Bernd -- thanks for naming the essence of my reflections. A great summary of what I was trying to say.
Michael, thanks for teasing out the distinction between low context and high risk of freedom shock. For the journalism events, both aspects were present, no doubt compounding each other. Which brings me to your question, Harrison. What's the difference indeed? I don't have a good answer for you. I think your first example raises an issue of mixed expectations -- between you and the people with their own agenda. That was a factor in my situations. Your second story strikes me as being about the importance of passion for the topic. That wasn't at play for me. People came because they were drawn to the organizing question. My best thought is the combination of low context and freedom shock are the primary factors such that immediately opening the space can blow too many circuits for a notable minority. I do a fair amount of work between the cracks of organizations and communities, in the spaces where no one claims to be "in charge". Aside from the challenge of funding, it's great territory. I haven't thought about it this way before, but I would say this territory is always low context. Diverse people come together to imagine new ideas into being. When working on the emerging news and information ecology, I've discovered that professional journalists come from a culture that places a high value on certainty. I think it's part of the reason that legacy media has generally been so slow to even think about the need to change much less have a clue how to approach it! When faced with the combination of low context and high need for certainty, giving away a few fish seems to make a difference. My best example happened in your back yard, at George Washington University. It was 2007 and we were holding our first well publicized open enrollment Journalism That Matters session. Most of the participants were journalism educators, who were attending the annual Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication conference following our event. The organizing question was indirectly getting at the continuing decline of advertising revenues: "What happens when only the journalism is left?". Now most of the attendees had a fabulous time. I came away with several of my favorite insights about journalism -- the difference between professional and citizen journalists: pros cover stories, others share their stores, and one group gets paid, the other doesn't. Also the journalism educators defined the need for curriculum to focus on 1) broad based media literacy, 2) journalism tools, and 3) a new area: the art of engagement. I loved that new function! Anyway, we had a number of "names" coming among the 150 attendees. I think they came expecting to be center stage. When coupled with a culture that expects certainty, we had quite a disconnect for some. As I say, most had a grand time. Some even said they came expecting one thing but what was going on was much better. Feedback from one of the contingent who left: > I discovered I was at a New Age, "open circle" conference where the questions > were as flat and meaningless as possible so no one would feel > excluded...Maybe I am just an uptight Northeast corridor person, but I found > the moderation by Peggy and Steve treacly and impossible to take. (BTW, he mentioned an example question in another part of his feedback. It was a complete misstatement of what I'd asked.) It was tough feedback to swallow. Had he been alone in leaving, I'd have completely dismissed it as his stuff. (I still dismiss a large part of it as his stuff.) When we debriefed following the event, we mostly concluded that there'd been a mismatch in expectations about what people thought they were attending and what we did. No doubt that contributed. We're much better now about how we characterize our events. And the idea of an unconference, a label we often use, is better known. Following that event, my colleagues were all over me about needing more upfront stuff, more familiar forms. I finally relented and we started experimenting, ultimately finding the kinds of activities I described in my last email. We spend the opening afternoon supporting the group in discovering how they see the context. That seems to diminish the freedom shock. I think our effectiveness has increased as a result. In part, things are better because those who would have walked out now find enough of a handle that they stay and contribute. They are changed by the experience in ways that surprise themselves. And they take it back into that culture of certainty, with more capacity to help others navigate the waves. appreciatively, Peggy _________________________________ Peggy Holman [email protected] 15347 SE 49th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 425-746-6274 www.peggyholman.com www.journalismthatmatters.org Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity "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 Feb 27, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Harrison Owen wrote: > Well done Peggy – and you really have my curiosity aroused. All about the 1%! > I do understand that some significant percentage of the participants (did you > say 20%?) appeared “disoriented” – and you are certainly right that a good > dose of Freedom Shock can be unsettling, and might be the cause. My problem > is that I don’t think I have ever encountered such a situation – at least > with the numbers you indicate. This is not to say that every OS I have done > had a 100% satisfaction rate, that Freedom Shock didn’t ruffle a few > feathers, or that nobody ever left. But honestly, I have never seen anything > such as you describe. > > Just to be absolutely clear – I am not doubting you for a minute, nor am I > even vaguely suggesting that you are somehow “inadequate” as a space opener. > I’ve known you too well and too long to even suspicion that. So what’s the > difference. What have I missed? > > It could well be that my own powers of observation are less than acute, or if > acute, then blinded by a natural bias – believing that everybody MUST love > OS. All possible, but even with a with a very dark pair of rose colored > classes, I don’t think I would miss 20-30% of the folks walking out. > > The closest thing to what you describe that I ever experienced came in two > rather strange, and never to be repeated situations. The first was not an > Open Space per se, but rather a training program back in the days when I > offered a whole mess of lectures and a little bit of Open Space. Hopefully I > can be forgiven, but that is what “training programs” used to be, so we all > thought. In the case, a substantial number of the attendees had come with the > explicit purpose of discrediting Open Space and substituting their own > understanding of what training and facilitation was all about. Needless to > say I didn’t have a clue when we started that was the situation, but I sure > found out – and once the cat was out of the bag I simply took a walk (Law of > two feet) telling all the participants that when they figured out what they > wanted to do, and if wanted me to be a part of it – just let me know. It was > all very interesting, and in a very curious way – total open space! > > The second situation occurred rather early on in my Open Space journey. A > group of trainers and facilitators asked me to “demonstrate Open Space.” Not > knowing any better, I asked them to come up with some sort of theme and “we > did it.” We sat in a circle, created a bulletin board, opened a market place > – and everybody left -- muttering, “Is that all there is?” > Never again! > > One thing I have thought of which might be the difference is that in > virtually all cases (certainly in the last 20 years) when somebody comes to > me they want an Open Space. Or putting it the other way around, it is never > the case that I was trying to convince somebody to use Open Space. Indeed > there have been any number of situations where after talking to the people I > suggested that they go out and see if they can figure any other way to > achieve what they had in mind. Should they run out of options please to come > back and I would be happy to talk. Just for the record, the return rate was > about 50%. > > So what do you think? > > > Harrison > > > > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Dr. > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > Camden, Maine 20854 > > 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 OfPeggy Holman > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:23 AM > To: World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Teach Them to Fish / A Note to My Friends > > I'd like to dive under the metaphor of "distributing fish" when opening > space. What I'm about to say may be controversial, but I think it's a > discussion worth having. > > As background, when I first started opening space, I always jumped right in. > Ninety-five percent of the time, following a few words from the sponsor, I > still do. I want to be clear that the reflections that follow involve a > narrow set of circumstances -- say 1% of the time -- when I have found it > useful to give away some fish. > > In that 1% of cases, jumping into Open Space left a sufficient number of > people confused, out of focus, and unsure why they had come that I think it > reduced the potential of the experience for everyone. I'd describe most of > these situations as high in "freedom shock" -- a wonderful term that Harrison > coined to describe, in his words, "the reaction of a very bright, experienced > group of professionals who had suddenly been granted everything they wanted > with no strings attached, and it seemed to terrify them". > > So when the conditions are ripe for a lot of freedom shock -- say, 20-25% of > participants -- I think it's useful to give away a few fish. > > I'm offering my reflections on What does it mean to distribute fish? When > does it makes sense? How do you do it? > > I would love to hear how others see it. > > What does distributing fish mean to me? > > It means setting the context with why are we here and who is here with more > than a few words from the sponsor. It doesn't take much but, I have found > circumstances in which setting the stage makes a world of difference for the > effectiveness not just for an event, but for what happens afterwards. Far > more go fishing on their own and with newfound partners when they've been fed > a few fish and learned something about fishing. > > When does it make sense to distribute fish? > > I first ran into the need through the early Journalism That Matters events > (http://journalismthatmatters.org/events-notes/), which brought together the > "whole system" of journalism. When I co-hosted the second and third > Evolutionary Salons (http://www.thegreatstory.org/ev-salon.html) -- wildly > open ended explorations of what it means to be conscious agents of evolution, > they added to my reflections on the need for some work up front. > > Even in these events, most jumped right in and ran with the experience. Yet > there was a notable minority, perhaps 1/4 to 1/3, who were so disoriented > they left or simply wandered around lost. They couldn't figure out how to > navigate the space. Now I can make the case that this was exactly the right > outcome. I have no doubt the experience got them cooking. So this isn't > about right or wrong. It is about overall effectiveness. > > I haven't tried to describe the conditions before now but found them emerging > as I thought back on some of the wild rides I've had. When the following > conditions are ALL present, giving away fish is useful: > > * There isn't the infrastructure of an organization or something that > provides an implicit context for all that is happening. > * The question is "big" -- which can seem abstract or unfocused to some. > (Example: What is the new news ecology and how do we create it?") > * The people are coming together just for the event. While some may know > each other, they're all likely to go their separate ways following the > experience. When the group is highly diverse, it compounds the situation. (Of > course, it also increases the potential of the experience when people have > what they need to orient.) > * The majority of people coming have never experienced Open Space or > something like it. (So not only is the content, while attractive or they > wouldn't be there, a stretch, the form is completely unfamiliar.) > * There's no clear sponsor in the traditional sense -- a senior manager of > an organization or an organization that brings an orienting set of > assumptions. (Journalism That Matters and the group of us co-hosting the > Evolutionary Salons just brought interesting questions.) > > In short, if the context isn't easily understood, it's the responsibility of > the organizers to make it so. > > How do you distribute fish? > > I've run into the conditions I described above when working with ambitious > societal questions that aren't anchored in pursuing specific activities. > Such circumstances don't lend themselves to experts setting the stage. So I > look for ways in which people answer the questions for themselves -- in which > they create a context through understanding the mix of intentions present, > and who's bringing them. > > In other words, it's still about the people in the room pursuing what matters > to them. > > I've used a variety of approaches to accomplish this, sometimes for an hour, > sometimes for a half a day, depending on the situation and the desired > outcomes: > > * People sharing the questions they've brought with each other, sometimes > with a World Cafe around the conference theme. Sometimes, when there are > some folks who have some deep thinking or practice to offer as inspiration, > 2-3 are invited as "conversation catalysts", to talk for a max of 10 minutes > each, setting the stage for a conversation in the room. > > * Creating a "who's coming" bio book sent in advance can give people a sense > of who's in the room without spending time on introductions. Or we'll > provide some means for people to self-identify the roles they play. For > example, at a number of Journalism That Matters sessions, we've had stickers > for different roles that people could put on their name tags. > > * Setting up a "trade show", where anyone can share their work at a table > for an hour or so. It's lively, informal, and people get to spend their time > learning about what others are doing. It also clears the way for folks who > come with an agenda to loosen their hold on it because they get a chance to > tell their story. > > By the time they're done with these types of activities, I find even the most > freedom shock prone have gotten enough of a grounding to dive into Open Space. > > > All these activities are informed by the assumption that people have the > answers within them. They are a way to provide more context when it isn't > coming from an obvious source. > > So, that's about it. > > Thoughts? > > appreciatively, > Peggy > > >
_______________________________________________ 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
