Great…so I’m just about to host a three day Art of Hosting workshop in which we will be talking about several methodologies, mental models and design tools, including Open Space.  And today, right out of the blue come three incredibly amazing posts from Dave Pollard (who is joining us), Johnnie Moore (who almost joined us) and Jack Martin Leith about the process.

I’m up to my eyeballs in stuff and don’t have that much time to respond, but I can’t resist, so here are some thoughts, kind of randomly blurted out.

First I should say that I’ve never used Open Space to arrive at one solution for something.  I don’t know how you could actually.  Instead, it’s a process that starts with a complex environment and ends with a complex environment.  What happens in the middle is that participants make personal sense of the complex environment and, when we do it well, it accelerates community around the challenges we face.  A collective direction can emerge, but I usually find we need to have a more collective process to make sense of it later.  

So what does that mean?  It means that a group of people gets to work on what matters, finds their partners and away we go.  What happens next is critical, paying attention to how people stay together and how we are informed by one another and how we make macro sense of all of it.

And what do I mean by work well?  Well, as Dave points out, it is all about the design, and Johnnie, in another post he makes today talks about Dave Snowdon’s thoughts on need.  For me need is critical to anchoring any process whether it be OPen Space or anything else.  If there is no need, don’t meet, and if there IS a need, then very carefully design the meeting so that we can take best advantage of the people being face to face to meet the need.  Under these conditions, when you can idenitfy the need, clarify the purpose of the gathering and invite the right people, amazing things happen.  Need provides energy, focus, purpose and willingness.

I don’t know about “objectivity” and facilitation anymore…I suspect that there is really no such thing.  I find my own facilitation style to be more informed by the idea of joining the field for a while and offering what I can.  In other words, I don’t always come as the neutral party to a group.  My approach when things seem to realy cook is to JOIN the group, as the person who can be responsible for the process.  That’s a different approach, what we in the Art of Hosting community sometimes call “leading from the field” rather than being neutral or objective.  I become another one of the group’s own resources for doing things well.  

Now sometimes that means that I take an objective type stance from things, and sometimes it may even mean I take a contrarian stance.  I don’t know why we need to have any hard and fast rules about working with groups, except the paramount rule of helping them meet their need, and to do it ethically.  Obviously manipulating the outcome without being transparent about it is not ethical in my book.  Transparency about what I am doing and thinking is important so people don’t think I’m somebody’s stooge.  And I will never take work where my job is to lead a group to a pre-determined outcome that the groups itself is unaware of.  The idea of “leading a horse to water” is a job for Machiavellian politicians, not process artists.

At any rate, where things sometimes fall down in processes including Open Space is when a sponsor actually does not know the need, which happens surprisingly often.  In one group I’m talking to right now, the sponsor thinks the need is to create a solution to the problem – an organization within a community.  What I am hearing from the community members is that the community needs some healing first.  There is no basis of good relationship within the community, and creating a structure at this point might be divisive and in the end might not be sustainable.  So what is the need here?  What purpose of the gathering would best serve? What would happen if we built the thing without paying attention to what the community was saying?

The success of any Open Space or other kind of meeting lies in the design and pre-work, not the simply the skillful facilitation of the process itself.  Dave’ points on tweaking processes are really useful in this regard.

Secondly, an important consideration for doing work well is inviting the right people.  Dave alludes to getting the mix of people right and I actually agree with him.  I have discovered over time however, that sponsors are often not willing to invite “the stranger” into the mix, people whose experience might be incredibly useful, but who aren’t usually invited to meetings.  This most often happens when I suggest that companies invite customers to hlep them in conversations about thei products.  Focus groups are one thing, but inviting customers into the actual designing process seems totally taboo.  It’s as if the Cluetrain revolution never took off other than on the web.  In those cases where sponsors have invited surprise and good thinking into the mix, I think the quality of ideas in the market place has certainly risen.

Finally something about time.  Dave makes a point that with out the proper time, things seem not to boil.  Dave is right and my guess is that he has not been in an Open Space event that has lasted over two or three days.  In those events what happens in groups is a tremendous amount of relationship building occurs, the thinking and planning goes very very deep and the results tend to be very well considered and extremely sustainable.  I have spent my working life imploring sponsors of Open Space events to give a little more time to things, just another half day, another night spent sleeping on it.  Every time we have done so there have been no regrets.  When we don’t get the proper time to do good work, it shows.  When sponsors are thinking about designing a meeting, time is the biggest investment they make and it has the biggest potential for a return.  But if you’re not in the facilitation world, you’d be surprised how many people expect miracles in a couple of hours.  

As for decision making and consensus building, one of the delights of this coming week is that Tree Bressen will be with us too, and she excels in this area, especially in decision making within intentional community.  I’ve had conversations with her over the years about Open Space and decision making and I sense a rub there for her, precisely because I think this process does not lead to making decisions in the way that other processes do.  I’m fascinated by what is about to happen this week at the Art of Hosting here on Bowen Island, as we explore together how all of these things can add to what we are learning about how to best work with groups of people.  I’m not above a little heresy and exploration, open to finding new ways of doing better, and I’m really glad Dave took the time to prepare himself like this.  

Truly we will be a group of 30 teachers and learners coming!

Building on a note I sent to the Art of Hosting list this morning, and thinking about some of the calls to work across generations this coming year…

Otto Scharmer sent along an email this week:

I just returned from some coaching and consulting work. i am struck by the similarity of experience that todays leaders face across companies, industries and even across sectors. as a leader today, you find yourself in NO-WHERE-LAND. on the one side you have all the tools that you learned from consultants, business schools and other sources of conventional management wisdom. on the other side you have a huge leadership challenge that you currently face. and in between these two things, there is a HUGE GAP. a NOWHERE-LAND. and you find yourself right in the middle of that NOWHERE-ZONE. alone.

the only thing that you can rely on in situations like this is your self-knowing. the deepening of your SELF-knowing. the deepening of your awareness. THAT is, what presencing is all about. to provide a method to collectively CREATE from that NOWHERE-ZONE.

but that technology does not work if you use it with a mindset that belongs to the old toolkit (”problemsolving”). it requires a new mindset. a mindset that is acutely aware of that NOWHERE-ZONE right in front of us, right within us. the awareness of that GAP right NOW right HERE provides a crack where the window to an heightened awareness opens up. without that window open, we cannot cross the distance from self to Self–from no-where to now-here.

This fincancial crisis in the USA, which will soon overtake us all, is both It seems to me that two things have to happen if we are to really shift into something else, even into the conditions that make Bernaerd’s thinking possible. First the old world has to pass away and old thinking has to die as well. Giving $700 billion dollars to old thinkers delays this passing away I think, even while it might be necessary at some level to keep SOMETHING stable. But this bailout was not done with awareness. Yesterday I read in Forbes that a Treasury Department spokesperson said they just picked “a really large number.” That kind of “make it up on the spot” thinking has to die away.

The second thing that needs to happen is that space needs to open up for new thinking, and this is the role of young people and those of us that are a little older who can help it to happen. A new FORM of leadership and organization is needed if a shift to sustainability on a global scale is to take place. This might be the best opportunity in the last generation for that to truly happen, but it won’t happen if we give in to those who say “don’t panic, we’ll get everything fixed up in a a few months/years.”

I’m not panicking nor am I suggesting panic, but I’m also not expecting the old world to die so easily. It’s painful to leave the world you believe in. And the current generation of leadership that got us into this mess, nhas a sense of generational entitlement that is hard to shake. I think that Now more than ever, we need the world to be run by 20 year olds.

And if that prospect frightens you, then take a look at what is happening to your retirement savings (if you have any), or your mortgage (if you have one), or watch what happens to your bank next week (if you live in the United States) and see which scenario is more scary. Doing what we can to assist the generational shift in leadership is an imperative.for our world, and it has to happen before this current generation of emerging leaders is bought in to the old way of doing things. I think the role of Elders now is not to sit on the sidelines and provide well meaning advice. It is to actively work with youth to accelerate their own wisdom and their moving into positions of real power and responsibility, the positions that are about designing this new world.

It’s worth noting that in Canada at the moment there is a very tightly contested election going on between various representatives of the old world order mixed in with some very radically new thinking even in the traditional parties. WHile I think this is maybe not the time for half way measures, it is surely not the time for the status quo.)

I think that is what it will take, and I think that is work we can do in all the communities and organizations where we are working. Where are the new leaders? Who are the people in your organization or community who need to be leading now? If they are on the sidelines, what are you doing to help them get front and centre?

The current generation just spent i’s own inhereitance and that of several future generations as well. We need to save it, and us, from anymore foolishness.

Let’s roll.

That $700 billion bailout south of the border?

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

Wow indeed.

I’m putting together a presentation (including some slides) on community engagement and leadership for a gathering of First Nations leaders next month.  In the spirit of seeking the wisdom of the blogosphere, I’m wondering if any of you have some thoughts or pearls of wisdom that I could share with this group of people.  Here is the proposal that I’m working on:

We’ve moved on.

In the last century, government talked to citizens, and if they were feeling particularly charitable, they allowed citizens to say something back. This was called “consultation” and it had it’s origins in the ancient European model of the ruler seeking advice from advisors before making a decision.

That model has unravelled. We have moved from consultation to citizen and community engagement as we recognize that more and more, people need to be actively involved in the decisions that affect their communities. And now we are finding that the shift continues.

What if we moved from community engagement to just community? What if in First Nations communities we recovered that capacity for community members to work together to design and co-own the direction of their Nations?

It’s possible and it is happening all over the world, in indigenous communities on every continent as people realize that the responsibility for the direction of their communities rests with them.

People own what they design. Community engagement is now about community members designing, deciding and implementing the shifts that are needed in their communities. The days of someone else doing it for us are over.

This shift presents challenges and opportunities for leadership. Old models of top-down, command and control leadership are changing and new models of collaborative leadership and community building are rising to the fore. Leveraging the power of networks and self-organizing groups – even and especially in small communities – is the way forward.

What is community engagement now? What else could leadership be?

So my wise friends…thoughts?

I’ve been publishing my recent finds and current reading over on the sidebar, which you won’t have seen if you read this blog with a newsreader.   Here is the link to the RSS feed for the links.   There is some interesting stuff there, things which may turn up later as blog posts, or just caught my attention.

Carry on.