Fighting Open Space Organizations

[Doris Gottlieb]

Hello,
Although I've been reading the posts on the list for some time, this is the
first time I've actually taken part in this, so let me introduce myself
briefly. My name is Doris Gottlieb, I live in the Netherlands and I work in
my consulting and facilitating practice around issues of diversity and
globalization.  I'm relatively new to Open Space. I too was very shocked as
I started reading about al-Qaeda and what seems to be in my mind also a very
empowering organization that runs on what seems to be passion and
responsibility and where the leader allows his "staff" to be innovative and
creative and operate on their own initiative, elements I recognize from OST
and many predominant OD philosophies. Last summer I did the Open Space
Technology training with Birgitt Williams in the Netherlands and I am now
eerily reminded eerily of one of the conversations we had at dinner about
ethics in facilitation.  The question was, in my mind, should you always
facilitate an Open Space Technology Meeting even if you think the
organization may do harm? (or the OST event could cause great harm?) What
are the ethics we as facilitators need to keep in mind.

I remember during our discussion I, and the training I was wrestling with
the idealistic nature of some of the thoughts about OST and other OD methods
for that matter. It can bring so much good and positive things into the
world it is hard to think that it could also bring negative things intot he
world.I think I am a pessimist at heart, but one of the things I think we
can learn from such insights is that great concepts and ideas can also be
used by people to get wonderful results doing terrible things. The fact that
something has the capacity for good, doesn't preclude that it has the
capacity for evil, and I think for me it means I have to be careful and very
aware of this whenever I work with people or bring something empowering into
the world.  So, maybe that means that as facilitators we also need to be
aware and open to these darker possibilities of our work?  Does that close
down the space?


Doris

Van: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU]Namens Meg Salter
Verzonden: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:01 AM
Aan: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Fighting Open Space Organizations


  Interesting that you bring this up. The more I have been reading - just
general info like newspapers etc. - the more it seems that al-Qaeda is a
thoroughly contemporary creation - trans-national, flat org structure,
dispersed, multi-sourced,  cellular nature. I'm no expert, but it reminds me
of Internet structure. So it is another demonstration of self-organization.
I suppose self-organization can be used for many kinds of intent - benign or
malignant. Same as cell growth in natural systems; normal healthy growth and
differentiation, or cancerous growth.

  The other thing that seems to be a possibility is a cult-like nature,
centred around a charismatic leader. Cult features (as noted by an ex
al-Qaeda member) are exclusive focus on the group, giving up all other
interests ("you forget everything; your family, your business...."). So it
may be self-organizing in structure, but its focus and intent is closed. The
only good news is that most cults (which can be found in every country and
religion!) eventually die out. Is this because the universe is essentially
expanding, creating ever more openness...?

  So I wouldn't call it a open space organization, as a primary intent of
Open Space is to open up possibilities, diversity, difference.
Self-organizing, yes. Open, no.

  Thanks for bringing it forward.

  Meg Salter

  MegaSpace Consulting
  416/486-6660
  meg.salter at sympatico.ca
  www.megaspaceconsulting.com

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Chris Corrigan
    To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
    Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:19 PM
    Subject: Fighting Open Space Organizations


    I am dumbfounded by this article:
    http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109272330.htm

    It describes Al-Qaeda as, essentially, an Open Space Organization,
running on passion, responsibility and so on.  There may be some things that
aren't OS about it at all, but the channeling of passion and responsibility
and the diffusion of purpose, leadership and action is striking.

    Since I have read this I have been struck by watching large governments
and armies (by their nature NOT OS orgs) struggle with how to undo this
"network."  I have been looking especially for references in the media to
the darker arts of espionage and black operations against Al-Qaeda and
others, the ones that Rumsfeld said we may never know the success of.  I
suspect that the US and the UK are meeting innovation with innovation, but
we may never know how.

    So I pose the questions, separate and apart from the ethical
considerations of the work of Al-Qaeda, which I find repulsive:

      a.. What can we learn from the way this organization has been
structured and the way it operates?
      b.. Would an organization with global reach organized around a purpose
of a "higher good" stand a chance of being as successful as Al-Qaeda has
been in achieving it's objectives?
      c.. What kind of invitation for good could create the kind of passion
in people that causes them to choose to so fully devote themselves to a
cause that they would be willing to die for it?
      d.. For the countries that are at war against Al-Qaeda, what kind of
thinking and organizing is going to be successful in defeating this network?
Is it possible for governments to fight an group organized this way?
    I'd be interested in what folks think on this.
    Chris

    --
    CHRIS CORRIGAN
    Consultation - Facilitation
    Open Space Technology

    http://www.chriscorrigan.com
    corcom at interchange.ubc.ca

    RR 1 E-3
    1172 Miller Road
    Bowen Island, BC
    Canada, V0N 1G0

    phone (604) 947-9236
    fax (604) 947-9238


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20011016/250fe0a5/attachment-0017.htm>