Hello Harrison, David S and David O,
I find the thread of this conversation very interesting and inspiring. In my
opinion, the success of using OS to transform businesses in self-organizing
organizations depends of the way you do it. It is very different to use OS as a
means to experience a different way of organization than using OS as a means to
allow organizations to have an experience of themselves from a context of
self-organization.
An option of the first approach is to use OS as an isolated practice in the
"old system". This way maybe it can help to fix something, but it is very
possible that it is not going to make a real difference, if the organization
does not transfer in any way the underlying conditions of OS to its everyday
environment.
An example of the second approach is to use OS as a Trojan horse, acting like a
hacker. Under this scenario, the organization adopt OS as a common practice
because its effectiveness to solve problems or to foster innovation, or
whatever. This way, its continued use over time probably generates a new
cultural context that facilitates the emergence of self-organization. It could
take time, but the chance that self-organization put down roots is higher than
with the first approach.
Agustin
PS - Recently I read a book that shows the cases of some organizations that are
defying the "old system" very succesfully. The name of the book is Reinventing
Organizations written by Frederic Laloux.
________________________________
From: Harrison Owen <[email protected]>
To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
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
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com
www.ho-image.com (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]] 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]> 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
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com
www.ho-image.com(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]] 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]> 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
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com
www.ho-image.com (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]] 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]> 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
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com
www.ho-image.com (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]] 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] 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]
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
--
David Osborne
www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777
_______________________________________________
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
--
David Osborne
www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
