Bhav and Glenda, Thanks for sharing that writeup. It really struck me, especially about multiple containers that are existent and emerging in every situation.
I had been taking a passing interest in this conversation and this stimulated to reread what had been written. Mark -- Mark Pixley LEADERSHIP INC Facilitating Organizational Change in Greater China 86-755-8211 1366 86-186 8895 0841 skype: mjpixley On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Bhavesh Patel <[email protected]> wrote: > Glenda Eoyang from Human Systems Dynamics uses a model based on Container, > Exchanges, and Differences - here are her thoughts on Containers: > > What a fabulous cluster of questions about containers. Harrison, thanks > for the inquiry and Bhav, thanks for passing it along. > > I think these questions fall at the intersection of two ways of > thinking/talking about containers. One is from the Shambala tradition and > we see it at ALIA and other places. The other is the HSD way of thinking > about containers. There is a big overlap between the two, but the kind of > challenge you see in this question don't emerge in the HSD container > conception. I'll try to explain why. > > > > While ALIA and others consider the context for a meeting to be its > container, we in HSD assume that any human system involves an infinite > number of containers at any given moment. We think of any bounding > condition as a container. Some can be designed and intentional. Others > are native to the environment. Some are healthy, some are not. Some are > explicit, some are not. The trick is to SEE what the relevant containers > are in any moment, to UNDERSTAND how useful or functional they are, and to > TAKE ACTION to shift them toward greater healthful coherence. > > So, in any Open Space experience you have many types and within each type > many different containers: > > The EVENT: > > - The time of meeting > - The place > - The calling question > - The community invited or the list of invitees > - The opening circle > - Evening news > - Marketplace > > And so on. The wonderful technology establishes these to set conditions > for the self-organizing processes to come. > > The ENVIRONMENT or COMMUNITY: > > There are also containers that exist in any community in which the OS will > happen: > > - Institutional bounds > - Communities > - Cultures > - Politics > - Religious affiliations > - Families > - Tribes > > And so on. These are containers that have set conditions for the > self-organizing processes that led to the patterns that need to be > re-thought and re-worked using the SO technology. > > PERSONAL: > > - Passion > - Responsibility > - Fears > - Experiences > - Stories > - Identities > - Assumptions > > And so on. These are the raw materials that each participant brings into > the circle with them. > > The OUTCOMES and IMPACTS that emerge: > > Finally, and most important, there are the containers that emerge during > the OS. These are the questions that emerge and bring small groups together > in exchanges about what matters to them in the context of the calling > question. The power of OS, in my view, is that it allows these new > containers to emerge, be manifest, allow for individuals and groups to > realign themselves to create new patterns and/or challenge existing > patterns in the world at large. Then, in the closing circles, it > reintegrates all of these new-found containers back into a pattern of the > whole that is different in kind (when it works) than the patterns of > individual, event, and community that existed before the OS began. > > Does this make any sense at all? I hope so because I think it is core to > both the theory and practice--the art and science--of facilitated > transformation. It is Harrison's genius to have seen and manifested > conditions for individual and group transformation in the moment and to > have embedded those in such a simple and elegant technology. > > I'm not on the OS listserve, so I hope Bhav will continue to carry > messages or to move the conversation over into our linkedin space. Looking > forward to the continuing conversation in this container or any other. g > > > > On 7 April 2014 04:33, 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
