Module 2 Background Required Reading To Start Out This Modul

Module 2 Backgroundrequired Readingto Start Out This Module

Suppose you win the lottery. Not sure what to do with all of your money, on an impulse you decide to buy a local college as you want to make a positive impact in your community. However, you soon find yourself a bit over your head as all day you have employees or students coming to your office with all kinds of advice, suggestions for changes that should be made, complaints, etc. Never having run a college before, you are a bit confused about how to deal with all of this input and you don’t really have a good idea about what to focus on. The college has about 300 employees and 800 students and want to find a way to get some more organized input and creative ideas for improving the college. Should you use Open Space Technology, Future Search, or neither? Explain your reasoning and justify your answer using at least two of the readings from the background materials.

A video game company starts out with five undergraduate students living in a dorm, but rapidly grows within three years to around 50 employees and $10 million a year in annual revenues. While the company is still expected rapid growth, there is still sharp tension between the very young video game designers and the older and more experienced executives who run the finance and marketing departments. In particular, the younger employees strive to develop new video games that are unique and much different than any other games available. However, the more experienced executives wish to take a more conservative route and come out with games that are similar to popular games produced by their competitors. The five founding partners are not sure which of these two directions to take and wish to receive input from all of their employees through some type of formal process. Should the CEO use Open Space Technology, Future Search, or neither? Explain your reasoning and justify your answer using at least two of the readings from the background materials.

An insurance company has most of its employees in three different departments – sales, accounting, and information technology. The CEO is always receiving input from the sales department, as most of the salesforce is very outgoing and they don’t hesitate to give their opinions or make requests. On the other hand, employees in accounting and information technology tend to be quiet and shy and rarely speak up. The CEO notices that there is considerably higher turnover in the accounting and information technology departments, and thus becomes concerned that perhaps employees in these departments are leaving because they are dissatisfied with decisions the CEO has made or because they feel the salesforce is overly favored. There are about 50 employees in each department. The CEO wishes to find a process by which a wider range of employee input can be obtained. Should the CEO use Open Space Technology, Future Search, or neither? Explain your reasoning and justify your answer using at least two of the readings from the background materials.

A CEO initiates an Open Space Technology conference. At the start of the conference, the CEO provides a list of topics he wants covered and also gives his opinion on what kind of outcomes he wants from the conference. He also makes attendance at the conference mandatory. When the conference starts, participants all volunteer to give sessions on the topics proposed by the CEO. A few participants propose to give sessions on other topics not mentioned by the CEO, but very few employees come to these sessions and instead go to the sessions covering topics suggested by the CEO. At the end of the conference, the CEO is presented with a carefully worded summary of the conference and given conclusions that the CEO wanted to hear. However, after the conference ends and employees go back to work they are very slow at implementing the recommendations from the conference. What do you think went wrong? Which major principles or concepts of Open Space Technology do you think the CEO violated? Explain your reasoning, and cite Leith (1996) and at least one other source on Open Space Technology to support your answer.

Paper For Above instruction

The application of large group intervention methods such as Open Space Technology and Future Search can be highly effective in addressing complex organizational challenges. These participatory approaches foster inclusive dialogue, leverage collective intelligence, and promote collaborative decision-making. In varied scenarios, selecting the appropriate method depends on the organizational context, the stakeholders involved, and the specific goals of the intervention. This essay analyzes four scenarios to determine whether Open Space Technology, Future Search, or neither would be suitable, supported by scholarly references from the background readings.

Scenario 1: Buying a College with Overwhelming Input

In the first scenario, an individual who has purchased a college aims to garner organized input for improvement amidst numerous suggestions and complaints. The challenge is to facilitate a process that consolidates diverse perspectives while encouraging creative solutions. Open Space Technology is particularly well-suited here because it is designed to handle large groups where participants self-organize around topics they are passionate about, fostering spontaneous dialogue and collaborative problem-solving (Owen, 2008). The method’s flexibility allows participants to set their own agendas, which can help focus efforts on the most pressing issues identified by the community members.

Conversely, Future Search emphasizes creating shared visions by bringing stakeholders together to explore common interests (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010). While this approach can generate alignment, it requires substantial planning and a shared purpose, which may be less effective when the main goal is to rapidly organize diverse input. Given the immediate need for structured input and creative ideas, Open Space Technology, with its emphasis on spontaneous, participant-led sessions, offers a pragmatic solution in this situation.

Based on the principles outlined by Leith (1996), Open Space's emphasis on self-organization and emergent discussions aligns with the need for a flexible and inclusive process in a complex organizational environment. The approach’s capacity to engage a broad spectrum of voices makes it ideal for the college scenario, ensuring a more organized and creative input gathering process.

Scenario 2: Navigating Rapid Growth and Divergent Visions in a Video Game Company

The second scenario involves a rapidly expanding startup facing internal tensions between innovative young designers and conservative executives. The founders seek a process to democratize input and facilitate consensus on strategic direction. Future Search is appropriate here, because it is explicitly designed for involving diverse stakeholders in co-creating a shared future (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010). Its structured, participative framework encourages dialogue among conflicting groups, helping the organization develop a common vision that balances innovative aspirations with conservative business strategies.

Open Space Technology could also be considered, especially for its ability to explore a broad array of topics. However, given the importance of establishing a consensus-driven shared future and managing conflicting perspectives, Future Search’s structured process is more aligned with the scenario. The process’s focus on exploring what each group values and hopes for fosters mutual understanding, reduces tension, and guides collective decision-making (Norum, 2005).

Leith (1996) stresses that effective large group processes should promote alignment towards shared goals. In this case, Future Search's ability to frame the future collaboratively makes it superior for resolving strategic dilemmas and aligning the team’s efforts. Hence, for the scenario's emphasis on consensus-building amidst conflicting visions, Future Search is the more appropriate choice.

Scenario 3: Employee Feedback in a Multi-Departmental Organization

The third scenario features a CEO seeking to obtain a wider range of employee input from departments with differing communication styles. The outgoing sales team readily offers opinions, whereas the quieter accounting and IT departments are reluctant. To address this, a method that fosters equitable participation and creates a safe environment is essential. Open Space Technology, with its emphasis on voluntary participation and self-selecting discussion topics, can encourage shy employees to contribute without the pressure of formal settings (Owen, 2008).

Furthermore, the informal atmosphere of Open Space allows quieter voices to surface organically as participants choose topics they care about or feel comfortable discussing. This aligns with Leith’s (1996) principles of creating spaces where all voices are valued equally. Conversely, Future Search, though structured and inclusive, may require participants to openly share in front of large groups, which could inhibit participation from shy employees.

Therefore, Open Space Technology appears best suited to encourage broader input from diverse personalities, enabling the CEO to gather more comprehensive feedback reflecting the actual sentiments across departments. This approach promotes a democratic and inclusive culture, which could also contribute to reducing turnover and increasing employee satisfaction.

Scenario 4: CEO-Led Conference with Top-Down Structure

In the final scenario, a CEO conducts an Open Space Technology conference with predetermined topics and mandates attendance. The endpoints include participants sticking to topics proposed by the CEO, minimal engagement with additional topics, and slow implementation of solutions post-conference. These outcomes reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of Open Space’s principles, which emphasize voluntary participation, self-organization, and emergence-driven agenda setting (Rogers, 2010). Forcing attendance and directing content limited participant ownership, undermining the spontaneity and autonomy essential to Open Space.

Leith (1996) argues that the success of Open Space depends on a facilitator’s ability to create a space where participants feel free to propose topics and lead discussions. When the CEO imposes topics and mandates attendance, these conditions are violated, leading to superficial engagement and lack of genuine commitment. Moreover, the reluctance to pursue unplanned topics indicates a breach of trust and diminishes the organic dialogue characteristic of Open Space meetings.

To enhance implementation, the CEO should have facilitated a more open environment where participants could identify issues spontaneously, felt empowered to shape the agenda, and took ownership of action items. This approach would increase buy-in and ensure that solutions are more effectively executed.

Conclusion

Choosing between Open Space Technology and Future Search depends on the organizational goals and the context of the intervention. Open Space is appropriate for unstructured, inclusive sessions that aim to generate diverse ideas and empower participants, whereas Future Search excels in scenarios requiring consensus-building and strategic alignment among conflicting interests. The critical principles of these methods—voluntary participation, self-organization, and shared ownership—must be respected for the interventions to succeed. Misapplication—such as imposing rigid agendas or mandating attendance—undermines their effectiveness, as evidenced in the scenarios analyzed. Adhering to these core principles ensures that large group processes fulfill their potential to foster innovation, inclusion, and organizational change (Leith, 1996; Rogers, 2010; Weisbord & Janoff, 2010).

References

• Leith, M. (1996). Organizational change and large group interventions. Career Development International, 1(4), 19-23.
• Norum, K. E. (2005). Chapter 15: Future Search conversation. In Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication. Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
• Owen, H. (2008). Open Space Technology: A User's Guide (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Rogers, J. (2010). Large group interventions. In Facilitating Groups (pp. 98-104). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Weisbord, M. R., & Janoff, S. (2010). Future Search: Getting the Whole System in the Room for Vision, Commitment, and Action. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Pashley, S. (2012). Open Space. NHS Research and Development Forum.
• Kaapz. (2010). Kaapz and Future Search.
• Rogers, J. (2010). Large group interventions. Facilitating Groups. McGraw-Hill Education.