Hi Harrison, I think the main lessons I take from your comments are: 1) not to take the outcome so personally and 2) be aware that one possible outcome is an organizational rejection type response.
Were I to do this again where the impetus is coming from the middle of the organization, I'd discuss the possibility of a rejection with the client. I would still proceed, just with eyes a little wider open. Peggy _________________________________ Peggy Holman [email protected] 15347 SE 49th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 425-746-6274 www.peggyholman.com www.journalismthatmatters.org Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, is to become the fire". -- Drew Dellinger On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Harrison Owen wrote: > Peggy – Good show and thanks for the sharing. In answer to one of your > questions – I have surely “been there and done that” – and I suspect most > other folks with some experience can say the same. And I have a rather > different take on the scene, which begins with a plea – Don’t beat on > yourself! Sure there may have been some things you could have done or said > that “might” have changed things, but at the end of the day I think what you > have here is a classic example of WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get). > Your Tech company would seem to be like many others (see Suzanne’s note) – > locked in their own collective pathology of rigid control. The wonder is that > they function at all, and given some more time going down the same road – > they will run out of road. A good funeral will be in order. > > I often think of Open Space as a sort of organizational Rorschach Test. There > is no predetermined content or behavior – and the participants are not TOLD > to do anything. They are invited to be fully themselves. In many cases they > respond by displaying fully functional self-organizing behavior – and then > the whole thing just catches on fire and flies. People are often surprised by > the manifest enthusiasm and productivity, but the truth of the matter is that > was there all the time – but nobody had ever invited “it” to come out and > play. > > And we have other situations (e.g. your “Tech Company”). The invitation is > identical – Be your selves fully. Bring all your passion and responsibility! > And what shows up is a painfully accurate reflection of the situation – > depressing and dysfunctional! The Open Space “worked” (as it always does) – > but the result is probably not what would have been hoped for. The simple > truth of the matter is the neither Open Space, nor any other approach, can > make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. What you see is what you get/got! > > As painful as all this might be, there are many potential benefits. In one > case my client, having clearly seen the true nature of its situation, decided > to dissolve operations. Actually there was no new information because > everybody “knew” just how bad things were – but nobody dared say it. When the > space was open, the obvious became inescapable and the question was finally > asked: Do we really want to be this miserable? And the answer was a > resounding, No! I thought this was marvelous because suddenly a large number > of people had the opportunity to go out to do something fun and useful. The > president (my client) was not quite so positive, but given a little time for > reflection he eventually saw the light. Several months later we met for a > drink and he greeted me with a funny smile. I asked him what was up to which > he replied, “Thank God it’s over. Now I am having some fun! Thank you!!” > > Other folks are resolved to continue in their misery, now made even worse by > virtue of the fact that the elephant has been named and alternatives > glimpsed, if only briefly. I am always amazed at the capacity for > self-inflicted suffering. But some folks really seem to enjoy it? > > So Peg – Thanks! Sounds to me like everything worked out just perfect. If I > had any suggestion it might be to offer the Tech Folks the opportunity to > reflect on their situation. They could learn a lot. Not so much about Open > Space (and what went “wrong” with the process) – but about themselves. As for > Open Space, it did just fine, as it always seems to do. But after some 13.7 > billion years, the kinks have been pretty well worked out of the system, I > suspect. > > Harrison > > Harrison Owen > 7808 River Falls Dr. > Potomac, MD 20854 > USA > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) > Camden, Maine 20854 > > Phone 301-365-2093 > (summer) 207-763-3261 > > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST > Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peggy Holman > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 7:30 PM > To: Open Listserv > Subject: [OSList] A tale of two companies > > In the last few months, I opened space at a tech company and a biotech > company. On one level, they looked similar: one functional area, > international participation, a mix of managers and individual contributors. > > Yet the experiences and the outcomes couldn't have been more different! I'll > describe the two events and my reflections on what made the difference > between them. > > Note: I wrote the story about the tech immediately following the Open Space > but didn't have a chance to edit and send it before the second experience. > You'll see a couple of questions that the experience raised for me embedded > in the story. They took on a little different light following the second > experience. > > Corporate dynamics at play in a technology company... > > This OS was with an international sales and marketing meeting for the launch > of a new year. Day 1 was not in Open Space. It was a manager’s only session, > using a mix of conversational forms (a huge stretch for the power point, > info-out culture). It went well. People appreciated talking rather than just > listening. Many of the field people acknowledged the quality of listening > from headquarters people who usually do most of the talking. > > On the first afternoon, the larger meeting – 100 people – began with a > conversation between execs and the people in the room. A great, candid > conversation. > > On day 2, we opened the space. During the Open Space, I ran into a several > issues that I haven't experienced before and wondered if others have. > > Overall, it was a terrific day. And one of the unexpected dynamics surfaced: > the managers didn't feel complete with the conversations that they wanted > just amongst themselves. And they didn't feel they had the space for their > private conversation in the Open Space. My client caught wind of the > situation as they planned to organize a session during day 3's action > planning/next step breakout session time. That meant the management layer > wouldn't be part of action planning/next step conversations. > > We negotiated having the manager session posted in the context of action > planning/next steps so that it would be visible even if not open to everyone. > In practice, it was announced but not posted. > > We added a second action oriented round of breakout sessions in the afternoon > following a short briefing of what came out of the morning group to fit the > timing of the manager’s session, It made room for managers or others to host > more action/next step sessions. > > So question 1: have others run into the managers-only dynamic? If so, how > have you dealt with it? Are there questions you use in your pre-work for the > OS to surface the issue and deal with it in advance? We thought we had > handled the need with the pre-meeting among managers. What signs might have > tipped us off to the need for more? > > The second dynamic completely blindsided me. Normally the second morning of > an OS just buzzes! Perhaps it was the party the night before but the group > was really subdued. When I opened the space for action, no one came forward. > Given the energy in the room, I had the sense that an elephant was sitting > there untouched. I asked if anyone would speak to what was up. Someone said > they didn't want to step on headquarter people's toes by proposing action > sessions that were really HQ responsibilities. The exec in the room > encouraged people to do so, saying that HQ was there to serve the field's > needs. Ultimately, five sessions on topics of importance were posted. > > After the meeting, my client said she thought the reluctance came from a > pattern of headquarters taking field input and having the suggestions > disappear without any feedback on what happened to the ideas or why. So why > should field people offer anything? > > I got the impression that the field saw it as the responsibility of > headquarters people to take the lead. And the HQ people already felt full up > so they weren't stepping in. Plus, people didn't see a need for action > sessions since they felt they’d been identifying actions throughout the Open > Space. > > Question 2: Given that tension between field and headquarters is common, have > others run into this sort of reluctance to post action sessions? Might we > have anticipated this perception before it put a damper on things? > > It was one of the only Open Space gatherings I've ever done in which people > didn't come away saying, "Wow! Best meeting I've ever attended." Instead, we > heard from many that the meeting was too open and confusing. People wanted > to hear more from the senior managers about what was on their minds. I left > the experience pondering the dynamics that led to that outcome. The contrast > with this second meeting helped me identify some possibilities. > > > > High times in a biotech... > > The work was part of a company-wide change initiative. The senior manager was > its host. He was actively involved. For example, he opened the meeting by > speaking of his aspirations for the department. He also said a few words at > morning announcements and evening news on each of the two days. > > Like the tech company, this session was basically one function -- human > resources -- with a few others invited for spice. Also similar to the tech > meeting, people came from around the world. > > The meeting was a hit! People instantly leaped out to post sessions. With > about 100 participants, more than 50% posted something. I don't think I've > ever had a group that size post in that ratio. The conversations were rich > and useful. Along with the variety of topics, people worked through issues > around organizational levels as well as field/headquarters dynamics. At > least three Open Space meetings resulted, to be hosted by different attendees > over the coming weeks. In fact, I was invited to help with one of them. > > One other aspect of this session: I ran a workshop before and after the OS > for about a half a dozen internal people to support them in opening space in > the organization. We also met to reflect on the experience before morning > announcements and after evening news during the Open Space. In other words, > they had already adopted Open Space as a key element of how they wanted to > work. The organization is investing in a group of people to support creating > a conversational culture. > > At a second OS I did with them a few weeks later, we brought most of the new > practitioners together to continue to learn together. It's wonderful because > they now have an internal community of practice to support each other. > > I was grateful to have the biotech meeting on the heels of the technology > meeting! I went from questioning what I thought I knew to having some ideas > of what created the differences in the experiences. > > > > Reflections on the differences that made a difference > > The biotech was committed to changing their culture and open to new ways of > working. The OS was focused on the group envisioning how it can best perform > its role in the company in light of those changes. The tech company meeting > was more of a “stealth action” by a mid-level individual contributor familiar > with Open Space. She was seeding the idea of a conversational culture. In > other words, the biotech event occurred in fertile soil, the tech company > event was breaking up the hardpan. > > At the biotech, the sponsor was a senior manager who was explicit about using > the event to spark culture change. His whole team participated throughout > the event so there was no issue around hearing what senior people were > thinking. They were in the room. In contrast, the tech company host was a > mid-level individual contributor. She is highly trusted and used her > influence to bring Open Space in. Her goal was to take steps towards > creating a more conversational culture. Both intentions are valid. They just > created different experiences. > > At the biotech, the sponsor had used Open Space at a previous organization as > part of a successful culture change initiative. He "got" the simplicity of > Open Space, not even feeling a need for an action round. Instead, as part of > session notes, we asked people to include both a discussion and a "next > steps/commitments" section. That dealt with one of the disconnects in the > tech company meeting. They were confused when I re-opened the space for > action, saying they had been naming actions throughout. The biotech meeting > helped me see that re-opening the space for action turned out to be an > unnecessary thing to do. > > The biotech meeting was offsite, so even those who were stretched by the Open > Space stuck around because it was a big effort to leave. That gave them time > to warm to the experience over the two days. The tech company meeting was > onsite, making it easy for the senior managers and others to show up briefly > and leave. > > Finally, the biotech is thriving and growing while the tech company is really > struggling to rediscover its identity. This external factor strikes me as a > key difference in the environments. > > So what does it all mean? I would still Open Space in the tech company. > There were plenty of people who found the experience worthwhile, even if > their feedback was quieter than those who were frustrated or confused. I > believe we prepared the soil for a few seeds to take root. > For the tech company to take further steps, it strikes me that the person who > hosted the Open Space would benefit from finding informal partners, other > inside change agents. I like to believe that even without strong leadership > support, she can make a dent. As the biotech company shows, management > involvement can be an accelerator. Still, as I think about what someone > sitting in the middle of an organization can do, enlisting partners who share > interest in creating a conversational culture could be a way to continue to > move forward. By forming an informal community of learners, she can create a > system of support. > Could we have done better? No doubt. I look forward to any thoughts you > have. > > Appreciatively, > > Peggy > > > > _________________________________ > Peggy Holman > [email protected] > > 15347 SE 49th Place > Bellevue, WA 98006 > 425-746-6274 > www.peggyholman.com > www.journalismthatmatters.org > > Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity > > "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt, > is to become > the fire". > -- Drew Dellinger > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
