This question affords me an opportunity to take the risk of violating what I perceive as an OSI norm that I am uncomfortable with: that we often speak as if Open Space is both a method for meeting that produces profound results in systems and that it "IS" the essence of a better way of life in organizations, communities and other inerdependent groups. While I believe deeply that it provides insight into and a metaphor for a way of being together. I do not believe it IS "the essence."
Without getting into the deeper philosophical issues (which I am currently writing an article about and which I intend to post for feedback on when it is more worked out) I believe the first layer deeper than open space is the nature of dialogue or dialogic communication. What this has to do with Open Space in Small Groups in the short term and in the long term (and what I think is implicit in Grover's & Larry's responses) is creating the conditions for effective dialogue. I believe that the work we do in the first moments of an Open Space meeting, which I sometimes think of as an invocation, creates the conditions for dialogue at the same time that it creates the form. I believe a few other forms are also accomplish similar results and that we need to learn when to use other options. As much as I love open space and believe it is the most fexible of the forms I use in my practice I am reminded of the warning that when all you have is a hammer then everything is a nail! I believe that keeping the principles of open space in mind while working with a small group will create the conditions for the right work to be done by the right people. Do we need to say it IS open space that we are using or creating reminds me of the conversations I have with rabbis about whether or not Reform, Conservative or Reform Jews are all Jews or some are "better" than others. You say TO-MA-TO, I say TO-MAH-TO. Chris Kloth
