I'd just venture to add a third to Harrison's first two...
1) All Systems are Open. 2) All Systems are self organizing.
And 3. All "all statements" are possibly self-limiting
Best regards
Paul Levy
On Thursday, 16 October 2014, Harrison Owen via OSList
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
John -- Thank you, Thank you for all the rich stuff! Sort of a
Tidal Wave, but that's when it gets fun, albeit a tad difficult to
keep track of the sundry bits and pieces J
Picking Just One: "But I can't get past the feeling that /there
are lots of barriers to the openness of space, and to self
organisation/." Absolutely. And if we were to put that into the
language of the trade (Complexity Theorists and the like) we would
be talking about "system constraints." But as I understand it,
that does not mean that Self Organization is no longer operative.
And in fact the System Constraints are part and parcel of the
process, a very important part. I think it goes something like this --
I have found myself coming to two conclusions, or better yet
observations. 1) All Systems are Open. 2) All Systems are self
organizing.
As Open Systems, we, in all permutations of our "us-ness" --
businesses, countries, families, planets, etc) are open to, and
impacted by, all other systems. Sometimes a lot, and sometimes a
little, but in our cosmos there is no safe, protected place.
Everything is related to everything else, and we are no exception.
If true, this has a number of implications. First of all the
environment in which we exist is so complex, fast moving and
inter-connected we can't even think at that level. Secondly, what
you can't even think about, you can't control. So the notion that
somebody is actually "in charge/in control" is not just a silly
idea, it is delusional. 3) System preservation/growth depends on
our ability to navigate this environment. And it is a good
news/bad news situation. Sometimes the impacts drive us in new and
creative directions, and open up new opportunities which are ours
if we respond appropriately. At other times the impacts drive us
to the wall, and it's Game over. Another word is Death. If this
story is in any ways valid, it would seem like Mission Impossible.
And yet this story has seemingly been going on for 13.7 Billion
years and we are still here to complain about it. How could that be?
All Systems are Self Organizing -- Self Organization is in fact
the mechanism whereby we navigate the environment, and all systems
do it, I think. And when they stop doing it, they disappear. Self
Organization is not the product of some CEO or executive
committee. After all, they really haven't been around for all that
long. Self Organization is the product of the total system in all
of its aspects and bits and pieces. How all that works has been a
matter of stunning discovery over the past 40 years or so. I doubt
we have it all right, but I do think we may have the major
elements of understanding in place. The outline goes something
like this -- a) Steady State b) Chaos c) A bifurcation to either
dissipation (poof) or reconstitution at new and higher levels of
order. Of course you have to fill in a lot of the blanks, and
there is a massive literature attempting to do just that. But I do
believe we have enough to get started with some basic
observations. It really is a Whole System affair, in which all
elements must work together, and no element has an /a priori/
claim to centrality. In a business this could mean that the dumb
question of an intern could just open the doors for the future.
You just don't know. But you do know that an organization's future
directly relates to its capacity to bring total system assets to
bear on emergent challenges and opportunities quickly and
effectively. It is always tempting to try and "hedge the bet"
with some plan, policy or procedure, but it worthwhile noting that
the tighter (more constraining) the plan, the greater the
likelihood of failure. It's not that the plan was bad... but
unfortunately the challenge or opportunity came from a different
direction, and all our eggs were in one basket -- the wrong one.
So we have a very existential question -- How do we assure
sufficient room (dare I say Space?) so that the infinite elements
of any organization may quickly and effectively align to meet new
challenges and opportunities -- recognizing in advance that we can
never know what will be required?
Open Space Technology is just a bit player in all of this, but
good old OST can be useful none the less both as a natural
laboratory to explore what is going on, and also as an effective
intervention to encourage the appearance of the elemental power of
self organization, particularly when it seems blocked and
constrained. There are no guarantees of course, and it may well
be that The Organization's time is now: Game Over. But the chances
of renewal are pretty good, at least that has been my experience.
And no matter what, the magic sauce is not OST -- but the power of
self organization. So you could say, just as a way of speaking,
"It's all Open Space." But that's just a joke, son.
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://4>
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://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]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>]
*On Behalf Of *John Baxter via OSList
*Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:57 AM
*To:* Harrison Owen
*Cc:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
I have knots about empowerment, and the ubiquitous openness of
space. These knots are about to inspire a rant.
These knots, I should start with, are not entirely the result of
this present discussion thread - it is just this discussion that
prompts me to speak.
I think I understand Harrison, if you suggest that
self-organisation is more common than we realise... if not
ubiquitous, omnipresent, then at least that we can fruitfully
challenge the assumption that formal and top-down organisation
dominates how things get done.
But I can't get past the feeling that /there are lots of barriers
to the openness of space, and to self organisation/. Everywhere
and all the time. In my recent work, mental barriers by all
involved about authority and role relationships. My personal
barriers around trying too hard to "empower". My client's
patronising assumptions about the "capacity" and "maturity" of
"the sector". Information asymmetries.
So I get really conflicted when anyone starts saying "well space
is open all the time" (implication: 'so chill out cos there's
nothing you need to do').
I am also conflicted about stepping back from the goal of
empowerment, as if everybody else needs to just step into open
space and take responsibility.
Yes - many people don't realise the power that they have. (In my
last project; nobody seemed to quite buy into the fact that /they
could directly author the document that they were trying to
influence/.)
But it is also patronising to suggest that empowerment lies in
just helping people to see how powerful they are... because many
people /don't/ have the power that we or they might like. To
suggest that people have the power and just don't use it... that
effectively blames them for their situation, and washes our hands
of responsibility.
The biggest barrier to group change I see time and time again is
authority figures who believe others need to change, not
themselves. (Most commonly, that their employees need to "be
empowered", and that they need to manage a culture change program
to get there... or better yet, that HR needs to manage the change
program, while we are busy getting the real work done.)
I don't pretend that empowerment is something that can be done to
other people (patronising), but I do firmly believe that we all
first need to look to ourselves and what we need to do to play our
role making such a future possible. And, in fact, that /this is
all that we can ever do/.
Maybe the wisdom in what you say Harrison is that we do this by
focusing on respect first, as a productive way to enable empowerment.
Maybe I am picking on the wrong things and have misunderstood
them, and I apologise if I have been critical. But I also see a
lot of things said that make me uncomfortable, that knot me up.
Again, most of these things are from my memory, not the present
discussion. While my memory might not be the best, I'm sure it is
based on something.
Thank you all for your patience and for being in this discussion
*/John Baxter/*
///Co////Create 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 <tel:0405%20447%20829>
|
@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 <x-apple-data-detectors://14>
Connect with your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with
others in your community, and Influence the future of the city/
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
John -- I'm rather curious what you meant by "The overall project
was more complicated than OST?" My confusion comes in part from my
experience that complexity is actually an essential precondition
for OST, or more exactly the effective operation of self
organization. The essential pre-conditions as I have experienced
the are: A Real business issue (something that people really care
about). High levels of complexity such that no single person or
group has a prayer of figuring it out. High levels of diversity in
terms of people and points of view. Lots of passion and conflict.
And a decision time of yesterday (urgency). Given these 5
conditions, self organization in the more formal setting of OST or
as a natural occurrence just seems to happen... unless...And this
may be the point of problem... It is arbitrarily constrained...
which usually means that somebody already has the
plan/program/design and they are just looking for buy-in or (worst
case) they are simply trying to sugar coat the pill, and make it
seem like the folks are creating something, when in fact the cake
is already baked.
A clue to the dilemma may be in the phrase, "I struggled to help
the client (the funding body) to really 'empower'..." I know we
talk a lot about empowerment, but I have come to the conclusion
that it is really a red herring, and most painfully so in those
situations where you actually try to do it. Sounds odd, I guess,
but think about it. If I empower you...you are in my power. And
the more I try to empower you the worse it gets. Real empowerment,
in my book, is not an act that we (or somebody) do, but an
acknowledgement of a pre-existing condition...you are powerful. Of
course I might encourage you a bit to be as powerful as you are,
but it is not something I can give you. You must claim it for
yourself. Strange as it may seem, I find the notion of
"empowerment" to be just the opposite of that fundament of
effective working relationships (or any relationship) RESPECT. And
I suspect that it is precisely here that the fickle finger of fate
is pointing to the critical issue.
Another word that fits in here for me is "Patronizing." Everything
may sound super nice, and all the proper and correct words may be
spoken, but if the implication is that the folks (participants)
really do not have the competence or ability to deal with the
issues, it is fairly predictable that they will not bother to try.
Or if they "try" it will be pretty much of a pro forma situation.
Sound familiar?
Harrison
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://18>
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://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]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>]
*On Behalf Of *John Baxter via OSList
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:41 AM
*To:* Daniel Mezick
*Cc:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your considered response.
I will try to keep my response in line with the topic.... but
expect it may meander.
The OST day I was preparing for has since come and gone.
I decided in the end to least give OST a crack and see what happened.
It didn't go very well; but it also went well enough (vis overall
project goals, and client expectations), so I don't feel so bad
about it... even if I had personally envisaged more.
I am not one to worry about the cannon... which means sometimes I
break things, as I did this time. There was still an (informal)
sponsor, the one that sent the invites. They just did not have a
presence on the day. Thank you Daniel as you did make me think
critically about the strength of my role as host. I think I dealt
with that through my introduction to the day; and as it turns out
the authority to host was not an issue.
But as it turns out, that was not really the biggest challenge!
The main lessons I took away about what contributed to the average
result:
*There needs to be clear, compelling shared work.*
The overall project was more complicated than OST, so it wasn't
clear what turning up actually meant, and I think many did not
turn up on the basis of wanting to resolve a shared challenge (the
work), as you might expect for OST. In straight OST terms, you
could say this was an issue of invitation, but really it was many
things.
So the group was interesting. They had the heart, but not the
will. They were committed, but without ownership of the result.
I've seen this a lot in the community engagement field, but
nowhere that I have used (or seen) OST.
I thought about this a lot, I thought it might have been about the
invitation and self-selection; but at the end of the day I think
it comes down to the sense of (and invitation in to) shared work.
*It is super hard to dissolve ingrained power and authority
relationships in the short term. These can't be sidestepped by an
external facilitator.*
I struggled to help the client (the funding body) to really
'empower'. They talked about it and genuinely want to, but old
habits and mental models don't change overnight. They really
struggled to push beyond managing the process as superiours (to a
set of subordinate participants). This is 'empowerment' within a
patriarchal system, and it doesn't work. It felt very yucky at times.
A curious side effect of this partriarchal 'empowerment' was an
unwillingness to be clear about the work ("we want to be open and
let them lead the process" they would say... I got the client to
agree that /the/y were clearly the leaders, but we didn't quite
work out how to put that into practice).
Over the course of the engagement, we all took baby steps together
that invest in their (/our) capacity to really work together in
future. They learned a LOT in a short period of time, and so did
I, but it was too short. By the end of the project I had the
client calling me up to ask how they could reword things so they
didn't reflect a control response. : ) That was good, but
obviously if they need me for this then there is some way to go.
And different client reps had different levels of self reflection.
Hosting an isolated OST workshop against this grain was very
ambitious, it was always going to be, no matter how we conducted
ourselves.
And perhaps 20% were very proactive, and led the bulk of the work
that occurred... they saved the day!
But the length of the OST was not enough for this leadership to
really be contagious and precipitate a productive culture.
*Or in other words: we struggled to free up authorisation to be
more dynamic*
Reading your blog post Daniel, the idea of dynamic authorisation
would have been very useful earlier in the project. Another way of
looking at the project: we struggled to free the space of
ingrained authority to enable dynamic authorisation.
There were lots of other insights into how we could have done it
differently, but to me these were the fundamental stumbling blocks
for us.
Still, they were not too big, and I'm pleased we made a good start.
My favourite feedback was "thank you, this was the first time I
have been part of genuine engagement in more than a decade in the
sector" : )
Next time, we will do better.
*/John Baxter/*
///Co////Create 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 <tel:0405%20447%20829>
|
@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 <x-apple-data-detectors://28>
Connect with your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with
others in your community, and Influence the future of the city/
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Daniel Mezick
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
Hi John,
Yours is a very interesting story.
You say:
/"...To be honest*I am not sure* how I need to deal with this,
though *my strategy is to accept the authority* for hosting the
space in the next workshop, *obsolving the department of their
responsibility* to manage the day."
"...I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority
candidates hosting something genuinely participatory. *The
relevant director has said she doesn't want to speak formally and
become The Authority for the day*, a position I agree with."/
In the situation as described, it sounds like the org is the very
earliest stages of moving in a direction of more
open/participatory/inviting.
Do you agree with this assessment?
If this assessment is correct, based on what you describe, I would
probably avoid attempting Open Space in the canonical form
whatsoever (as described in the OST GUIDE) because the Sponsor
role is vacant. Unoccupied. And so, by my reckoning, if I
understand you right, a true Open Space event isn't even possible,
because the essential OST-Sponsor-role is in fact not willingly
occupied by anyone with enough authority to play that essential
role well.
What's clear is that someone who could function as OST-Sponsor is
currently unwilling to do so. And so I might try a "taster" or
"demo" event instead, where the goal is to /learn about Open Space
in general/, and do a /little/ bit of "real" work too. Especially
if the allotted time a mere 1/2 day, I am even more inclined to
strongly favor this re-framing of the stated goals.
So the primary and stated goal for the "taster" is learning about
OST. Another goal for a short event might be to see who shows up
super-interested in the art of Facilitation, and then offer to
mentor those who do self-select by showing interest. In this
manner some Facilitation capacity is developed inside the org, to
help with current meetings and processes. Introducing Facilitation
into typical meetings is a easy and effective "culture hack".
For me, the total unwillingness of an obvious candidate to occupy
the Sponsor role is a huge warning signal to slow down, pause, or
even stop.
Lots of people here have more experience than me, and might be
willing to lend you some of their expertise regarding the
authority dynamics of Facilitating an OST event with the essential
OST-Sponsor-role completely vacant
Kind Regards,
Daniel
On 9/28/14 11:30 PM, John Baxter wrote:
I am navigating some challenging authority dynamics in a
project at the moment.
I was brought in a week out from the first of three forums,
and asked to 'facilitate a codesign process' which was at that
stage a black box (with many hidden expectations) scheduled
into that event (1 hour before lunch and 1 hour afterwards).
It's a long journey, but you can imagine how my role has
changed as I prepare for the third forum which I am hosting in
Open Space.
The overall process is an engagement between a government
department and their funded agencies. The most obvious direct
power dynamics are obvious, the effective power and authority
dynamics are much more complex (though predictable).
Department staff have authority challenges as much as the
agencies. They are trying so hard to be 'neutral' and 'non
controlling' that they are effectively reinforcing their own
authority positions (which often have little real correlation
to the power, knowledge etc that they imagine them to).
To be honest I am not sure how I need to deal with this,
though my strategy is to accept the authority for hosting the
space in the next workshop, obsolving the department of their
responsibility to manage the day.
It has been interesting to watch push back so far from agency
reps who are committed to participating, who are genuinely
engaged, but are playing to an us-them tension that is getting
in the way of the shared work (and serves them no good ends
except protecting them from their own responsibility).
Stand-offishness is gradually being resolved, though some
pockets are holding firm.
I am crossing my fingers for WS3 that we can traverse these
and get into Open Space without being pushed off the bridge by
the reactionary tension; and that once on the other side, the
department reps can embrace Open Space and take responsibility
for their role.
We will get across /as long as I have the authority/ to host
the space for them.
I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority
candidates hosting something genuinely participatory. The
relevant director has said she doesn't want to speak formally
and become The Authority for the day, a position I agree with.
But it does leave something of a shell, where I am crossing my
fingers that our time together thus far affords me the
authority to host that space.
I think we are ready. I am bringing my harness and floaties
just in case.
*/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 <tel:0405%20447%20829>
|
@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 <x-apple-data-detectors://36>
Influence your city by building relationships and joining
voices with others in your community
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
wrote:
Hi Harrison,
So interesting how the Law of 2 Feet authorizes me, and every
other member of an OST event, to go anywhere we may want to go.
Without asking anyone else for any kind of "permission"...
Reminds me of this past June, being in Camden with you, and
Ethelyn, and Harold, and friends... when we were standing on
the porch of that Camden restaurant... waiting for everyone to
arrive, and assemble for dinner...
And as we wait, I notice there is this convenient-looking,
alternate entry-door... into the dining area.
And I say: "Hmm...I wonder if we are authorized to use that door."
And you say:
"We're authorized to go Anywhere we want to go."
...and I like that.
Daniel
Picture of that place:
https://twitter.com/DanielMezick/status/483054326265692161
See also:
https://twitter.com/danielgullo/status/483434622009999360
On 9/25/14 4:58 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
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
Winter Address
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
Summer Address
189 Beaucaire Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://2>
Camden, ME 04843
207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
Websites
www.openspaceworld.com <http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
www.ho-image.com <http://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]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>]
*On Behalf Of *Daniel Mezick via OSList
*Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM
*To:* [email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 <http://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
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book:The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>:
Tools for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
Coaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book: The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book: The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for
the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
_______________________________________________
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
