that we must fix it > and we think we know how. If the organizational process is screwy, then > obviously we need Process Re-Engineering. But it didn’t work. We try harder > and harder, doing variants of what we’ve always done, and (surprisingly) we > get what we’ve always got. But hope springs eternal, and someday we will find > The Fix. Or so it says in all the books. Maybe. > > Other anomalies are not so subtle. Open Space Technology is such an anomaly. > I believe it to be true that Open Space violates virtually all principles and > practices of traditional organizational theory and management practice. To > the extent that it (OS) works as we have experienced it working – much if not > all of current practice is called into question. My view is doubtless biased, > but some 20 years ago, a senior official from the American Society for > Training and Development (pardon the repeat) seemingly had the same > impression when he told me, after hearing what happened in Open Space, > “Harrison, if what you say is true, then 99% of what we are currently do does > not need to be done.” I would have been greatly relieved had I been able to > argue with him. But I couldn’t. I can’t. > > So David(s) – where does that leave us? Discretion might dictate picking up > our toys and going home. Others might suggest heading for the barricades. > Personally I don’t think either possibility is very useful. I simply cannot > deny what I have experienced in Open Space, nor can I resist the compulsion > to share the experience in whatever way with whomsoever might show up. I > think the bottom line may come down to: Move slowly with empathy, and be > prepared to wait. > > And what would that mean for us and what we do...? At a practical level, it > could mean something like this. Let’s suppose that the Management of a very > traditional Organization shows up on our doorstep. They are concerned that > organizational function is dismal, the people seem to dislike each other and > what they are doing, and profits have disappeared. The request is simple: > Help! Somewhere they heard about Open Space and believe (hope) it could fix > their system, or at least make a start. > > It sounds like a marvelous opportunity, and a natural response would be, YES! > At least that would be my response. All the essential preconditions for OS > seem to be in place (real issue, complexity, etc) – BUT ... There are some > issues to consider. First, if by “fixing their system” the client means that > the “traditional Organization” is going to be put back together as it once > was, that is a real problem, I think. The reason is simple – the root of > their problems is precisely the system (understanding of organization) they > were working under. Make it even stronger. Were I to design a system that > would maximize separation and alienation, minimize creativity and > collaboration – I don’t think I could do any better than the system they were > operating under. Fixing, or restoring that system would only compound their > misery. Secondly, Doing an Open Space in that organization is quite likely to > increase the general dissatisfaction with how things are done. As one senior > executive from a very traditional organization said to me following an Open > Space we did, “You have ruined me for work in this place. I am not sure > whether to thank you or hate you.” Talk about being caught on the horns of a > dilemma! If fully successful with my task (opening space), I will have failed > the clients’ primary expectations (fixing the system) and simultaneously > raised the level employee dissatisfaction. > > All true, I think. And I would still do the Open Space, but my reasons could > cause some problems unless very carefully explained, and that explanation > itself is problematical. At one level I will do the Open Space because I know > that it will enable people to be more comfortable, powerful, sure of > themselves. That’s the easy part. But at another level I will do the Open > Space in order to introduce anomaly... one more nudge towards Paradigm Shift. > > I know full well that I can’t shift paradigms for people. The same is true of > Transformation, which has a lot to do with paradigm shift. Both will happen > all by themselves...or not. But I can and will nudge when given the > opportunity. After that it is all about waiting... > > So what do you think about all that? > > Harrison > > > > > > > > > > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Dr. > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > Camden, Maine 04843 > > Phone 301-365-2093 > (summer) 207-763-3261 > > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST > Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Osborne > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:47 AM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Trust > > I'm not sure I agree OS fails as a management tool.....Self-Organization has > become the lens I look at all my work as an individual who supports groups > and organizations in change and in my leadership and management development > work. It's not an either / or for me os works or doesn't work as a management > tool. > > Leadership is simply supporting an organization in moving toward its goals. > The invitation in OS is the goal or issue that people care about. What I have > found is that as I'm able to share the conditions that support > self-organization and how they can be integrated into individuals leadership > approach that the leaders move toward approaches that support greater and > greater self-organization. This is not top-down, traditional leadership or > management. As you propose in Wave-Rider Harrison, I believe the principles > of OS / self-organization can be integrated as a leadership approach with > great results. > > David > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > David – I would totally agree that OS “utterly fails as a management tool.” > Then again I think that OS shares this fate/condition with all other > “management tools,” at least as I understand “management” and “tool” in the > context of enabling effective human performance. And thereby hang the > beginning of a long and useful discussion, I think. > > ho > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Dr. > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > Camden, Maine 04843 > > Phone 301-365-2093 > (summer) 207-763-3261 > > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST > Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David stevenson > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 1:51 AM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Trust > > Ho indeed Harrison! OpenSpace opens space for freedom of spirit and heart, > choice and the weaving of our fates and destinies with that of our world, it > does not achieve complience and so, at least to the extent that people are to > be managed... > On Saturday, February 1, 2014, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Brendan said: “And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer of > trust between mentor and sponsor” Right on! I don’t think it makes a bit of > difference how elegantly one “does” the Open Space. It is really all about > TRUST. When I said that anybody with a good heart and good mind can “do it,” > that is just a long winded way of saying what I’ve always found to be true. > Expertise is interesting. Integrity and Trust are essential. A new comer to > the OS world, opening space for the very first time, muffing some lines, and > forgetting others – can do every bit as well as a 20 year veteran. The coin > of the realm is Integrity, authenticity, trust. But none of that should be > news, for that trio is the bedrock of all positive human encounter, I think. > Which may just be another way of pointing out that OS is not some special > process we do, it is just life lived well. Or something. > > ho > > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Dr. > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > Camden, Maine 04843 > > Phone 301-365-2093 > (summer) 207-763-3261 > > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST > Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brendan McKeague > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 12:57 AM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Sponsor PreWork Conversation (long) > > A very interesting question Chuni Li... > > The sponsor was being mentored by one of my colleagues in our local Open > Space community of practice (Wave Riders) who suggested to him that OS was > the right method/model for the task at hand. As his coach (the formal role > as perceived by the organisation), my colleague encouraged the sponsor to get > in touch with me to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. The sponsor > researched OS for himself first and then engaged me to provide the specialist > knowledge....Harrison often says that anyone with a good heart and head can > open space - and I agree - while at the same time, I acknowledge that 'Open > Space wisdom' is often helpful, if not necessary, in situations of increased > complexity and potential conflict. > > After his initial attraction to OS in theory, and as part of his research, > the sponsor then ran a mini Open Space within his own jurisdiction to see how > it worked in reality - he wished to speak from his lived experience when > engaging with his higher-uppers. He also watched a few of the growing > library of YouTube clips that are so wonderful for educating potential > sponsors. > > Now totally convinced, the transfer of trust was complete at various > levels....trusting the process (OST works) AND trusting the facilitator (who > was aligned with the essence of OST - i.e living in it) AND trusting that > both facilitator and process were 'fit-for-purpose' in this context. > > And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer of trust between > mentor and sponsor > > Hope this story helps > > Cheers Brendan > > > > On 31/01/2014, at 1:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Thank you Brendan for taking the time to organize and share this information > - so precious and such a generous gift! > > I am curious about the sponsor who "put his neck out" to make the event > happen. > Had he experienced OST before? Did you have to "convince" him? What made him > willing to "jump through the hoops?" Was it the OST process or was it you > that he trusted? > > Chuni Li > New Jersey > > From: Brendan Mc > > > -- > David Stevenson > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > > -- > David Osborne > <image001.jpg> > www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > > -- > David Osborne > > www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
