I'm finding some resonance in this thread with the extensive research into nonviolent action and why it works. Gene Sharp theorizes that all power exerted by 'powerful' people relies on the consent of others. Without that they are just humans like everyone else.
The practice of nonviolent action is focused on withdrawal of this consent. The dynamics of weakening (for example) a dictator's 'pillars of support' - such that the pillars shift allegiances - is outlined in his books and essays. Of course it requires actionists to undergo the violent sanctions of the dictator's representatives, but once they do that and stay committed and overcome the fear, and remain nonviolent, the dictator's support begins to fall away and people switch sides. Dr. King's work was fundamentally about that. In this sense is the victim role overcome thru courage and mutuality? There is a great film on the overthrow of Milosevic in Belgrade involving organizers using this approach. Is this relevant to the dynamics inside a corporation in some way? In this sense can we say it's all open space even in a dictatorship? Jeff -------- Original message -------- From: John Baxter via OSList <[email protected]> Date:10/12/2014 10:30 PM (GMT-07:00) To: Harold Shinsato <[email protected]>,World wide Open Space Technology email list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space Harold, interesting reflection on Open Space and victimhood. To me it shows that, even if we are "always in Open Space", the space is not really open. It makes me think then that "always in Open Space" is really just saying that self-organisation is in operation. Perhaps that does not mean that we really have the freedom implicit in 'Open Space'. Does that resonate? For now, I have an outstanding reply to Daniel to get back to... John Baxter CoCreate Adelaide Facilitator, Director of Realise consultancy CoCreateADL.com | jsbaxter.com.au 0405 447 829 | @jsbaxter_ City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen!, Saturday 18 October 2014 Connect with your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with others in your community, and Influence the future of the city On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Harold Shinsato via OSList <[email protected]> wrote: 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, 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]] On Behalf Of Daniel Mezick via OSList Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM To: [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 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] http://shinsato.com twitter: @hajush _______________________________________________ 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
