Doug: In what concerns your first question, and to understand what are my assumptions (indeed, the assumptions of the Shell study Arie de Geus reported) you may read a post I sent in 2001 to a different list, that is still online here: http://www.learning-org.com/01.07/0155.html. In what concerns your second question, the study is based in "real companies", so it is at least aligned with what they thought to be the "reality"... Regards Artur PS: I like very much the other post of yours, where you said: "The Open Space disrupted business as usual" which is why I call us "community disorganizers!". Maybe we can try to convince Harrison to include that in the 4th edition of the User's Guide ;-)
________________________________ From: doug <[email protected]> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 2:38:03 AM Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies Artur and all-- Just what are the assumptions inherent in a phrase like "learn faster and more profoundly than other organizations?" Do they align with what we know of reality? :- Doug. On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 20:50 -0700, Artur Silva wrote: > 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
