This is the second time I have read about open space tech and self-organisation and I must say my interest is definitely piqued.
I read a comment about open space tech who said that "if the present state, and future position are crystal clear, along with all the intervening steps, Open Space Technology is not only a waste of time" which seems obvious, but as an extension I feel that OST would be doomed for failure if leadership lacked trust that the community could mobilise in a productive and purposeful way.
Hi Mark. I would agree with the comment about OST as useless if the present state and future position are clear, along with the intervening steps. And, tbh, this is hardly ever the case :-). If the 'leadership' are not trusting the people and only want confirmation of their own places, OST is worse than useless. If they want to engage people into generative action, then it has a great deal to recommend it.
In the case of neighbourhood democracy (as we are writing about here), a full Open Space is often hard to do, particularly if there is one issue to be addresses (OST is best with a broad topic or range of issues). Do I am interested to develop something with the invitational perspective of Open Space which is more about (perhaps different aspects of) a single topic. The 'law of two feet' is such a marvellous move to allow people to engage as much as they wish (and no more).
When leadership, based on a clear purpose, shows the way. When the visions inspire and when you work in a large community, the organization is created/ the organization of itself - a self-organizing system is created when using Open Space Technology.
A useful reminder that leadership and approach are so important when it comes to participation and democratic processes. I myself was reminded of how big a difference an invitation and participation can make when I heard today about an activity to involve the local population in a smaller local social office in one of Malmö's “outer areas”. They came to the conclusion that they would have an open house once a week, which had really been a success. This went on for almost 10 years and threats, violence and dissatisfaction were replaced with a positive experience of social services. Unfortunately, the service was recently closed due to centralization. but the experiences and the effects of good meetings remain. 😊
This is the second time I have read about open space tech and self-organisation and I must say my interest is definitely piqued.
I read a comment about open space tech who said that "if the present state, and future position are crystal clear, along with all the intervening steps, Open Space Technology is not only a waste of time" which seems obvious, but as an extension I feel that OST would be doomed for failure if leadership lacked trust that the community could mobilise in a productive and purposeful way.
Thanks again for your thoughts this week, Mark.
Go gently.
Hi Mark. I would agree with the comment about OST as useless if the present state and future position are clear, along with the intervening steps. And, tbh, this is hardly ever the case :-). If the 'leadership' are not trusting the people and only want confirmation of their own places, OST is worse than useless. If they want to engage people into generative action, then it has a great deal to recommend it.
In the case of neighbourhood democracy (as we are writing about here), a full Open Space is often hard to do, particularly if there is one issue to be addresses (OST is best with a broad topic or range of issues). Do I am interested to develop something with the invitational perspective of Open Space which is more about (perhaps different aspects of) a single topic. The 'law of two feet' is such a marvellous move to allow people to engage as much as they wish (and no more).
When leadership, based on a clear purpose, shows the way. When the visions inspire and when you work in a large community, the organization is created/ the organization of itself - a self-organizing system is created when using Open Space Technology.
A useful reminder that leadership and approach are so important when it comes to participation and democratic processes. I myself was reminded of how big a difference an invitation and participation can make when I heard today about an activity to involve the local population in a smaller local social office in one of Malmö's “outer areas”. They came to the conclusion that they would have an open house once a week, which had really been a success. This went on for almost 10 years and threats, violence and dissatisfaction were replaced with a positive experience of social services. Unfortunately, the service was recently closed due to centralization. but the experiences and the effects of good meetings remain. 😊
That's so interesting Annika. Centralisation is often not the answer :-)