Having spent a solid eight hour evening drinking Setuland Snaps, singing and taking sauna in Estonia a couple of years ago, I can say with some authority, and very fond memory, that sauna space is most excellent open space!
Chris Sent from my iPhone On 2011-07-12, at 2:09 AM, Mikk Sarv <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 - October 23 - 26th >> Saskatchewan - 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
