Yes, what Michael Herman said.
And: there are gatherings I have seen and other gatherings that people
have talked to me about, that were called Open Space but did not open
the space very much. Because there was no Law of Two Feet, and/or
because there was a preset agenda, that kind of thing. There are a few
things that make up the essence of Open Space and if you take those
away, you can of course go ahead and have fun with your meeting, but
don’t call it Open Space.
There can be a lot of reasons to play with the format and adapt it.
Nothing wrong with that. But I know that for folks who are used to
conventional meetings and the old corporate way of managing an
organization, it can be a pretty scary thing to do an Open Space. And
more often than not, these folks try to combat their fear by adapting
Open Space into something less scary. Usually, making it less scary
takes away the essence of Open Space. Those are, at least in my book,
the wrong reasons to play with the format. And in those cases, I become
one of the “elders” who say: don’t tamper with it, because it is not
going to work. And for good reason.
Koos
*Van:*OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] *N**amens
*Michael Herman via OSList
*Verzonden:* zondag 31 januari 2016 19:12
*Aan:* paul levy <p...@cats3000.net>; World wide Open Space Technology
email list <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
*Onderwerp:* Re: [OSList] The Question
This whole story about a split between OST and opening space, this bit
about unchanging dogma is a big mystery to me.
There is what is written in the User's Guide. And then there is what
all of us do. I can remember exactly one instance, almost twenty years
ago, when anyone said to me "that's not open space cuz it's not what's
written i the book." That was in person, but i've never actually heard
any such thing on the list.
And I see LOTS of changes and adaptations. What was written as 3 days
has been experimented down to 3 hours or even less. Convergence still
happens, but non-convergence happens probably more, and other
convergences, too. John Engle taught us to open with skits instead of
posters, and oral reports instead of typed notes. We've mixed OST with
appreciative inquiry. I once sprinkled six breakout sessions into a
formal, powerpoint-heavy corporate top leadership retreat week. Ralph
Copleman came to the list once for ideas on how to open space or do OST
on a beach without walls. Anne Stadler and friends experimented with
ongoing, quarterly open space practice. Others of us have run OST-like
tracks inside of traditional conferences, sometimes as part of the
conference plan and at least once as a totally emergent experiment that
ran on nametags that said "ask me about open space" and a pop-up
community bulletin board wall in a hallway. Daniel Mezick has opened a
new frontier in adapting the practice of open space tech to agile adoption.
Brian Bainbridge, who once told me that he read a little bit of the
user's guide before every time he facilitated an open space meeting,
also came to this list with a report about how he'd just stood at a
podium, on a stage, looking out at decidedly-not-a-circle sitting in
cushy fixed seats, given a little opening invitation briefing and had
people streaming across the stage to post their topics on some sort of
temporary wall. And that was it. No breakouts, no proceedings, no open
space? Not a chance. The group buzzed about those topics through the
rest of their conference, in lots of standard sessions and the usual
coffee breaks.
The thing that stands out for me about these things, other than that
they never got written up in any of harrison's books, is that they
happened -- they weren't hypothetical, mental exercises we did on the
list. They were real live practice stories first. This tells me
that, true to the intro of the original user's guide, anyone can go and
experiment and bring the story back for conversation and learning. When
we talk in theories and generalities, including about dogma, dogma
arises. When we talk about the real things we did and what seemed to
happen as a result, there is no room or need for dogma. There is only
the work of understanding what's happening(ed). And then everyone in
the conversation can choose whether to repeat or adjust that experiment,
in any other situation that might show up.
There are all these new things that have been tried and shared, and
there are also many common threads and practices. I see no benefit in
or need for tagging the common ground as dogma OR for things differently
only for the sake of novelty. In practice, the only thing that matters
is what we actually do and how it works. What we think is happening,
what we believe might work, and all manner of intellectualizing and
theorizing is just so much distraction, until somebody actually puts it
on the ground in the center of a circle or flashmob or stage.
As you're describing these two apparent sides, Paul, I really can't
figure who's on what side. It seems to have something to do with being
older or newer in the practice, but that doesn't really explain it. I
know I have been called at various times both purist and heretic. I
think that might be true for many of the folks i've learned from, my
elders, and also many of those I call peers in the practice. I wonder
if what you're labeling dogma isn't really more about depth of
experience and rigor of reflection and analysis. When the conversation
is focused on practice, more than theory, those with more experience
have more stories to share. As long as we keep focused on practice,
there's nothing wrong with that.
I think it might be that when we wander out into questions like "What is
Open Space Technology," and get away from what anyone is actually doing,
in practice, experience ceases to count and those with more experience
are seen as just dominating the conversation with their old stories.
"What is Open Space Technology" is a groundless conversation. Nothing
wrong with that, but in removing itself from the ground of practice, it
leaves us no way to evaluate anything that comes in response. In this
way, it invalidates lived experience. If, instead, we ask "How are we
explaining the practice of open space to clients we want to hire us?"
...or something like this, past experience is valued again, to show us
what's worked and not worked. We can see patterns in how the things
we've said and how they worked have been able to change and evolve. We
can make guesses, choose from the options and go test each and all of
them directly, for ourselves. History and new experiments are equally
needed and valuable.
For all the talk about dogma, I have no idea what any actual dogmatic
definition of OST might be. The user's guide is a historical artifact,
a concept paper, and by it's own admission only a restating of a sort of
older, universal concept. It's a beginning point for our community that
needs neither abandoning or sanctifying. We just need to keep proving
it out, in practice, in the space we open here, between experience and
experimentation -- neither one better or more important than the other.
It's the going back and forth, in practice, that has made and can/will
continue to make us stronger.
Learning and contributing, passion and responsibility, breathing in and
breathing out, four principles and one law, and now, if you will...
experience and experimenting. another slice of "mutuality" -- the
co-existent, inter-informing play of apparent opposites -- arising in
open space.
Michael
--
Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
312-280-7838 (mobile)
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:11 AM, paul levy via OSList
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org <mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>>
wrote:
This was my attempt at this a while back. It still feels relevant to
Daniels's question...
best wishes
Paul Levy
Open Space Technology opens space. That might sound a bit strange,
or even a bit obvious, but bear with me. I’ve said that for a reason.
In the Open Space Technology community of practitioners and fans
I’ve encountered over the last twenty years, there is a strong
behavioural pattern of not changing the first and original version
of Open Space Technology. Harrison Owen called it a technology – it
is a way of doing something that does this: opens space. SO why
change it? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Open Space Technology, as you’ll find it taught today, is just about
exactly the same as it was back in the ’80s.
Now, back to “Open Space Technology opens space”. What on earth does
that mean?
It opens space for a conversation. It opens space for self-organised
exploration of an issue of importance to a community. It opens space
for getting things done. And often a hell of a lot of things do get
done from an Open Space event.
There sits a group in a circle, and when the space opens and they
self-organise, using the minimal structure of the Open Space
Technology process (marketplace, principles, rules etc), all kinds
of stuff then bursts into the physical space from the previously
hidden world of Spirit, (Or Potential, if you prefer), realising all
kinds of action in space and time. In other words, practical, useful
and usable action results. Open Space Technology has achieved that
again and again and again and again and again and … (insert tens of
thousands of ‘agains’ here). No, it really has.
So, as I said, Open Space Technology er… opens space.
Over the years, this hardly changed technology has added a new
principle, and tinkered with the wording here or there.
Anticlockwise “walking of the circle” has crept in, and the odd
talking stick has popped up, and an Eastern gong brings back
attention to the circle. But, at its core, Open Space Technology is
a technology that has never had (nor, according to its fan base)
needed, an upgrade.
Indeed, whenever an upgrade has been suggested, the elders in the
Open Space movement tend to sigh knowingly and then kindly offer
“Aw, shaddup and open some space already!”. If that sounds like a
generalisation, I invite you to read the Open Space discussion list
over the years and you’ll find plenty of evidence of “don’t change a
thing”.
Suggestions for change will come and go with the passing of mortal
facilitators, but Open Space technology is either as timeless as
love, or will pass away, unchanged, in its own good time.
At recent OSONOSes (What is THAT?, I hear you ask – it’s an Open
Space meeting ON Open Space!), I discovered that a lot of people
like the fact that Open Space Technology is largely still below the
radar of mainstream organisational intervention and meeting theory.
It quietly piles up its tally of successfully opened spaces without
much care for detailed research into its practice and efficacy. It
lies largely outside of journal based scrutiny, and, most of all, it
lies beyond innovation and tinkering with its own process. Yet at
two recent OSonOses I met a significant number of people who do
adapt it, change it, innovate it, and they still find that, not
surprisingly – space still opens! They feel as bit sad that its a
golden field of practice that doesn’t seem to want to lovingly
question its foundations. As a result, what should have been a
changing, organic building, has turned into a temple that moves only
its pot plants around.
Yet space still opens. Of course it does. You see, Open Space
technology opens space. But so do a bunch of other gorgeous and
eloquent processes. And sometimes (and I heard more than a few
stories confirming this), dogmatically unchanged Open Space
Technology limits the opening of space. The officionados would claim
that it is never Open Space Technology that limits the opening of
space, but a bunch of other factors. It’s the sponsor’s fault, or
the facilitator should have done X or Y differently. They usually
sigh at the facilitator and say “Get over it, and just stick to the
knitting”.
This is all very (annoyingly) general, I know. But I’ll keep to that
and see if the generality resonates with anyone reading this for now.
I’ve written in detail, elsewhere on this site, how and why dogmatic
use of Open Space Technology can inhibit and limit the opening of space.
I do believe there are archetypal elements in Open Space Technology
that are pretty timeless or, at least, standing up pretty well in
terms of relevance and applicability, to the test of Time’s passage.
Archetypes tend towards timelessness.
In Action Learning, for example, reflection on action is a pretty
timeless archetype. As Action Learning has evolved into a range of
approaches, that core concept of the “learning cycle” of
conceptualisation, experimentation, action and reflection, seems to
stay relevantly at the core of all the diverse developments. Yet how
we do action learning has changed wonderfully.
In dialogue work, as another example, the importance of active
listening remains and pervades, even as the field of practice widens.
In Open Space technology, the archetype of the circle remains and
has a deep living quality, wherever space is opened. Equally, the
spirit (if not the wording) of the principles remains vibrant and
relevant. The notion of self-organisation sits at the heart of the
natural world, and is a core, timeless quality of opening space. But
“Breaking news”, and “Marketplace” and even the role of the
facilitator, are not as fundamental as many of the elders think they
are.
At the OSonOses (including the World one) I met people who thanked
me for challenging the status quo (which wasn’t in any plan of mine
going in). Some said they didn’t feel they could challenge Open
Space Technology at these events, nor share alternatives or share
stories of how they has changed it in practice. I myself got some
hate mail from an Open Space elder a few years back when we ran an
OSonOs exploring “Beyond the dogma”. I’m not sure how true it is
that there’s a norm to stick to the technology like glue or feel
like an outsider. It’s a big shame if it is true and if it becomes
true at the WOSonOs in Florida in 2013. There’s certainly nothing
formal to stop healthy challenge and questioning, but quite a few
people pointed to a norm that exists in the Open Space Technology
community, that critique marks you out as a kind of “misery guts”,
even as a betrayer of a lovely elderly gentleman. Basically you are
pooping on a party that is so benevolent is lies beyond that poop.
Open Space Technology, in its classic form, opens space. Often, and
beautifully. But it isn’t the only “technology” that opens space,
nor is it always the best or right one. Also it isn’t only
technology that opens space. Art also does it. Often, when a
facilitator is truly in the moment, in an ego-free state of service
to his or her community, space opens and NEW approaches emerge,
sometimes beautiful hybrids of Open Space Technology, sometimes tiny
adaptations, sometimes entirely new fusions, versions, forms.
Sometimes something entirely close to Open Space Technology
“escapes” into our practice entirely afresh, especially when we have
forgotten it!
At the heart of all these approaches I believe is nearly always the
circle, the principle and love of self-organisation, the creative
urge towards getting things done, and also a kind of acceptance of
the rightness of who is there, where we are, whatever happens and
also, the love of freedom to flow in and out of the open space as
needed. These are the archetypal qualities that have led to Open
Space Technology being so powerful and enduring.
But there is no need for chapter and verse, no need for the
technology to be so rigid in its core design. What is important is
that potential that wants to be realised can find its way to space
that has opened for it. Fractured communities that come together
into circles and then self-organise into smaller circles, before
reforming into bigger ones again, always linked to the strength of
that “holding circle” can use the circle to achieve amazing things,
notably synergy, where we are more together and where the circle
gives us shared inner and outer focus.
“Whatever” is more important than any Open Space Technology Dogma.
But not the whatever of laziness and indifference. This is the
whatever of emergence, of the space that reveals, the circle that
opens into possibility and then turns possibility into free choice,
and free choice into committed action in and upon the world.
So, I’ve discovered there are now two overlapping (uneasily)
communities, There is the Open Space Technology Community, employing
a technology that Harrison Owen could have tried to patent or
copyright but didn’t, but has instead offered it freely to the
world, trusting its beauty and success in the world, to leave it
unchanged and used as needed in the world. Then there is a larger
community which is the Open Space community that uses the classic
version of the technology but also adapts it, and also uses other
methods, all of which, more or less, open space for
self-organisation, for conversation and action. I think it’s a pity,
and also a bit of an emerging tragedy that those at the core of the
Open Space Technology Community (by no means all of them) are not
more open to change and innovation from that wider community, to be
enriched and inspired by it. Because of this, the Open Space
Technology community now has its own underground where people ARE
questioning its fundamentals and morphing it, but aren’t sharing
that openly at its events nor on its discussion lists. When they do,
there tends to be a benevolent and parental closing down by many of
its supporters to just leave things as they are and put faith in the
version that is never in need of an upgrade.
Sometimes space needs to open without any stated principles, without
any structure-polemic, no matter how minimal and well meant.
Sometimes space needs to open with few if any words. Sometimes
space opens better in the language of the community and not the
language of Open Space Technology. Sometimes space opens better
through artistry, not technology. Sometimes space opens without the
need for a physical circle, and sometimes even without the need for
a facilitator. Sometimes space opens with Open Space Technology in
its original form.
But sometimes that form becomes a wall. The stories where Open Space
Technology has failed to open space tend to go unreported, part of a
collusion of niceness. Those stories are there to be found, but they
are below the radar of the community that has confused blanket
positivity with the grittier, messier mission of Open Space to bring
beauty to the world. Avoidance of our pain is often both fatal and ugly.
Open Space Technology, when it becomes ossified, becomes arthritic.
When a facilitator doesn’t just DO Open Space Technology, but
becomes open space in their own inner activity, they will sense what
needs to be done, not out of dogma, but out of the present needs of
the situation. Often this situation will call for a traditional use
of Open Space Technology. But not always. Sometimes we need to open
space. And it is beautiful that there are so many ways to do that.
What am I suggesting? I’m suggesting it might be time for Open Space
Technology to open the trap door – the trap door to its own
beautiful critique. It needs to look more warmly and openly at what
is growing consciously below its own radar. And it isn’t about
defending the first technological model from a position of elder
wisdom. It’s about inviting in the younger ones, the new generation.
If Open Space Technology lies beyond an upgrade, then let that view
survive a healthy Popper-esque conversation. But in 2012 I met some
truly wonderful people who have upgraded it anyway. They are the
right people, in the right place, at the right time, who dance with
two wonderful feet into the future. Be prepared to be surprised by them.
Something tells me it isn’t quite over yet, Harrison Owen!
Welcome to the open space community. It loves Open Space Technology.
But it loves so much more too.
(Original article appeared here:
https://rationalmadness.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/open-space-technology-and-open-space/
)
On 28 January 2016 at 17:55, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>> wrote:
What is Open Space Technology?
--
Daniel Mezick
Culture Strategist. Author. Keynoter.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248>. Bio.
<http://www.DanielMezick.com/> Blog.
<http://www.NewTechUSA.net/blog/> Twitter.
<https://twitter.com/DanielMezick>
Book: The Culture Game. <http://theculturegame.com/>
Book: The OpenSpace Agility Handbook.
<http://www.amazon.com/OpenSpace-Agility-Handbook-Daniel-Mezick/dp/0984875336>
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto:oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto:oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
