I just love the serendipity! The LIST was dead silent for a day or two,
and suddenly there is this marvelous conversation about structure,
heavy, lite, whatever. Turns out OSLIST was not dead at all. Just
gestating. And during that period of gestation, I received a note from a
friend raising issues about structure. That note turned me on, and I
replied at length – not knowing a thing about the burgeoning
conversation online. Imagine my surprise when I signed on! And being the
lazy sort that I am ... I am simply passing on my response to my friend
with his name removed. But he does know that stuff is happening on
OSLIST, and perhaps he will join us?
Ho
*************************************************************
XXXX -- Love to talk about structure. As a matter of fact, it is a
subject I have found myself pondering increasingly over the past several
years, often taking me to some odd places, which shouldn’t surprise you,
knowing me as you do.
Your observations and questions are rich places to start, (“Nothing
gets done without a structure. Open Space is a minimal structure which
is why it doesn't get in the way of self-organization. Does it mean that
it is the only minimal structure? Can it be combined usefully with some
other minimal structure? Are there situations where another minimal De
structure might be just as or more useful?”). However, my wanderings,
make it necessary to back off a bit, explain a bit, and then proceed.
Sorry for the detour, but it is the best I can do. J
Last spring, Peter Block did a conference, and prior to its opening, he
invited me to sit for a filmed interview which he moderated. I don’t
remember how the subject came up exactly, but Peter asked me what I
thought about structure, and my reply surprised even me. I said that I
rather thought that structures were possibly a figment of our
imagination, or at the very least a snapshot of the process of reality
at a moment in time. My basic thought was that everything from the
moment of the Big Bang is flowing energy, which does in fact assume
certain configurations in the moment, and then flows on. What we call
structures are actually a freeze-frame representations of a moving
process. Thus whenever we depict a structure it is always a picture of
how things were in that moment now past. That picture does not, and
cannot, capture the present reality, and it is no predictor of future
configurations. Perhaps not figments of our imagination, but artifacts
of our memory?
So, for example, if you look at a mountain, we might say that for sure
we are confronting a “Structure,” some might say an eternal structure.
Mountains, after all seem to hang about for a bit. But all of that is
only “true” within our restricted (one might say, infinitesimal) snap
shot of time. Extend that time frame to cosmic proportions and the solid
mountain structure transmutes into a flowing sea of cresting waves.
I rather suspect that the same sort of thinking applies to
Organizational Structures. Most people, I believe would acknowledge that
the famous Organization Chart is most notable for its irrelevance. At
best it represents how someone thought things should look, but everybody
“knows” that isn’t how things work. Were we to move from something
supposedly cast in stone, or at least printed in all the corporate
manuals, to a more contemporaneous representation, we have a similar
problem. No matter how hard we try we have, at best, a snap shot of how
things were at that point in time.
The situation doesn’t get much better with the structures we design.
They can only represent how we hope things will work, and even if the
design is truly detailed and elegant, the moment they are put into
operation, things change. I think this is true at every level of our
endeavors, from the “design” of a simple meeting or process up to the
design of a whole corporation. It may look great on paper, but the
instant the “start” button is depressed – things change.
If any of this thinking coincides with how things actually are, we have
some interesting difficulties. Or at least all those who presume the
priority of structure as an /a priori/ truth in organizational life,
have some difficulties. They (whoever “they” are) take it as an article
of faith that FIRST you create/design the structure and THEN you do the
business. That certainly makes logical sense, but I fear the logic is
based on a pretty weak reed. A figment of our imagination, I could say.
I believe the source of our difficulty arises from that strange creature
you and I so much enjoy, the phenomenon of Self Organization. I will
confess that my infatuation with the critter over the last 50 years has
led me into some strange places, to say nothing of heretical opinions,
as some would see it – but it has been a fun ride. The history of that
adventure is lengthy and convoluted, but as I approach the end of my
journey I have come to two conclusions, which may well be the only
things I have truly learned in 78 years on the planet. Whether this is
the result of Insight or Alzheimer’s I can’t say – but the conclusions
are as follows:
All systems (including all human systems) are open.
All systems (including all human systems) are self organizing.
The first conclusion (All systems open), I take to be self evident. It
is also true that I can’t think of any possible way to prove it. In the
scientific community, as I read the literature, I think there would be
substantial agreement. From the cosmos as a whole down to the level of
the lowliest Quark, with ants and asteroids in between, it is all one
big churning mass with each element actually, or potentially,
interacting with all others for 13.7 billion years. Yes there are
discrete systems, here today and dissipated tomorrow – but none stand in
splendid isolation. It is all connected and therefore open to any and
all interactions. At least that is how I hear the story.
The second conclusion (All systems self organizing) certainly could be
open to debate, but from where I sit, it is the natural correlate of the
first. In as much as all systems are open they are all subject to the
pushes, pulls and challenges of the external environment, which is
constantly shoving them out of their comfort zone (equilibrium) into
chaos. Self organization is the natural response through which life and
existence is sustained. And it doesn’t *start* with order (structure).
It *creates* order/structure. In a word, structure is emergent. Which is
what self organization is all about.
How and why all this alchemy takes place is obviously a matter of major
moment. If you can accept the work of Stuart Kauffman “the magic sauce”
seems to be a set of very simple pre-conditions, which if present,
automatically initiate the process. But note, these are preconditions
and not structures. Indeed one of the preconditions is the /lack/ of
pre-existing structure. My memory is a little foggy, but I think
Kauffman describes this as “minimal prior connections.” Another one of
his preconditions is that the system be at the “edge of chaos” which is
actually the dissolution of structure. I understand that Kauffman’s work
is subject to ongoing discussion, but I have not seen any substantial
disagreement with his core idea, although others surely suggest
different conditions or ways of describing them. On more familiar
ground, I like Kauffman’s explanation/preconditions because they
parallel almost exactly the “essential preconditions for Open Space”
which I had noticed for a number of years before I ever heard of
Kauffman. When asked when to use Open Space my response was that it
always seems to work when the following preconditions are in effect. 1)
A real business issue that people care about. 2) With mind numbing
complexity 3) lots of diversity. 4) Much passion and conflict. 5) A real
sense of urgency.
And now – at long last – back to the points/questions you raise about
structure and Open Space. In all honesty I just do not think that the
initiation of Open Space has anything to do with structure, minimal or
maximal. Certain preconditions – YES. But structure, NO. Structure does
manifest in Open Space (as it does in all self organizing situations) –
but it is emergent, and not prior. At least that has been my experience.
Recently I have found myself fascinated with what I might call “natural
occurrences” of Open Space. This began with a conversation with Claudia
Gross, a friend and colleague from Egypt. We were talking about the
events of Tahrir Square in which she participated. She remarked that the
overall impression of the happening was that of a great mob scene, with
thousands of people milling about in apparently random patterns.
Occasionally someone would ascend a makeshift podium and address the
crowd, but there was something else going on. Smaller groups would form
in the midst of the mass, spiraling inwards to form circles of
conversation. In the center of these circles, the focused attention was
such that the ambient noise and confusion seemed shut out. The
conversations themselves were intense but respectful. To be sure there
were flashes of passion, but there was also a sense of shared intimacy,
and people spoke of an awareness of brotherhood and connectedness. The
conversation circles would continue for a time, some longer, some
shorter – and then the circles would dissolve, only to form again with
different people in a different place. Sounded an awful lot like Open
Space to me, but its occurrence was purely a natural phenomenon. There
wasn’t a facilitator in sight, and certainly no prior structure or
process. It was all emergent.
Some little time later, I had occasion to speak with another friend who
had been in Tiananmen Square, and she reported precisely the same
phenomenon. Those are my only two examples, but I strongly suspect that
were one to make a broader study of such events, the Natural Open Space
would be seen as a regular occurrence. All of which made me think that
we needed a 5^th Principle – “Wherever it happens is the right place.”
So where does all this leave our discussion? For me it comes out
something like this. Open Space is in fact a naturally occurring
phenomenon. It is clearly not a process that I, or anybody else,
invented, and it is certainly not initiated by a “structure” of our
design, be that heavy or light – see Tahrir Square above. However, when
the essential conditions are present, it is possible to invite or
“allow” space to open. Of course it is always possible to fight or
oppose this natural emergence – which sadly is what much of management
seems to be about.
It is also true that we may encourage the appearance of Open Space with
the provision of certain simple elements: a place to meet, chairs to sit
in, magic markers, post-its, flip charts, and even temple bells. JBut
none of that is essential. In fact Open Space works all by itself. Self
organizes. I think.
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
_______________________________________________
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
