Justin -- There are obviously places in this world for therapists and coaches, and the good ones can be extrodinarily helpful at particular moments in our lives. I am not sure that Jim Rush considers himself to be either, but it seems to me that the role he has set for himself falls somewhere under either or both of these models. I think that the function of Open Space is perhaps different and certainly broader, although a number of people (myself included) have found Open Space to be very powerful therapy, and for sure I find myself coached by masters in every Open Space, even if they never thought of themselves as "coaches." I have also heard it said among my coach and therapist friends that they are at their best when they do the least -- and best of all when it seems that they do nothing but open some doors and windows (space) so that the client/patient can do "it" all themselves.
Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Dr. Potomac, MD 20854 USA 301-365-2093 207-763-3261 (summer) website www.openspaceworld.com Personal Website www.ho-image.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Justin T. Sampson To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:18 AM Subject: Re: advanced butterfly Harrison Owen wrote: > I suppose where I may take some issue with both Reinhard and > Josef concerns the need to provide additional services, > methods, techniques (in the Open Space environment) in order to > facilitate the emergence of whole people. Part of the > difficulty is that when such "services" are provided the people > (participants) tend to see their emergence as whole people as > the product of that service -- and not be fully aware that in a > very real sense they did it all by themselves, and further that > they are ultimately responsible for their own emergence. I am > sure that neither Reinhard nor Josef would fall into what I > might call the "Do-Me syndrome" -- in which people come to some > gathering or event and expect to be "done-to" by the "experts." > But that happens, and I see no value added, only the > continuation of a destructive dependency on "The Experts." Similarly, Michael Herman wrote in another thread: > i'm not interested in bringing others in to do things that we > think participants can't do for themselves. i want to invite > participants to do it *all* for themselves. that, to me, is > what open space is for... discovering that we can do it for > ourselves... that we have the bullet points, the artful sketch, > the passion, the responsiblity, the vision and the action > within each and all of us. These comments are very interesting to me. As a new learner in the group process arena, trying to feel out the root wisdom of the various process gurus, I find myself drawn most strongly at once both to Open Space Technology and to Dynamic Facilitation (a la Jim Rough), which is very different in this sense. That is, DF relies heavily on a facilitator actively drawing out and reflecting each participant's feelings and ideas. Both approaches start a meeting with no agenda, and both have some notion (maybe not the same one?) of self-organization as a fundamental principle, following the energy of the group as it moves and evolves. As a shy/quiet person myself, I really like the idea of having a facilitator present to effectively hold the space open for me right then and there when I have some thoughts to get out. Otherwise the thoughts might just fester and keep me distracted while I try in vain to find the right/safe time to jump in. On the other hand, the times when I've felt this need most intensely have been not in Open Space, but in work or personal settings in the presence of some kind of dominance relationship (such as a manager/boss). Come to think of it, I also felt this need in the NCDD workshops where there was a presenter with some structure for the workshop, but not in the sessions of the brief Open Space. Do you all find that to be the case, that the simple fact of convening spontaneously in Open Space makes a more active facilitator less necessary? Do you still see circumstances where you'd prefer or recommend a small-group meeting with a more active facilitator over a larger-group Open Space event? As another angle, actually the most affecting and inspiring thing for me at NCDD was the Playback Theatre showcase session. After a day of intellectually interesting but otherwise somewhat stale and disconnected sessions, Playback snapped me right back into presence and connection both with the actors and the other audience members in a very powerful way. Playback could be seen as being another "active facilitator" process -- the actors stand before the audience to draw out and reflect their feelings and stories and ideas through improvisational acting. How do you all see this relating to the issues above? In a perfect Open Space event, how might a Playback Theatre session take place? Cheers, Justin * * ========================================================== 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
