Hi Harrison, I answered to Raffi's questions about what are the benefits of FSC vs OS for me... but next meeting will be again OS for Rotary as there would be about 100 people, firstly the presidents-elect (presidents to be in a new Rotary year which will start on the 1st of July. And you know already, that our District 5010 is Alaska(US), Yukon(CA), and the 2/3 of Russia - Siberia and Far East (of Russia), so it will be "Questions and opportunities for Russian Rotary in the nearest futrure" as this year will be a 100 year aniversary of Rotary. Do you know any other organization, which existed 100 years and in which every year ALL leaders are changed? Starting from the President of Rotary International with the head quarter in Chicago, Il, and then to the governours of the districts and Rotary club presidents... I would never believe it if I did not join Rotary. And here ... a lack of leaders skills in democratic way of leading the volunteers in Russia - is a separate chapter of my future book (if I write some at last...). Every year new president is saying: It is my year, don't listen to him/her - he/she is not a president any more..., yes, some clubs are very succesful, some are always in turbulence, but the question here is not in the Rotary, ...
people can not talk, and sometimes future search gives them opportunity to go through past, present and desired future.. which is hard to imagine for some people. they do no what they don't want but to put in a positive way and draw the picture of the desired future in some concrete forms - hard... and I was just from the FSC Learning Exchange workshop, so I really did retell all the nice stories about my learnings and meeting nice people... not that I forgot about OS, but thank you for posting your letter, Raffi, and you, Harrison, for you deep thoughts again... as I do try to work with OS every time I can, and that will be opportunity to work again... and I will try the Michael Pannwitz idea (as it just happened like this - to have a break before planning session for lunch) as we shall have time for work on the issues and opportunities from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., than lunch (we will try to keep it shorter... ) and then the planning session, which is usually supposed to be on the next day, but there will be no next day... so it will be time from 2:45 to 4:30, from which I should take off some half an hour for closing session, but still there will be another half an hour for analyses of the results for some good leaders and thinkers in Siberian Rotary, who I hope will speak to people interactively and not autoritatively. so we are moving, slowly but in the direction of learning hearing and listening, though some people are saying - OS? again? and others: what is it? how wonderful! I thought I knew everything in types of meeting and this is a new one... so le'ts see what will happen again. OS in organizations works more concretely, but Rotary is a volunteer organization, where everybody came from usually succesful business as they need to pay a Rotary fee...but still a new feeling of being volunteer needs to be learned. Especially it is difficult for leaders - they can not just fire people, they need to learn their motivations (which are usually hired) and learn how to lead without leading.... just asking what people would like to do. People don't trust each other, don't talk, can not be open (there is always somebody who tries to hide behind the column and not seeting in a circle... and so on.... ), but some - just feels themselves as fish in a water as we say.... ok, looking forward to hearing from you soon elena president of the Rotary club Novosibirsk-Akademgorodok 2003-04 Governour 5010 Assistant in West Siberia 2004-05 sorry for the long letter again best wishes elena ----- Original Message ----- From: Harrison Owen To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: Re: meeting with a Russian colleague and more (thoughts on OS's limitations; getting into consulting work) Raffi - Per usual, there is a lot of good stuff here. And it is good to hear that you and Elena have hooked up. Should you see her again, tell her we have missed her on OSLIST. Her preference for Future Search in the Russian context is something she has shared before, so it does not come as a surprise, nor would I question her preference or her experience - but I am curious. This is not about OS vs FS - indeed, I have infinite respect for Marv Weisbord and the FS crowd. However, if it is true that FS "works better in the Russian context" we have a very interesting cultural discriminator. A sort of litmus paper test of some sort. Briefly put - Are there some cultures where Open Space doesn't work? And if there were, I think we might learn some useful things about culture, cultures, and Open Space. But of course, we would need to be quite precise about what we meant when we said "worked." I would suppose that there are at least three levels of "worked." 1) The process worked formally - people sat in a circle, created and agenda, and formed work groups. . .) 2) The process worked experientially - people became engaged, issues were seriously discussed, "useful" things happened (minds were changed, ideas were generated, projects initiated/terminated, etc.) 3) The process worked over time - there was some perceptible, continuing impact. In my personal experience, I have never seen an instance where Open Space failed to "work" at the first and second levels - no matter the group involved, the issue under discussion, or the cultural context. Now obviously, my experience is limited, and my perception doubtless biased -- but that has been my experience. It is absolutely true that I have never had the privilege of opening space in Russia, but I have done just that in what I think are similar cultural environments, including parts of the old USSR. The truly interesting thing to me is that over the almost 20 years of Opening Space, I have never been able to identify any significant difference of group performance regardless of culture, ethnicity, economics, education, national origin, or any other variable that I can think of. I have, of course, heard of instances where it was reported that Open Space did not "work" as advertised, but in every instance where I was able to dig deeper, it turned out that the problem wasn't Open Space, but rather the way it was done. The most usual offenders were those situations where it was decided to try "a little Open Space." Typically this meant "doing Open Space" in a one hour time slot in the midst of a formal conference. Another example would be when it was decided to "demonstrate Open Space." In those cases an arbitrary theme (or no theme at all) was announced, people sat in a circle, and nothing (or little) happened. Typical reactions of participants was something like "It that all there is?" And the reason, of course was that there was no passion and no responsibility - and therefore nothing moved. Anyhow, that has been my experience, and it would be great to have lot more experiences. Personally, I would love to hear about some situation where all the conditions were met (real issue, lots of diversity, complexity, conflict - and a decision time of yesterday), the process was followed (sit in a circle, create bulletin board . . ) and the facilitator got out of the way - and the whole thing just went nowhere. A case book of such instances could teach us a mountain of good stuff. And then we come to Level 3 "working." Genuine answers here are hard to come by - not only for Open Space, but for any other approach as well. To really get an answer here we would need long term studies, but even if we had them, I am not sure that the changing variables of the environment would not be such that real certainty would be denied. However, it is interesting that after 20 years, Open Space is still around, and its use seems to be growing. This, despite the fact that OS flies in the face of just about every theoretical and practical principle of organizational behavior - at least all the mainline ones. Briefly put, Open Space cannot work - but it seems to. So there you are. At the end of the day, the choice of method (OS, FS, Real Time Strategic Change, etc) is dependant (I think) on At least three factors 1) The situation (when the space is already closed - don't use Open Space) 2) Client preference - What does the client feel comfortable with? 3) Facilitator preference (what does the facilitator feel comfortable with?). Client and Facilitator preferences are not unimportant! And certainly should never be contravened. Doing an Open Space by force, simply does not make it! So there are some thoughts Raffi. I guess you will have to pick you pathway any way you can. On the face of it, putting your faith in the Open Space basket as a young consultant is probably the worst thing you could do. Since it organizes so quickly and you do so little, billable hours go down quickly. Of course all that implies that you were able to "sell" an Open Space - which is a doubtful undertaking. Who on earth would hire an expert to do something that any fool with a good head and a good heart could do all by themselves? Everybody knows that really good interventions have to be complex, confusing, hard to do, and take a long time. Open Space is really hard on the wallet. So my advice, Raffi, is get another gig. And should you ever get hooked, I take no responsibility. Just remember you were warned. Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Drive Potomac, Maryland 20845 Phone 301-365-2093 Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raffi Aftandelian Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: meeting with a Russian colleague and more (thoughts on OS's limitations; getting into consulting work) [OS'rs! I don't think this made it's way to the digest; my apologies if you've already seen it] Dear OpenSpacers, I had the fortune the other day of meeting up briefly with Lena Marchuk in Moscow. This is a real treat because the distance between Moscow and Novosibirsk (where she is from) is essentially the same distance as between Moscow and London. Far away. She had just come from the FS Learning Exchange. It was a chance to reconnect and also to share experiences and to be mentored by her in Future Search (FS), which I hope to conduct some day and also. And it was a chance to be mentored in Open Space. Lena spoke of her preference for using FS (she has conducted minimum 10 such conferences) over OS (of course she uses OS during the action planning at an FS) -as a large group intervention tool - in the Russian context. She frames the global givens, so to speak, that Russians (speaking generally) haven't had an experience of democracy yet. And an FS provides this experience. And curiously, she sees that FS's in Russia for the most part don't necessarily lead to action planning and the like. The whole notion of goal-setting, she noted, virtually leads to people drawing a blank look. It is too bad Lena and I didn't have more time so that she could elaborate on this thought because I suspect there's much more behind it. Now this may be less true when doing an FS/OS in a large town. Much of her work, as I understand, is conducted in provincial centers in Siberia where maybe that kind of linear thinking -- goal setting, making action plans-- hasn't filtered to. She sees the value of FS in Russia in, first of all, creating dialog, community, building connections. As I understood her, before even thinking about creating action plans for the future, people need to learn a whole new way of being together. They have a true experience of democracy. They see that totally different people can be together in a constructive way. In one sense of the metaphor, an FS is not about planting the seeds for change, but rather working the soil so that seeds can be planted at a later point. And, to extrapolate, this is a very important result. That Maybe this is true of OS here, too. I liked a Yakutian (in Siberia) joke that Lena told me (as I recall it). "The difference between the East and West: "The Westerner says: "Ok, so what are the results?" The Easterner says, "Notice the process." The Russian says, "I'd like to say a toast to the process we are using so that we may achieve results." It is too bad we didn't have time to hear more about why OS doesn't necessarily provide that in her opinion. FS's plus is that it provides a structure to develop a picture of the past, present, future. ******** A few days ago I had the fortune of speaking to a mentor in social change work (since I haven't checked out with him-- in contrast to the message with Lena, where I did check out with her before posting-- somebody I'd been trying to arrange a phone conversation with for 1 1/2 years (!). I am thinking more about my life/work plans, and want to consult with him. I am getting my start in consulting work, yet don't have that clear vision of where I am going. I was very interested in seeing his read on OS and FS. OS, in his opinion, is a tool. And it's oversold. Yes, it can be valuable, but it's one of many tools. But, if I am going to be an OD consultant (and I am not sure I would want to describe myself that way), for one thing I would need to have a more varied toolbag. He would never want to hire an OD (organizational development) consultant with only one tool: OS. And, in his book, anyone who is an OD consultant does need to get management experience, to have acquired the body of experience/knowledge of a manager. This way a potential client is likely to understand what the client is going through, and is less apt to be in the clouds. Your thoughts? In other words, if the only tool (OD) I have is a hammer, I'm apt to see every problem as a nail. And yet curiously, he saw as a potential life/work path to totally get into OS and achieve excellence in it. I think the contradiction here is a surface one. Because OS's potential is not just in OD work, to beat a dead horse. It has a myriad of applications. I am fascinated, for example, by its potential as a career/life planning tool. I am curious if there are folks who use it in this way as paid/unpaid work (as a career counselor/personal coach). I also asked him about OS being a tool for social change. Again, yes, it is one of many tools. And I shouldn't expect to get rich off of OS on this score. This talk put me in my "discomfort zone." I realized how much more thinking I need to do before going on. I would be curious as to how people got in to consulting work. Maybe this is something people may be uncomfortable sharing so openly, even offlist. With lotsa questions and sitting with them, (trying to) trust that my background/subconscious inner-OS program will find the answers, raffi * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
