OSO and chaordic commons

[Richard Norris]

Your Welcome Harrison,

I took your advice, and after finishing my Master Thesis, I started Opening Space when and where the opportunity presented itself (condo associations, university alumni org, a high school football team, ASTD, even once at a beachside picnic for County Family Mediators).   I have no formal training in Open Space (did read the books and a million articles)......and as advertised it worked and continues to like clockwork.  Each experience appeared to me to become visually chaordic....looked like the models of a chaordic organization as folks self organized, but without the "feeling" of being in one I am not sure the model transposes to Open Space.

My strongest conclusion so far is that Open Space does nothing more than embody the spirit of self organization.  Since we are all self organizing beings, and contain the "self organizing spirit" then it makes sense that when the "OST bell gets rung"  we take to it like ducks to water....very familiar territory for the human species.  For me my conclusion answers the questions...... Why does it work? Why does it work so quickly? Why does it apparently work everywhere, regardless of geography, ethnicity, economics, education, culture....? Why do we have to explain so little in order to achieve so much?

I read this excerpt in the archives from one of the OSONOS.  It has stuck with me and relates to self organization.  Maybe our connection as a human community holds the answer.

TOPIC #16:  Open Space Dynamics and the Creation of Community 

 

CONVENER(S): Ric Giardina 

 

PARTICIPANTS:  Maureen McCarthy,  Bob Nelson,  Albert Schinazi, Greg Sedbrook,  Sushma Sharma,  Dick Whitehouse,  Gil Herman,  David Rupley, Harrison Owen,  Peg Holman,  Ed Jacobson,  David Koehler,  Judy Gast,  Hart Frech,  Gretchen Neve.

 

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND, ACTIONS: 

 

All of us have experienced the transformation of a group of people (sometimes strangers) into a community of value as a natural result of the OST process. What is it about the OST process that contributes so consistently to this transformation?  Several initial ideas were suggested for this phenomenon, including the clarity of intention of both the facilitator and the participants, that OST provides an environment in which personal relationships can deepen from the more common "acquaintanceship" model to one of true friendship, etc. 

 

It was suggested that OST doesn't really add anything, but that it is simply a matter of acknowledging what is already there.  There was a suggestion that posing the question about what is it that OST does to create community actually misses the point.  There is no "creation" or "adding to," but an uncovering what is in reality in existence.  This approach says that in OST we START with the notion that we are all already in community, that the divisions we experience in normal life are all self-imposed, and that OST is a structure in which those self-imposed divisions are removed. 

 

The behavioral characteristic principles of OST that contribute to this structure are: 

 

ONE - High Learning, in which radically diverse opinions and ideas are expressed. Moreover, it is an environment in which diverse opinions are honored and respected. 

 

TWO - High Play, in which the participants take what shows up in the environment and construct a good story to connect the facts in a delighted, playful manner. 

 

THREE - Appropriate Structure and Control, by which we acknowledge that OST is NOT structureless, but that it is self-generating. This means that it is totally appropriate to the group that has spawned it, and, if it becomes something that is not appropriate to the group, the group will change it. 

 

FOUR - Genuine Community is the natural and direct product of the previous three conditions. 

 

OST is not about doing an event, but about participating in the evolution of human consciousness. That is not to say that reflection after the event can not be enormously powerful.

 

There was then significant discussion of other "community" organizations with comparisons between those viewed as "healthy" (read: "good" ) versus those viewed as "unhealthy" (read: "bad).  In the end we seemed to agree that all communities were efficient organizations created to deal with their respective environments.  For example, street gangs are very effective communities for dealing with the issues that the members are passionate about and totalitarian governmental systems are very efficient communities to deal with the issues facing the proponents of that system. 

 

Human beings are self-organizing, and the type of self-organization will depend in a large degree on the environmental forces surrounding the community.

 

Lastly, it was suggested that OST works so efficiently to create community at such a deep level because OST's four characteristic principles and one law give people permission to do what they were going to do anyway. Giving them permission to do it, however, removes the guilt and transforms the space. (Giardina, date unknown)



Rich Norris 

 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harrison Owen 
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
  Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:28 AM
  Subject: Re: OSO and chaordic commons


  At 08:53 PM 3/13/2002 -0500, Rich Norris wrote:

    HMMMM...........Open Space sounds like the natural hatchery for chaordic embryos.

  HMMM.... yourself. Rich -- this is infinitely more than an incidental point, an idle reflection. If we are correct in understanding that one of the central mechanisms "behind" Open Space is the phenomenon of self-organization, then I think you have hit the nail precisely on the head, and the implications are quite profound. From where I sit our growing understanding of self-organization provides a useful basis from which to answer a number of bothersome questions arising from our experience and practice of Open Space. Such as Why does it work? Why does it work so quickly? Why does it apparently work everywhere, regardless of geography, ethnicity, economics, education, culture....? Why do we have to explain so little in order to achieve so much?

          The common experience of bringing 100's of diverse, conflicted folks together to deal with complex issues productively -- all without prior agenda, designated leadership, and pre-designed structure -- can only be viewed as a mental aberration when looked at through the eyes of what I might call "Standard" organizational theory. OST cannot happen. Indeed it should not happen. But it does, and when viewed through the eyes of self-organization theory -- our experience is totally predictable. 
          The rapidity of organization in OS is another problem for the standard view, because we all know that organization happens only by dint of major effort and usually takes a long time. Self Organization Theory tells us that what we experience is what we should expect. 
          With regard to the apparent universality of Open Space (see our growing list of Countries) a standard view would suggest that given the divisions, complexities, and peculiarities (uniqueness) of cultures and peoples no procedure or process could work  equally all across the globe. Yet it appears that Open Space is somehow "culture free." Which would suggest that the fundamental mechanism of Open Space is "behind" or "beneath" culture. That would be the case if the operative mechanism were indeed self-organization. Just as all peoples are subject to Gravity, so also Self-Organization -- regardless of culture, time and place. 
          And why do we have to say so little in order to achieve so much? No training of participants, no endless meetings and conferences of the agenda, no extended procedural steps to bring the group to the point of action .... just 20 minutes of conversation about 4 principles and a law ... and we are off. For all of us who over the years have labored in the Meeting Management world or the world of Training, this is quite a shock. And it can be very expensive, because we used to bill clients for all that activity. Obviously something is wrong, and yet when seen through the eyes of self-organization this experience is also predictable. After all, why would you have to explain something as deeply rooted as DNA?

  So is it really all about Self-Organization? Well it is certainly a testable hypothesis, and it works for me. But time will tell. In the meantime, I find it a very useful starting point for not only understanding the function of Open Space, but also its potential applications as well. Which brings me back to Rich's HMMMM.... Open Space sounds like the natural hatchery for chaordic embryos. Chaordic Organization is of course Dee Hock's happy appellation for a self-organizing system. And if you want to get there, as a number of people seemingly do, the way forward is probably not through an intensive design process combined with clear executive decision (We will now become a Chaordic Organization!) and extensive training for all concerned. Just open some space and you will discover that you are already there. But that is just the start of the story -- embryos, after all are always a beginning. You will have to decide if you want to continue and how to grow up. 

  Thanks Rich!


  Harrison
    



  Harrison Owen
  7808 River Falls Drive
  Potomac, MD 20854 USA
  phone 301-365-2093
  Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com 
  Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
  Personal website www.mindspring.com/~owenhh

  OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
  view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu
  Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20020314/b7954a1a/attachment-0017.htm>