At 18:47 20-02-2001 -0700, BJ Peters wrote:
> Admitting that it is not (or at least that it is difficult) how can we
regain
> the "expert role" that is so valued in our society? Combining OS with
> other tools, methods or "specialised knowledge"? Concentrating
> in training instead of consultancy? (a trainer is always an "expert"
> by definition - if he "does nothing with elegance" he can always claim
> (or be understood by others) as a specialist in "non directive training
> methods"...)
I believe the most basic and profound premise of Open Space Technology is that
the wisdom (expertise) to create whatever the group wants is IN THE ROOM.
To do
anything to indicate that I, as facilitator, am somehow "more" expert than
anyone in the room is totally compromising that basic premise and would create
cognitive dissonance - real disparity between what I said and what I did.
Therefore, I can't conceive that any OST facilitator would want to "regain the
'expert role'". If I want to support people's belief - in their own wisdom and
power and passion and responsibility - and to hold the space for their
creative
energy to flow and manifest, I CANNOT think, act or BE the expert; I can
only be
authentically present and hold the space open.
I completely agree with you. And I see now that my choice of words
was wrong as it can give the idea that the facilitator SHALL do
something to regain the expert role. In fact, I am myself very critical
about the "expert role" that our society values and that was NOT
the idea I wanted to convey. On the contrary.
So let me see if I am able - on a second try - to put my idea into
(English) words. But even on a second try it's not easy. It goes like
that: except maybe in "peripheral issues" (or in special community
cases) it is not easy to be accepted as a consultant/facilitator for the
"main issues", namely on companies and Pub Admin. [And I
am not considering only cases where there is a fee - I am also
thinking in cases where the facilitator offers services for free]
Assuming that, when one tries to combine OS with other
"knowledge" (like in my IS/IT "methods") or concentrate oneself
mainly on training (and, by definition, a trainer is always assumed
as an expert) may it be that unconsciously one is trying
to make himself acceptable by clients? (unconsciously try
to regain an "expert role"?). I am not sure if this conveys my
idea of (first) a question and (second) an eventual self-criticism
(as I am now offering some training that, even if it's not directly
training in OST, uses OST to train in other subjects - namely
Information Management).
Let me try to complement this with another idea that was in
background when I wrote the previous message. Harrison wrote
in one of his books about a talk he had with people from
the USA National Training Institute (or something like that)
and the people from the Institute commented (quoted by memory)
"if OST works, 90 % of our training is useless". If we
combine that with the fact that it is easy to understand OST,
and then practice it, only by reading the GUIDE and/or by participating
in an OS and do afterwards some "reflecting on previous action"
(like in OSonOS, for instance - but it could also be an OS on OS
session after a "real" OS), conventional introductory OS
training (maybe not including advanced training) belongs to the
10% or to the 90%? Is it needed? Is it not contradictory with OS
fundamentals? [Not to speak about the eventual need for "OS
certification" ...]
Maybe my point is a silly one, that you have all already clarified,
coming from someone too much concerned about (his own) ethics
or about trying to "fully" understand something that cannot be fully
understood... Anyhow, let me came back to BJ Peters words, that I
fully agree with:
I believe the most basic and profound premise of Open Space Technology is that
the wisdom (expertise) to create whatever the group wants is IN THE ROOM.
To do
anything to indicate that I, as facilitator, am somehow "more" expert than
anyone in the room is totally compromising that basic premise and would create
cognitive dissonance - real disparity between what I said and what I did.
Therefore, I can't conceive that any OST facilitator would want to "regain the
'expert role'". If I want to support people's belief - in their own wisdom and
power and passion and responsibility - and to hold the space for their
creative
energy to flow and manifest, I CANNOT think, act or BE the expert; I can
only be
authentically present and hold the space open.
I understand that an OS facilitator can claim that all the knowledge
is in the room and he is not an expert. But what about a trainer?
When someone offers training and when clients decide to came to training
isn't it always implicit the trainer expertise? So is it silly to put the
question if "OS training" is not in itself contradictory to the OS
fundamentals you summarised?
I am sorry if while trying to obtain help in clarifying something that
disturbs me, I am also disturbing some of you. And I am not even sure
if I am smelling, or not, some sort of dead mouse...
Regards
Artur
*
*
==========================================================
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
===========================================================
osl...@egroups.com
To subscribe,
1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2. Sign up -- provide an email address,
and choose a login ID and password
3. Click on "Subscribe" and follow the instructions
To unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of osl...@egroups.com:
1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2. Sign in and Proceed
