Hi Doug, I think you are correct that the managers and field people were more focused on different issues than we'd anticipated. Still, Open Space generally creates a large enough space to handle that.
I do think the inside/outside dynamic was very present. No acquisition in this situation, though an interesting guess. Peggy On Jul 7, 2011, at 6:28 PM, doug wrote: > Peggy and all friends-- > > Question 1: It was 1975 when I last lived inside a Fortune 200 > corporation, so take this with a grain of salt. What came through my > sixth sense on reading this was that somehow it was not a good mix to > have both managers and field people in this particular OS. They had > different issues to be worked by. > > Question 2: speaks of the same dynamic to me: a very highly controlled > group, where the inside circle did not want interlopers, or were so > perceived. > > Had one company just recently acquired another in this tech company? It > feels we/they to me. > > Hopefully this gives a bit of a different echo from the hills across the > way. > > :- Doug. > > > On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 16:29 -0700, Peggy Holman wrote: >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
