Thanks for your comments, Diane. I agree with almost everything, and they are indeed at the center of what I intended with this thread on the "Future of OST". Allons-y alors "un peu plus haut, un peu plus loin"
Artur (Without the "h", btw) --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Diane Gibeault <diane.gibea...@rogers.com> wrote: From: Diane Gibeault <diane.gibea...@rogers.com> Subject: Re: [OSLIST] Future of OST (was: Re: [OSLIST] honouring each other) To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 6:52 PM The need for openness and for space for everyone has always been but I think there seems to be today a more general acceptance of doing something about it and looking for ways to do it. Arthur, “what future do we want to construct for OST” is a very good way of putting the question before us. I think it’s to make OST become more and more familiar to more people and more accessible as well. Just keep on doing it and supporting those who want to do it. Not for the sake of the method Open Space Technology itself but for the sake of the world that needs to re-learn about self-organization, that life force they have in themselves and need to rediscover. This will mean more and more people will do some experimenting with the OST method itself in the course of their learning journey (bringing add-ons and cutting things that may seem important). For whoever has some experience of OST, our role is to share our own learning and gently encourage continuous reflection on these experimentations while showing with examples, how powerful OST is when its simplicity is maintained and the space is truly held in respect of participants. In the course of a learning process, I repeat, like Harrison and many of you: “even if you forget a lot of things when opening space, don’t worry, do it because Open Space is surprisingly extremely resilient. Participants will pick up on the spirit of openness you are communicating and being and make it happen for themselves”. One story I tell is that of a colleague who forgot to mention the post-its as a way to indicate a time and place for discussions – pretty basic and somewhat essential tool in the process. When at the facilitator’s invitation, participants all moved to the wall to choose topics, they quickly pointed to the fact that something was missing and “could those colorful post-its help?”. That’s self-organization in the yoke! The fear of flying is often there and to reduce some of that fear, I do offer to people that are new at OST, examples of OS events and on site OST working tools (a one pager for discussions, one for the voting process for priorities when applicable and one to report on action planning) all of which are consistent with the basic OS approach described in the OS book. I often throw in a question for personal action at the end of events whenever it’s appropriate to open more space for individual action after there has been closure on collective action. Some may see that as an add-on but I feel it is very consistent with linking again passion and personal responsibility. It proven to contribute to individual closure. There must be something true to that because it usually brings a strong burst of energy in the room just before the closing circle when people have been showing fatigue from the many deep discussions, the more grueling action planning conversations and the quiet listening to brief action plan reports. When the energy is too low like was the case in a 150-person OS last October that I facilitated, that part of personal action plan was cut. That’s it. Otherwise when I facilitate, it’s OST in its original simplicity. On the pre-work side, I do share examples of invitations and simple guides on preparations with the host and client. The latter are the most important because that pre-work is the base for creating the opening, the safe space and the success that can occur as a result. I agree with you Arthur that they not only are the most important parts but the most difficult ones. I expanded on that last week, in link to Peggy’s message below, by responding on this List to a topic called “Less”, so I won’t say more here. Note that these “helpers” (tools and guides) are offered only after people have experienced OS in that learning event or elsewhere, as true participants around a theme they had a real passion for. Only then, when they have a deeper understanding of the essence of OST can these “helpers” be put in perspective ie they may be useful only when they actually support that essence of OST. People are encouraged to simplify these helpers or not use them at all or adapt them to situations and to the particular needs of the groups. The basic criteria for the use of the tools are that they must not take space away from participants – they are not “professional musts” - they should contribute to create space by helping the process flow for participants. The most important ingredient that is then needed to spread OST around is courage …to try. About courage, Suzanne, you said: It took me awhile to get it, to know that I should "just do it" which is more than the dabbling that I've been doing so far. Perhaps that's what this new conversation about the future of OST is all about. It's about courage and that courage needs to come from inside of me. You’re doing it Suzanne with your presence and facilitation in the dozen OS events you have been part of since last April. I understand you want that bigger challenge with a large organization where you will want to be in full possession of your OS skills. One thing is certain: you will bring enough intention and spirit to offer all that is needed to that lucky organization and for these people to experience true open space. You now know that and the rest of your words show it. Courage is contagious. There are other people - from the OST training group you were a part of Suzanne and others - that have, like you, jumped two feet first and tried OS, with a few things added and a few forgotten but it worked for sure. Now they can’t keep up with the demand for OS. These OS colleagues learned from their experience and like you and all of us, are finding deeper courage to jump higher. May the future of Open Space and the future of everyone who sees the potential of this generous approach to greater humanity, go something along the lines of this famous French Quebec song that was the theme of the first French OSonOS in Canada in 2007: « Aller un peu plus haut, un peu plus loin »….the translation and full theme being: Let’s go a little higher, a little farther …in our knowledge and practice of Open Space. Diane From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of Suzanne Daigle Sent: 14 décembre 2009 13:23 To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Subject: Re: [OSLIST] Future of OST (was: Re: [OSLIST] honouring each other) Thank you Arthur for creating this post under the new heading of "Future of OST" ; thank you also for connecting it to what Peggy had written before and tying it to what Harrison speaks of now, partially in jest, asking whether the time has come to eliminate OST. Why, I ask myself, are we having this conversation now? Is the conversation really about the future of OST or about what's happening in the world right now? My public line in the sand right here,right now is that I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that these times are viral and fertile for all that OST offers and invites! As I watch so many leaders and others still gripping the levers of control, working harder and faster with so much seeming to hang by a thread, I feel myself on the edge of a precipice knowing that the time for me to jump is right now. I agree with Arthur and Peggy on pre-work and also with Harrison in Wave Rider who talks about doing your homework (Chapter 10)-- a lot of this is my own pre-work (homework). Where do I want to go with this? What do I really care about? Why? and What might happen along the way? Do I trust the process? Do I trust myself? Do I trust others? and finally Do I have any choice? What Brett Barndt described in his December 13th post (Topic: Open Government Workshop Series) talking about a recent conference related to the telecommunications industry and the FCC is a story that plays out in so many places. All the ingredients for opening space are there: real serious issues, complexity,diversity, urgency, passion and need. And as I stand on the edge of my own precipice fearing this jump without a safety net, what I know for sure, is that Space will Open...if not by me, then surely by others with others. It took me awhile to get it, to know that I should "just do it" which is more than the dabbling that I've been doing so far. Perhaps that's what this new conversation about the future of OST is all about. It's about courage and that courage needs to come from inside of me. Inspiration is what I get from all of you! Thank you so much for that this past year. Time now to get to work. I've got some serious urgent homework to do. I know that 2010 will be a busy year. I know I'll bump my head a lot; my ego will get bruised and I'll feel plenty insecure worrying as I always do that I may not be good enough or know enough but in the end, I'll always know I'm not alone thinking as I do because of you. Suzanne Suzanne Daigle s.dai...@nufocusgroup.com NuFocus Strategic Group 7159 Victoria Circle University Park, FL 34201 Tel: 941-359-8877 Cell: 203-722-2009 On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Artur Silva <arturfsi...@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Peggy: Thank you for articulating this an inviting us to think about the “open spacism”, the future of OST practice and how can we maintain “Open Space” open, hence, evolving and transforming over time. The first thing that came to my mind, when reading your post, was a note that Harrison made many times in the past about the future of OST being to stop talking about OST - when every meeting will be an Open Space one, there is no need to talk about OST. Unfortunately – or not – IMHO, that time is far from happening. So, we must discuss what will be the future of OST before that time will come or, putting in a different way, what future do we want to construct for OST (*) in the next (few) years. That is where your post invites us to think about. There are so many different ideas in your post that I will not be able to discuss them all. I will not event try. But I would like to add to some of your comments some other (probably even more heterodox) views. [The previous part of this mail was already written (and saved), before the post Harrison sent yesterday to some friends about “Wave Riders in the Sky”. What follows is written after that, but I will try to maintain the points I wanted to add, and not be influenced – if that is possible – by his post] 1. Some time ago, I have tried to discuss (twice) about the “Foundations of OST”. Let me recall those discussions: The first, on doing self-organization - OST "foundations”, began here: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=oslist&P=R55873&I=-3&X=016DDA0C8CAC43541F&Y=arturfsilva%40yahoo.com. (May/2007). And the main post of the second one, on Anti Laws of OST - Foundations of OST?, is here: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0906&L=oslist&P=R65903&I=-3&X=016DDA0C8CAC43541F&Y=arturfsilva%40yahoo.com (May-June/2009). 2. I will not repeat here what I wrote there but the main point of the “Foundations of OST” are, IMHO, to give the major attention to the “Pre-work” (theme, invitation, diversity, etc) and then sit in a circle, clarify the rule of two feet, create a Bulletin Board, a market Place and go on with the Business. 3. From here I concluded that the Principles (the main basis for “open-spacism”) are one more thing not to do/state/refer. Harrison himself suggested that more than once. (What about that as a major paradigm shift for OST?) 4. So I don’t even understand how someone can say that the invitation/preparation is one less thing to do – on the contrary, I think it is the most important and the most difficult part of OST! 5. In what relates to your concern, Peggy, with people that are not prepared for the openness of OST, I don’t think that the solution is to combine methods (say, add some AI in the beginning, or clarify the so called – and IMHO useless – “givens”), but to decide - in the preparation phase - that OST is not (yet) the adequate method for that situation. Some other less open methods (like The World Café or Future Search, to refer only two, may be what is needed in the situation. (If I conclude that the most useful method is TWC I can even facilitate that, as a preliminary approach to arrive later to OST, as I think that TWC is less frightening and opens some space, which can be later enlarged. If I conclude that what is needed in the situation is Future Search – which btw never happened – I will have to ask the client to search for a different facilitator, as I think that FS is not compatible with OST, because the facilitator is always in a central position that disempowers the client – later they will never be prepared to OST, and will be more and more away from it. 6. There are so many other things I would like to comment to your post, Peggy, but this is more than enough for a first take Warm regards Artur (*) There is a difference about saying “what will be the future of OST” or “what is the future that we want to construct for OST”. People that prefer the second, probably don’t even agree that “whatever happens is the only thing that could”. What will happen to OST is what we will care (and will be able) to create. Not “the only thing that could” ;-) --- On Mon, 11/23/09, Peggy Holman <pe...@opencirclecompany.com> wrote: From: Peggy Holman <pe...@opencirclecompany.com> Subject: Re: [OSLIST] honouring each other To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 4:19 PM I've been following this exchange wondering what, if anything, I have to contribute. I want to tease out a thread that has to do with what Kaliya called "open spacisms". It also relates to something Holger said: > in my experience, the OS folks are among the most > change resistant people that I have met in my life. Before I expand on this thread, just a few words about the exchange itself: Thank you Karen, Wendy, Lisa, Artur, and Holger for your leadership. In particular, Karen, I appreciated the distinction you gave in your messages: > I welcome direct and frank conversations. What I do not welcome is blaming, > name-calling, and yelling. Kaliya, thank you for being a voice for change. And, when faced with some very direct feedback, for moderating your tone in your last several posts. I value your brilliance and passion and am glad to see you step in on behalf of this community. Michael, thank you for the years of service and being there on behalf of Open Space's online presence. I hope your dedication to this community continues. I also thank you for facing a challenging onslaught with, what I thought was doing your best to be squeaky clean in your communication through the last several days. It is a challenge to be a lightening rod and I honor the work both of you are doing, Michael and Kaliya, for staying with the deeper purpose I see you both carrying on behalf of us all. **** So, here's the thread that I want to pursue: how the Open Space principles help us both support and resist change and what that means for the evolution of OST and opening space. The OS principles are wise and wily (clever). They are at their best when they remind people to take responsibility for what they love; when, for example, people discover that they really can moderate their own conflicts without a facilitator. I think the principles are at their worst when they replace co-creativity with resistance. For example, someone comes to me when preparing for an OS gathering and says, Open Space goes broad, not deep. I can turn that back to them quite simply by telling them that they create their own experience. And that's true. It also shuts off an exchange about what it means to go deep and how we can create the space so that people come together with greater depth. Too often, I have taken the "turn it back" route rather than engaging. And I don't think I'm alone. This may sound heretical, but I believe the cues for making this choice are embedded in the Open Space community's culture and to our detriment, that has made us change resistance. I offer a bit of my personal journey on this and then how I see it relating to this community. MY STORY When I began working with OS, I fiercely defended the space from all comers. I worked to keep any pre-work to a bare minimum, sure that people would understand the brilliant freedom of Open Space the moment they stepped in. Since then, I've found compassion for those who experience the disorientation of freedom shock when they first experience Open Space. When I began working more in community settings, with greater diversity and where there aren't the implicit "rules of engagement", I found that cultivating a sense of connection and clarity of purpose is part of creating a welcome, nutrient space. And contrary to the myth that talks don't work in Open Space, even Harrison has successfully given them in the morning of the second and third day of an Open Space gathering. In other words, as my practice has grown, I treat quite differently "givens" that I used to take as gospel and defend. Examples: * Pre-work (clarifying the intention and calling question, identifying and inviting stakeholders) is trivial. If you spend a lot of time on it, you're working too hard. * Open Space doesn't mix well with other practices. In fact, I have found creative, flowing ways in which different practices work together to meet the needs of the specific situation and culture. It requires getting creative with design colleagues and sponsors to meet the needs of a group. * Once you're in an Open Space event, stay in Open Space. While this is still my preference, there are circumstances where integrating other activities, like a morning talk, serves the needs of the group just fine. I want to be clear that I am still there to ensure the space is as open as possible. I have just come to believe that what keeps the space open is more nuanced than I understood when I started working with Open Space Technology in 1993. I no longer defend the space. I co-creatively ensure it stays open. THIS COMMUNITY So what does this have to do with this community being resistant to change? The OS principles contain deep truths. I think most deep truths contain contradictions. On a light note, here are a few examples of such contradictions: 1. Look before you leap. / He who hesitates is lost. 2. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. / Out of sight, out of mind. 3. The pen is mightier than the sword. / Actions speak louder than words. 4. Better safe than sorry. / Nothing ventured, nothing gained. 5. Birds of a feather flock together. / Opposites attract. 6. You’re never too old to learn. / You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Wisdom involves discerning how to navigate the contradictions. Yes, whatever happens is the only thing that could have. This is empowering when used to awaken someone to their own capacity to meet their needs. When it is used consciously or unconsciously to maintain the status quo, it becomes destructive. It becomes a way to do nothing. Rather than just saying "who ever comes..." or "whatever happens...", when someone raises an issue, I now treat it as a potential learning moment for either or both of us; an opening to understand something more fully Most often, exploring the issue leads to them discovering their own power to act. But through the conversation, they feel heard, respected, met. And I learn something about their culture. With this change in my practice, I have become more fluid in how I open space, sometimes using other processes as a doorway in, sometimes hosting a speaker because it serves the needs of the session. I am less glib than I used to be about the principles, recognizing both their power and their shadow. And I am more wiling to experiment with form, knowing that the real work is opening space within and among us. What does this sort of experimentation which many of us are doing mean for how Open Space Technology itself evolves? Is OST's form perfection as is? It is definitely elegant. As Harrison often says, a system that isn't changing is dead. Isn't this an interesting paradox? I think that the last OST innovation that has been widely embraced was when several of us began opening space for convergence following a conversation at the Toronto OSonOS in 1997! So with all the people experimenting with how we use OST, what might we learn about the nature and form of our work? I suspect there's more fluidity to the nature of opening space than most of us consider. For example, I sometimes hear from colleagues who use other conversational practices that Open Space doesn't surface the collective intelligence of a group in easily shared ways. I can hear the "open spacisms" raised in objection to this statement. Indeed, I have seen groups come away with a deep sense of how they fit together as a system. Yet, through their words or the notes, communicating that collective intelligence to those who weren't there is often a mystery. How might we approach this as a design challenge while staying true to the ethics of "one less thing to do" and trusting the people of the system to find their own answers? I've become more willing to experiment, to seek simple, natural forms that meet these sorts of objections. For example, I have come to appreciate the intimacy of reflecting in small groups. Since people don't all return to the large group at the same time, there's a natural rhythm to starting small then moving to one circle. I don't pretend to have "the" answer of how OST and our understanding of Open Space evolves. Perhaps the evolution isn't in the form but in our deeper thinking. It could be that the simple elegance of internalizing the practice of opening space frees us to experiment more with the form. After 16 years, I still feel like a novice, learning about the nature of opening space. I think it is an important, creative question for the evolution of our work and our community to consider how we evolve rather than dismissing criticisms and objections by naming a principle. Is anyone else interested in such conversations? Kaliya, thanks for calling out open spacisms. It gave me a doorway to speak to something that I haven't been able to figure out how to say. from cold, cloudy Seattle, Peggy ______________________________ Peggy Holman The Open Circle Company 15347 SE 49th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 425-746-6274 www.opencirclecompany.com www.journalismthatmatters.org For the new edition of The Change Handbook, go to: www.bkconnection.com/ChangeHandbook "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, is to become the fire". -- Drew Dellinger On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Raffi Aftandelian wrote: > friends, > > as someone who has made both positive and hurtful contributions to the ost > community, two more > things come to mind: > > i notice myself asking myself what are the ways in which i have showed up at > my best in this circle, > and also at less than best in this unexpected and wondrous time on OSlist. > > also, i wonder what else seeks to be expressed right now, what remains > unfinished? > > thank you all! > > warmly, > raffi > > p.s. and yes, jon, absolutely vegetarian chicken, my omission > > p.p.s. thank you alan re: good things happen! > > * > * > ========================================================== > 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 * * ========================================================== 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 * * ========================================================== 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 -- Suzanne Daigle NuFocus Strategic Group 7159 Victoria Circle University Park, FL 34201 FL 941-359-8877; CT 203-722-2009 www.nufocusgroup.com s.dai...@nufocusgroup.com * * ========================================================== 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 * * ========================================================== 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 * * ========================================================== 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
