Hi Suzanne, I really find your questions very thought provoking, they also come to a point that I have in my own mind about what Open Space does in organizations and with people. I don't have too much to contribute at the moment to your questions just a few brief thoughts: >My second issue is about that phenomen, that people seems to get always >empowered by open space, taking more responsibility, contribute if you let >them ... and than they go on with it, but the former mode of control from >the top often rebuilds quite fast, cause managers, supervisors, executives >have to give up control. Like: wow, it´s so much better without us. >So what positiv point could they make to "loosing" or "give up" control? >What could be attractiv about that to them? >What if they would make themselfs unneccesary in the whole process of the >organization?
About managers. I wonder if Open Space proves them to be "Unnecessary?" It seems to me more that what Open Space does is create a question about what their role could and should be? Perhaps it shows that what they are doing or the assumptions that they have about managing and being a manager can be called into question. It leaves room for looking at what new roles they may need to fill. For me this is a big challenge in Open Space and it also seems important - at least in my mind, that if Open Space is brought to an organization where these questions/dilemma's become pertinent it is also important to in some way support those managers in their search for these new roles, tasks, or positions. And then also of course to support the whole organizations in that. About people who are feeling as you say, extremely hopeless, who have lost joy and passion for anything in their work environment... I wonder if Open Space provides them with a mirror to that experience and a chance to question it. Perhaps not at the moment in the Open Space, but maybe later, when back at work or other aspects of their lives. I think it might be that Open Space really has a powerful (if perhaps invisible effect) on these people just because it gives them a chance to be there as they are - unimpassioned, unhappy, burnt out. That they are allowed to be there like that and still have a place. In my very personal experience sometimes I think the ideas of "learning organizations" can be extremely disheartening and painful to people in the organization, and often a bit hypocritical. YOU MUST LEARN, YOU MUST DEVELOP. In my own experience in organizations I remember sometimes how oppressive this felt (especially since the expectations were so high and yet the "organization" itself seemed to be so uncommitted to me - I learn but then a reorganization comes and blam, out on the street who cares about you - after such a large investment on my part). Sometimes when I read OD discussions about learning organizations etc. I feel this oppression and how it kills my own passions. Anyway what I mean is I wonder if there is an invisible effect on these people, one that might not make them happy about being in Open Space but that would have an internal effect on them that could be helpful to them I their work - and maybe one that deserves recognition in some way and at some point. I too am not a very experienced Open Space practitioner. Lately I've been doing more shorter OST's, but the questions you ask come often into my mind. One of the things I wonder here on the list is how people do follow-up with OST especially in organizational contexts. And also what are the psychological (and systems psychological) impacts of OST. Sometimes I have the impression I don't know how to ask these questions or talk more about OST on these levels? Doris Gottlieb Consulting for the International Environment Hof van Versailles 23 1064 NX Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: +31(0)20 776 8043 email: [email protected] -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]]Namens Susanne Hildebrand Verzonden: donderdag 3 juli 2003 10:14 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: lights &/ shadows? Hi everybody, I´m still working myself through tons of literatur, enjoying it but and again feeling my lack of experience. So I like to share some thougts of mine: I have the image, that open space works always on the "mass of people", because it´s great, as we all know. What is with the ones, who are not able to take really part, cause of language problems, who gave up by life experience they could try to make a difference without being punished, who just depend so much on their job (children, bad education ...?) they wouldnt dare to put it on any risk, who just, as Marlene Walker Daniel reports in her great ethnologic field study for 1 - 10 percent of the people: "they just didn´t have anything they feel passionate about. ... they would have been happier going back to their jobs after the first morning session when they saw the issues that were to be addressed by work groups. They preferred doing their jobs as they had always done and leaving others to work on the big picture." (Daniel, 1994) Yes, these people could be butterflies, and maybe they were beautiful. But being not passionate about anything and leaving others for the "big things" sounds to me more like "give up" then "beautiful" and attractive for even smalltalk. (hm... nice judgement though) But is it alright to say: you are responsible for what is happening here than? Maybe causing even more giving up, like selforganisation is for people who can speak, who dare, not for people like me? I´m aware of all the if´s , and for shure not questioning open space as a method, but it´s helpful for me, to clarify it. Social selforganisation seems to mean every element/ member of the system has the same possibilities to take part on the process of creating social information, so what about different "inner psychological realities"?. My second issue is about that phenomen, that people seems to get always empowered by open space, taking more responsibility, contribute if you let them ... and than they go on with it, but the former mode of control from the top often rebuilds quite fast, cause managers, supervisors, executives have to give up control. Like: wow, it´s so much better without us. So what positiv point could they make to "loosing" or "give up" control? What could be attractiv about that to them? What if they would make themselfs unneccesary in the whole process of the organization? Hm, I´m curious to know your commments, thoughts, ideas. All the best from a sunny summmermorning in Berlin, Susanne * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
