Re: [OSList] OST encourages avoidance of conflict (a bit long)

[Chris Kloth via OSList]

Harrison, et al.

It's been a while since I checked in, but this thread brought back many 
fond memories of several OST events over the years, and one in particular.


It's been many years since I was contacted by a group that included 
multiple coalitions of mental health professionals, administrators, and 
policy makers from throughout Ohio. At the time, local urban and local 
rural leaders of county mental health boards were battling with each 
other and state mental health officials over what was described as 
inequitable, differential funding of urban and rural systems by the 
state. One of the local coalitions had an active lawsuit pending against 
the state over inequitable funding. At that point the lawsuit had been 
pending for several years.


However, the reason they contacted me was that the state legislature had 
initiated legislation on a particular policy that each of the three 
groups found problematic for different reasons. Several of them had 
experienced OST in other settings and thought it might be a way sort 
things out on the legislative issue.


During the planning process we spent quite a bit of time 
considering/testing potential questions to frame an inclusive invitation 
to a wide variety of people concerned about the issue. Several times 
during the planning process members of the planning group made it clear 
that they did not want to take on the other issues and that they 
expected me to "manage" that "problem." I kept saying that, whatever 
question we arrived at, I couldn't promise the other topics wouldn't 
come up if it was important to people at the event. I did say that I 
thought the organizing question they landed on seemed inclusive and that 
they would quite likely end up someplace that would help them advance 
their cause.


The day we were opening space, with about 100 people attending, the 
bulletin board filled up with all kinds of good stuff. As you might 
predict, most of the topics were on the legislation, but some of the 
topics were related to inequitable funding. A few of their planners 
continued to be frustrated and approached me. I advised that they each 
think about what they felt passionate about and were willing to accept 
responsibility for working on... and then vote with their feet. The 
first day people worked on what they cared about, with most focusing on 
the legislation. Some people stayed irritated, but those few working on 
inequitable funding seemed to be really listening to one another in 
their sessions. The next day work continued on the legislation, building 
on work from the day before. However, as the morning evolved I noticed 
and increasing amount of bee and butterfly activity, much more than I 
was used to seeing. I listened in on some of the conversations and the 
talk was about equitable funding (not inequitable funding). At the time 
I said the air was electric - but sizzles works. After lunch most of the 
participants attended one huge session that had been posted as funding 
related. In the next 90 minutes they came to common ground on an 
approach to addressing funding issues!


My take on the closing circle was that 4 themes emerged. One was that 
working together on the legislation reminded all of them what they all 
felt passion about - providing community based options for individuals 
and families experiencing the effects of mental illness. Another theme 
was how good they felt about working together again after so many 
years... they remembered the "good old days" that had brought them 
together so many years ago. Third, they realized that, for quite a 
while, there had been some people who had been ready to engage in 
dialogue about funding, but hadn't found a nontoxic space to do so in... 
until then. Finally, they noticed the paradox I suspect all of us have 
experienced in one form or another... when they stopped thinking about 
the "problem" or "the conflict" or the toxicity they had all come to 
accept as "normal," something else showed up!


The results? During the next several weeks they each did their part in 
preparing to address the legislature. After the legislative hearings, 
about 6 weeks after the OST, the legislature shifted its approach. 
That's lightening speed when addressing a complicated, statewide public 
policy and fiscal issue in a volatile political and economic 
environment. Within about 6 months of the OST the lawsuit (the one they 
wanted me to make sure didn't get discussed) was resolved and a 
collaborative group had developed options that all could all invest in.


Harrison described organizations without conflict as dead. I agree. One 
way I think of conflict is: the opportunity for diverse groups of 
passionate people who really care about what they are doing, are 
invested in taking responsibility for what they are doing, and (not 
but), have very different perspectives about what is going on, what to 
make of it and what, if anything, to do about it. From my perspective, 
in a world c

[OSList] Open Space Hotline - Tuesday Feb 6 @12PM EST :)

[Tricia Chirumbole via OSList]

Hello all!

You are warmly invited to an Open Space Hotline hangout! Come meet us on
Zoom, tomorrow, Tuesday February 6th @12PM EST! We will be on for 1+ hours
- Law of Two feet applies!

Sign-up and post topics: http://bit.ly/OShotline

Join the call from PC, Mac, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/751609912

a.  Join by phone: +1 (415) 762-9988 or +1 (646) 568-7788 (US Toll)

b.  International numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference

c.  Meeting ID: 751 609 912

Until then!

___
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org

Re: [OSList] OSList Digest, Vol 82, Issue 3 re: conflict, conflict resolution, avoidance and Open Space

[Birgitt Williams via OSList]

Hi Chris,
I am with you about the containerto be as big and open as possible. I
am less enamored with 'constraints'. When I am in a playground, a container
that I agree to step into, I am making informed consent to be present.
However, I don't feel constraints and truly the rebel in my nature, upon
feeling my freedom was constrained, would exit...quickly.

Having been invited into a container, a particular playground that gives me
a sense of what I am saying 'yes' to, I can then choose what I want to
participate in and what I don't. So, I show up and am fully present, ready
to follow what has heart and meaning, ready to speak my truth ( hopefully
without judgment), and ready to let go as needed (thank you Angeles Arrien
for these beautiful laws of Spirit).

The law of two feet assists me in conflict resolution. I provide the same
for others when I am facilitating, trusting that each person will do what
they need to. I am not on the same page as Harrison in that I don't see
grand results for conflict resolution by self organizing...without the
container for the informed consent.

I also have learned that what people refer to as 'conflict' is not
conflict, it doesn't have the anger energy of conflict, rather, it is
resentment. My recent blog post 'is borrowed anger affecting your
organization?'  talks a
bit about the difference.

I have learned that there is no common definition or conceptual construct
of what 'conflict resolution' is including in the concept of how long the
'resolution' is to last.
Re-solution implies that there was once a solution and it is a state that
can be reached again...and then life happens.

I have learned, that there is no common agreement to the form and essence
of what Open Space Technology is. It is akin to 'opening space' and there
are so many ways of opening space that OST is only a slice of that big
picture. This makes it tough to research anything in realtion to 'what OST
does, what OST does not do'. Hence, we do not have the kind of research
that some would liketoo many variables.

as to the question of whether the Law of Two Feet enables avoidance of
conflict resolution, it is the wrong question for me. The question that
could be of better service is 'is it possible to resolve conflict without
the Law of Two Feet/the Law of Mobility? I think not.

Blessings,
Birgitt

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:41 AM Andrew Rixon via OSList <
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

> Great to hear from you Rob... and yes indeed - maybe those in Melbourne -
> anyone who cares to - might let me know of their interest in a Yum Cha...
>
> I can do the usual organisings once we find a suitable day...
>
> Please send me an email off-list and I can co-ordinate.
>
> Warm regards,
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:46 PM, R Chaffe via OSList <
> oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>
>> Chris
>> Yes we do miss our dear friend yet our very conversation draws the
>> essence of our being with Fr Brian so he lives in us and our
>> conversations.  So as we are potentially drawn into conflict we also can
>> open our space and give room for Brian and so many others to join us.
>>
>> You may recall the experiments where rat colonies are given no boundaries
>> and an abundance of food then either the space or the food become
>> restricted to the point that the participants attack each other as they
>> seek to survive.  Somewhere on the continuum there is a pint where the
>> observer may say conflict begins.
>>
>> What have we learnt?  We might say that conflict is a condition that is
>> resident in all and depending on the “importance” to the individual of the
>> environment/conditions etc and their ability to survive.
>>
>> When we invite others to join our conversation how they respond will
>> greatly depend on the importance  of the conversation is to them, we might
>> call it passion and in our terms passion is moderated by responsibility so
>> we have a new issue responsibility!  Responsibility to who or what?
>>
>> Consequently we define boundaries some may be stated others may be
>> unwritten rules that are the community norms.  One way to express
>> dissatisfaction with a conversation is to withdraw, the law of mobility (my
>> paraplegia heightens my awareness of the privilege of walking).
>>
>> Peter Sandman says that effective conflict resolution happens when the
>> risks and the level of outrage are balanced.  He has been involved in some
>> of the worlds greatest man made disasters, a hot bed of conflict.  So what
>> happens when the situation is right for the possibility of resolution?
>> Someone issues an invitation and regardless of if they follow the “rules”
>> they open the space.
>>
>> Conflict may be expressed both by outrage or hazard.  I believe that this
>> may be a simplistic way of seeing the world/system around us yet it gives
>> us a pathway to understanding why people come and why people go, it depends
>> on how they se

Re: [OSList] OSList Digest, Vol 82, Issue 3 re: conflict, conflict resolution, avoidance and Open Space

[Harrison Owen via OSList]

Chris – No question that the approaches you mention (Mediation on a job and 
litigation as well as restorative practice (conflict resolution circles) – can 
be effective. But my question is always what is the least amount you have to do 
in order to achieve the maximum result. I recognize this to be a judgment call 
and experiences do differ – but over the years I have never found any situation 
where I thought I could have done better than the group itself, following its 
own inner working (self organization). Truthfully I am always in awe of their 
accomplishment, and so thankful that it wasn’t left to me and whatever process. 

 

Harrison

 

From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Chris 
Corrigan via OSList
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 11:39 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Cc: Chris Corrigan; christopher macrae; oslist-requ...@lists.openspacetech.org
Subject: Re: [OSList] OSList Digest, Vol 82, Issue 3 re: conflict, conflict 
resolution, avoidance and Open Space

 

I’ve been really enjoying this conversation. 

 

I have indeed been part of conflict resolutions where there was constrained 
space to move. Mediation on a job and litigation as well as restorative 
practice (conflict resolution circles). I believe that working with constraints 
is a high art of leadership.  And even in Open Space there are still 
constraints.  I certainly just advocate for being honest about what those are. 
We can have governing constraints (like rules, i.e. the meeting will end at 
5pm) and enablisgin constraints, like the principles and the law of two feet.  
But nothing ever happens without a container.

 

So given that, how we work with constraints and build a container matters.  I 
have run Open Spaces where there were fewer degrees of freedom than others (of 
course participants could always call whatever conversation they wanted to, but 
the management of the organization got to define areas they could resource and 
act on).

 

The original question was about Dave Snowden’s criticism of how the law of two 
feet operates in spaces where conflict is important. This can mean any kind 
situation where a group of people needs to hear a contrary point of view in 
order to act wisely.  In many places these days, folks just walk away from 
people who’s opinions they find odious.  This kind of conflict avoidance 
creates massive division and “echo chamber’ behaviour.  Even calling an open 
space meeting is a kind of narrowing of the constraints and degrees of freedom 
such that people need to encounter one another.  

 

For innovation work, testing, criticizing and breaking new ideas is an 
invaluable part of the creative process.  Working away on one’s own without 
dissenting points of view can create something that is vulnerable to the myriad 
blind spots that we operate from.  

 

Conflict is not a bad thing. Working well with time and space as constraints 
helps us to collectively move through it.  Sometimes that means opening up that 
time and space and sometimes it means narrowing it down.  

 

I also miss Father Brian in these kinds of conversations.  I suspect he’d say 
something like “it’s all good” and then give a little wink and a smile.  

 

Chris





On Feb 4, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList 
 wrote:

 

Dear Colleagues,

I am interested in questions, and how people get wrapped up in answering a 
question, without first giving some discernment to whether or not it is the 
right question. Oh...I miss Fr. Brian Bainbridge when I get to thinking like 
thishe would have been a great one to have this conversation with. As I 
understand it, the question was stated as one to look at whether Open Space 
assisted in avoidance of conflict.

 

My question, the one that I believe is more to the heart of the matter is 'have 
you ever been part of successful movement with conflict resolution when the 
space wasn't open?'. 

 

For any conflict, inter-personal, intra-personal, larger scale, conflict 
doesn't have successful movement if there is no space for the movement, no 
space for the re-framing.that is needed for healing. Conflict is not in short 
supply in this world. Let us use any processes that we can to be of service to 
our fellow humans to move beyond the stuck energies of conflict. 

 

Blessings,

Birgitt

 

 

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM christopher macrae via OSList 
 wrote:

3 comments which may sound contradictory and reveal my own need to action learn

 

1 harrisons' books eg practice of peace explain that an intention of Open Space 
is to free people who are all trapped by the same conflict to move beyond it - 
creating more space than top-down rules  or historiic cultural misunderstanding 
had previously allowed - this always seems to me to be what is happening 
provided the facilitator is experienced

 

2 however what happens when people are no longer together in the space; are 
actions and post conflict innovation

Re: [OSList] OSList Digest, Vol 82, Issue 3 re: conflict, conflict resolution, avoidance and Open Space

[Andrew Rixon via OSList]

Great to hear from you Rob... and yes indeed - maybe those in Melbourne -
anyone who cares to - might let me know of their interest in a Yum Cha...

I can do the usual organisings once we find a suitable day...

Please send me an email off-list and I can co-ordinate.

Warm regards,
Andrew

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:46 PM, R Chaffe via OSList <
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

> Chris
> Yes we do miss our dear friend yet our very conversation draws the essence
> of our being with Fr Brian so he lives in us and our conversations.  So as
> we are potentially drawn into conflict we also can open our space and give
> room for Brian and so many others to join us.
>
> You may recall the experiments where rat colonies are given no boundaries
> and an abundance of food then either the space or the food become
> restricted to the point that the participants attack each other as they
> seek to survive.  Somewhere on the continuum there is a pint where the
> observer may say conflict begins.
>
> What have we learnt?  We might say that conflict is a condition that is
> resident in all and depending on the “importance” to the individual of the
> environment/conditions etc and their ability to survive.
>
> When we invite others to join our conversation how they respond will
> greatly depend on the importance  of the conversation is to them, we might
> call it passion and in our terms passion is moderated by responsibility so
> we have a new issue responsibility!  Responsibility to who or what?
>
> Consequently we define boundaries some may be stated others may be
> unwritten rules that are the community norms.  One way to express
> dissatisfaction with a conversation is to withdraw, the law of mobility (my
> paraplegia heightens my awareness of the privilege of walking).
>
> Peter Sandman says that effective conflict resolution happens when the
> risks and the level of outrage are balanced.  He has been involved in some
> of the worlds greatest man made disasters, a hot bed of conflict.  So what
> happens when the situation is right for the possibility of resolution?
> Someone issues an invitation and regardless of if they follow the “rules”
> they open the space.
>
> Conflict may be expressed both by outrage or hazard.  I believe that this
> may be a simplistic way of seeing the world/system around us yet it gives
> us a pathway to understanding why people come and why people go, it depends
> on how they see themselves in the system and how it might impact on their
> survival (our friend Maslow and others all point to survival as the issue
> that will provoke greatest interest).
>
> Resolution of conflict begins with the ability to listen to the other
> point of view.  We can say our ability to stop and give space to ourselves
> and others.
>
> Opening space, creating space, seeing space is about stopping.  It is
> about breathing in harmony with those around us.  It is about holding back
> the “walls of the rat colony” for a moment so that we can think and listen
> to others. Open Space technology is one way we can do this as a process.
> The space must be created to allow us to hear, to let new ideas to grow, to
> explore the whys, what’s etc
>
> As Fr Brian seeks out another red he prompts us to to the same and that is
> to live to the fullest each moment we have and there are times to get
> involved and times to walk away, times to just sit and times for
> enthusiastic engagement with others.  It mostly depends on the space we
> need at moment.
> We could explore Fr Brian’s relationship with his authorities and how that
> conflict was managed but that is for another day.
>
> Regards
> Robert
>
> PS Andrew and others please find time later this month for some YumCha in
> memory of our dear friend.  I will be undergoing further treatment so
> cannot join you in person.
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2018, at 3:38 pm, Chris Corrigan via OSList <
> oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
>
> I’ve been really enjoying this conversation.
>
> I have indeed been part of conflict resolutions where there was
> constrained space to move. Mediation on a job and litigation as well as
> restorative practice (conflict resolution circles). I believe that working
> with constraints is a high art of leadership.  And even in Open Space there
> are still constraints.  I certainly just advocate for being honest about
> what those are. We can have governing constraints (like rules, i.e. the
> meeting will end at 5pm) and enablisgin constraints, like the principles
> and the law of two feet.  But nothing ever happens without a container.
>
> So given that, how we work with constraints and build a container
> matters.  I have run Open Spaces where there were fewer degrees of freedom
> than others (of course participants could always call whatever conversation
> they wanted to, but the management of the organization got to define areas
> they could resource and act on).
>
> The original question was about Dave Snowden’s criticism of how the law of
> t

Re: [OSList] OST encourages avoidance of conflict

[Rolf F. Katzenberger via OSList]

A thought:

Whatever format you choose to host a "conversation that matters" (to
whom?): The Law of Two Feet always comes into play when you send out
your Call - people may choose to participate, or not to.

Once we start thinking that we can stay in control, e.g. by making
participation mandatory; or by choosing / designing a format disliked by
those who hear the Call; or simply by deciding that two people "should
finally start talking to each other": we've already fallen prey to an
illusion.

So, the Law of Two Feet always applies, because it is a law that applies
a long time before the event even started.

Cheers,
Rolf

-- 
«If it works, it's right.» | «Richtig ist, was funktioniert.»
https://www.pragmatic-teams.com | https://www.pragmatic-teams.de
https://fromthebackoftheroom.training | https://fromthebackoftheroom.training/de

Daniel Mezick via OSList schrieb am 30.01.2018 um 22:07:
>
> I am hearing this pointed criticism from some quarters: That OST
> actually encourages conflict-avoidance via the Law of 2 Feet. In other
> words, people who need to be resolving conflict (or at least
> discussing it) can just avoid the touchy topic... and each other.
>
> Could this actually be true? If not why not?
>
>
> -- 
> Daniel Mezick
> Culture Strategist. Author. Keynoter.
> (203) 915 7248. Bio.  Blog.
>  Twitter.
> 
> Book: The Culture Game. 
> Book: The OpenSpace Agility Handbook.
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
> Past archives can be viewed here: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org

___
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org