Hi Chris:
Thanks for your clarification.
It always has been - and it is now - a great pleasure to read your posts.
You also wrote: "I'm also active in a most inspiring response to the current
alarming political situation in my home state, including by using OST."
That is something that, if you have time, I also would like to know more about.
Regards
Artur
________________________________
From: Chris Weaver <[email protected]>
To: Artur Silva <[email protected]>; World wide Open Space Technology email
list <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [OSList] Certification?
Hi Artur!
So glad to have you turn around, I didn't see you here in the pub under that
hat :-)
Here is a perhaps indirect answer to your direct question about certificate vs.
certification.
My thoughts about it likely do not correspond to common usage of the terms &
ideas.
The way I think of these particular "certificates" is that they are a symbol
and reminder, for me, of an experience. The experience was the workshop, and
the certificate is like one small gift that is a part of a complex
"gift-exchange" of energy (in many forms) and attention that constitutes the
workshop itself. In this sense, the "certificate" could just as well be a
stone or a shell or a bottle of Oporto; it is a physical reminder of an
experience.
To me the verb "to certify" does imply the act of one "qualified" person
granting a rank of qualification on another person as a result of some form of
measured judgment. So in this common sense, I would of course love to have one
of those certificates of non-certification mentioned above, especially with
regard to Open Space Technology facilitation.
To me, an interesting underlying aspect of our conversation is about the
symbolic "language" for a community of practice. We are exploring a gray area
between the idea of "certifying" and the idea of "naming" something. In the
example I shared in this thread: When I chose to invest time & energy into
Genuine Contact workshops, one of the responding opportunities was to be part
of a community of practice that naturally develops out of shared experience.
So the words "Genuine Contact" may become the name for a community of practice,
without any of the "power-over" implications of the idea of certification.
With "Open Space Technology," we're exploring the same territory. What IS it?
What ISN'T it? What does it mean for "IT" to have a name? What are the perils
of putting forth a definition for the name?
I have one more response Artur to your post to me. You wrote:
Nice to see you back to a list were you were once a frequent contributor, until
you had your time and interests diverted to another movement and list, as you
have now explained.
So yes, that is for a while how I used my two feet. Like many on this list, I
apply my attention to the online communities of practice that are most useful
to my work within the limits of time I choose to spend sitting at a computer.
(The Genuine Contact list is an interesting list, and open to anyone, at
[email protected]). But I am relishing being back in these
conversations, and I have always enjoyed reading your posts Artur.
Unfortunately I will begin teaching in about a week and my time will be under
much greater demands than in summer. I'm also active in a most inspiring
response to the current alarming political situation in my home state,
including by using OST. I'll at least be dropping by to share how that goes.
Cheers,
Chris
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Artur Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chris:
>
>Nice to see you back to a list were you were once a frequent
contributor, until you had your time and interests diverted to another movement
and list, as you have now explained.
>
>You were not, by the way, the only person that almost disappeared from
this list. In fact, as I see it, it was like a schism, with some people that
stayed beyond, for reasons that only they know, but anyone can speculate about.
>
>I was not in your virtual table of the pub and could not taste the pinot
noir, but it happens that I was in a close table, drinking an Oporto wine, and
could not avoid listening to your interesting story.
>
>I think that there are a lot of interesting stuff in your post,
that probably could give occasion to have (or repeat) discussions about, in
other threads (one probably - again -
about the "givens" question - if one does not want to search the
archives; another about the history of what you have called the ""falling
out" that apparently was at the origin of the schism, that has an
historical interest, and maybe others on and off topic).
>
>But, for the moment, and
to stay on topic, I would like to remember that you wrote:
>
>«When I completed
the Genuine Contact "Working with OST" workshop, I received a
certificate, but not a certification. (The distinction is important
because there was no intention on the workshop leader's part to evaluate my
"competence" in any way.)»
>
>I could not understand the difference between "certificate"
and "certification" (maybe I had already drunk too much Oporto wine
or, more probably, the cause is my lack of English proficiency...). Could you
be so kind to please elaborate a bit more about what is the difference between
the two concepts?
>
>Thank you and best regards
>
>Artur
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Chris Weaver <[email protected]>
>
>To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
><[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 5:45 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSList] Certification?
>
>
>
>Greetings All,
>
>
>Ah, I can't resist jumping in to stir the pot. It is an honor to join a
>thread peopled by so many folks whom I respect (and appreciate and love) so
>much. I invite you to settle in for rather a long story, which may, at some
>point, have something to do with "certification."
>
>
>After learning of Open Space in Anne Stadler's kitchen, I walked around as a
>newbie at the OSonOS in Monterrey (the one fifteen years ago, from which
>Harrison was unexpectedly absent, due to a nasty flu, I believe), with my jaw
>hanging open to meet so many bold and brilliant facilitators (I remember
>especially Michael P, Alan Stewart, Brian Bainbridge, Roxy, and Birgitt
>Bolton) sharing stories that I sweetly strove to wrap my head at least
>half-way around.
>
>
>For a few years I engaged actively on the OSLIST as I began to facilitate some
>OST meetings (without even "finishing the book," as I recall) in the Seattle
>school where I worked as a teacher. In 1999 I landed here in North Carolina,
>where I attended my first OST workshop as part of the Genuine Contact Program
>with Birgitt (Bolton) Williams who had recently landed a few hours away.
>
>
>Now I will say that I have an assumption only that at around that time there
>was something of a "falling out" between Birgitt and her work and the work of
>some other OS facilitators. I do not know, nor need to know, the details.
>But I do know that there are some points of practice that have generated some
>heated passion in the community and that I think are worthy of putting on the
>storytelling table. (I know that there is not supposed to be a table, but I
>suddenly imagine myself with Jeff, Chris, Peggy, Harrison, Michael in a pub
>somewhere with a rough wooden table, on which I am happily uncorking a bottle
>of pinot noir.)
>
>
>When I completed the Genuine Contact "Working with OST" workshop, I received a
>certificate, but not a certification. (The distinction is important because
>there was no intention on the workshop leader's part to evaluate my
>"competence" in any way.) Based on my participation in the four-day
>experience, I could, if I chose, refer to myself as an authorized "Genuine
>Contact professional." The workshop included an exploration of the form &
>essence of OST, as gifted so effectively in Harrison's User's Guide. The
>workshop also shared some suggested approaches and tools for working in depth
>with the sponsor of an OST meeting (usually a leadership team within an
>organization), both prior to and after the OST event. My own understanding is
>that, by referring to myself as a GC professional if I chose, I would be
>sharing the simple message that I had had exposure to the approach of using
>OST that included these pre- and post-OST meeting practices and
tools. The choice of whether and how to apply these practices and tools was
up to me.
>
>
>So that is the part that relates to this thread topic of certification. As a
>practitioner, I honor the open-source nature of OST as Harrison's "discovery"
>and gift to the world. I refer people to the User's Guide (and also the
>Non-User's Guide and other community resources) frequently.
>
>
>As an aside, I continued in the years that followed to participate in
>workshops on other methodologies that are shared through the Genuine Contact
>Program (most notably Whole Person Process Facilitation, which I use very
>often). I collaborated with my Genuine Contact colleagues around the world in
>developing the minimal appropriate structure for our international community.
>I participated in many mentoring circles, completed the Train the Trainer
>workshop, and became one of the 43 "co-owners" of the program. I also shifted
>my virtual community participation to the GC List, and dropped off of the
>OSLIST for a number of years. (I am enjoying being back.)
>
>
>So here, the plot thickens :-). One of the practices included in the GC
>"Working with OST" workshop is the use of...the "givens." So, lubricated with
>wine, I am going to place the notion of givens on the wooden storytelling
>table for our enjoyment. (This is worthy of its own thread, of course, but
>I'll just keep going here.)
>
>
>I have only infrequently worked as an external consultant/facilitator. Most
>of my work with OST has been within schools and community organizations. Over
>the years, I have come to value highly the practices I learned in the GCP of
>working with the sponsor prior to and after an OST (and I know that among
>other OST facilitators, pre- and post- meetings such as these are skillfully
>used and valued).
>
>
>In my experience, the purpose of careful preparation with the sponsoring team
>is to assist them in considering the state of their organization. What is the
>story-line that has brought them to considering an OST meeting? What's
>happening in terms of the grief cycle within their organization? What (deeply
>now) is the purpose of the meeting? What (deeply now) is the context?
>Basically, I ask the questions, and the team has the conversations. All this
>I explicitly place in the reality that when you sponsor an OST, there is not,
>nor should there be, any turning back.
>
>
>I use the givens as an essential tool in this process. I draw a circle on a
>flip chart and say, If this circle represents the open space, what are the
>non-negotiables that form the parameters of the open space?
>
>
>In the past, there have been passionate objections to this practice on this
>list, based, I think, on the belief that to establish givens is to close the
>space before it is even opened. My long-haul experience within organizations
>has taught me something different.
>
>
>What happens when I ask what the non-negotiables are is that a bunch of stuff
>goes up on the flip chart. Then, I probe each one, and ask, "Is this REALLY a
>given at this time for this meeting?" The fifteen givens get whittled down to
>twelve, and then eight, and then maybe five (ish). As you can imagine, the
>level of trust that organizational leaders have in the people plays in
>heavily. I let it be. I cannot make them trust more; I can only model trust,
>and hold space for trust.
>
>
>But I also find that the few givens that remain are, every time, very
>important and meaningful. Some examples: Perhaps the organizational purpose
>is a given, and perhaps there is value in re-sharing the organizational
>purpose at the start of the OST. Perhaps there has been a year of good work
>by a sub-group within the organization that has culminated in a policy that
>not everyone attending the OST is aware of, and that policy is a given.
>Perhaps a "law of the land" that administrators, but not all participants,
>know about is a given. Perhaps it is a given that the organization will stay
>within a certain budget, and any ideas generated beyond the budget will have
>to include the funding source to support them.
>
>
>Yes, the givens are shared with the group at the start of the OST. In my
>experience, this does not close the space, but rather it opens the space
>clearly and honestly. More importantly, it is a tool for building trust.
>When participants hear their formal organizational leaders share, clearly and
>transparently, what the givens are, they are more trusting that their own
>ideas will be honored after the meeting and not squelched.
>
>
>And this is what happens. Using givens is a way to profoundly mitigate the
>phenomenon, with which any seasoned OST facilitator is familiar, of leadership
>freaking out and clamping down on the results of an OST. The practice does
>not (thankfully) prevent the productive chaos and re-framing that happens
>after the meeting, but it greatly reduces the phenomenon of reactionary fear
>on the part of formal leadership. The result is that leadership is more
>inclined to sponsor another OST soon, and indeed to invite other groups
>withing the organization to utilize OST themselves.
>
>
>Perhaps because I have worked inside organizations for many years, I have a
>deep respect for the challenges that formal leaders face. Perhaps an
>organization is possible without any formal leaders, but I have not yet
>encountered this. In the school where I work, there is a fragile and indeed
>even tender respect for our formal leaders whose responsibility it is to hold
>the space for the organization in the community. When leadership is in its
>integrity, followership is a natural and beautiful thing.
>
>
>Okay, I will pour the last of the bottle into all the glasses. Sadly, I won't
>hear your fine words until tomorrow, but so it is, according to the odd and
>illusory parameters of space & time.
>
>
>Take Care, with Love,
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Donna Read <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>Amen to that, Harrison! Blessings, Donna
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Aug 8, 2013, at 17:36, "Harrison Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Jeff – as a sometime perpetrator and totally confused (certifiable) I can
>>attest that if at any point I were to intimate that I actually knew what I
>>was doing, that would be a significant error. However I feel quite
>>comfortable in my not-knowing if only because the “process” (OST) is not
>>something I “do.” Under the best of circumstances my contribution is to
>>invite folks to do what they already know how to do – to be what they already
>>are. It always works, and it works even better when I get out of the way.
>>>
>>>Harrison
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
