*So what do you think about all of that?*... asks Harrison at the end
of his original post.
A loaded question to say the least.
Well I've been thinking about it....A LOT. Though really, there's no
surprise in this plain talk--probably more plain talk than I've ever
seen on this subject.
Plain talk about management and leadership, whether the definition of
it, our view of it, our pursuit of it, or our conversations around it,
which leads me to think about:
"When it really comes down to it, what is it that we are really
promising management and leadership when they ask us about Open Space?
What is it that they are really asking of us? What reassurances are
they looking for? What is the implied promise that we are giving? Why
is it so hard to find the right words to engage in a meaningful
dialogue around what we are really inviting?"
Under the surface of it all, we know what management and leadership
are asking for. We know they want that fix, the predictability, the
reassurance of outcome, of high performance, of results and probably a
return to the way things were or as they remember them to be...but was
it really ever that way? And could it ever be that way again?
We all know that what the clients are asking for is not possible. How
can we ever predict or plan the complex future we are living into with
any certainty at all? It would seem that we have ample evidence of the
futility of even attempting to do so or worse believing that we can.
And yet we do, over and over again. Working harder and harder,
searching for that next best model or system or structure or approach,
spending hours and hours learning more and more, planning, predicting
and forecasting and then later analyzing the gaps where we did not
meet plan and spending more and more hours, explaining the variances.
We massage our words, we try to describe in ways that will seem
familiar and similar to the existing models to entice and reassure. By
falling in the trap of promises, are we not also colluding with what
we know to be true...that control doesn't work no more than
predictability does.
And as we busily work on this, life is passing us by.
Harrison in an earlier post said:
"For the last several years I have been asking for, pleading for,
begging for an extended and deep conversation which starts with the
premise that this is a self organizing world, beginning, middle and
end. Living fully and productively in such a world requires that we
think some new, and (some would say) radical and heretical thoughts
about management, leadership, the nature of organization, power...and
much more. Good old OST gives us a good experimental base, but that is
just the beginning. I think. And while some might see OST as a useful
"tool" for the enhancement of organizations as we know them, in my
view OST is a wonderful Trojan Horse, which, in a not so subtle
manner, blows those understandings and ways of working quite out of
the water. It clears some space for the new conversations to take
place, while simultaneously offering some useful contributions to the
content of those conversations."
I too year for these conversations...with the clients and others.
What's more, we know that Open Space gives us the feeling and
experience that something much bigger and better is right there under
the surface. The SHIFT that people often experience is life-changing
or could be if individuals trusted their experience and did not try so
hard to talk themselves out of what felt so natural... simply because
it does not match up with the good old predictability models of
Leadership and Management.
It was this experience that ignited my passion and my courage to jump
into life. I wonder now if it is not time to speak more clearly, more
forthrightly about self-organizing, about one less thing to do, about
chaos and order.
As Harrison yearns for extended and deep conversations on
self-organizing, I yearn for more and more Open Space and *more plain
talk* along the lines of "Folks, let's face it; it's just not working.
Time to try something new or rather time to go back to something
that's been lying there right under our nose all these billion years.
It's everywhere, in nature, in our living systems: it's called
self-organizing. It's our best teacher and the one that has withstood
the test of time".
Along with the plain talk and inviting, I also want to wear my passion
on my sleeve without holding back. I want to show how much I yearn for
work and life to be more joyful, more fun and more productive because
people are doing "one less thing of the stuff that is a waste to do"
and "many more things that they enjoy and believe in".
I also see others wearing their heart on their sleeves, speaking
clearly and with great conviction what they want to see in the world
of work.
Harrison you said:
I think the bottom line may come down to: Move slowly with empathy,
and be prepared to wait.
I'll admit that I can't buy into that. I feel too much urgency. Life
may prove me wrong, doors may slam shut but I'm willing to take that
chance.
But what I can buy into is this:
"At one level I will do the Open Space because I know that it will
enable people to be more comfortable, powerful, sure of themselves.
That's the easy part. But at another level I will do the Open Space in
order to introduce anomaly... one more nudge towards Paradigm Shift." *
*
**
And perhaps if enough of us help nudge it towards that paradigm shift,
we will start a real tipping point.
Suzanne
**
I
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, David Osborne
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Many thanks Harrison...very helpful.
David
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
David, Listen to your words... "we're exploring the question
of how can we have some structure and boundaries and yet
provide space for self-organization. It's hard to find models
that enable both."
I hate to say it, and you won't be surprised, but I think you
are working much too hard. Sounds to me suspiciously like a
variant of "organizing a self organizing system." Especially
that part about "find(ing) models." The systems you are
contemplating (your business and the Association) are their
own best models. Nothing else will even come close because
they are unique. And if self organization is anything like I
think it is, one of its major activities is the creation of
"structures and boundaries." That, by definition, is what self
organizing systems do, along with a few other things. So the
key activity for me would be to stop looking for models, and
start paying careful attention to how your two self organizing
systems naturally express themselves in structure and form.
Initially your task will be complicated by all those "other"
structures and forms that have been laid on, arbitrarily I
would say, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time
-- in accord with the latest "models," or "accepted practice."
After all, we think we all know what an organization SHOULD
look like.J
But there is a way through the forest, I think, which is
actually the "design principle" I employed in the development
of Open Space Technology. You've heard it before. *Think of
one more thing NOT to do*. Just keep striping away those forms
and procedures that you thought to be essential for your
organizations' function. Don't try to do it all at once, and
start with what I might call the low hanging fruit. Those
things that just get done, even though nobody can remember why.
Then notice what happens. If something comes back, that is
pretty good evidence that it was a natural form or structure,
and your systems, in their own wisdom, felt the need. On the
other hand, if it stays gone, just say bye, bye, enjoy the new
space, and get on with your business.
It is true, of course that some structures and forms are
required by external authorities: Taxes, annual reports, and
the like. In those situations, I have found it helpful to ask,
"What is the minimal level of form and structure required to
get the job done?" For some reason, people seem to make the
simplest things unendingly complicated. /In extremis/ there is
a presumption that if it is simple, it can't be any good. I've
noticed this on more than one occasion with the public
perception of OST, especially among those who have never been
involved. I suppose this has something to do with the Expert
Syndrome -- if you make it complicated enough you will surely
require the services of an Expert to help you through. For a
fee of course. And to be honest, we in the OS community
sometimes seem to be guilty of the same thing.
So there are some suggestions to get started. If you want
more, and probably more than you want -- you might take a look
at Part II of /Wave Rider/, "A Wave Rider's Guide to the
Future." And for a slightly different slant see Part IV of the
/Power of Spirit,/ "The Care and Feeding of the Interactive
Organization." And just to be clear, an Interactive
Organization is my term for a conscious, self organizing system.
Harrison
PS -- And for the record, all of the above are by yours truly
and available from Amazon.com and the publisher, Berrett-Koehler.
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
(summer) 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of
*David Osborne
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:57 PM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
Harrison,
I had to laugh at my own words as I re-read them.. /."support
leaders in adopting approaches that move toward greater and
greater levels of self-organization." /The system of course is
self-organizing all the time !!!
Opening space enables the system it to move closer and closer
to high performance versus stuckness, stagnation, decline and
death. If I restate what I was trying to express, I think we
can Open Space in big ways as an OS does and/or in small ways
through the openness in leadership approaches that provide
more space for passion, creativity, personal responsibility
etc. This is working at the micro-level though versus the full
paradigm shift you describe. I agree with your description
whole-heartedly.
You raise for me very pragmatic questions. Both in our small
company, ChangeFusion, and in a global membership organization
I'm involved in we're exploring the question of how can we
have some structure and boundaries and yet provide space for
self-organization. it's hard to find models that enable both.
I'd love to hear if others have suggestions of examples.
David
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Harrison Owen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello David O. and David S. I've re-titled to give the thread
a new name if only because I think it is headed in some new
directions with hopefully a long and useful discussion in
prospect.
This discussion may get a little difficult as we attempt to
define and understand the words we are using, "Management,"
for example. I had in mind the more common garden variety of
Management's role in organizations. As Wikipedia (that source
of all useful information) notes, "Despite the move toward
workplace democracy, command-and-control organization
structures remain commonplace as /de facto/ organization
structure." (Wikipedia). Back in the old days a common
definition of a good manager was one who, "Makes the plan,
manages to the plan, and meets the plan." And we all know how
that was supposed to be done. Single word: Control. Lots of
Command and Control.
David has moved in new, interesting and effective directions
saying, "What I have found is that as I'm able to share the
conditions that support self-organization and how they can be
integrated into individuals leadership approach that the
leaders move toward approaches that support greater and
greater self-organization."
I applaud the effort, but it seems to me it may be rather a
half step. If I hear David's words correctly, the fundamental
understanding of "organization" remains unchanged (predesigned
structure and controls with Leaders/Managers in charge) and
the new effort is to enable "leaders (to) move toward
approaches that support greater and greater
self-organization." Tactically I can certainly understand the
approach, but what if organization is fundamentally,
essentially, in totality -- Self Organizing? If that is the
situation, "greater and greater self organization" makes
little sense for a very simple reason. It is all self
organizing to begin with! But I guess that is just splitting
hairs, and for sure the heart is moving in the right direction.
The revolutionary in me (and yes there is some of that J)
would dearly love to shake the organizational world by the
scruff of the neck saying something like, Move on, Wake up!
You just can't get there from here. And for a certainty, such
an approach would have no chance of success. There needs to be
a change in view, I am sure -- but forced change, were it even
possible, falls back on the old way which wasn't effective
then and won't work now. And there is another way which
unfortunately requires some patient waiting. But we may not
have to wait that long.
It is a very common lament -- that, "things just aren't
working." What "things" and the nature of their dysfunction
are often left unsaid, but the universal uneasiness is pretty
clear. To date, the usual response has been to do more and
more of what we've always done, but maybe with a different
name (Quality Circles, Process Re-Engineering, Dialogue, maybe
even AGILE when mandated etc.). The results have not been
inspiring. Some would even include Open Space Technology as a
new tool. But I don't think that works either if the intent is
to fix the old system.
As the lament continues, some strange things are happening.
Every now and again something actually WORKS! And it works
even when the plans are busted, the leadership is incompetent,
the environment sour and threatening. Who knows how or why --
but it worked. The Brits usually call this Muddling Through,
which is what happens when everything goes a different way
than it was supposed to -- but it all turns out fine. Phew!
There is another name for this strange phenomenon. Anomaly.
Anomaly literally means being outside the law (lawless) from
the Greek /a/ (without) /nomos/ (law). Anomalies cause one to
scratch the head in wonder...How on earth could THAT happen?
Most often, we just pass them by with a dismissive, "weird!" I
think that is a mistake.
Peter Vaill, an old friend and colleague, had a knack for
seriously noticing anomalies. He observed that some
organizations performed at levels of excellence that
definitely blew away the competition. He called them High
Performing Systems. The problem was, these systems broke all
the rules of how organizations were supposed to work. As a
Professor of Management, Peter could be accused of a flawed
effort because instead of attempting to analyze how they
worked, Peter contented himself with a delightful description
of what they did, which he captured in a short paper (1977/),
The Behavioral Characteristics of High Performing Systems/. I
say delightful because he wrote in a totally colloquial
fashion, and definitely not in the style of Academe, even
though he was the (then) Dean of the Business School at George
Washington University.
Writing almost 10 years before Open Space Technology, Peter
seems prescient, for his "Behavioral Characteristics" are a
perfect description of the common behavior at every Open Space
I have ever seen. Taking a tall leap in logic, I have argued
(Wave Rider) that the link between Peter's High Performing
Systems, and what we have experienced in Open Space is the
phenomenon of self organization. Or put somewhat differently,
High Performing Systems are well functioning self organizing
systems. And in function and effect they are definitely
anomalous for according to the accepted wisdom, they simply
could not happen or do what they do!
On the subject of Anomaly and the importance of same, the work
of Thomas Kuhn comes to mind. Author of, "The Structures of
Scientific Revolutions," Kuhn gave us that wonderful concept,
"paradigm," as in Paradigm Shift. As an historian of Science,
Kuhn describes how the scientific world grew in wisdom and
stature, passing through several understandings of the nature
of things, on the way to new (and presumably better) ones.
That passage he called, Paradigm Shifts. According to his
story, the scientific or learned community held a certain
view of reality for a period of time, which worked very well,
and seemed to explain most, if not all, of the phenomenon of
their experience. This view (paradigm) was taken as The Truth,
and defended with ferocity. For example, everybody "knew" at
one time that the Earth was the center of everything and those
who disagreed were considered heretics, and often dispatched.
Galileo, for instance. Then funny little anomalies began to
show up as people observed the heavens. If the anomalies were
not an illusion then Earth centeredness was false -- which
everybody knew must be wrong, insanity, or worse. But the
anomalies refused to go away, which made people more and more
uncomfortable, to say nothing of angry. Then one shinning day
the view shifted. Same old heavens as before but seen with
totally new eyes. Paradigm shift. Very powerful and never
comfortable.
This brief sojourn into the History of Science can be helpful
to our present concerns, I think, for we are facing a very
similar situation in our understanding of organizations, as
well as management. The traditional understanding of
organization, and therefore management, has been around for a
long time. As with all paradigms, it is taken to be The Truth,
and those who challenge will inevitably be subject to
dismissal at the beginning, changing to discomfort, and
perhaps ending with anger. The reason is very simple. The
investments in this particular paradigm are enormous, and
include ways of life, ways of making a living, and for some,
life itself. Messing with all of that cannot be done lightly.
And yet the anomalies persist. Some are quite subtle and are
perceived only as a growing sense that "things are not working
as we expected." However, when the system/organization seems
broken, it is clear that we must fix it and we think we know
how. If the organizational process is screwy, then obviously
we need Process Re-Engineering. But it didn't work. We try
harder and harder, doing variants of what we've always done,
and (surprisingly) we get what we've always got. But hope
springs eternal, and someday we will find The Fix. Or so it
says in all the books. Maybe.
Other anomalies are not so subtle. Open Space Technology is
such an anomaly. I believe it to be true that Open Space
violates virtually all principles and practices of traditional
organizational theory and management practice. To the extent
that it (OS) works as we have experienced it working -- much
if not all of current practice is called into question. My
view is doubtless biased, but some 20 years ago, a senior
official from the American Society for Training and
Development (pardon the repeat) seemingly had the same
impression when he told me, after hearing what happened in
Open Space, "Harrison, if what you say is true, then 99% of
what we are currently do does not need to be done." I would
have been greatly relieved had I been able to argue with him.
But I couldn't. I can't.
So David(s) -- where does that leave us? Discretion might
dictate picking up our toys and going home. Others might
suggest heading for the barricades. Personally I don't think
either possibility is very useful. I simply cannot deny what I
have experienced in Open Space, nor can I resist the
compulsion to share the experience in whatever way with
whomsoever might show up. I think the bottom line may come
down to: Move slowly with empathy, and be prepared to wait.
And what would that mean for us and what we do...? At a
practical level, it could mean something like this. Let's
suppose that the Management of a very traditional Organization
shows up on our doorstep. They are concerned that
organizational function is dismal, the people seem to dislike
each other and what they are doing, and profits have
disappeared. The request is simple: Help! Somewhere they
heard about Open Space and believe (hope) it could fix their
system, or at least make a start.
It sounds like a marvelous opportunity, and a natural response
would be, YES! At least that would be my response. All the
essential preconditions for OS seem to be in place (real
issue, complexity, etc) -- BUT ... There are some issues to
consider. First, if by "fixing their system" the client means
that the "traditional Organization" is going to be put back
together as it once was, that is a real problem, I think. The
reason is simple -- the root of their problems is precisely
the system (understanding of organization) they were working
under. Make it even stronger. Were I to design a system that
would maximize separation and alienation, minimize creativity
and collaboration -- I don't think I could do any better than
the system they were operating under. Fixing, or restoring
that system would only compound their misery. Secondly, Doing
an Open Space in that organization is quite likely to increase
the general dissatisfaction with how things are done. As one
senior executive from a very traditional organization said to
me following an Open Space we did, "You have ruined me for
work in this place. I am not sure whether to thank you or hate
you." Talk about being caught on the horns of a dilemma! If
fully successful with my task (opening space), I will have
failed the clients' primary expectations (fixing the system)
and simultaneously raised the level employee dissatisfaction.
All true, I think. And I would still do the Open Space, but my
reasons could cause some problems unless very carefully
explained, and that explanation itself is problematical. At
one level I will do the Open Space because I know that it will
enable people to be more comfortable, powerful, sure of
themselves. That's the easy part. But at another level I will
do the Open Space in order to introduce anomaly... one more
nudge towards Paradigm Shift.
I know full well that I can't shift paradigms for people. The
same is true of Transformation, which has a lot to do with
paradigm shift. Both will happen all by themselves...or not.
But I can and will nudge when given the opportunity. After
that it is all about waiting...
So what do you think about all that?
Harrison
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
(summer) 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20>(Personal Website)
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*David Osborne
*Sent:* Monday, February 03, 2014 9:47 AM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Trust
I'm not sure I agree OS fails as a management
tool.....Self-Organization has become the lens I look at all
my work as an individual who supports groups and organizations
in change and in my leadership and management development
work. It's not an either / or for me os works or doesn't work
as a management tool.
Leadership is simply supporting an organization in moving
toward its goals. The invitation in OS is the goal or issue
that people care about. What I have found is that as I'm able
to share the conditions that support self-organization and how
they can be integrated into individuals leadership approach
that the leaders move toward approaches that support greater
and greater self-organization. This is not top-down,
traditional leadership or management. As you propose in
Wave-Rider Harrison, I believe the principles of OS /
self-organization can be integrated as a leadership approach
with great results.
David
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Harrison Owen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
David -- I would totally agree that OS "utterly fails as a
management tool." Then again I think that OS shares this
fate/condition with all other "management tools," at least as
I understand "management" and "tool" in the context of
enabling effective human performance. And thereby hang the
beginning of a long and useful discussion, I think.
ho
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
(summer) 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of
*David stevenson
*Sent:* Monday, February 03, 2014 1:51 AM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Trust
Ho indeed Harrison! OpenSpace opens space for freedom of
spirit and heart, choice and the weaving of our fates and
destinies with that of our world, it does not achieve
complience and so, at least to the extent that people are to
be managed...
On Saturday, February 1, 2014, Harrison Owen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Brendan said: "And in my view , all germinating from that
initial transfer of trust between mentor and sponsor" Right
on! I don't think it makes a bit of difference how elegantly
one "does" the Open Space. It is really all about TRUST. When
I said that anybody with a good heart and good mind can "do
it," that is just a long winded way of saying what I've always
found to be true. Expertise is interesting. Integrity and
Trust are essential. A new comer to the OS world, opening
space for the very first time, muffing some lines, and
forgetting others -- can do every bit as well as a 20 year
veteran. The coin of the realm is Integrity, authenticity,
trust. But none of that should be news, for that trio is the
bedrock of all positive human encounter, I think. Which may
just be another way of pointing out that OS is not some
special process we do, it is just life lived well. Or something.
ho
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
(summer) 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*Brendan McKeague
*Sent:* Saturday, February 01, 2014 12:57 AM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Sponsor PreWork Conversation (long)
A very interesting question Chuni Li...
The sponsor was being mentored by one of my colleagues in our
local Open Space community of practice (Wave Riders) who
suggested to him that OS was the right method/model for the
task at hand. As his coach (the formal role as perceived by
the organisation), my colleague encouraged the sponsor to get
in touch with me to avoid any perceived conflict of interest.
The sponsor researched OS for himself first and then engaged
me to provide the specialist knowledge....Harrison often says
that anyone with a good heart and head can open space - and I
agree - while at the same time, I acknowledge that 'Open Space
wisdom' is often helpful, if not necessary, in situations of
increased complexity and potential conflict.
After his initial attraction to OS in theory, and as part of
his research, the sponsor then ran a mini Open Space within
his own jurisdiction to see how it worked in reality - he
wished to speak from his lived experience when engaging with
his higher-uppers. He also watched a few of the growing
library of YouTube clips that are so wonderful for educating
potential sponsors.
Now totally convinced, the transfer of trust was complete at
various levels....trusting the process (OST works) AND
trusting the facilitator (who was aligned with the essence of
OST - i.e living in it) AND trusting that both facilitator and
process were 'fit-for-purpose' in this context.
And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer of
trust between mentor and sponsor
Hope this story helps
Cheers Brendan
On 31/01/2014, at 1:10 PM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you Brendan for taking the time to organize and share
this information - so precious and such a generous gift!
I am curious about the sponsor who "put his neck out" to make
the event happen.
Had he experienced OST before? Did you have to "convince" him?
What made him willing to "jump through the hoops?" Was it the
OST process or was it you that he trusted?
Chuni Li
New Jersey
*From:*Brendan Mc
--
David Stevenson
Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
David Osborne
http://www.change-fusion.com/ChangeFusionLogo.jpg
www.change-fusion.com <http://www.change-fusion.com> |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| 703.939.1777 <tel:703.939.1777>
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
David Osborne
www.change-fusion.com <http://www.change-fusion.com> |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| 703.939.1777 <tel:703.939.1777>
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
David Osborne
www.change-fusion.com <http://www.change-fusion.com> |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
703.939.1777 <tel:703.939.1777>
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
Suzanne Daigle
Open Space Facilitator
NuFocus Strategic Group
FL 941-359-8877
Cell: 203-722-2009
www.nufocusgroup.com <http://www.nufocusgroup.com>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
twitter @suzannedaigle
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
