Self-Organization???? (to Peggy)

[Peggy Holman]

Artur,

Thanks for the furthering this discussion.  I believe all 18 methods have the potential to create good meetings and to profoundly transform.  I do know of example of profound change for each of the 18 methods that I looked at. I would not consider it enough to say that I have empirical evidence for my statement to be more than an opinion.  And I would heartily agree with your quote from Peter Senge that "...there's enough evidence of success to say that change is possible and enough evidence of failure to say that it isn't likely."  I wouldn't say that all methods are equal, just that profound change is possible with all of them.  In other words, there are factors beyond method that are likely to make the difference.  My belief (and I don't have sufficient empirical evidence for it to be more than an opinion) is that while method may be one factor in success or failure the beliefs of the facilitator are an even greater factor.  

I seem to recall that you have an information systems background, as do I.  In the early days, were you ever in discussions about which programing language is best for a given task?  Often, the conclusion we'd reach is that it is possible to program anything in any language.  While some languages are more conducive to particular tasks than others, in the hands of a skilled programmer, it is possible to make anything work.

I think it is the same with methods.  The core beliefs of the facilitator influence their actions and the unspoken cues they send.  Are there methods that are better fits in different circumstances?  You bet.  And yet, I can take the similar circumstances and put different facilitators in them using the same method and get results with widely differing impact.  Further, I believe I could take the same facilitator, use different methods and get similar results.  I don't have empirical evidence for this.  It is an opinion reached by observation of, discussion with, and reading of comments from a variety of people using a variety of methods.  I think what started me down this path was the deep conviction of virtually every expert that their way was the most effective.  One thing they all had in common was an expectation that what they were doing worked and worked profoundly.  Additionally, there was the evidence of talking with people using these same methods in similar circumstances and getting much less powerful results.  What was different?  I think this is fertile ground for research.

My untested theory is the factors involved in success include sponsor beliefs (particularly around their passion for and audaciousness of the desired future, sense of invitation to particpate, generosity of spirit), facilitator beliefs (particularly around people's capacity to act wisely for the good of the whole as well as themselves), and method.  I'd love to hear other perspectives on this.

By the way, the reason Open Space is so core to my own practice is it makes it so visible that people have the capacity to create what they want.  I have seen other methods get people there but there's something so elegant in OS's simplicity in enabling people to live this experience.  And at a practical level, there's something that Harrison mentions a lot.  If I can accomplish the same thing with a lot less work, doesn't that make sense to do?  

Peggy




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Artur F. Silva 
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:22 AM
  Subject: Re: Self-Organization???? (to Peggy)


  At 01:25 11-12-2001, Peggy Holman wrote:


    After looking closely at 18 approaches to changing human systems for The
    Change Handbook, my own conclusion is similar to Ralph's.  What I have come
    to believe is that the choice of approach has more to do with chemistry
    among practitioner, method and client than anything else.  They all have the
    potential to transform.  Further, I've concluded the choice of process has
    much to do with the beliefs of the practitioner.

  I could not understand, Peggy, if all the 18 have the potencial to be useful to
  create good meetings or if they have the potencial to profoundly transform
  the organizations where they have been applied.

  If it were the second hypothesis that you stated, I would like to know
  if you are telling your opinion or if you have researched (action research?)
  enough cases of companies that applied those methods to conclude that.

  The point is that my information until now went in a different direction.
  For instance, see the interview with Peter Senge to Fast Company in 1999
  in http://www.fastcompany.com/online/24/senge.html. 

  The 1st question was "What's your assessment of the performance of 
  large-scale change efforts over the past decade?" 

  Senge answered (in part):
   
  "My own experience at MIT and at the Society of Learning (Sol) has mostly 
  been with big companies. How much change have they actually accomplished? 
  If I stand back a considerable distance and ask, 'What's the score'" I 
  have to conclude that inertia is winning by a large margin. Of course, 
  there have been enough exceptions to that conclusion to indicate that 
  change is possible. I can identify 20 to 30 examples of significant 
  sustained change efforts in the SoL community. On the other side of the 
  ledger, there are many organizations that haven't gotten to first base 
  when it comes to real change and many others that have given up trying. 
  When I look at efforts to create change in big companies over the past 10 
  years, I have to say that there's enough evidence of success to say that 
  change is possible and enough evidence of failure to say that it isn't 
  likely. Both of those lessons are important."

  So it seams that change is not easy and probably not all methods are equal.
  By the way this was an interview after the publication of "The Dance of Change"
  where some methods and disciplines were not so empathized as in the past and
  some new ones were referred - like the concept of Communities of Practice
  and the OST methodology ;-)

  Regards

  Artur



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011217/eee9db31/attachment-0017.htm>