Dan said: : "what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing behavior?"
Good question indeed. Stuart Kaufmann (Biologist) says that one of the
conditions for self organization is what he calls, "The search for
fitness." I take this to be a modification of Darwin's "Survival of
the fittest." The idea is that self organizing systems engage in a
search for ways to enhance the way they fit with the environment and
fit together internally. Those most fully aligned with the
environment, with all their parts engaged tend to survive. Works for me.
Harrison
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com <www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <www.ho-image.com%20> (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 *Daniel
Mezick
*Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 5:51 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] The OST Game
I'm loving the richness of this conversation. I'm loving it so much!
One question that comes up for me repeatedly, as I read and ponder the
responses to OST-as-game: what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing
behavior? Is the question even worth answering? If so, why so? If not,
why not?
Where do I go, with this line of reasoning? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
On 10/14/13 4:53 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Paul -- Can always count on you. Thanks
ho
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
Phone 301-365-2093
(summer) 207-763-3261
www.openspaceworld.com <www.openspaceworld.com%20>
www.ho-image.com <www.ho-image.com%20> (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]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*paul levy
*Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 4:48 PM
*To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
*Subject:* Re: [OSList] The OST Game
Harrison
Whatever you experienced as OST when it first escaped has largely
become a game. A game of training. A game of "go back to base and
read the manual". Even you play a regular game on here as one of
the elders who keep defending OST against change (oh yes you do).
It's become a game with a book of instructions with bells,
anti-clockwise circle walking and "rules". That's a shame and,
thankfully, fairly pointless as it keeps on escaping in different
and lovely ways anyway.
Now, opening space, that's something really worth trying...
(Waits as the usual elders line up to deliver their wise
pronouncements)...
So it goes.
Paul Levy
On Monday, 14 October 2013, Harrison Owen wrote:
A marvelous conversation... and I have been absent a bit for a
good cause, I hope. I have been doing my homework, reading all the
assigned material about broken reality and culture hacking.
Interesting journey! And along the way I came upon an odd
realization -- I really just don't like games! Seems it had
something to do with early childhood trauma... my mother just
loved games, and she would beat me unmercifully. Oh well.
Unfortunately that aversion carried on into my adult life,
particularly as it related to the so called Group Dynamics games
that we were all supposed to play prior to serious discussion.
Seems like you just couldn't have an adult interchange without
some "warm-up" to break the ice. Or so they said. Really bugged
me. I just couldn't believe that consenting adults could not
communicate without some elaborate foreplay -- funny tools drawn
from the omnipresent Facilitator's Tool Box.
So much for my inherent pathology and prejudices, but there may be
something of a positive outcome. I simply had to believe that
given reasonable conditions, human beings could sit down and talk
productively with each other -- all by themselves. As adults. It
did take two martinis to get me there... but "there" was (guess
what) Open Space. We have been doing that ever since, and it
turns out that children do just as well.
What may have started as childish rebellion (against Mother,
Facilitators, etc) has only gotten worse. With increasing age and
experience it has become clearer and clearer that the less I do
the better things work. It is not that I have no agency or
contribution, but it does turn out that the ambient wisdom and
capacity of the individuals and groups that I am privileged to
interact with so vastly exceeds my own that I would do very well
to fold my hands and shut my mouth. Anything else has me working
much too hard, and generally messing things up... Such are the eye
glasses through which I view my world. Distorted perhaps, and
different for sure, but I'm stuck with it. And it is through those
glasses that I read my assignments, beginning with "Reality is
Broken."
Jane McGonigal weaves a fascinating tale of the strange (to me)
world of Game Makers, Gaming, and Gamers. I can certainly
understand why she has created a stir, and I applaud her massive
research and clear prose. That said, my reaction was close to
horror, and the thought that the world and techniques she
describes should become a model and a means to fix our world was
pretty close to terror. Doubtless much of this can be ascribed to
my aforementioned phobia -- but I suspect that others might share
such feelings. Two points stand out in my mind---Gaming is
addictive, a point she develops in infinite detail, and secondly
that good Game Makers actually capitalize on this phenomenon and
make every effort to enhance the addictive power. Their success
is obvious and awesome. It seems that one massive, online game
attracted 5,000,000 man/years of attention. George Orwell, where
are you now that we need you?
I joke a bit -- and my concerns run deeper. When Jane says,
"Reality is Broken," I feel constrained to ask, Who's reality? Not
mine, for sure. It is not that I experience every day as a walk in
the park, but there have been precious few moments when I have
felt bored, without challenge, non-productive and
unappreciated/respected. And I have many friends and colleagues
around the world who seemingly have a similar experience.
Doubtless that makes us odd, perhaps aberrant, but there is a
certain consolation in numbers. We are not alone.
When I think about the factors that positively contribute to my
reality they include such things as the indeterminacy of my
surroundings. The moment I think I know where it is all headed, I
am confounded by the twists of happenstance. Then there is the
total lack of clarity when it comes to goals and objectives.
Certainly I have hopes and desires, but just about every time I
have locked on some particular outcome, it doesn't turn out that
way -- usually better. And lastly, if there are clear cut rules, I
certainly have never found them. Of course there are moments when
I think it is all a dreadful mistake and I am scared to death. But
even that has its positive: I know I am alive. So for me, my
reality is doing just fine. Exciting, challenging, growthful,
rewarding -- In fact it seems to be working perfectly.
I am truly sorry for those who have a different experience, but if
reality for them is broken, it is reasonable to ask, Who broke it?
Or could it be that it isn't really broken, they just think it is,
if only because it doesn't measure up to their expectations. That
would certainly be the case if reality was *supposed* to work by
clear cut rules, heading in a pre-determined direction, always
under somebody's control. That understanding of reality is
certainly alternate to anything I know anything about. It just
never happened, and if it did I believe it would be unendingly
boring. But that might account for the Game Maker's success -- for
if I read Jane correctly, that is pretty much the reality they
create. And if that is the reality you want, no wonder people
spend 5 million man/years immersed in it!
And on to a related question: Is OST a game? Possibly, but not
according to Jane's rules/criteria. To be sure, there is a
correlation with Jane's first criteria: Opt in = Voluntary Self
Selection, and a second one relating to Good Feedback (we might
say documentation). But it seems to me it all goes downhill from
there. If there are any rules in Open Space, I have yet to
encounter them. To be sure there are 5 principles and a law, but
none of them are things you have to do. In fact they all seem to
emerge no matter what you do -- all by themselves. As for a clear
goal, I think you have precisely the opposite. Everything begins
with a question, and under the best of circumstances there is no
attachment to outcomes. As we say, Whatever happens is the only
thing that could have.
Just to drive a little deeper. If OST is not a game -- what is it?
Drum roll... Cutting edge revelation...
OST... is ... Life.
It does not bring anything new. Represents no mind bending
revelation. In fact it doesn't DO a thing. Nothing. OST simply and
quietly invites us to be, fully, what we already are -- ourselves.
It really is shocking. Just be yourself as you really are. Drawn
by a question (Quest) -- you are invited to explore what you
really care about. No foregone conclusions. No prior exclusions
(givens). No rules prescribed (by somebody else). Just be yourself
and take it from there. Of course it helps to be honest. What do
you really care about? And if you care, take responsibility for
what you care about. Nobody else will. And you don't need an act
of Congress, Parliament, the Legislature, or the writings of the
latest Guru. It's just you.
But not just you. Who shares your passion? Who will join you in
the assumed responsibility? In advance you simply don't know, nor
can you predict. But when it happens, you know it happens. Life
not only goes on -- it gets deeper and richer with the shared
passions and responsibilities that weave the rich tapestry of the
human odyssey.
I know you have heard this song before, but I think it bears
re-singing. The temptation to change this simple invitation into
some complex process, procedure, structure is almost overwhelming,
driven I am sure by our hope to improve and also perhaps to make
it something we own or do. Something that requires the
professional touch, as it were. But the truth of the matter, I
believe, is that there really isn't anything to improve and still
less to do. Above all, Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and always
think of one less thing to do.
So where does all this discussion leave Agile and OST, or more
exactly the relationship between the two? Closely united, I
believe -- but perhaps not in the way that Dan and others seem to
be suggesting, even though that way appears to be eminently
rational and definitely a good plan.
I understand that Agile (as described in the Agile Manifesto) is
an elegant set of principles which await implementation (adoption)
through some method or process, SCRUM for example. The principles
are magnificent and represent the latest iteration of a longish
tradition beginning perhaps with Quality Circles, and passing
through Excellent Organizations (Tom Peters et al), Learning
Organizations, with possibly a side trip through Process
Re-Engineering. In every case, elaborate processes, procedures,
and protocols were designed in order to bring the noble ideas into
everyday practice. In every case the energy and enthusiasm
surrounding the several efforts was considerable (aided I suspect
by the fat consulting fees that could be generated). And in every
case I believe we learned many useful lessons. However, in terms
of the desired outcome, which might be described as "enhanced
organizational function," I think the record is less than
positive. Only people of a certain age will even remember Quality
Circles, Excellent Organizations seem evident mostly by their
absence, The Society of Organizational Learning disbanded last
year, and Process Engineering has been retired by general
consensus as an embarrassing failure. Jane McGonigal may just have
written the epitaph, "Reality is Broken." Whether Agile and its
several implementation procedures (SCRUM, etc) will meet a similar
fate remains to be seen.
Reasonable people might well ask, how could we invest so much and
accomplish so little? Doubtless there are multiple answers, but
one stands out for me. We've been trying to organize self
organizing systems. This is a thankless task if only because we
will never get it right; the systems involved (our businesses,
countries, organizations) are so complex, inter-related, and fast
moving that we can't even think at that level -- let alone
effectively structure and control them. Even worse it seems all
too often that our best efforts and intentions make the situation
worse -- our fixes end up with painful unintended consequences.
But worst of all our efforts are not needed because the system
itself, all by itself, can do a better job. Frankly our efforts
are just plain clunky.
It is precisely at the point where I think other efforts have been
less than successful that OST may enable Agile to succeed -- but
not by facilitating the adoption Agile as a set of principles, but
in a much more immediate and direct fashion: by enabling Agility.
The principles are definitely nice, but what we truly care about
is real, meaningful, organizational agility, which others might
call High Performance, and Open Space demonstrably delivers on
that score. My favorite story, of course is the AT&T design team
for the '96 Olympic Pavilion. In 2 days they designed a
$200,000,000 structure which had taken them 10 months on a
previous effort. That is a 15,000% increase in productivity. Not bad.
If that were the only instance of such a phenomenon it would be
interesting but not helpful, but there are others, a lot. And how
does all that work? It is just a well functioning self organizing
system. And if you ask whether it is all scalable -- the answer is
it is already scaled to the highest levels. Been around for 13.7
billion years, and the Cosmos (along with everything else) is the
product. Don't adopt Agile, BE agile. Honestly, it is a natural
condition if we stop trying to fix it.
So I think we have some very good news here. Reality ain't broke
and serious Agility is available any time we want to open the
space to let it happen. And if you were wondering who all those
friends and colleagues around the world who know that their
reality is unbroken (albeit painful sometimes) you can start by
looking in a mirror. Yes, I am talking about all those folks who
have wandered into Open Space to discover, many times in spite of
themselves -- that deep, meaningful, productive, playful,
respectful encounters with their fellows can and do happen. That
is just a taste, of course -- but it can happen all the time --
24X7. I know.
Harrison
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr. <x-apple-data-detectors://3>
Potomac, MD 20854 <x-apple-data-detectors://4>
*From:*
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book:The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
_______________________________________________
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
