Hi Lucas, There's a published article about some folks in CA who combined Open Space with offering Dynamic Facilitation during the breakout sessions. I think their only DF training was from reading the manual, and I believe they got interesting-yet-mixed results. I'll look for the reference for you, if you're interested.
During the last two Surfing Democracy conferences in Batschuns, Austria, that we hosted using a basic AoH format, we offered participants an option of having DF support during the OS breakout sessions. Several of the sessions took us up on it, and found it valuable. >From what I saw, it can be a good combination. Of course, it's up to participants whether they choose to use it or not. One thing is, participants who did want to use DF also wanted longer sessions (2 hour ones instead of 1 hour ones) so that they could use the opportunity to go into greater depth, as DF supports that well. This was not a problem at all, as usually in OS people can freely choose to make sessions longer anyway. with all best wishes, Rosa *Rosa Zubizarreta* *Author of From Conflict to Creative Collaboration: A User's Guide to Dynamic Facilitation <http://www.conflict2creativity.com>* *Three-Day Deep Dives:* In these highly experiential workshops, we practice a non-linear approach for "maximizing creative tension while minimizing interpersonal anxiety" with applications to both business and public engagement. We learn through exploring real-world social issues, in a surprisingly enjoyable and energizing manner. Participants also have opportunities to draw on collective intelligence to explore their own personal/professional challenges. More info here <http://diapraxis.com/home/rosas-personal-manifesto>. *March 27 -29 Portland, Maine <http://tinyurl.com/MaineDF>*; *April 17-19 New York City <http://tinyurl.com/DynamicInquiry>* <http://tinyurl.com/DynamicInquiry>; *May 26-28 near Bonn, Germany <http://tinyurl.com/DFGermany2015>* On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Lisa Heft - via OSList < [email protected]> wrote: > I find that most of this becomes evident during the pre-work > conversations, when we talk about power dynamics. > Which also informs our conversation about which process to use, how long > an event should be (given the objectives, desired outcomes, reasons, > context, culture and more), and other elements. After which if Open Space > is still the right-fit process / tool for the job, knowing much of this, > it’s a reason (in my experience, anyway, which could differ from yours) to > - not make sessions shorter than 1 hour > - have enough sessions so that people can ‘find their feet’ to go where > they need to go > - describe principles and law as self-care contributing to productivity > … things like that. > > I find that giving people extra instructions does not go into most people. > Even placing an instruction sheet at each discussion area does not go into > most people / many people opt for whatever (instead) is comfortable for > them. And giving people ways to be - more than the principles - seems to go > into the people who are already like that, but does not change other > peoples’ behaviors. So a not-too-fast-or-squished Open Space plus some > other attention paid to power dynamics seems to help everyone go where they > need to go. > > In any good conversation, is it that the sub-topics are all identified at > the start? That some get brought up and that some do not? I don’t observe > this - in conversations (any kind, Open Space or in a really good house > party) conversations go where the energy is. And I have also observed that > brainstorming topics (in any process) at the start tends to ‘reward’ the > quick-responders, not the reflective thinkers. And also the topics on > someone’s mind at the start are not always the deeper level of where things > can go if explored. > > My observation is the formats of each small group discussion are diverse, > across the room, depending on the energies and the styles of diverse > individuals. And that seems to work. > > I don’t find that adding tools, aides or games improves in Open Space. > I do find that discussing and understanding things as much as possible > with the client before the event is useful and informs such things as how > you make the name tags (such as just names / zero titles), the fact that > you don’t do introductions, the fact that you try not to have the client do > speeches, awards, formal lunches that (to my observation) interrupt the > flow of dialogue and engagements - and other elements universal to process > design (especially Open Space). > As a participant, I have found all the energy sucked out of a room when > someone had the group do games, team-building, warm-ups or anything else > that was not (to me) a fully engaging way to actually do the work, > collaboratively and interactively. > > As I say - your experience, your observations could differ. > > I have also found that in online environments people just disappear and > you don’t see them step away, say thank you, stand on the edge and look in, > make a face that gets you asking how they too see things, and all that good > stuff. So I am wondering if the improvement to virtual process for Open > Space (or similar face-to-face-based processes) might build on some of > these things. Also the timing thing, the facilitator’s role and presence > (non-interventionst, in the case of Open Space), the ability to see things > happening in the same big room (feel energy, sense options, notice hunger > and thirst or others butterflying at the food or looking out the window) - > these things and many more - in the in-person environment - to me, would > inform the evolution of the creation of online tools and environments. > > And a disclaimer about me personally, as a participant in such things: I > have a personal resistance to the gamefication of things that are important > to me. > > Thanks, Lucas - you always invite such interesting exploration. And > thanks, others, for your often-so-different-than-mine observations, > experiences and ways of doing things… > > Lisa > > Lisa Heft > Consultant, Facilitator, Educator > Opening Space > > > > On 22/3/2015, at 15:10, Lucas Cioffi via OSList < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I checked the OST User's Guide and the OS List archives, but I didn't find > any mention of what format the breakout sessions can/should take. > > During some but not all OS events I've attended, facilitators have > mentioned that breakout sessions should be conversations rather than > presentations. > > The OS philosophy would say "there's no need to suggest how to run a > breakout session" and "empower the participants to choose their own formats > for each session" and "do less" and "it just happens". However, we all > know from firsthand experience that some breakout sessions are more > personally satisfying/rewarding than others, just as some 3-person coffee > break conversations during normal conferences are better than others. > > Here are some potential problems with breakout sessions if they are > implemented poorly by participants: > > - There can be too many sub-topics for the breakout session so some > ideas do not get brought up at all. Most of the time people do not > brainstorm all the topics at the beginning of a session and they dive right > into the discussion of the first issue that comes to mind. So they don't > ever know all the topics that are on everyone's minds. > - Some people do no feel comfortable for various reasons related to > introversion, discrimination, or office politics, so they never speak up. > As facilitators, we know ways to avoid this but the participants may not > know how to avoid these meeting pitfalls. > - One person dominates the discussion. The built-in remedy for this > is that everyone else votes with their feet and leaves to form their own > breakout session later, but sometimes this doesn't happen and it's simply a > lost opportunity for everyone. > > *Here are my questions for the group:* > 1. What formats to the breakout sessions usually take at events that you > facilitate, and are some of these formats better than others in your > opinion? > 2. What formats could breakout sessions take? Someone usually starts with > why they convened the session, but then what usually happens? What could > happen? > 3. What meeting tools/aides/games can help improve the quality of breakout > sessions? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Past archives can be viewed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ 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 Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
