Doug, You raise an interesting question for which I don't have ready answers. But your question plays into a space that is occupying my mind at the moment. I have organised some thirty Open Spaces (all for the corporate world) in the last 14 months and I am always struck by the way that people come together in the discussion groups. As I keep space open I butterfly and sense how the groups are going. And again I am always struck by the comfortable intensity of those discussions. And yes there are always people sitting back in those groups. Perhaps they are the ones who are wondering how all of this will translate back to work. And that is also the space that occupies my mind.
In another life I conducted morale and satisfaction surveys and the principle that was always expressed to the client who was commissioning the work was that the very fact that the survey was being conducted would increase the expectation for change and if that change didn't occur, in a way the situation would potentially go backwards. I wonder whether the same applies to OS in the organisational environment. Certainly I have had clients report to me later that the group has found it hard to maintain the level of open and constructive conversation that was achieved in space. And sometimes there is the comment that 'we're not sure what to do next with the results of our discussions'. So for me there are three challenges in this process. First there is the challenge to find and engage the client. Not so hard but not that easy either. The recent thread on 'who we would work for' resonated to an extent. When working with a prospect my concern is whether the group or organisation can 'cope' with the downstream turbulence of open space. The second challenge is conducting open space well. To an extent that is becoming less of a challenge although I have much to learn. And finally there is the challenge of managing the downstream turmoil that open space inevitably creates. As a 20 year+ consultant it's very easy to go into that mode which, in the main, is counterproductive. On the other hand clients often ask for guidance as to what they might do or how they might act. I can't help noting that conversational quality is central to all three challenges. I am working hard on this third challenge and am looking forward to raising it at the 'coffee break' at Goa next week. Aart Groothuis dialogue architect and open space facilitator telling the story PO Box 3266 | Manuka ACT 2603 | AUSTRALIA m: 0419 42 68 80 | f: 02 6291-1348 i: aart.grooth...@tellingthestory.net | www.tellingthestory.net . . . working with teams to regain focus and momentum . . . -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas D. Germann, Sr. Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 2004 01:12 To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Subject: Reprise: halfway measures Hi-- A few conversations ago, Harrison raised the question of whether history will eventually record that OST was a halfway measure on the road to something more open, more inclusive, better for humanity. Might the question be What do we do once we are in OST? We need to evolve better ways to meet each other. How do we encourage meeting cor ad cor, good heart and good mind to good heart and good mind? How do we go about increasing contact and conflict, without causing a severing? How do we grow together, even though we have rough edges? How do we learn to deal with discord in a way that produces symphony? And do all this consciously? But how do we get there? I think we can learn some techniques to help us. Nonviolent communication, Fran Peavey's techniques. The methods for bringing people together are simply that. Once we are together, how do we use that togetherness to foster togetherness? An understanding, such as Michael Herman's is useful, too. Throwing the people together, like we do in OST is good and useful, but it does not tell us what to do once we are together. That is, perhaps, the halfway place where OST stops. It leads people to the cliff but does not show them how to get down or up from there. It leads people to water, but does not tell them how to drink or which water is safe to drink. Some will do a check in around their little group, some will do a speech, some will interview the people who came. Some will tell stories. All useful strategies. But do we know when one works and another doesn't? Or are we going on guess work? We need to be thinking some of these things through, so that we can help grow us together. What contributes, what does not contribute so much? How do we find out if we fit together, and how do we know when to encourage each other to leave when the fit here is not so good or not yet right? How do we know such things so we can recognize it faster? What experiments of ways of throwing people together (that is, choosing whom to invite) are apt to help the evolution along faster, or better? What are the ways out there that you have seen people use to bring the breakout groups together? What brings the group together, what doesn't, what has the best long-term effects? :-Doug. Germann Seeking people making community change. * * ========================================================== 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