Hi,
Chris you say: It's not a reticence to have a circle in this case...it's a purely logistical consideration in terms of a few other things that are happening around the Open Space - meals and an opening speaker. Speaker can have a greater impact speaking in a circle as has been said already; if that person is not comfortable, I've created an oval U-shape with an opening at the end or a round shape with an opening for the speaker to stand (where chairs would have been), It's quick and easy to redo the circle when that part is over - usually during a break before the opening. Meals: plan the kind of food people can put in a plate and carry with them; to vary at other meals, have an open lunch box they can fill at a buffet table. Creates more mobility for multiple conversations during meals - a plus for communications and building relationship! Walls : Another idea that can help and add a touch of creativity: clothes lines hooked from posts or existing hard surface if any, lying flat along the cloth walls to attach topics, posters, reports etc Tables : Given many know already of Open Space, the tables may communicate lack of trust even if that is not the case as you say. Circle: I'd work really hard at saving the circle for its symbol and power in communicating principles of equal footing for participation, emerging leadership from everywhere, openness and a break from the past and usual hierarchical way of doing things and finally, the effect all this has on creativity and deeper reflection. Why potentially deprive present and future participants and organizers of higher levels of performance and results? Most importantly, what to call it. That is the key question here in my view. The many suggestions made on the list are good and sometimes, these methods already go by another name like Lisa pointed out earlier about Birds of a Feather. So why not do Birds of a Feather and call it that and even add a few principles borrowed from OST to open it up some more? Given OST is known to some, I would prefer not to call the process OS if it has tables so expectations are not created and therefore, set up for a let down. More importantly, using the name OST or OS circulates a distorted picture to those not familiar with it and spreads around a compromised more structured picture of OS to other group settings that will then not benefit of the power of the circle and messages associated with it. With those participants, he open approach will be more easily set aside in the future by citing this example with tables since we tend to do what we are already comfortable with. In Canada, we have seen this happen in a some very large organizations. Again a few weeks ago, I met facilitators - and they have their own internal network - who say they facilitate Open Space and what they describe has lots of structure and control as the example they were given over 12 years ago by a facilitator that preferred the traditional way of facilitation and who did not trust the process fully. Spreading a perception is like opening a pillow of feathers. You can't put them back in the pillow once they've gone with the wind. You're right Chris, these conversations with the client make for long days but it's great to see that you are bringing movement in their thinking. The best to you with this interesting challenge. Diane * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
