Harrison, thank you for this, your honesty and perspective. I only want to respond to one thread of this rich fabric - how important it is to see the principles as descriptive. Which is to say how I find that being non-prescriptive is one of the ways OS is unique from its process peers. I recently played with the descriptive tone and intention of the principles and law language a bit: When people feel free to talk about what matters most to them, they will; When the right people free free to join the conversation, they will; When people feel free to do whatever they can, they will; When people feel free to move on to new conversations, they will.
Peace, Jack ~~~~~~~~~~ jack ricchiuto two.one.six/three.seven.three/seven.four.seven.five www.designinglife.com / www.appreciativeleadership.org ------------Original Message------------ From: Harrison Owen <hho...@comcast.net> To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Date: Sun, Mar-13-2005 12:44 PM Subject: Principles, Process, and People What is becoming clearer to me as this conversation moves along is that my initial discomfort with the "Trust the Process" frame of mind has nothing to do with either the process (whatever that process might be) or the principles which under lie it. Rather it is my concern that we have placed our faith in arbitrary abstractions at the expense of some very concrete realities - The People. In a word, process and principles become primary, and the people are left in second place. I have profound respect for many of our processes in group work, and an equal respect for the principles which have been articulated as the under-pinnings. However, I think it is important to note that both the processes and the articulated principles are second order derivatives. They are our best guess as to how things might work. They are maps and not territories. But the primary point of reference is, and remains, the people. If we have done our work well, the processes and principles articulated will closely coincide with the actual structures and dynamics of the people (individuals and collective). And the proof of our success appears when the people are enabled to do better what they have always been able to do. Here on OSLIST we have had multiple and extended discussions of the process of Open Space and its principles. Specifically: The Four Principles and The Law of Two feet. I believe that discussion has been useful and worthwhile, but I also think it is important to recognize that both the Four Principles and the Law emerged from the Open Space experience - they did not and do not create it. In a word, they are descriptive and not prescriptive. As a matter of fact, Open Space "works" very well, thank you, without mention of either, and in the first 3-4 years we opened a lot of space(s) without a trace (verbally) of the "sacred" principles and the critical Law. So why or how did they appear? In all honesty, I have to say there was no rational decision involved - it just seemed like a good idea at the time. But of course, good ideas come and go - and so why does mention of the 4 Principles and The Law of Two Feet assume such a central place in the introduction? Explaining the mechanics is a five minute deal - but we typically take 15-20 minutes by way of introduction. Reasonable question: Why waste the time? Why not just cut to the chase and get on with the business? I obviously cannot answer for everybody, but for myself I find it effective to spell out the Principles and the Law NOT to specify what people should do, but rather to acknowledge what will happen anyhow, what is true (I think) in any case. In short, they always apply, whether said or unsaid. However, by articulating both they are brought to consciousness, acknowledged for what they are, and welcomed as positive and necessary elements for deep conversations and relationships. The fact that upon first hearing the Four Principles and The Law many participants perceive them as strange or "counter-intuitive" says more, I think, about the cultural baggage we carry than the nature or "truth" of the statements. And the fact that many (most?) people spend a lot of time and energy, supported by multiple cultural strictures, attempting to defeat, avoid, or NOT DO what the Principles and Law affirm and invite is the source of massive amounts of frustration and guilt. Mention of both Law and Principles at the beginning can eliminate mountains of guilt - and guilt in my experience is a dreadful waste of time and energy. And of course, if some people wish to sustain their guilt, that will be their pleasure and problem. If Open Space had evolved as other such approaches seem to have evolved - after 20 years we would have massive accretions and added complexities all contained in thick manuals of detailed instructions. In point of fact, Open Space Technology is pretty much what it was on the first day. If anything it has been on a strict diet. As I recall it took something like 2½ hours to open the first encounter - and that was without benefit of Law and Principles. Lord knows what we talked about - but it all worked. To be sure there have been some additions, particularly at the end of a gathering as the group seeks to move to action. We call that convergence, and the first iterations were pretty complex. Over time simplicity seems to have won out and now the general practice appears to be - just open some more space! (Thank you Chris et al - even I have finally given up voting :-)). For me the guiding thought has been - Think of one more thing NOT to do. It has been a way of stripping off the non-essentials in order to reveal what is natural and effective. In following this notion I think we (certainly I) have watched process and principles (at least the man-made ones) diminish in importance leaving the people to do what only they can do for themselves. Wisdom and discretion clearly dictate that I should end this missive right here. However, it may have occurred to you that there was present a certain (implied) critique of related approaches such as Appreciative Inquiry, Future Search, or Dialogue (to name a few). The critique is present, but I need to make exquisitely clear that it is a critique offered in profound respect and gratitude for the individuals who have given us those approaches, many of whom I consider old colleagues and friends. There is no question that the insights offered and the results achieved have been massively important and effective. Personally I have learned enormously at the feet of these people about the power of appreciation, the elegance of dialogue, and the importance of common ground. But I must also say that it has been my personal experience in every Open Space that the elegance of dialogue, the nutriment of appreciation, and the healing power of common ground have all appeared all by themselves. The people did it. I must also confess, and this really is personal, that every time that I have been in a situation where someone attempted to combine Open Space with one of these processes or insert them in the midst of Open Space, I felt that the result was less than positive. Either there was little to no gain - because the same results show up naturally in Open Space, or the addition was disruptive and counter-productive because it broke the natural rhythm and flow. As I said to my friend Marv Weisbord several years ago, "Marv, I think you are working too hard." One could certainly view my reaction as an outbreak of ego and a defense of "my" process. As one client told me, "Harrison you are a nice fellow, but you have major ego problems." Doubtless, my ego can get bent out of shape just like the next fellow's - but it never really felt that way. In the first place, how could you call something that showed up in the bottom of a martini glass, "My process?" Especially when subsequent experience and investigation has shown, I think, that the process involved had nothing to do with my invention. I just lucked into something that had been around for 14,000,000 years. Drunk and Lucky? Guilty as charged! So what next? I just hope that we can keep the cart and the horse in proper order. Processes and principles, at least as we articulate them, are always second order derivatives. Very useful as maps or guides, but never to be confused with the rich territory - The People. Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Drive Potomac, Maryland 20845 Phone 301-365-2093 Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com/> Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html * * ========================================================== 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