Properties of circles

[Peggy Holman]

I am just dipping into the conversation afer about a month away, am just
entering into "silence" and may not be able to read more for a bit....

While things have moved on from circles, your comments prompted so much in
me...so here it is, coming around again...

from foggy Seattle,
Peggy


*  Doris' nursery school image reminded me of a conversation on another
extreme -- a retired military officer.  He told me that he had been in a
special forces unit and that they trained in circles.  Ever since then, he'd
put teams he worked with in circles when they had something critical to
accomplish.

*  Chris' original post reminded me of a message I sent to a client on
approaches to transformational change.  I've copied that below.

*  Artur's comments on OST's foundations and the principles reminded me of
something I've come to believe: the law of two feet is fundamentally to take
responsibility (one foot) for what you care about (the other foot).  When
this law is the foundation, the principles emerge.  In other words, the
principles are the RESULT of the law.  I do find the principles useful to
name because they are more easily embraced when explicitly made visible.

*  On ellipses and Therese's question about OS organizations and structure,
how about the shape of an egg?  Seems to me this is a 3-dimensional ellipse.
I am reading about Jewish mourning practices right now because my mother is
dying.  This was something I read:

"At the first meal after the funeral, mourners eat a hard-boiled egg and
something round to indicate that life is like a circle and the mourners have
no words to describe their loss."

It is also on the Passover seder plate:
"It is round, picturing eternity, and a core of life, signifying new birth.
It thus pictures the endless cycle of renewing life."

As we know, the egg is more ellipse than round, but there you go...


_______________________________
Peggy Holman
The Open Circle Company
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA  98006
425.746.6274
www.opencirclecompany.com


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 10:32 AM
Subject: Triangles, circles and power


> I recently met with a potential client who asked me a question I suspect
> many of us get asked:
>
> "I don't understand why I need to involve everyone in my organization in
> making this change happen.  Why doesn't a cascade from sr. management down
> do the trick?"
>
> Naturally, the clear, crisp response didn't come to me until after the
> meeting, but I wanted to share it because I think its the most effective
way
> I've ever explained this and would love to know what others think.
>
> Here it is:
>
> You asked me a question about using a cascade strategy for change when we
> met.  Here are some
> thoughts on this subject.
>
> The cascade (i.e., the triangle you drew with senior managers, middle
> managers, staff) strategy can work; I have successfully used it.  In fact,
> until about 5-8 years ago, I would have said it was the best known way to
> achieve change across an organization.  What has happened in the past 5-8
> years is an understanding of new ways of changing organizations that are
> faster, cheaper, and have a greater chance of success.  These approaches
are
> based upon high participation.
>
> If the cascade is characterized by the triangle, high participation is
> characterized by a circle.  The visual image is useful because it speaks
to
> "the catch" in high participation change.  The circle has no point where
> everything comes together.  It starts with and builds a very different set
> of beliefs about power and control in organizations.
>
> An example: in the triangle model, vision is the primary responsibility of
> senior management.  They articulate vision and share it with the rest of
the
> organization, who look for how they fit in.  In the circle model, senior
> management creates an environment that invites the rest of the
organization
> into the work of creating shared vision.  It is created with the benefit
of
> many diverse perspectives and experiences, incorporating insights and
ideas
> that are not usually visible to senior managers.  As a result, people see
> themselves in the vision sooner and begin to integrate it into their work
> immediately.  This difference means change happens faster, is cheaper to
do
> and is less risky in terms of achieving the desired results.
>
> But -- and this is a BIG but -- the shift in power and control implied in
> this example is quite profound.  It can be a huge leap of faith for senior
> managers unfamiliar with the idea of sharing power.  This often means that
> organizations opt for a cascade approach even though it is slower and
> costlier because the roles are much more familiar.  Ultimately, I believe
> the choice depends on the type of organization you wish to create.
>
> I hope this gives you a useful perspective on this critical question as
you
> shape the future of the your organization.  My hope for you is that you
> create a place that allows the maximum use of the talent and creativity of
> the people who are part of your work.
>
> Peggy Holman


----- Original Message -----
From: "Artur Ferreira da Silva" <artsilva at mail.eunet.pt>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Properties of circles


> Thanks, Chris C., for raising this conversation and to all the others who
> participated till now. It is a very insightful conversation circle.
>
> It reminded me of the words of the Guide that I quote freely - "in many
> cultures we talk about a circle of friends and not about a square of
> friends" (or a U-shape of friends, for that matter). Within this metaphor,
> the circle reminds me of - wholeness, intimacy, sense of the group and
> diversity (of members). And a lot of other things that have already been
> referred.
>
> Being myself a "reflective practitioner" I think it is not enough to
> practice something - to understand and improve we must reflect on it.  The
> circle is for me one of the most important - if not the most important -
of
> the "foundations of OST".  I have proposed somewhere a possible list of
> some others (
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/network/wiki.cgi?FoundationsofOST ), and
> would like to invite a similar conversation on some of them.
>
> We tend to concentrate too much of our conversations on the "principles",
> and I have my doubts about them. Maybe if we concentrate more on the other
> foundations, we will be able to conclude if the "principles" are really
> "principles", if they are results (corollaries?) of the topology of the
> other "foundations" or if they are just one more thing not to ;-)
>
> My two Eurocents
>
> With warm regards to all
>
> Artur
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> 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