Bronwyn -- Personally, I think plans are wonderful, even essential.
But I find it very useful to remember that the plan is the plan and
not reality, in the same sense that the map is not the territory, the
menu the meal, nor the book the experience. Each can be very helpful
within limits and in their own way. Plans describe where we are
intending to go, they bring us to the head of the trail, so to speak.
They even can be helpful along the way as a sort of check list -- but
as every good general knows (and will admit) the (battle)Plan is out
the window the moment the first bullet flies. Or, as a senior
construction engineer confided to me -- the Prints (blue) are out of
date when the first shovel is turned.
As for project management and Open Space -- I surely agree that as
Project Management as currently practiced ... it is usually the
absolute a antithesis of OS. Which represents a distinct liability
for Project Management, I think. A more appropriate understanding
would be to see the world as totally self organizing sea, and project
management is our attempt to plot a course. Of course you can plot any
course you want... but at the end the course you sail is dependent
upon the winds and tides of the day.
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com
www.ho-image.com
OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*OSList [mailto:[email protected]] *On
Behalf Of *Bronwyn Pagram
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:59 PM
*To:* Open Space os-list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
Mmmm. This is offered with the greatest of respect for previous
speakers. I am not on board with any assertion that an implementation
plan for complicated - and complex - issues is not hugely valuable. I
am not sure if that is what is being said here... It may be semantics.
I would see many activities - building a bridge is the current example
- where a robust concept, design and implementation plan is crucial to
enabling an outcome that meets requirements: Safety. Performance.
Longevity. Good plans are always the outcome of an extensive process
of collaboration between diverse groups and individuals. They don't
always get along. There is frequently disagreement and /much
/iteration to work out the optimal way forward. This process continues
every day right through the project to when you cut the red ribbon
declaring it open.
Is this process of collaboration what you are thinking of here when
you talk about 'open space all the way'?
I would just see that as part of good project management. ????
I think my question/issue here is that my concept of 'self-organising'
is somewhat separate from project management which I see as a process
that, if well designed and executed, ensures that all the key voices
are heard and taken account of, and then takes a disciplined approach
to making sure all the myriad of required actions actually takes place.
Bronwyn
: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:47:20 -0400
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
Nothing ever happens according to the plan. And OS helps with those
elements that take us by surprise.
--
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Harvest Moon Consultants
Facilitation, Open Space Technology and process design
Check www.chriscorrigan.com <http://www.chriscorrigan.com> for
upcoming workshops, blog posts and free resources.
On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:06 PM, "Harrison Owen" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Chris -- I love your story, but I guess you have never built a
bridge. Neither have I. But I have been involved in a whole mess
of large construction projects (The CIA, Dulles International,
etc) and I can tell you NOTHING ever happened according to The
Plan. Open Space the whole way!
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <https://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <https://www.ho-image.com>
OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*OSList [mailto:[email protected]] *On
Behalf Of *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:58 PM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
I seek simplicity in trying to describe where and how Open Space
does it's magic.
One of the ways I have had excellent success over the years in
describing this work is derived from David Snowden's work on the
Cynefin framework.
The short story is this:
We are faced all the time with problems that are basically
knowable, and problems that aren't. Knowable problems mean that
with the right knowledge and expertise, they can be fixed. A
technical team can come together and analyse the causes, work with
what's available and craft a solution. Then they can get an
implementation plan in place and go ahead and do it. These kinds
of problems have a start line and a finish line. When you are
done, you are done. Building a bridge is one of those kinds of
problems. You build it and there is no tolerance for failure. It
needs to be failsafe.
Open Space doesn't work well for those kinds of problems because
the solution is basically already known, or at least knowable.
Then there are problems for which no know solution exists, and
even if you did get a solution, you can't really "solve" the
problem because the problem is due to a myriad of causes and is
itself emergent. For example, racism. Look around and you will
find very few people that identify themselves as racists, but look
at the stats for Canadian society for example and you see that
non-white people are trailing in every indicator of societal
success. Essentially you are seeing the results of a racist
society but no racists anywhere. This is an emergent problem.
Racism itself is a self-organizing phenomenon, notwithstanding
the few people that actively engineer racist environments. Such a
problem didn't really start anywhere and it can't really end
either. What is needed is a way of addressing it, moving the
system away from the negative indicators and towards something else.
In other words, this is a complex problem.
The way to solve complex problems is to create many "strange
attractors" around which the system can organize itself
differently. Open Space nis the best method I know of for
creating such strange attractors, as they are born from the
passion and responsibility of those that want to create change,
and they are amplified by people coming together to work on these
things.
It's "post and host" rather than "command and control."
And because you can't be sure if things are going to work out, you
have to adopt a particular mindset to your initiative: one that is
"safe to fail." In other words, if it doesn't work, you stop
doing it. If it does work, you do more of it. And all the way
along you build in learning, so that the system can see how change
is made and be drawn towards those initiatives that are currently
making a difference. Certainly this kind of problem solving is
not useful for building a bridge, as you cannot afford a failure
there. But for problems with no known solutions, it is brilliant.
Harrison has spent decades outlining this simplicity in even less
words than I have now and his writing and thinking is, and
continues to be far ahead of it's time and maybe a little under
appreciated because it is delivered in simple terms like "don't
work so hard." But ultimately this is the best and most important
advice for working in complex systems.
Open Space. Do it. Learn. Do it again. Don't work so hard.
More than that really starts to build in the delusion that people
can possibly know what to do. From that place solutions will be
deluded. That they may work is pure luck. Open Space offers us a
disciplined approach to addressing complexity in an ongoing way.
Don't be fooled by its simplicity.
Chris
On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Love what you are saying... and I think you may be working much
too hard. From where I sit, the basic reality is that all the
World is self-organizing. That includes all the stuff we think we
"organized." So the bottom line is -- we are all self organizing,
and some of us are doing it better. Which is to say that some
folks are struggling to invent what is already happening "all by
itself," and others are allowing (appreciating) what is happening
all by itself. For me, Open Space is simply a great way of
"practicing" what is already happening. Even if we think it isn't.
Or something.
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave.
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com>
OSLISTTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of OSLIST Go
to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
*From:*OSList [mailto:[email protected]]*On
Behalf Of*agusj
*Sent:*Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:25 PM
*To:*World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:*Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*To:*'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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 <http://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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com>_
_www.ho-image.com <http://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]>[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 thatJ) 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com>_
_www.ho-image.com <http://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]>[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_
(summer) _207-763-3261_
_www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com>_
_www.ho-image.com <http://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]>[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_
(summer) _207-763-3261_
_www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com>_
_www.ho-image.com <http://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]>[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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
David Osborne
<image001.jpg>
www.change-fusion.com
<http://www.change-fusion.com/>|[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>|_703.939.1777_
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email
[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
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]
<mailto:[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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________
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
