8
Open Space
We want to run a rehearsal process for our EQUIS assessment, and a strategy development day for about 180 people simultaneously. Are we being too ambitious? Can you help us?
I had run the annual “team day” for this business school community of academics and administrators for the past two years. The first year we introduced Appreciative Inquiry to help bolster their creativity and innovation, the second year was focused on the student experience. This was the most ambitious objective yet. Throughout the day, teams of people would be disappearing to table discussions in a simulation of a forthcoming, very important, assessment process. At the same time, the body as a whole was to engage with three strands of strategic thinking around: the student experience, the balance of teaching and learning and research, and the integration of services.
The challenge was to create a design for the event that would facilitate the people involved in the simulation to leave and rejoin at specified times, and one that also allowed three themes of discussion. Working with the planning team, I designed a day based on Open Space Technology that would allow the rehearsal assessment panels to run concurrently with a strategy development conversation. In addition, we worked with the technology department to create “video tweets” of the different discussions, and a “voting” process at the close of the day to help identify the most important ideas and suggestions from the various discussions.
Around 180 people attended the event. I was supported by a small team who helped ensure people got to the conversations they wanted to attend. During the day, there were 24 discussions around strategic questions identified by the group, such as “How can we improve our relationship with alumni?” and “How to improve the experience for international students and stop them feeling isolated?” All discussions produced a record of strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and potential results in the area under discussion. At the same time, the assessment rehearsal process ran smoothly in a nearby room. Most people who weren’t involved in it weren’t even aware it was also going on. The built-in flexibility of the Open Space process allowed people to move between the conversations, and to move between taking part in the Open Space and in the assessment process, in a relatively seamless way.
During the day, short videos were produced that summarized each conversation, and these were shown briefly after lunch before the generation of the final round of conversations. The electronic voting process at the end of the day was exciting and energizing, and the day ended on a buzz of a sense of achievement.
The day was deemed a great success. We had worked with the complexity of the system in a way that generated productive and useful conversation while supporting the primary purpose of assessment rehearsal and preparation. The senior team came away with a clear idea of the co-identified priorities for the school moving forward in these difficult times for academia, and with some concrete suggestions for next steps. In addition, the individuals present forged new relationships, discovered shared areas of aspiration, and were energized to help the school adapt to the changing context and environment. The assessment participants also got extensive feedback about their performance in the simulated assessment.
Introduction
Open Space Technology (OST), to give it its full name, is a methodology originally formalized by Harrison Owen (1997), although he is quick to acknowledge that “the creation of OST has been a collaborative project involving perhaps thousands of people on four continents over a period of twelve years” (Owen, 1997, p. xi). Put simply, it is a way of running meetings that makes them much more productive and engaging. The Open Space process allows people who have gathered together in order to discuss something, first to set their own agenda and then to attend the discussions where they have the most to offer or gain. The process is highly responsive to rapidly changing situations as people set the agenda in the process of the meeting, rather than three weeks beforehand. It also allows agenda items to take many different forms. For instance, when it is used at the Appreciative Inquiry practitioner networking events that I attend, it can produce: requests for help with a particular piece of work; a more general request for the sharing of resources about something; or the dissemination or sharing of an interesting or innovation piece of work, as well as questions about practice, or more general questions about theory. By making it possible for people to attend conversations of their choice, and to switch between them at will, it maximizes people’s ability to invest their time most profitably, for themselves and for others. I find it a highly versatile, flexible, and useful methodology that I regularly incorporate into my workshop designs.
Essentially, OST is a process that should allow you to “do incredible things without a planning committee, without facilitators, and without a conference management team” (Owen, 1997, p. 7). All of which is true. However, in my experience, there is a considerable investment needed initially to persuade the various powers that be to contemplate such a free-for-all (as they hear it) structure. I will address some of these concerns, and how to answer them, in our discussion below. While this process can be used for very large groups over three-day events, I am only going to address that in passing since such opportunities arise fairly rarely. I am much more interested in exploring how we can use this methodology on a more ad hoc basis as part of our working lives. Should you be lucky enough, or powerful enough, to be able to negotiate a larger, more complex event, then I thoroughly recommend Owen’s book and some expert facilitation. You might like to read his book anyway to see the level of skill that can be applied and the depth to which the process can be taken. If you are in the position, explored throughout this book, of needing to work in conjunction with a more traditional approach to change, then you should find much of use here.
Purpose
The purpose of Open Space is to facilitate a diversity of people coming together to discuss things that are important to them in a way that is effective, productive, engaging, and enjoyable.
The Process
The Open Space process allows people to come together to create their own agenda. For this to work effectively, people need to recognize that they have both the right and the responsibility to raise the important issues that need discussion. In addition, Owen devised some specific principles and a law that, if adhered to, allow people to make the most of the opportunity presented by this particular design (1997).
1. Introducing the principles and law
Open Space is run on four key principles and one law (see Box 8.1). The principles, as below, are designed to stop people fretting about what isn’t happening (who didn’t come, what didn’t get said, etc.) and to focus instead on what is happening. They also serve to remind us that a group of people who have gathered together with a specific purpose in mind are quite capable of organizing themselves to have a conversation; and that they may choose to ease themselves into conversation with a little social preamble or catch-up chitchat. Without needing to be directed, the group will sooner or later get focused on the topic in hand. The last principle helps us recognize that when a conversation reaches some sort of conclusion, the conversation is over and there is no need to carry on extending the discussion to fill the allocated time. Personally, I love those moments of “finish.” Sometimes they are indicated by a thoughtful silence that follows a pithy comment or summing-up. Sometimes it’s a question that captures the whole nub of the discussion. Sometimes it’s an explosion of delighted laughter as people realize they have cracked it, whatever it was. Either way, people know when a good conclusion to this discussion right now has been reached.
The law of two feet is key. It mandates people to leave boring or unproductive discussions and head off elsewhere. It has three key effects. It greatly reduces, if not eliminates, the likelihood of soapboxing, hobby-horsing, barracking, badmouthing, and general conversation domination by those with big egos, loud mouths, or strong opinions. It makes each person responsible for the quality of their own learning or contribution. And it creates bumblebees and butterflies. Butterflies are the quiet centres of non-action. These are the people who choose not to join a session. Others may periodically join them to share and enjoy their silence or to engage in some new, unexplored topic of conversation. Bumblebees buzz from conversation to conversation, spreading ideas.
2. Creating the agenda
This part of the process is based on two fundamentals, passion and responsibility.
Each person who cares to is invited to identify any issue related to the central task for which they have some real passion, to write it down on a piece of paper, and to stick it on the wall. By doing this they also accept responsibility for convening a session on their topic and making a written report of the results. It is useful to emphasize that “Everybody has the right and responsibility to place items on the agenda.” It is this “which allows the unspeakable to be spoken” (Owen, 1997, p. 8). Once the agenda is in place, we are ready to start our conversations.
3. Opening the village market
With smaller groups, once the topics are assigned a space in the agenda then people can be left to choose where to go. With larger groups, and time permitting, it is an idea to get people to sign up for topics which can then be allocated to rooms of different sizes, depending on the interest they seem to have generated. This can be done while everyone has a coffee break. Either way, you are going to end up with an agenda that clearly indicates what topic is being discussed where and when, and at least one person they should expect to find in the space at that time: their host.
4. Capturing outcomes
When people respond to the call of responsibility then every issue of interest, concern, or excitement to anybody will have been raised, and all issues will have received full discussion, to the extent desired. Other possible outcomes include a full report of issues and discussions in the hands of all participants and the establishment of priorities and action plans. One of the fantastic outcomes of these volunteer-based events is that work is assigned to those who care to do it. The value of this, in terms of energy, motivation, speed of action, and so on, can’t be underestimated. The old adage that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men continues to hold good.
The outcomes achievable depend to some extent on the length of the event. Owen suggests that a one-day event is great for intense discussion but little recording. This has been my experience. People get great value out of the discussions, but the recording doesn’t extend beyond the flips produced in the groups. He suggests that two-day events are similar in nature but differently paced, with much better recording, while three-day events produce a qualitatively different experience that allows for the prioritization of all issues, the convergence of related issues, and effective action planning. Events usually result in one of three outcomes
a) Actions to be taken are so clear that it remains only to do them
I have found this to be a frequent outcome of using this methodology. However, this can be the result only if relevant decision-makers are in the room. If everyone is ready to roll and yet somehow the organization reverts to form and decides that the group outcomes are “recommendations” rather than action plans, and that therefore they need to be deferred to some other decision-making forum for ratification, there is a grave danger of an instant loss of energy, motivation, and time. When running one-day events, I usually aim for action groups to have identified who is in the group, what they aim to achieve, and the first step (which is often a first meeting) by the time they leave.
b) Actions to be taken are pretty clear, but more information or consultation is required
In this case it is important to set a time by which these tasks will be sorted.
c) The issue remains as clear as mud
This might be the situation when there has been much useful exploration of the issue but no resolutions or forward actions are suggesting themselves. This is not necessarily problematic. Sometimes the purpose of the session is precisely that airing of a topic, the formation of an organization-wide conversation to create engagement and connection and to stimulate thinking about an important issue. However, if more definite action outcomes were anticipated, then it may be an indication that the topic as framed was too big, loose, or ill-defined. At any rate, some learning about the nature of the topic and the way people relate to it, or engage with it, will have been discovered. From this, next steps can be considered, which may or may not include a more focused Open Space!
Recommended Use
The Complete Guide to Facilitation lists five particular situations where Open Space might be your approach of choice (Justice & Jamieson, 1998).
1. When the issues at hand are complex and potentially conflicting
It may seem strange to suggest that such a flexible process be recommended in difficult situations. In fact, three key things contribute to its suitability in such a situation. First, people aren’t locked in the room together; the process gives explicit instruction that people should move on from any discussion that gets, shall we say, “stuck.” This allows people to manage their own emotional reactions better, giving them scope for walking away when they need to. Second, there isn’t any inbuilt assumption of arriving at conclusions or making decisions, therefore people can keep talking until they get the breakthrough from “either/or” to “both/and” thinking. And finally, as the people present set the agenda, the minority interest that always gets pushed off the agenda can get an airing.
2. When a diverse group of people must deal with an issue
Again, the flexibility of the process makes it easier for a diverse range of topics, of particular interest to particular parties, to be discussed. In addition, the relaxed conversational nature of the sessions means that no one is disadvantaged or silenced by being unfamiliar with that organization’s formal meeting protocol, or, where the meeting is of an international nature, that country’s formal meeting protocol. And since no one knows what the agenda will actually be until the day, there is likely to be much less lobbying and politicking beforehand to secure agreement to particular perspectives or decisions.
3. When nobody knows the answer
This is where these co-creative processes in general come into their own as they work to call on the “collective intelligence” of the system. Frequently, although no one person seems to know the answer, the system working together can discover, create, unearth, or generate answers. However, it isn’t easy for leaders and others to admit that maybe no one knows the answer. For example, this approach is excellent for culture change work, particularly when it reaches that stage in the change process where, despite all the brouhaha and planning, no one seems to really know what this change looks like and very little seems to be happening: the point of all heat and no light. Open Space can work to bring together all the questions and the unknowns.
Working in this open way has a number of benefits. First, people are often relieved to discover they aren’t the only ones who are puzzled. Second, they begin to realize that there is scope to influence the question of what all these change-related communications actually mean. Third, they start to feel more empowered, motivated, and engaged as they begin to develop potential answers to their own questions.
4. When upper-level decision-makers are willing to listen to unpopular points of view that they have previously discounted
As we have established, planned change approaches often produce resistance to change. Often the first instinctive reaction to any resistance to change by those in charge is to ignore it, discount it, or attempt to discredit it. It is at this point that you will hear expressions such as “people need to get on the bus or get out.” At some point they may be persuaded that there is some validity in the questions or objections being raised. Assuming people can be persuaded that the change process owners are now genuinely interested in listening, Open Space can offer, for the reasons outlined here, a low-risk environment for engagement. Once again, the emphasis is on exploration rather than, necessarily, decision-making.
5. Conflict management
Someone much wiser than me once said, “If it’s too simple make it complex, if it’s too complex make it simple.” Wise words. They were referring to the organizational story about whatever was under discussion. Conflict arises in, and contributes to, situations where the story has got “too simple.” People take a limited number of positions, only one of which they believe can be right.
There are, of course, a number of conflict management and mediation methodologies that engage directly with conflicts. Open Space creates room for conflict reduction in a different way. By facilitating multitudinous discussions on multiple issues it opens up the complexity of the situation. This in itself can create room for more nuanced opinions and voices to be heard. It also allows people to break out of their established oppositional patterns as they hear their antagonist saying something unexpected in a different context, perhaps something they can relate to. It allows people to hear, see, and understand each other differently. As with the other co-creative methodologies, conflict isn’t so much “re-solved” as “dis-solved.” Somehow the focus and the heat move on to different topics as people find new and maybe unexpected areas of commonality.
This isn’t to say that Open Space is a panacea for conflict. It isn’t. But getting more voices into a binary conversation that are able to open up areas for discussion and help move conversations away from “either /or” into “what if” and “both/and,” or in other ways reframe the topic away from the binary choice, is frequently very helpful in finding ways forward from a “stuck” situation.
6. Geographically dispersed groups
Computer and internet technology have made it possible for Open Space events to extend across time and space. Various computer conferencing options can help with multi-site simultaneous Open Space events as each site can have access to the other discussions. Discussions can also continue online after the face-to-face events, and others not even present initially can join in.
Key Ideas
1. The process is based on self-management and self-organization
Open Space is probably the most obviously self-managed and self-organized of all the co-creative methodologies covered here. The facilitator provides only process. The group create the agenda, facilitate, lead, or host the discussions, and if they want recordings of the proceedings, they have to make them.
When working with people who feel disempowered and “done to” by the ongoing change process, or with an organization that wants to create a “more empowered” culture where people “take responsibility and are accountable,” Open Space offers a great opportunity to give people that sense of agency, proactivity, and empowerment. As long as the issue under discussion is of crucial importance to those present, the process will work.
However, commissioners do sometimes find it hard to believe that the process will work and during the planning stage suggest ideas for ensuring that the “right” discussions are promoted and the “right” people attend them. To help allay the fears behind these suggestions and to keep things moving along, I have occasionally accommodated the idea of pre-designed questions to be posted on the walls of the room as “prompts” to those present, in case they are stuck. By the time we get to the event, such fears have often subsided anyway and the idea becomes moot. On the rare occasion when “ideas” for discussion have been posted in the room beforehand, they don’t seem to harm the process, although equally they add little. One just has to watch out for one of the commissioners “suggesting” that someone else might like to promote one of these ideas. The principle is crystal clear: if no one feels passionately that they want to have this discussion, it doesn’t happen, whether someone thinks it “ought to” or not. I also, of course, make it clear to the commissioners that they are free to suggest all these ideas when the agenda is designed in the meeting.
2. It’s supposed to be a creative process
This is a creative process. The content is unknown, the outcome is unknown, and the conversations are unknown prior to the event. It could hardly be a more creative process. This is both the power of the process and, in the eyes of some, the risk. It is also creative in that it “creates” new patterns in the moment: different people talk in different ways about different things with different conversational companions. This in itself shifts the ratio of rehearsed to generative talk. New ideas, knowledge, and perspectives come together in the same space and create something new. And since everyone present has chosen to be in that conversation – all volunteers, no pressed men – so the quality of the contribution, whether speaking or listening, is better than an “average” meeting where attentiveness waxes and wanes as people dip in and out of the bits of the conversation that interest them. In short, the conversations stand a higher chance of being generative, that is, producing something new, than do most “normal” business meetings.
3. The recording and sharing of discussions is instantaneous
If people want proceedings then they get to create them. This is not a situation where someone else is expected to take it all away and type it up. Owen has some clear recommendations for how this can be done for a large event. He suggests you need five computers per 100 people and a printer. They need to be arranged to allow space for the flipchart paper from which people will be transcribing. If you are likely to be managing this type of logistic for a large event, Owen’s book (1997) is excellent on this sort of detail: a wealth of tips gleaned from experience one suspects!
Smaller events
For smaller events I find getting groups to post their outcomes on the walls is a good first step. Often there is time to give brief feed-outs. Often this is as good as it gets and is sufficient. However, they can be encouraged to take away their own flipcharts to type up and distribute to each other, or to give to someone who volunteers to act as the coordination point.
In the case study that opened this chapter we had the facility to use flip-cams to record 60-second feed-outs from each discussion. This process was different; it helped with time management and produced useful material for the organizational website later. The output was very rough and ready, and speaking readily into a camera summarizing 40–50 minutes of discussion in 60 seconds isn’t a skill possessed by everyone. However, I think the principle was good and I’d happily try it again. There were also written notes. The video helped to pull things together in the middle of the one-day event, as well as providing some web-friendly material for later use.
4. It’s quick and cost-effective
In theory an Open Space doesn’t take long to set up; and once a group of people are familiar with the process, indeed it doesn’t. For example, I belong to a couple of professional support groups who use this methodology as the backbone of their events. It works really well and makes for a lively variety of sessions. In practice, with organizations that are not familiar with this approach, I have found a certain amount of preparatory work with commissioners is necessary!
The process only really needs one facilitator, although having more helps, if only in helping people with the process. There is a lot to think about to run a good event, especially if you add in things like video recording. I have found having other people around to help with the sheer detail of the preparation logistics very helpful for larger events. Of course, these can be people internal to the organizations or volunteer colleagues keen for the experience.
5. It works with people’s energy
The people present discuss what they want to discuss. In selecting which discussions to attend, people follow their own energy, choosing to engage with what they have energy for. They don’t discuss what other people want discussed, and they certainly don’t discuss what those not present want discussed! As the agenda is being created, one of the things you are listening out for is someone who is carrying someone else’s issue (probably that of someone not present). There is absolutely no point in this issue being on the agenda unless someone in the room “owns it.” Usually, people will say something like, “I’ve got one. J, who can’t be here because …, asked me to make sure we discussed …,” to which one responds, “Is this something you feel passionately about?” They may say, “No, not really, but J …,” to which you reply, “It’s unfortunate that J isn’t here, but that doesn’t mean we are obliged to discuss his agenda item that he can’t be here to host. Does anyone else feel the need to host this item?” If no one does, it doesn’t go up.
The other time when you have to watch out for the dilution of energy is if the event ends in a move towards forming “work groups” to carry some ideas forward. This in itself is fine; however, there may be a move by some present to insist either that everyone present signs up for something, or that each group have an equal number of people in it. Both of these pressures are to be resisted. The volunteer principle holds to the very end of the event.
Critical Success Factors
1. An appropriate space
How much space you will need will, obviously, depend on the size of the group. Regardless, you will need one main room for the whole group together in a large circle and, for larger groups, some breakout rooms. As a rough guide, a room that can accommodate 200 in a theatre style will accommodate 100 in the Open Space circle style. You’ll need approximately five breakout rooms per 100 people, and a variety of other spaces, including possibly outdoors. Many conference centres or hotels also have public spaces that are useful. You want the main room to have one long wall where you can stick things (and they will stay stuck). You might also want room for the coffee stand and somewhere for the computers if you are using any. Keeping these in the main room can help keep it an “active” space while people are in the meeting sessions. Try to have food and drink on tap or readily accessible so that accessing it doesn’t interrupt the process. It is a good idea to make sure the wider team, for instance the venue staff, broadly understand what you are up to and what the pattern of movement is likely to be.
2. Kit
You are likely to need: masking tape, flipchart pens, flipchart paper, and sticky notes (postcard size). Computers are optional. A microphone may be helpful for a group of 70 people or more.
3. Site preparation
All of this is fairly straightforward. Just ensure that:
- the chairs are in a circle, with gaps for entry and leaving; beware fire exits
- the wall is accessible
- paper, pens, and masking tape are available in the middle of the room
- the signage to rooms or conversational spaces is in place
- the four key principles and the law of Open Space are on posters on the wall in the main room
- on the long wall there is the “blank” schedule (also known as the time–space matrix) with start, finish, and break times, and then slots called session 1, 2, etc.
4. Welcome and getting started
The welcome needs to be made by the official sponsor. It is very important that the event is seen as belonging to the organization, not the external facilitator. Encourage them to keep it short and snappy and then to hand over to you. Start by helping the group to settle and focus. State the theme of the session. Giving this talk while walking around the “space” achieves a number of things that doing it sitting in the circle does not. It allows you to catch everyone’s attention through movement. It allows you to get a good look at everyone, and them at you. And most importantly, it brings life to this important “between us” space.
Describe the process, attempting to excite passion and interest. By running through what is going to happen in this way, you can plant the idea that you will be asking them for contributions before you come to do so. This should help get their brains working. State any intended outcome, such as a good debate, or a record of ideas, or a vote of interest. It is important to be clear about the decision-making status of the event beforehand. This is all part of managing people’s expectations. As you are explaining the process, keep an eye out for when the group looks like it might be ready to offer ideas. You might see people making notes or a sudden “light bulb” in their eyes. It’s a judgement call deciding when to move on to calling for contributions.
5. Volunteer basis
Try to ensure that attendance at the event and in the groups, and participation in further action, is voluntary. This can be quite hard for organizations to accept. Even if attendance at the events becomes mandated, you can still use “the butterflies and bees” principles to make it clear that people are only expected to attend conversations that interest them. As Owen puts it, “Being a volunteer is the prime prerequisite for the full expression of passion and responsibility” (1997, p. 19).
6. Make the invitation attractive, and widely offered
As a general principle it is helpful to issue personal invitations, although in practice this is not always possible. The invitation should emphasize how much the invitee’s presence is valued and ensure that the implications of their absence (i.e., not being part of an important discussion) are clear to them. Even so, in terms of attendees, the emphasis is on quality not quantity. This raises the question of how many people you need for a successful event. Owen suggests groups of five can find it useful. Even if they all decide they want to attend all the sessions, the process of designing their own agenda is valuable, and, of course, it is quite possible even in a group this small to have two parallel streams. I have used it in training workshops of about eight people, as a live example of how it works, usually with two streams. With organizations, I have used it with small groups of 15–20 people very successfully, as well as with larger groups such as in the case-study example at the beginning of the chapter.
7. Politely decline to answer questions during set-up
Some people’s anxiety may start to express itself as a desire to be verbally convinced of the efficacy of the process before they engage with it. Try not to get drawn into extensive explanations. Enough people will get it. It only slows things down, dissipates the energy, or frustrates those ready to roll.
Key Skills
1. Framing the topic and the invitation
Before the event, identify what you want to focus on and then spend some time defining what you want to accomplish. This needs to be something people care about, a “real business issue that is of passionate concern to those who will be involved” (Owen, 1997, p. 20). This is often best stated as a question. As mentioned before, questions are more likely to engage and incite curiosity than statements. So working with, “How can we stay competitive in a changing world?” might create more engagement than, “Staying competitive in a changing world.” Similarly, you might use, “What are our inspiring future aspirations?” rather than, “Designing an inspiring future” as your event heading.
A big part of the preparatory work for large events in general is framing the invitation. Almost inevitably there will be a written version of the invitation. The temptation is often to give lots of information, including explaining the process in detail. This desire tends to stem from the anxiety of the organizer and is of little benefit to the invitation recipient. The job of the invitation is solely to get the person to come to the event. Therefore, the most important criteria for the invitation are that it is attractive, it arouses some curiosity, and it stimulates the imagination. Try to make it brief and interesting, emphasizing, if anything, the opportunity it presents for potential attendees to have a real voice in, and influence on, the question under discussion. Include some of the sub-questions the event is likely to address; for example, “What should our priorities for growth be over the next two years?” or “What opportunities are we in danger of missing?” or “How can we reconcile the need for this and that?” Try to find questions that people are likely to have strong views about, to which they may have given thought but not yet found an appropriate forum for expression. In the invitation, don’t be overly fussy about the methodology, instead point to the desired outcomes.
However, in this day and age written invitations are rarely sufficient. They get lost in the general noise of work and excessive emails. It is really important that the event is demonstrated to be important by leadership action and behaviour. The more leaders and managers emphasize their interest, excitement, and expectations about the event in person, and the more they issue very personal invitations to attend, the more likely it is that people will raise their heads from the daily grind to notice, and decided to seize, this opportunity to have real influence in their work environment. This is another good reason for having a pre-event planning group whose members can act as ambassadors in their own work areas throughout the preparation time.
2. Calling for conversations
After the set-up comes the point where you will need to call for session topics. Owen suggests that the request be formed like this: “I am going to ask each of you who cares – and nobody has to – to identify some issue or opportunity related to our theme for which you have genuine passion and for which you will take real responsibility. … powerful ideas that really grab you to the point that you will take personal responsibility to make sure that something gets done” (1997, p. 88). While people are thinking or gathering the courage to name a topic, remind them of the very limited nature of the responsibility they are signing up to if they volunteer a topic or session: just to be in a certain space at a certain time; to convene, not facilitate, the discussion; and to ensure it gets recorded.
Make it clear what they need to do (i.e., write their topic on one of the pieces of paper, announce it to the room, and put their name on it). For small groups, these can just accumulate until you are ready to create the agenda. For larger groups, you may want to encourage people to stick them on the wall (not yet in the matrix) so that people can keep track of what has already been raised.
As the facilitator, this is probably the most challenging or nerve-wracking part of the process; will people generate enough ideas? The key is to be able to encourage people to come forward, and to allow a group to be silent. Ideas often come forth in fits and starts rather than as a steady stream. One idea may prompt a few others and then that stream of thought may dry up. There may be a pause before a fresh topic is identified. It can take people time to name an issue for all sorts of reasons: it takes a long time to percolate through from their semi-consciousness into something they can state; they dislike speaking up in a group; they worry people will think the topic they want to raise is stupid, irrelevant, or too dangerous; or maybe they are paralysed by anxiety when it is quiet and their brain seizes up. Often people are weighing up whether they want to take the risk of raising something or not. The longer you are able to hold this space the more potential you create for the emotion behind the issue to build up to create the motivation to speak up.
Along with being able to hold a silence, you need to be able to manage the anxiety of group members who find the silence very difficult, or those who get worried that the group is “failing” whenever there is a pause in the flow of contributions and who want to rescue it by cutting the process short. It’s a balancing act between those slowly contemplating whether to put their idea into the mix and those squirming in their seats or locked solid with their eyes to the floor who are just praying for this bit to be over. Every group is different; it is a judgement call when to move on. As a rule of thumb, you want at least twice as many conversations as session times so that there is always an element of choice for people.
And yes, any individual can offer more than one topic. Best at this stage to get as many as possible and to sort them out so that no one is required to be in two places at once through a “horse-trading” discussion once all topics are in. In other words, you are looking to generate a wealth to choose from, an embarrassment of riches. For organizations of a very efficient mindset this is counter-cultural. You may well find people in your group who assume that once there are enough topics to fill the spaces in the time–space matrix then the job is done. To generate extra is, on their default thinking mode, just wasteful. So you may need to explain that “filling the gaps” isn’t the purpose of the exercise, rather it is to ensure that all topics that are important to everyone here get raised.
3. Working with time and space
Owen identifies the two key facilitator skills as creating time and space and holding time and space, which essentially means that “Under the best of circumstances, the facilitator will be totally present and absolutely invisible” (Owen, 1997, p. 57). This is achieved by doing less rather than more. The ability to do this allows Owen, at least, to conduct Open Space sessions for groups using a language he doesn’t understand. As the facilitator you are working to create a time and space in which the group can reach their potential; a place where the group feel safe to explore new options and to be discursive.
The two principles “when it starts, it starts” and “when it’s over, it’s over” help people to throw off their usual meeting behaviour of diving straight into the topic, sans introductions, and finishing because the big hand reaches 12. The two principles give the group permission both to “chat” while they assemble until it “feels” right to get to the topic in hand, and to stop when they have reached a stop point. There is no need to “fill the time” with more discussion.
4. Being authentically present
How you show up is really important. It really helps if, as the facilitator, you are fit, healthy, well rested, and focused on the day. Holding space and time is interesting work and it requires a high degree of non-intrusive attentiveness. It is a very particular kind of attentiveness. You want to be present as “your best self,” able with ease to be helpful, forgiving, accepting, interested, and generous. You need to be all there, not distracted, not trying to “do something else” while the sessions are running. Have no attachment to fixed outcomes. This is very important: you are there to provide the best opportunity for something great to happen, not to make it happen. It is not your responsibility how people choose to use that opportunity. This is possible when you understand that as the facilitator your concern is process not content.
5. Addressing common concerns
a) “What if no one comes to a particular session?”
I always say in this case there are two options. First, that you can use the time to think on your own about this topic, and write up your thoughts; and second, that you can, after waiting long enough to be sure no one else is coming, go to another session.
b) “What if the people I think should be there don’t come to the right sessions or, indeed, at all?”
In general terms, the answer is that the right people for an OST event are those who want to come, and that the focus is on the quality and quantity of the interaction rather than on specific individuals. The second answer is that there are two likely outcomes. One is that until they care to come the job won’t get done, in which case let’s focus on what we can achieve with the people who are here. The other is that perhaps we can still get things done as it turns out they weren’t as essential as we originally thought (Owen, 1997, p. 21).
c) “What if people don’t use the session time well?”
They will use the time well because they were drawn to this item and so will find it very engaging. If for some reason they find they aren’t engaged, they are not only free to leave but positively encouraged to do so. If the conversation takes a moment to get going, remember the point is about creativity and spirit, not rules and timetables. As long as the volunteer principle is adhered to, this concern tends to be a real red herring.
d) “What if people suggest stupid items?”
I would say, honour the process and the person and put it up anyway. The process is self-correcting. Essentially, people are voting with their feet and they have an opt-out vote. If the item is that irrelevant or stupid, the host will find themselves sitting on their own. This is another reason it is important to allow for butterflies: better they are out of a session than creating mischief because they had to go to something.
e) “What if no one offers any agenda items?”
This is the biggest facilitator fear. Remember, and remind them, there is no agenda, there is no plan B waiting in the wings. Owen says, “I’m quite prepared to stand here until something happens.” Note the phrasing: not “until we get some items” but “until something happens.” Theoretically, that could be the group deciding that actually they have nothing to talk about and disbanding: choice is all. More likely, someone will break the silence with a first suggestion, or there might be a suggestion of a break to give people time to form their thoughts. I see no harm in that, although I would keep it fairly short. Allowing people to briefly walk and talk can get the juices flowing. Either way, the responsibility for producing an agenda, at this point, is theirs, not yours. Good preparation of people for what they are coming to helps with this.
f) “What if people don’t attend any sessions?”
As we have said regarding butterflies and bees, there are many ways of adding value in these events.
Origins of the Methodology
The birth of Open Space Technology began with Owen’s frustration in 1983 when it took him a year, with others, to organize an international conference for 250 people. Although the conference was deemed a great success, the balance of effort to effect, input to output, not to mention the emotional wear and tear, left him feeling “never again.” This decision was reinforced by the general post-event view that, while the event had indeed been outstanding, the most valuable part had been the coffee breaks! (Owen, 1997, p. 3). Reflecting on it all afterwards, he realized that what he wanted to know was: was it possible to combine the level of synergy and excitement present in a good coffee break with the substantive activity and results characteristic of a good meeting? And could it all be done a bit quicker?!
Pondering these questions, he took inspiration from an event attended long ago in West Africa around an initiation ceremony for young men. During this event he had observed 500 people organize themselves over four days without any visible planning committee! He noted how the layout of the village, a circle of huts around an open space, helped. His account of the village shape puts me in mind of the long-lost “village green” pattern of English villages: a higgledy-piggledy collection of various abodes around a commonly owned space where all the important village events, from the market to the maypole dancing, took place. The human circle, suggests Owen, is the “fundamental geometry” of open human communication (Owen, 1997, p. 5). No head, no foot, no high or low, just people with each other, face to face, equidistant from “the centre.”
He noticed how during the ceremony groups moved from the perimeters of the circle (behind the huts) into the centre of the circle, creating a really alive centre. There was a rhythm as groups swirled in and out of this space of energized peaks and lower energy times. At the end, the energy ebbed as people flowed back to their homes. He compares this to the rhythm of breathing. So while this might be appropriate to village ceremonies, how was it helpful to the different rhythm of organizational life? How could this process, in effect, be applied to organizational challenges? What would the content of the event be? To help with the generation and organization of content, he drew on further aspects of village life: the community bulletin board and the marketplace. In particular, he sees the marketplace as “a way of bringing interests together in an orderly way” (Owen, 1997, p. 6).
From these observations of how life can be self-organized – in a village, with its marketplace and bulletin board, or in ceremonial circles, or in breathing – he identified key processes, and the pattern and rhythm to use as the basis for a meeting that was all coffee break! Except that, of course, it has the potential to be much more consistently the best of the coffee break experience: connective, energized and energizing, creative and passionate. By drawing on these aspects of human life, he created a process that is both new and familiar. While doing these things in a workplace setting may seem odd or unusual, the elements that inform the design are not. Essentially, we know how to do this. This belief is borne out, in my experience, by the speed with which people “get” Open Space when it is introduced into an event.
Conclusion
Open Space Technology is a highly participative and engaging process that is extraordinarily responsive to the needs of the moment. Its use is highly recommended in complex, fast-changing situations. It is relatively easy to incorporate into other events and usually people find it an exceptionally valuable way of working. There is no reason for it not to be an organization’s default mode for managing meetings. It won’t have escaped your notice that I have drawn heavily on the work of Harrison Owen and I thoroughly recommend that you do too!