Daniel,
It's been a while. I've offered only silence to authority as I've
watched the list and reflected on this topic.
Could it be that many of the most resonating posts on the OS List
receive a response of silence? The theme of the antonym of "Lonely"
rings in my ears around this question. The silence can be carried as
indinewmaganik, beloved and accompanied by Spirit, like a
question/session boldly convened, where no ones comes, alone but not
lonely, at an Open Space - or in Life.
This sense of lonely-antonym came again to me this morning as I listened
to Karolina's voice in her blog post that included reflections before
the WOSonOS on her walk, alone, through Belgrade seeing buildings deeply
damaged from the recent wars. And her thoughts about how much she wanted
things to happen, for people to step forward in action. But later, with
the help of another attendee, she could shift to the abundance of what
actually was present and happening in the WOSonOS. I want a lot of
things to happen too. And maybe my wanting things to be different blocks
my ability to enjoy what actually is happening.
What does any of this have to do with Authority Distribution?
Perhaps nothing ... or maybe everything?
I quite enjoyed the link to the blog you added in your reply to me. The
post had the title "Darwin meets Dilbert: Applying the Law of Two Feet
to your next meeting." My goodness. How can Authority *not* have
relevance in OST when we start out with a *LAW*. Laws are all about
authority, no? But curiously, you allude that this Law removes the
legitimacy of the victim role. If you're responsible for your experience
in Open Space, if you're the victim, you're also the perpetrator. What I
really most enjoyed in Jonathan Opp's blog post was his quote from Dr.
Seuss.
You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself in any direction you choose.
Hey Harrison - this sounds a lot like what you told us when we visited
you in Camden. And it definitely is the Law of Two feet in rhyme.
So - ok Daniel. Another query for you? If *Open Space* is actually
operating all the time, and Open Space invalidates the Victim role, does
that mean we can't actually be Victims. If so, why are there so many?
Could it be the roles of Victim/Perpetrator/Rescuer - could it be they
are all illusions? Wizards cast spells, and we actually buy them? Does
that mean Victims take on Victimhood willingly? That doesn't feel right,
at least not completely. But maybe Open Space is something we wake up
to. And if so, does that mean Authority is only alive in the dream?
Or are we the ones inviting others into roles of Authority or lack there of?
So, what actually is going on here?!? Are the inmates running the
asylum? Or maybe they(we) should be?
Blissfully Confused,
Harold
On 9/28/14 6:37 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList wrote:
Hi Harold,
You say:
/"..I struggle to translate is the concept of coercion and authority
from the vantage of "it's all open space". Can we really be coerced?
How are we all already "opting in" to empower the "authorities"?/
//
/"...Could we just be volunteering for the victim part of our stories?/
//
/"...I have some thoughts about this, but I wonder what you would say
to such a challenge to the relevance of "authority" in OST?/
Hmmm...interesting questions for sure.
My current belief is that authorization dynamics are central to the
general dynamics of Open Space. And if it is "Open Space all the time"
then authorization dynamics as desribed in my essay are also there...
all the time.
Regarding the Open Space meeting format: If we begin at the beginning;
that is, at the start of arranging an actual Open Space event in an
organization, we immediately work to identify and locate someone "duly
authorized" by the organization, to do the things the Sponsor does,
and say the things the Sponsor says. Someone to occupy the Sponsor
role. To do that, the person occupying the role must have substantial
authority in the organization, usually of the formal variety.
Right? Put another way: if the Sponsor is lacking in authorization,
can they actually be effective? Larger question: Can the meeting still
actually work? What about the post-meeting follow-through?
So here we see how /authorization shows up a the very start of any
contemplated Open Space event inside an organization/.
One last thing: last time I checked, "victims" are kind of rare in
Open Space. Something about the subtext of "the Law of 2 Feet...."
"...The Law of Two Feet concept was published in an article by
Harrison Owen <http://www.openspaceworld.com/brief_history.htm>, a
member of an organization advocating Open Spaces Technology, a model
for organizing meetings that's based around open participation. Here's
how Owen describes the rule:
"...Briefly stated, this law says that every individual has two feet,
and must be prepared to use them. Responsibility for a successful
outcome in any Open Space Event resides with exactly one person---each
participant. Individuals can make a difference and must make a
difference. If that is not true in a given situation, they, and they
alone, must take responsibility to use their two feet, and move to a
new place where they can make a difference."
http://opensource.com/business/10/8/darwin-meets-dilbert-applying-law-two-feet-your-next-meeting
Daniel
On 9/26/14 6:49 PM, Harold Shinsato via OSList wrote:
Fantastic essay, Daniel. I'm a bit freaked out by Harrison talking
about his "translator" after diving into T.S.Kuhn's book where he
says paradigm shifts require "translators" because new and old
paradigm holders live in different worlds, where even common terms
may be fundamentally different.
What I struggle to translate is the concept of coercion and authority
from the vantage of "it's all open space". Can we really be coerced?
How are we all already "opting in" to empower the "authorities"?
Could we just be volunteering for the victim part of our stories?
I have some thoughts about this, but I wonder what you would say to
such a challenge to the relevance of "authority" in OST?
Thanks,
Harold
Daniel... You really did it! I think. Your language comes from a
place I don't know... which is to say that I probably wouldn't say
what you say in the way that you do (duh). BUT when I run my
"translator" it comes out sounding pretty good! So... I can't help
with the questions you have raised. Actually I think you are doing
pretty well on your own, and (hopefully) will incite others to a
similarly riotous performance. Thanks!
Harrison
*From:*OSList [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of
*Daniel Mezick via OSList
*Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
Greetings to All,
For the past several years I have attended conferences of the Group
Relations community, and encouraged others to do the same. I've
studied their literature, and harvested some important learning as a
result. One of the things I have come to understand a little bit
better is the role of "authority dynamics" in self-organizing social
systems.
Link:
www.akriceinstitute.org <http://www.akriceinstitute.org>
Over the past several years I've been using Open Space with intent to
improve the results of my work in helping companies implement Agile
ideas in their organizations. We do an initial Open Space, then the
folks get about 3 months to play with Agile (we carefully use the
word "experimentation" with management,) then we do another Open
Space after that, to inspect what just happened across the
enterprise. The initial and subsequent Open Space events form a
"safe" container or field in which the members can /learn/... as they
explore how to /improve/ together by /experimenting/ with new
practices, and see if they actually work. I call the process Open
Agile Adoption.
Link:
OpenAgileAdoption.com
This seems to work pretty good. It seems to "take the air out of"
most of the fear, most of the anxiety and most of the worry that is
created. The key aspect is /consent/: absolutely no one is forced to
do anything they are unwilling to do. No one is /coerced/ to
/comply/. Everyone is instead respectfully /invited/ to help /write/
the story, and be a /character/ in the story...of the contemplated
process change. Open Agile Adoption encourages a spirit of
experimentation and play.
The spirit of Open Space is the spirit of freedom. Isn't it? In the
OST community, we discuss and talk a lot about self-organization,
self-management and self-governance. The Agile community also talks
about these ideas a lot.
So I have some questions. What is really going on during
self-organization in a social system? What are the steps? What
information is being sent and received? From whom, and by whom? Is
the information about /authority/ important? How important? Can a
social system self organize without regard to who has the right to do
what work? /How do decisions that affect others get made in a
self-organizing system?/
Who decides about /who decides/? How important is the process of
/authorization/ in a self-organizing system? Is self-organization in
large part the process of dynamic authorization (and
/de-authorization/) in real time?
What /is /authorization? Can self-organization occur without the
sending and receiving of authorization data by and between the members?
Is Bruce Tuckman's forming/storming/performing/adjourning actually
decomposing the /dynamics of authorization/ inside a social system?
The essay below attempts to answer some of these difficult questions.
I'd love your thoughts on it. Will you give it a look?
Essay: Authority Distribution in Open Space
http://newtechusa.net/agile/authority-distribution-in-open-space/
Kind Regards,
Daniel
--
--
Harold Shinsato
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://shinsato.com
twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
