I remember a time (WAY back in time) talking to Harrison about what it might look like to have a HUGE Open Space event in an open air stadium with all of the participants wearing bright colored shirts . . . from the perspective of a blimp hovering overhead with time-lapse photography throughout the event.
I think this "container" notion would play out beautifully, Self organization creates the space it needs - always - not more, not less *Barry Owen* Founder/Principal Broker *Pareto Realty, LLC *\pə-ˈrā-(ˌ)tō\<http://www.merriam-webster.com/audio.php?file=bixpar02&word=Pareto&text=%5Cp%C9%99-%3CSPAN%20class%3Dunicode%3E%CB%88%3C%2FSPAN%3Er%C4%81-(%3CSPAN%20class%3Dunicode%3E%CB%8C%3C%2FSPAN%3E)t%C5%8D%5C> *The Vital Few* *BarryOwensBlog.com <http://BarryOwensBlog.com>* *http://about.me/barryowen <http://about.me/barryowen>* 102 Woodmont Blvd Suite 242 Nashville, TN 37205 Office: 615-502-2080 Connect: *615-568-2123* Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/barryowen>, Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/barryo06> , Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15553654&trk=tab_pro> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Harold Shinsato <[email protected]> wrote: > Beautiful. Are the containers formed by the vectors of caring, or are > the vectors of caring caused/nurtured/enabled by the container? > > I'm with Harrison on this one - the containers - including OST itself - > were really formed by "the vectors of caring", i.e. Spirit. The best we can > do as facilitators is invite people to what's already there. > > The "experts" in economics at venerable institutions used to teach, and > unfortunately in too many places continue to teach, that inflation is > caused by rising prices. When in fact the opposite is true. (Look it up in > a dictionary.) > > I still find it fun to study the containers, and I hope folks won't be > discouraged from continuing the dialog. But I'm extremely grateful for this > reminder of the correct direction of causality here. It's really like > looking at the world as round, when all the experts "know" it's flat. > > Thank you Harrison for helping us wake up to this! > > Harold > > On 4/8/14 1:48 PM, Harrison Owen wrote: > > David – I have known Glenda for some years, and have always found her to > be bright, fun and contributory. She has some wonderful insights about self > organization, and she works very hard. As a good academic, she certainly > does her detail, sometimes a bit more than I feel I want or need, but good > for all of that. However, when it comes to enhancing our function in a self > organizing world (or Open Space), I suspect she is working a bit too hard. > She and her fellows have developed a whole series of approaches and > exercises which enable you to do what I find pretty much happens all by > itself. But that is probably just me. And for those of you who want to know > more about Glenda, I suggest her latest book -- > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Action-Leveraging-Uncertainty-Organization-ebook/dp/B00C3WSKV4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396971594&sr=1-1&keywords=glenda+eoyang > > > > And now back to containers and boundaries. The issue (our differences) may > be purely semantic – but maybe not. As I think back over lots of Open > Spaces, and more particularly what I might call the natural appearance of > Open Space (Tahrir Square, for example, or the coffee pot) I fully agree > that from the outside they all look like bounded/contained experiences. > There seems to be an inside and an outside, a container of some sort. But > the question for me: – Is that boundary/container externally imposed, and > therefore prior to the process of self organization as a precondition – or > is the boundary/container a PRODUCT of the process of self organization? > As I read Glenda, she would opt for the former: Container as precondition. > I find myself coming down on the other side – The apparent container is > actually a product of the process. In a word, what starts out unbounded and > disassociated (random people and things) coalesces into a meaningful form, > or better, organism/organization – which is what self organization is all > about, I think. > > > > I grant you that in an Open Space the “room” would seem to be a > pre-existing container, but I don’t see it as essential. In fact I’ve > “done” a number of Open Space in the middle of an open field. And when you > look at natural occurrences, I think it becomes quite clear that > pre-existing boundaries/containers don’t really have much to do with what > is happening. They may be convenient or inconvenient, but not > determinative. The other things you mention (time slots, bulletin board, > etc.) don’t fit for me either. Helpful to be sure, but you can get along > quite well without any of it, or so I’ve found. > > > > So what is going on? My sense is that self organization with humans (in > Open Space and/or everyday) commences when some sort of a vector of caring > shows up which draws people together. Someone, somewhere, sometime says, or > just thinks, “I care about... Not just a little bit, but I really care and > am prepared to take responsibility for what I care about. ” If this > care/concern is shared – and others care for the same thing, but maybe in > very different ways... the ball starts rolling. > > > > In Open Space, this caring is made concrete and specific with the > invitation. Of course, when the invite is sent out nobody has a clue > whether anybody will come... but if they care, they will come, and given a > date/place, electronic or physical they will all show up in one time/space. > The vector of caring will draw them in... > > > > If the story I am telling roughly reflects the facts on the ground, I > think there are some interesting and serious implications for the role of > the facilitator and the function of the container. EVERYTHING is well on > the way before there is a facilitator in sight or container at hand. In a > word, the system, from the first moment of its emergence does it all by > itself. We are bystanders, midwives at best. And the container (whatever > that might be) is the product of the process ... and not the precondition > or cause. > > > > 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20> > > www.ho-image.com <http://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]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *David Osborne > *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2014 12:26 PM > *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list > *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Open Space and Boundaries > > > > Harrison, > > > > I think this is one of the few times I have a different point of view that > you. I believe OS's have natural containers built in. I also believe you > need a container for open space to be effective. I think the difference > stems from having a different definition or viewpoint on what a container > is and can be. My view has been heavily influenced by Glenda Eoyang's > theory and work in this area. For something new to emerge from self > organization something has to hold our bind the diverse agents together for > them to have exchanges across their differences. > > > > - The room or space the OS is being held in is a container. > > - A concept or idea that people care about brings the people > together.....it binds or contains them creating the space to have the > conversations to emerge. > > - The bulletin board is a container.....scheduling a specific conversation > at a specific place and time. > > > > In my experience there are always multiple containers that are massively > intertwined. > > > > My thoughts along the way. > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Michael Wood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks, Harrison, for your response to my question on 'boundaries', > particularly your paraphrasing of my question - which was spot on. One > thing I've taken from this brief conversation is that although considering > the boundaries can be useful, we also need to accept that boundaries are > never entirely clear, always moving on a spectrum from clear to > uncertain/murky and if we, as a sponsor or facilitator, get overly bound up > with boundaries then we might have moved, once again, into being too > controlling. > > Michael Wood > Perth, Western Australia > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:01:40 -0400 > From: "Harrison Owen" < [email protected]> > To: "'World wide Open Space Technology email list'" > < [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSList] Open Space and boundaries > Message-ID: <000301cf4f56$00776480$01662d80$@net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > It has been common for us to speak of Containers and Boundaries as somehow > essential to Open Space. I can't quite find the place, but I do remember > saying something like that myself, as in, "The role of the facilitator is > to create the container..." It certainly made sense at the time, but I > always felt a little uncomfortable with the image. Too mechanical, > coercive... too something. And Michael has brought the subject up again. > "So...here we have a situation where the 'boundaries' are actually in a > state of complex flux and uncertainty. The financial 'givens' are > ambiguous; there is no 'locum' > pastor in place because of legal uncertainties with the existing > pastor...etc." You might call it "messy boundaries" -- and he raises the > question whether one should press ahead with Open Space, or wait until the > "mess" is settled down. On the one hand, Michael "hunches" that one should > press on -- Open Space. But his hesitation comes, I suspect, from the prior > notion that fixed boundaries/containers are necessary for an effective Open > Space. What to do? > > Some thoughts (new ones for me): Containers are great for cooking soup, > but are unneeded and maybe even problematical in Open Space. It is all > about holding things together. In Open Space groups of people come together > to deal with their issues. At the very least that would mean gathering in > some common time/space, be that physical or electronic. It would seem that > this co-location could be facilitated were some suitable "container" > provided, presumably by the sponsor/facilitator. This certainly makes > sense, and as a rough way of speaking, it seems to describe what is going > on. But as I think about it, I think we may be missing a most important > point. Coming together in Open Space happens because people care to come. > And they continue their connection as long as they care to do so. (Law of > two feet) > > >From the "outside" it might look as if they were held in place by a > container, but that is illusory. The actual dynamics are centripetal, the > force is mutual attraction... people are "there" because they care to be > there and not because they are contained by some external structure. In a > word, we as facilitators really don't do a thing, and creating a container > is the least of what we DON'T do. The people, from the beginning, do it > all. > > > Of course, there are situations where groups come together under orders, > mandates, whatever. And they are definitely "contained." It is also true > that the tighter that container, the less likely self organization will > take place. If true, providing a container is not only unnecessary but also > destructive. In the name of Opening space, we effectively close it. Or so I > suspect it might be. Just thinking... > > Anyhow Michael, should my mental peregrinations lead anywhere useful, it > would seem that your "hunch" was spot on. Forget the boundaries/container. > Just invite the space to open. > > 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.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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto: [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael > Wood > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:59 PM > To: ' [email protected]' > Subject: [OSList] Open Space and boundaries > > A Case Study.... > One of the principles that I have generally worked with in Open Space is > helping the client get clear on the 'boundaries' of the space that's being > opened. For example, helping people who come into the space to know 'what > up for grabs here and what isn't? What decisions have already been made?' > > So picture this (purely hypothetical of course)....a church community in > which the pastor has (in many peoples' opinion) run off the rails and the > main church body is in the process of trying to dismiss him; the church is > in compete disarray and completely conflict ridden, many people have left; > the pastor who holds all the keys, banking passwords; church telephone > connections etc etc, has taken legal advice and had hunkered down in the > church owned house where he continues to hold the reigns of power (via some > of his 'allies' in the church) despite not formally being the Pastor of the > church anymore.... > > So...here we have a situation where the 'boundaries' are actually in a > state of complex flux and uncertainty. The financial 'givens' are > ambiguous; there is no 'locum' pastor in place because of legal > uncertainties with the existing pastor...etc etc. > > So in terms of 'Opening Space', do we wait a bit longer until some of the > legal boundaries are clarified, OR open space right away in the midst of > the mess....my hunch is the latter, but any thoughts from anyone? > > Cheers > Michael > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > End of OSList Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3 > ************************************* > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > -- > > David Osborne > > [image: http://www.change-fusion.com/ChangeFusionLogo.jpg] > > www.change-fusion.com | [email protected] | 703.939.1777 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -- > Harold Shinsato > [email protected] > http://shinsato.com > twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
