Self-Organization???? (to Peggy)

[Peggy Holman]

My responses are below, following the 
******************************************************

Peggy
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Artur F. Silva 
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:23 AM
  Subject: Re: Self-Organization???? (to Peggy)


  Thank you very much for your further explanations, Peggy. I think I will need 
  some time to reflect and try to digest the information. In the meanwhile I have 
  one more question and some comments to further the dialogue.  

  At 17:14 17-12-2001, Peggy Holman wrote:


    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.

  Yes I do and I understand your point - one can use different programming
  languages with success. But I am note sure if the same is true of using
  different programming methods (say "spaghetti programming" versus structured 
  programming versus object oriented programming). So I would expect methods
  to be one of the factors or success - not the only one of course, but one of them. 

  -----------------------
  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.  

  Sorry, I can't understand the last sentence - similar to the previous sentence (different
  impacts) or similar impacts? 

  *********************************
  I am offering 2 variations:
  1.  The same situation, the same method, handled by facilitators with different beliefs will lead to different results.  The point being that the different beliefs have a strong impact.

  2.  The same situation, different method, same facilitator will lead to similar results.  In other words, the beliefs of the facilitator have the greater impact, no matter the method.
  **********************************


    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.

  Have you obtained your information mainly from the change agents or have you 
  checked that out with the people of the "changed organization"? The problem is 
  that the facilitator (and even the sponsor) can be biased - for a matter of research
  it would be interesting to talk with people at various levels of the organizations
  that were subjected to change. (By the way I don't like to use the expression I
  have used "organizations subjected to change" as they must always be "agents" 
  and not only "subjects" for any profound change to take place). 



     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.

  I tend to agree with you. What confused me at first was the fact that all 18 methods
  could be equally effective. 

  --------------------------------------------------

     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?  

  I agree with the elegance. But I think the point is not only elegance.

  If Harrison's statement that "less is more" is true than I tend to think that
  "more is less" is also true. So I have doubts about methods where the facilitator 
  "facilitates too much" as they tend to disempower people (except the facilitator 
  himself).

  Further I tend to agree with Lewin that to change an organization first the old 
  rules and procedures must be unfrozen. And I think OST is more apt to unfreeze 
  previous rules and procedures that some other methods that are more "directive". 

  ***********************************************
  I agree with your point about directiveness.  In a funny way, it led to my conclusion about the power of the facilitator's beliefs.  I discovered an interesting irony when working with the different contributors to my book.  I kept asking questions about where the power was.  100% saw power increasingly belonging to participants.  Even those that I perceieved to be the most directive saw themselves as letting go of power and creating greater openness.  When I started exploring this, I realized how much it has to do with their current knowledge base.  To state this in an extreme way, if all I know is dictatorship and someone invites me to offer an opinion, that creates more freedom.  If I've never seen even greater freedom (like an OS), just asking is a breakthrough.  So, by my standards, with Open Space as a context, just inviting an opinion is quite directive.  To those experiencing this new freedom for the first time, it is a great innovation and can transform.  
  ***************************************************




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011223/03c3cb07/attachment-0017.htm>