lights &/ shadows?

Doris Gottlieb dlgottlieb at chello.nl
Thu Jul 3 01:39:24 PDT 2003


Hi Suzanne,
I really find your questions very thought provoking, they also come to a
point that I have in my own mind about what Open Space does in organizations
and with people.  I don't have too much to contribute at the moment to your
questions just a few brief thoughts:
>My second issue is about that phenomen, that people seems to get always
>empowered by open space, taking more responsibility, contribute if you let
>them ... and than they go on with it, but the former mode of control from
>the top often rebuilds quite fast, cause managers, supervisors, executives
>have to give up control. Like: wow, it´s so much better without us.
>So what positiv point could they make to "loosing" or "give up" control?
>What could be attractiv about that to them?
>What if they would make themselfs unneccesary in the whole process of the
>organization?

About managers. I wonder if Open Space proves them to be "Unnecessary?" It
seems to me more that what Open Space does is create a question about what
their role could and should be?  Perhaps it shows that what they are doing
or the assumptions that they have about managing and being a manager can be
called into question. It leaves room for looking at what new roles they may
need to fill.  For me this is a big challenge in Open Space and it also
seems important - at least in my mind, that if Open Space is brought to an
organization where these questions/dilemma's become pertinent it is also
important to in some way support those managers in their search for these
new roles, tasks, or positions.  And then also of course to support the
whole organizations in that.


About people who are feeling as you say, extremely hopeless, who have lost
joy and passion for anything in their work environment... I wonder if Open
Space provides them with a mirror to that experience and a chance to
question it. Perhaps not at the moment in the Open Space, but maybe later,
when back at work or other aspects of their lives. I think it might be that
Open Space really has a powerful (if perhaps invisible effect) on these
people just because it gives them a chance to be there as they are -
unimpassioned, unhappy, burnt out. That they are allowed to be there like
that and still have a place. In my very personal experience sometimes I
think the ideas of "learning organizations" can be extremely disheartening
and painful to people in the organization, and often a bit hypocritical.
YOU MUST LEARN, YOU MUST DEVELOP. In my own experience in organizations I
remember sometimes how oppressive this felt (especially since the
expectations were so high and yet the "organization" itself seemed to be so
uncommitted to me - I learn but then a reorganization comes and blam, out on
the street who cares about you - after such a large investment on my part).
Sometimes when I read OD discussions about learning organizations etc. I
feel this oppression and how it kills my own passions.
Anyway what I mean is I wonder if there is an invisible effect on these
people, one that might not make them happy about being in Open Space but
that would have an internal effect on them that could be helpful to them I
their work - and maybe one that deserves recognition in some way and at some
point.

I too am not a very experienced Open Space practitioner. Lately I've been
doing more shorter OST's, but the questions you ask come often into my mind.
One of the things I wonder here on the list is how people do follow-up with
OST especially in organizational contexts.  And also what are the
psychological (and systems psychological) impacts of OST.  Sometimes I have
the impression I don't know how to ask these questions or talk more about
OST on these levels?



Doris Gottlieb

Consulting for the
International Environment
Hof van Versailles 23
1064 NX Amsterdam
The Netherlands

tel:  +31(0)20 776 8043
email: dlgottlieb at chello.nl

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU]Namens Susanne Hildebrand
Verzonden: donderdag 3 juli 2003 10:14
Aan: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Onderwerp: lights &/ shadows?

Hi everybody,

I´m still working myself through tons of literatur, enjoying it but and
again feeling my lack of experience. So I like to share some thougts of
mine:

I have the image, that open space works always on the "mass of people",
because it´s great, as we all know. What is with the ones, who are not able
to take really part, cause of language problems, who gave up by life
experience they could try to make a difference without being punished, who
just depend so much on their job (children, bad education ...?) they wouldnt
dare to put it on any risk, who just, as Marlene Walker Daniel reports in
her great ethnologic field study for 1 - 10 percent of the people:
"they just didn´t have anything they feel passionate about. ... they would
have been happier going back to their jobs after the first morning session
when they saw the issues that were to be addressed by work groups. They
preferred doing their jobs as they had always done and leaving others to
work on the big picture." (Daniel, 1994)
Yes, these people could be butterflies, and maybe they were beautiful. But
being not passionate about anything and leaving others for the "big things"
sounds to me more like "give up" then "beautiful" and attractive for even
smalltalk. (hm... nice judgement though)
But is it alright to say: you are responsible for what is happening here
than? Maybe causing even more giving up, like selforganisation is for people
who can speak, who dare, not for people like me?

I´m aware of all the if´s , and for shure not questioning open space as a
method, but it´s helpful for me, to clarify it. Social selforganisation
seems to mean every element/ member of the system has the same possibilities
to take part on the process of creating social information, so what about
different "inner psychological realities"?.

My second issue is about that phenomen, that people seems to get always
empowered by open space, taking more responsibility, contribute if you let
them ... and than they go on with it, but the former mode of control from
the top often rebuilds quite fast, cause managers, supervisors, executives
have to give up control. Like: wow, it´s so much better without us.
So what positiv point could they make to "loosing" or "give up" control?
What could be attractiv about that to them?
What if they would make themselfs unneccesary in the whole process of the
organization?

Hm, I´m curious to know  your commments, thoughts, ideas.
All the best from a sunny summmermorning in Berlin,
Susanne

*
*
==========================================================
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

*
*
==========================================================
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



More information about the OSList mailing list