Leadership and Vision (was: Productive Chaos)

[Chris Weaver]

Christoph wrote:

> Yes and no. Yes, in an ideal organisation with ideal people. No, in the
> real world cases I have seen.
> You still need a person (or several) who 'stands' for the vision. And that
> person is normally not the doorman. I agree that in principle the doorman
> may be the one who triggers a change which may have developed unnoticed,
> but: Have you seen one example for this to happen?

I believe I have seen one enormous example, and countless smaller ones.
They have all taken place in meetings where an important decision was at
hand and the space was being held for the contributions of all voices.  The
"doorman" has most often delivered his/her earthshaking message in  a
soft-spoken, even reluctant manner, knowing full-well the potential power
and of his/her words.

These people do not speak up if they do not know themselves as equals in the
tending of the vision.  They do not know themselves as equals unless the
organization's designated leadership truly opens and holds space for this,
not once but reliably over time.

Christoph, I know well that the organization I describe is not a normal one.
But it is not theory...this is a real organization with a hierarchical
structure, and my time spent there, paying attention to exactly these issues
we are discussing, forever shaped my ideas about what is possible, and
indeed changed my career.

> At a bifurcation point or more general in an 'unstable' state, where the
> system is susceptible to the butterfly's wing or the doorman's idea, the
> system may collapse as well. Who takes care of conditions that enable
> improvement instead of collapse? What is the driving force behind? Don't
> say it's inherent. Populations of animals do collapse, as do companies
> sometimes.

It's inherent.

> What I want to say is: In a company with a business mission "someone" must
> represent that mission and take care of conditions. That someone may be
> elected democratically. But once he (women, please forgive me using just
> the male form for simplicity) has the task, he gets a higher degree of
> responsibility: He becomes responsible for the *process*. Anyway, this is
> how I understand leadership. Am I mislead?

I do not say you are misled.  I am sure that an organization with a leader
who represents or stands for the vision can be innovative and thriving.  But
it is not the kind of organization I am interested in.

I agree with you that responsibility for the process is a critically
important role of designated leadership.  But to me this is different from
keeping the vision.  I am interested in an organization where Open Space
Technology and Talking Circle processes are used to cultivate the living
vision, and indeed to make critical decisions grounded in the vision.  It is
possible to not have one keeper, or even one head-gardener, or even one
organizational stratum that sees the vision more clearly than others.  It is
possible for everyone to actively do this - and I mean "everyone" as
"Whoever comes are the right people," responding to a authentic invitations
grounded in an actively anti-discriminatory organizational culture.

The true vision is alive, and subjected to management by individuals,
especially as privileged property, it suffers.

You see, I am talking about the Spirit of the orgnaization.

This is what I mean when I write that "the driving force" is inherent.  The
driving force is not the leader.  The driving force is the organizational
Spirit.  And the Spirit is inherent in everyone in the organization, and
responds to different matters than our positions on the organizational
chart.

And yes, systems do collapse.  Systems die.  And this fact evokes in us
humans a powerful desire to exercise control.  There are no guarantees that
any system will continue on in its present form...but this is of course a
blessing, not a curse.  Which to me invites awareness of organizational
transformation as a cycle of death and rebirth.


> p.s.: Bifurcation is a mathematical concept belongig to chaos theroy. For
> Prigogine a tool only, not his work.

Thank you for this correction - and, indeed, for this conversation, which
has challenged me and invited me afresh into matters I care about deeply.

Chris

--
S   P   R   I   N   G   B   R   A   N   C   H

Opening the Space for Inspired Collaboration
P.O. Box 8234 / Asheville, NC 28814 / USA
Phone: 828 225-0007 / Fax: 828 225-0303
http://www.springbranch.net / chris at springbranch.net

F   A   C   I   L   I   T   A   T   I   O   N

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20010111/8d742dd3/attachment-0017.htm>