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 <http://cocreateadl.com/localgov%E2%80%8B> |
jsbaxter.com.au <http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/>
0405 447 829
|
@jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_>
/*City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen
<http://citygrill.eventbrite.com.au>!*, 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]
<mailto:[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 <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>
_______________________________________________
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
