> > ...It would be interesting to think of the analogues to “Sauna Space,” over > time and around the world. I suspect we would quickly find that opening > space is by no means a unique occupation confined to that esoteric group > known as the Open Space Community. It is a natural act and been going on > forever. As we recall with the 5th Principle, “Wherever it happens is the > right place.” >
"The Fifth Principle" ...sounds like the title of a book waiting to be written! -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://ManorNeighbors.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Mikk -- Sauna Space…Delightful! A powerful reminder that we did not invent > or create Open Space. It has been around ever since. Which only makes sense > when we remember that the opening in our time/space creates the natural and > essential opportunity for the resetting and renewal of the Complex Adaptive > System – which is us. Self organization has been the way of nature from the > beginning and people everywhere and in all the times have had to deal with > it. Consciously or unconsciously, we live our lives in a self organizing > world and “adjustment spaces” are essential. It would be interesting to > think of the analogues to “Sauna Space,” over time and around the world. I > suspect we would quickly find that opening space is by no means a unique > occupation confined to that esoteric group known as the Open Space > Community. It is a natural act and been going on forever. As we recall with > the 5th Principle, “Wherever it happens is the right place.”**** > > ** ** > > 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 *Mikk Sarv > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:10 AM > *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list > *Subject:* Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies/Dissolving Power**** > > ** ** > > Reading this I recalled our centuries old tradition of sauna. Every > Saturday afternoon the time flow was disrupted. The name for Saturday in our > language was half-day - 'puulpäiv'. All went to sauna naked - men and women, > rich and poor, old and young, without distinction. The general rule was that > one should never refuse to offer to whoever comes drinking water from well > and sauna, when it was heated.**** > > Besides cleaning in hot temperature the sauna was alos place for inside > cleansing. Unsolved issues were addressed and discussed, perhaps like in > swetlodge tradition among American native people. **** > > Now I understand, that this tradition enabled people to open space > regularily and to solve issues, to enable and to make use of the > self-regulation process.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for interesting thread!**** > > ** ** > > Mikk Sarv**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 2011/7/10 Peggy Holman <[email protected]>**** > > Harrison,**** > > ** ** > > To your point, at the second Biotech OS that I did, a constant theme was > "we are facing the same issues that we have been for years with no > resolution". Well, beyond just declaring that they were going to do it > differently this time, in the closing circle, one of the managers said that > a group of them had gotten together at lunch and taken on one of those > chronic issues. They came to a new and easily implementable solution. He > declared it the most productive 10 minutes in years. Think about it...ten > minutes to resolve an issue that had been stuck for years! (Of course, the > preceding day and a half of time together in Open Space made that 10 minutes > viable.)**** > > ** ** > > Harrison has already eloquently spoken to what made the difference, > starting with this powerful observation:**** > > In Open Space the total intelligence and experience of the assembled body, > which was immense, was cut loose to deal with the issues, not in a linear > sequential fashion, but in a simultaneous, multi-tasking environment which > was simply white hot. **** > > ** ** > > The Open Space disrupted business as usual, creating the space in which > they ran into their own frustrations head on. And they had the room to do > something about it because of the shift in the relationships that comes from > the "random encounters" of who gets to interact with whom. Further, the > space was an invitation to be pioneers, together facing their shared issues. > And when the habitual conflicts around stuck areas surfaced ("we know who > owns the xyz function"), they took on the dysfunctions and came to > agreements that none could have done on their own or in a linear fashion.* > *** > > ** ** > > Peggy**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:**** > > > > **** > > Artur – I would never suggest that Power is somehow absent in Open Space or > as you say, “dissolves.” In fact my experience is just the opposite. When > space is opened and the people really get to work, the ambient power is, for > me, truly awesome. Indeed the flow and focus of Power is vastly more > effective, may I say “powerful,” than is ordinarily experienced in the > “normal” organizational setting, including such places as IBM at it > autocratic best/worst. For example, I once had a large IBM consulting group > (250 people) in a 2 day Open Space. They were facing a complex of technical > issues which they had been struggling with for several years to no avail. > Their approach to that point had been standard IBM procedure. The senior > executive and his management team planned everything with precision, they > carefully organized the working groups and tightly controlled their process > – in a fashion you are well familiar with.J The result had been two years > of constant failure and near misses. All of this changed in Open Space. > Precisely the same group of people managed to deal with the same group of > issues in an elegant fashion, productive of workable solutions – in 2 days. > **** > > **** > > The difference was embarrassingly obvious, and in fact there were a few red > faces in the management team, but one could scarcely argue with success. But > what was the cause of the difference? It was surely not the absence of Power > – but rather the way Power manifests and was utilized. Under the “old rules” > Power is concentrated at the “top” and then passed on down the line in small > dribbles and drabs. The problem was that the whole mechanism was so > cumbersome and slow that when the external conditions changed or new > technologies emerged, which they did constantly and quickly, the “elegant > design and process” was left in the dust. One more failure or near miss.** > ** > > **** > > In Open Space the total intelligence and experience of the assembled body, > which was immense, was cut loose to deal with the issues, not in a linear > sequential fashion, but in a simultaneous, multi-tasking environment which > was simply white hot. And the power flow was brilliant – but the locus and > focus of that power shifted constantly from group to group, individual to > individual. Mapping that flow would have been an interesting study, but the > study would always have been multiple steps behind the reality – and any > pretence of prediction would have been doomed to failure. Too quick, too > complex, mind blowing. Playing by the old rules was not a possibility, and > from the view point of those rules, what happened was simply impossible, > which was the source of redness on the faces of the Management team.**** > > **** > > Of course, what happened is a common experience in Open Space – not because > of the magic of Open Space but rather the power of the underlying force of > any well functioning self organizing system which we did not design, create, > and certainly don’t “run.” It is the “natural” way. Obviously we can choose > to go a different way – and many do just that. And the results speak for > themselves. Making such a choice always mystifies me, but it clear that many > folks would rather maintain the illusion of “Being in Control” at the > expense of effectiveness and profitability. But that is a choice.**** > > **** > > There is a place for formal structure and controls, but I think that place > is a small one, useful for defining boundaries and identity. But it is a > lousy way to run a business, or at least a very ineffective way. I often > think of the Formal system as the ossified residue of the last > self-organization. Rather like the Lobster’s shell which works quite well > until things change – the lobster grows. I have written rather extensively > about all this in Wave Rider, if you are interested.**** > > **** > > 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 *Artur Silva > *Sent:* Saturday, July 09, 2011 11:51 PM > *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list > *Subject:* Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies**** > > **** > > Peggy, Harrison, Suzanne, David, Doug and Chris:**** > > **** > > I ended last Friday a very intensive work period, to finish the first (and > bigger) phase of my students' examinations and submitting a paper to a > Conference. In the meanwhile, I have read the first marvelous initial post > of this thread from Peggy, and the interesting answers that followed.**** > > **** > > After Peggy's first mail I had the intention - but not the time - to write > some comments. This afternoon, when I had the time, I reread everything, but > before beginning to write I have received all the careful answers that Peggy > sent to each of the comments.**** > > **** > > Now it is almost all said, and my comment is only concerned with a small > point where this thread relates with the paper I wrote, namely the > importance of Power and Care (that I prefer to "Love") in the tech company's > experience Peggy shared with us.**** > > **** > > As many of you know, I have been struggling, after some years, with two > related questions:**** > > **** > > 1) first, how can we create the "Patterns of a Learning Architecture" for a > company (or other organization) so that it can learn faster and more > profoundly than other organizations, especially in what concerns questions > of generative (double-loop) learning, and namely when "sensible questions" > are at stake? In other words: how can we change the learning patterns of a > company (which usually have strong learning disabilities) if and when that > change is possible? (which btw assumes that it is not always possible...)* > *** > > **** > > 2) Second, what is - or can be - the role of OST in all of this?**** > > **** > > Of course, one can always say that power doesn't exist at all, or that "you > never have to let go of it, because you never had it in the first place" (I > am paraphrasing a recent answer from Harrison to Eleder's "Quote"). **** > > **** > > Or, at least, we can say that, in many situations we all know of, Power can > be kind of "dissolved" in the OST event(s) - in a way that it can't be in > other more "directive approaches", like "team building", to give only one > example.**** > > **** > > But what happens in those situations were power doesn't "dissolve"? (Having > worked 20 years for IBM, I know a lot of situations where the best > intentions of senior professionals and middle managers couldn't change what > was decided "at the Top".)**** > > **** > > And what happens in those situations where* it is not even good for the > future of the organization that power dissolves too quickly*, as the > "person in charge" has a more clear and compassionate vision that the people > that contest her/him, even if - or especially when - those ones are the > majority?**** > > **** > > Any comments?**** > > **** > > Best regards from late night in Lisbon**** > > **** > > Artur**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Peggy Holman <[email protected]> > *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Sat, July 9, 2011 9:31:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies > > Hi Chris,**** > > **** > > I have followed up with my client. To paraphrase a comment from the > client: when the community is part of creating the change and leadership is > engaged, the invitation may seem more authentic and therefore participating > is less of a stretch.**** > > **** > > Ironically, the group is in the midst of a re-org, with little information > to anyone. Based on my contact's reflections, I see no appetite to reflect > on the experience. And I doubt there will be much, if any, forward motion. > **** > > **** > > The power dynamic was certainly an important factor. Thanks for the > reference to Adam's work. **** > > **** > > Even when the agenda isn't hidden, if it is coming from the middle, as this > event demonstrated, it may well be rejected. The group took on some real > business issues but steered clear of anything related to the power > structures. In retrospect, that makes sense. Management didn't open the > door to that arena.**** > > **** > > And you're so right: when that opening appears, things will shift. Given > the amount of denial at play, it will likely be pretty messy when it > happens. So Engaging Emergence may well be a help! In fact, my contact > just gave a copy to the group's manager.**** > > **** > > Peggy**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Chris Corrigan wrote:**** > > ** ** > > Both Suzanne and Harrison have made some excellent reflections > here...Peggy, have you had a chance to follow up with the tech company > folks? Seems like an important harvest from that experience is a naming of > some of the things that are holding them back. They may choose to use OST > or some other process for these conversations, but it certainly seems > apparent that without talking about this stuff, they are not going to move > forward well. **** > > **** > > Your story does point to an important question that I have been in > recently, and that is, how do we relate what we are doing to the realities > of power in the organization? Adam Kahane's recent work on Power and Love > has highlighted the need to be sensitive to both the relational and the > transactional contexts at play in an organization. Using processes like OST > is often a vote for the relational to be activated in the work, but if the > transactional power dynamics are at play, people will often behave the way > you describe. Suzanne names it well - a well-intentioned hidden agenda - > and the effect can be that it increases mistrust and confusion and people > feel that the intervention has not actually dealt with the real issues. * > *** > > **** > > When the opening appears for THAT conversation, things will flow. And that > is where YOUR book has much to offer around the skills of working with > emergence and disruption. **** > > **** > > C**** > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:28 PM, doug <[email protected]> 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**** > > > > > -- > CHRIS CORRIGAN > Facilitation - Training - Process Design > Open Space Technology > > Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot > Site: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/**** > > *upcoming Art of Hosting retreats:***** > > Bowen Island, > BC<http://berkana.org/berkana/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=14&id=375&Itemid=525> > - > October 23 - 26th**** > > Saskatchewan<http://berkana.org/berkana/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=14&id=370&Itemid=516> > - > September 19 - 22nd**** > > **** > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > 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**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
