Organizations as complex relational processes, narratives and emergent action (and a story!)

[Chris Corrigan]

Harrison:

Harrison:

Thanks for your thoughts on this.  I like the depth of storytelling that
you bring to light.  I have the same quibble with Smits' notion of the
facilitator's role, although I know he's coming from the perspective of
the facilitator in Bohm's dialogue model.  That's pretty close to space
holding, but at any rate you capture the OST facilitator's role well as
doing something to open space for story..

However, there is a piece of Smits' paper that I haven't addressed yet,
but that I find a lot more interesting, and that is the way stories are
contextualized in power relationships.  Here's the idea:

1.      We gather knowledge about the world through observing and
interpretation.

2.      Observed "facts" don't give us the whole picture, so we need
interpretive stories to make meaning out of what we observe.

3.      Stories represent part of the truth, and as such, non-linear
stories dwell in a power space within the organization.  Telling the
story can be powerful; having the story believed can be even more
powerful.

4.      Here's the money shot from Smits: "Stacey (2001a, 183) argues
that when there is diversity of participation in the conversations that
happen in organisation, there is the potential for the organisational
identity to be 'threatened'. In the language of Gover (1996) 'our
identities are being constitutes and reconstituted with their physical,
cultural and historical contexts'. The roots of narratives and identity,
he claims, 'merge, inextricably embedded and nurtured in the soil of
human action'.

But this is complicity! Stories and identity are being formed by human
action ('experience' in Stacey's words) and at the same time form human
action."


This is amazing, because it gets at some of the writing and thinking I
have been doing about "living in truth."  I don't see the term
"threatened" as being a bad thing.  I see it as inviting a decentering
of organizations away from command and control models where the stories
are churned out of a high level communications suite and the drones are
expected to buy the stories.  These stories can be about anything: the
organization's mandate, the way it is in the world, the kind of people
we are, the kinds of things we make and do, where we have come from and
where we are going...all the ripe fields of human mythmaking and meaning
making.

Complexity and diversity in participation threatens the organization's
identity because it pokes holes in the large assumptions that the
powerful pieces of an organization can sometimes hold over everyone
else.  These power stories could be societal and cultural myths or
beliefs as well, and they could inhibit a huge set of opportunities and
potentials.  By inviting a large diversity of people into the shared
meaning-making storyspace, we invite challenge to the myths and a much
more dynamic process of social and organizational truth telling that
makes organizations or societies very robust.  And I think that is a
very good thing.  It's good for democracy, it's good for productivity,
it's good for engagement.  People recover their agency, groupthink
becomes a thing s of the past, minds are opened and passion AND
responsibility is engaged.

The story of the OST meeting I did last weekend illustrates this writ
small, but I think we cannot underestimate the power of letting go of
that power of control over the stories and the myths.  People might ask
"but where do we then find stability for our organization or society?"

And in a changing world I would have to reply "thank me later..."


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
(604) 947-9236






> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of
Harrison
> Owen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:55 AM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Organizations as complex relational processes, narratives
and
> emergent action (and a story!)
>
> Well Chris, (NO "T") this is interesting soup indeed. I think the real
> positive here is the emphasis on Story Telling. For 40 odd years, ever
> since
> the days when I presumed to be an academic delving into the mysteries
of
> myth, ritual and culture in the ancient near east -- I have felt that
we
> (all of us humanoids) are essentially story-tellers, it is the way we
make
> meaning and communicate meaning (as in the natural first question of a
new
> person -- "What's the story?"). For the last 20 years, after having
fallen
> into the world of Open Space, I have observed that a (maybe "the")
central
> activity in an Open Space is storytelling, and it is certainly
"fuzified"
> storytelling, for initially there is no single story, nor story
teller. It
> is what I have called Collective Storytelling. Meaning emerges, and
action
> follows (usually) as the collective tale comes into being, having been
> woven
> from the myriad narrative strands brought forward by the participants.
> Frank
> Smits is definitely riding a train I have been on for quite a while,
and
> although that certainly doesn't make all of this "true" -- it is
certainly
> in line with my fundamental prejudices. The fact that he casts the
> discussion in the new language of complexity theory is an added gift,
for
> it
> gives me (gives us) a new set of spectacles with which to view our
> experience. (If anybody cares for the details of my random thoughts,
check
> out Chapters 11 and 12 in my book, "The Power of Spirit"
(Berrett-Koehler,
> 2000) For an earlier and more arcane version of all of this click on
> http://openspaceworld.com/mythos.htm where you will find the opening
> chapter
> of my first book, "Spirit: Transformation and Development in
> Organizations"
> -- now out of print)
>
> But I am not sure that Smits appreciates the full depth of
Storytelling as
> meaning making. First of all, although it is true that stories can be
told
> with words, this in my experience is just the tip of the iceberg.
Powerful
> stories which shape and form cultures (otherwise known as myths)
appear in
> the rich garments of ALL modes of human communication -- the total
dance
> of
> a peoples' life. This may seem just an academic quibble, but I think
it
> has
> some real implications concerning our ability to fully understand what
is
> taking place. In a word, we are faced with a level of complexity (even
> with
> a small group of humanoids) that simply boggles the mind. And when it
> comes
> to the role of the facilitator, the boggled mind is not helpful,
> particularly if the facilitator's role is as Smits describes it --
>
> "But, in order for Facilitators to participate, as a listener, a
'neutral'
> narrator or focaliser, they need to be able to understand the
language,
> power relationships, semiotics, etc. in the group of people. In other
> words,
> they need to be 'external insiders'. As the name suggests this is a
very
> paradoxical role (see Figure 6). By somehow becoming an 'insider'
there is
> potentially an element of 'risk' for the Facilitator with the outcome
> (emergent action). A delicate balance."
>
> A "delicate balance" indeed -- and one which I suspect is neither
possible
> nor necessary. Does that mean then that as facilitators in Open Space
> there
> is nothing we can do? If "doing something" means acting as the
> "focalizer,"
> then I believe the answer is, Yes. Bluntly stated, we simply do not
have
> the
> horsepower to do that -- to say nothing of the mental capacity. But
there
> are realms where we can and do "do something." Specifically, we can
create
> the space for storytelling. We can even shape that space when we work
with
> the client around the theme. And lastly, we can also create a space
for
> reflection. But when it comes to telling the story, interpreting the
> story,
> and acting on the story -- I think the people do it all by themselves.
> Which, after all is what self organization is all about.
>
> Thanks for bringing all this to light Chris! There is lots of good
stuff
> to
> explore here, and I look forward to the continuing conversation.
>
> Harrison
>
> Harrison Owen
> 7808 River Falls Drive
> Potomac, Maryland   20845
> Phone 301-365-2093
>
> Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com
> Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
> Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives
Visit:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of
Chris
> Corrigan
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:41 AM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Organizations as complex relational processes, narratives and
> emergent action (and a story!)
>
> Okay, a dose of theory here.
>
> I came across a paper by Frank Smits from Sydney, Australia, courtesy
of
> the Plexus Institute called How stories affect human action in
> organisations,
> (http://website.lineone.net/%7efrank.smits/Essays/Stories.htm) last
> week.  I've had a chance to read it and it posits a number of
> interesting points.
>
> My reading of the paper follows the development of these key ideas:
>
>
>    1. Organizations are not "things" but rather relational processes.
>
>    2. Human beings use story to represent and understand the patterns
of
> experience.
>
>    3. Stories only represent partial versions of reality and so
> narrative interpretation is subject to power dynamics.
>
>    4. Powerful storyteller can make people "captives" in the story;
this
> is the process of mythmaking.
>
>    5. "Organisations, in fact the 'organising via relating, exist in
> order to 'do something'. Hence somehow, the individuals in the
> organisation need to 'act'...if our identity is clear and we are
> actively interconnected in interdependent processes that when
> information comes available, action can emerge. The information
sharing
> happens in interactive processes between individuals (either inside or
> outside the 'organisation')."
>
>    6. "In the language of Gover (1996) 'our identities are being
> constitutes and reconstituted with their physical, cultural and
> historical contexts'. The roots of narratives and identity, he claims,
> 'merge, inextricably embedded and nurtured in the soil of human
> action'."
>
>    7. Narratives that resonate with an individual's experience create
> meaningful and sustained emergent action.
>
>    8. If people in organisations don't pay attention to the Individual
> Intention, the likelihood of the vortices of the narratives in those
> organisation resonating with the vortex of the Individual Intention is
> purely one of chance. It is due to individuals themselves to actively
> spend the time to understand other people's Individual Intention.
>
>    9. By consciously working on understanding Individual Intention and
> consciously work on fuzzifying the narrative the complex responsive
> process of interaction between the people will move to the attractor
at
> the critical point. This can only happen in self-organised process of
> interactions where meaning can start to flow.
>
> All of this is interesting stuff, especially the deep connection
between
> narrative and action. Organizations as relational processes, as arenas
> for the practice of storytelling and mythmaking (with it's attendant
> careful attention to compassion) and all of this as a propellant to
> emergent action. It's a lucid thread.
>
> For my money the last point is the most interesting and an example of
it
> cropped up for me in an Open Space meeting I facilitated last weekend.
>
> I was working as part of a team developing a transportation demand
> management plan for a city in British Columbia, basically coming up
with
> a strategy to get people out of their cars. As part of the process we
> convened a 1.5 day Open Space meeting with the intention that the
> participants would begin to work on citizen-based initiatives to get
the
> message out.
>
> These people didn't know each other, and so Day One was taken up with
a
> lot of conversation about the "typical" issues. The day was
essentially
> about getting to know each other, testing out ideas and theories,
> exploring the stories and myths about the issue and basically sussing
> out the power relationships, the allies and the opponents. There was
> very little new content, but the day was a rich field of developing
and
> dissolving structure, process and relationships, coalescing around
> stories. Because we were in Open Space and the agenda was driven by
deep
> personal passion and responsibility, the process of group-forming was
> accelerated. By the end of the day there was one story that emerged to
> invite action. Someone mentioned that in the very neighbourhood in
which
> we were meeting, the world's first curbside blue box program had been
> initiated. Whether or not this was an observable fact, it became the
> story upon which we hung the potential for citizen action in Day Two.
>
> Day Two was a two-hour action planning session, and I opened with that
> story and my interpretation of the fact that we simply don't know when
> and how small initiatives will blossom. And so the invitation for
action
> planning was to start something small that could change everything.
>
> Within two hours there were three major initiatives sketched out. One
> involved closing a street down for a one-day festival promoting
biking,
> walking and bussing. One was a project to have coporations sponsor
> evening busses into town from the suburbs on weekend nights to
encourage
> teenagers to stay out of their cars. The third idea was the formation
of
> a website and the coordination of letter writing and lobbying
campaigns
> to align actions on specific issues. All of these ideas had champions,
> follow-up meeting dates and committees or teams of people committed to
> working.
>
> I found the way this Open Space event evolved to be right in line with
a
> few of the paragraphs from Smits' paper:
>
>                 "By consciously working on understanding Individual
> Intention and consciously work on fuzzifying the narrative...the
complex
> responsive process of interaction between the people will move to the
> attractor at the critical point. This can only happen in
self-organised
> process of interactions where meaning can start to flow. That is the
> domain of dialogue; it is the art of 'thinking together'... Or, in the
> words of Bohm:
>
>
>                                     From time to time (the) tribe
> (gathered) in a circle. They just talked and talked and talked,
> apparently to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader.
> (.) The meeting went on until finally it seemed to stop for no reason
at
> all and the group dispersed. Yet, after that, everybody seemed to know
> what to do (.). Then they could get together in smaller groups and do
> something or decide things.
>
>                                     -- David Bohm, On Dialogue (quoted
> in Jaworski, 1998: 109)
>
>
>
>                 In this quote Bohm describes how dialogue as a way of
> people interacting manages to let meaning emerge because of people
> understanding each other's Individual Intentions. Effective action
could
> emerge. Note that the course of action was not decided by someone
> outside the process or decided via a compromise! It was emergent
because
> the process allowed the Group Intention to move to the Edge of
> Incoherence."
>
>
> This is exactly what happened, with people saying in the closing
circle
> that they were very surprised at how quickly the action plans came
> together. This echoes my experience of using an Open Space action
> planning process we call "non-convergence," so-called because it
eschews
> voting, preserves the diversity and complexity of the Day One
> conversations and keeps the space open for subtle pattern and
> meaning-making by those motivated enough to initiate action.
>
> Smits' paper gives me a nice theoretical frame to understand that
> process.  I thought it might spark some discussion here as it suggests
a
> move from seeing organizations as complex adaptive systems to complex
> relational processes.  In Wilberian terms, that seems like a very big
> shift from the right hand side to the left hand side.
>
> At any rate, I've also posted this to my weblog at
>
http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/2004_03_01_archive.html#10791665
> 3320999533 for comment.
>
> ---
> 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
> (604) 947-9236
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> 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

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