Hierarchies, decision making and a real-life example

[Fr Brian S Bainbridge]

Dear Chris's et al,
One of the things I have observed that the words Hierarchy" and
"Bureaucracy" hove gotten loaded with a lot of negativity and bad
baggage, one way or another.
That's perhaps rather unfortunate, even though it is true and deserved,
as I see it.
Because both concepts have a great deal of good about them in their
original meanings.  And still, in today's organizations, they have a
real part and role to play and contribute.
Even in an Open Space event, there emerge proper hierarchies and
bureaucracies - who opens the space, the sponsor, the reporter in each
group, the IT personnel or coordination, the kitchen staff, the facility
management, and the list goes on - and people/participants play some
part or undertake some role in all of that, of course.
The miracle of OST is that these functions can and do change their role
as the situation changes and people become sensitive and responsive to
"Whatever happens.....".
So, for what it is worth, I suspect we are on the edge of seeing not
just the development of Complex Adaptive Systems but the place
"hierarchy" and "bureaucracy" and - dare I say - "management" actually
play in all of our wonderful new understanding of the way organizations
function.
The delicacy emerges when the players get these concepts out of kilter
and worship them as though they are Gods or something instead of
instruments for a greater good in our world and time.
My two penny worth in such abstruse discussions.
 From a beautiful Melbourne Fall Easter weekend.
Cheers and blessings,   BRIAN

Chris Corrigan wrote:
> chris macrae wrote:
>
>> Chris- my view would be that its always possible that some organisations
>> will get stuff done in spite of hierarchy's excesses
>
>
> Beyond possible: I think it happens ALOT.  In really rigid hierarchies,
> like bureaucracies, my experience is that most stuff happens in spite of
> the hierarchy.  And when you look at how it happens, it's a network or a
> matrix.
>
>
>> But I don't see why understanding of organisations hasn't got beyond
>> recognising that hierarchy is only one of several systems that a
>> thriving people-investing organisations needs to be structured around
>>
>> Why not ask the triple accountability and design question applied to the
>> relationship infrastructures that all organisations are:
>> What's the best of hierarchy how can this interface with the best of
>> self-organising and how can we mix this withy the best of networking
>> across organisational boundaries, we are wasting most people's working
>> lifetimes
>
>
> I agree with you.  I think maybe the reason this stuff hasn't caught on
> is perhaps because people don't always link it to the bottom line.  It
> sounds like a nice abstract conversation, but until people can see it in
> action AND that it makes as much money as the prevailing wisdom, folks
> won't always be keen to adopt a change.  And I think that stories about
> successes in other places don't always convince people to try new ways
> of organizing.  The story has to come from one's own experience.  An
> Appreciative Inquiry-type of discovery approach does wonders in this
> respect, inviting people to connect with optimal experiences in their
> past and inviting design to arise out of that latent capacity.  But it
> also means some detailed introspection to link the experience of the
> past in what might be a very different context, to the present
> situation.  Just how does my experience singing with a choir make this
> company money again?
>
>> Since we have the methods of open space and organisational
>> transformation well worked out, my assumption is that the only thing
>> that could possibly continue to cause such a system blockage to openness
>> is wrong measurement
>
>
> Measurement uber alles is tricky because it immediately privileges the
> quantifiable over the qualifiable.  And certainly, we need to measure
> things, but I'm leering of forcing qualitative experiences into
> measurement-friendly formats.  By necessity it strips what is most
> important about the experience.
>
> How do we measure the effect an OST meeting has on a person that has
> suddenly seen the possibilities offered by truly self-organizing work
> teams?
>
>>
>> It seems to me it's a case of taking the arguments of wrong measurement
>> and open space together if we wish to sustain transformation through any
>> conflict that traditional organisations are almost perfectly geared to
>> compound
>>
>
> Taking these things together gives a true picture of the organization.
> Measure what you can measure, interpret what needs interpretation.
> Include both as ways of generating understanding and making meaning out
> of organizational endeavours.
>
> Chris
>
>
> --
> CHRIS CORRIGAN
> Bowen Island, BC, Canada
> (604) 947-9236
>
> Consultation - Facilitation
> Open Space Technology
>
> Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot
> Homepage: http://www.chriscorrigan.com
> chris at chriscorrigan.com
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> 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
>


--
Fr Brian S. Bainbridge
0412 111 525

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

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist