Half-way Technology (longish)
Harrison Owen
hhowen at comcast.net
Thu May 13 10:56:37 PDT 2004
It all started, as is usual in such cases, with a conversation. Last week in
the Twin cities (Minneapolis and St Paul, Minnesota) courtesy of the Human
Systems Dynamics Institute, the focus was on Peace. Or more exactly: The
Practice of Peace. And of course, we talked a lot about Open Space
Technology. Somewhere along the line, the question was raised about the long
and short term impact of OS in organizations. The usual stories were told
and typical rationalizations offered. As I listened to the interchange it
occurred to me that just maybe we were approaching all this from the wrong
end of the stick. Instead of thinking and talking about what OS did, could
do, and had done - it might be useful to turn everything on its head. What
were/are the limitations? At that point the phrase, "It's only a halfway
technology" came to mind and tumbled out of my mouth without benefit of
serious thought. I have been trying to figure out where it came from and
what it might mean ever since. Needless to say, I could use some help - but
this is as far as I have gotten.
I take it as a given (I do believe in "givens" - but for me they are just
arbitrary starting points) that after thousands of iterations in multiple
countries with a myriad of group sizes and constituents that Open Space
Technology "works." It works at a formal level (sit in a circle, create a
bulletin board, open a market place - and go to work) and also at a
substantive level - real issues find real solutions in real time - most of
the time. It also seems to "work" over time in that groups that have used
Open Space once will often use it again because they find it productive and
fun. It also seems to work at a transformative level with the organizations
and individuals involved. Specifically, behaviors and expectations do change
post usage. Not always, not everywhere, but often. At the very least,
individual participants will have a different understanding of their
potential. No longer robot drones, tightly controlled by a dictatorial
management - they find a real place for their own passion(s) and
responsibilities - which translates into heightened respect for themselves
and their fellows, along with (usually) an increase in trust and a growing
sense of hope for the future and their own future. How long all of this
lasts varies with the situation, for it seems to be true that human beings
have a strange masochistic streak which drives some back into the same old
miserable conditions. However, even those who choose to go back in their
boxes for whatever reason will always know that an alternative exists. And
that knowledge is not some abstract theoretical proposition, but rather is
founded on the bedrock of all knowledge - experience. They have been there,
and try as they might, they will never go home again. All of that - so far
as I am concerned is a given.
Stepping back from the heat of the fray for the moment, and knowing what I
know about the power and duration of cultural forms, paradigms, ideologies,
and organizational patterns, it is totally remarkable to me that Open Space
Technology ever happened as anything more than as two martini inspired
happening for a New Age meeting now almost 20 years ago. That it continues
in any form at all is even more remarkable. First the obvious - Open Space
Technology violates virtually every principle of meeting management and
organizational design and operation that I know of, and doubtless many more
of which I am ignorant. Anybody with a right mind and proper academic
credentials, to say nothing of boots on the ground experience in
organizations, would know the OST could not happen. More to the point, it
should not happen. OST is in truth a Trojan horse snuck into the City of
Control. It is a threat to every MD and CEO who feels they are in charge and
intends to remain so. By all rights, to say nothing of all that holy, true,
and beautiful, OST must be banished. And if not banished, then ignored.
Walk into any business school, review all current and past "serious"
literature on Organizations, check out any Department of Human Resources -
and if you find a trace of Open Space Technology, it is a rare day indeed.
Given (there is that word again :-)) the current infatuation with
self-organizing systems, new management approaches - all driven by a growing
realization that much in the organizational world is dysfunctional, this is
an odd situation. The world is too complex, too fast moving, too
overwhelming for the organizational life forms which had their genesis in
the early days of the last century - when life seemed infinitely slower,
simpler, and controllable. We need some alternatives - but it would seem
that Open Space is not to be considered.
I am not suggesting that the ignorance of OST has been conscious, but it is
definitely understandable. Were it to be taken seriously, any number of
tenured professors at the leading institutions of organizational learning
would have to radically revise their life work. Middle management would move
from the status of Endangered Species to that of Extinction (or close). And
all those senior executives would find the view from their Corporate Towers
profoundly altered. Perish the thought! The strategy is clear. Just pretend
that OST doesn't exist. And when, despite all best efforts, space is opened
- make sure you have all the embarrassing questions handy. For example: Has
Open Space Technology ever engendered a long term effect to the point that
organizational life is transformed in some significant way?
Forget about the fact that no "change process" is guaranteed. You may also
forget the fact that virtually all aspects of current organizational
structure are designed to insure that space will never be opened. We have
boxes and silos and strict lines of authority and responsibility. No open
space allowed. And yet there is Us. That funny global community of Open
Spacers.
>From most points of view, and most of the time - most of us would not think
of ourselves as an organization. However, when looked at over time in terms
of duration, product, impact, membership, and activities, I believe we might
just qualify. Millions of people around the world have experienced our
services. Thousands of people have been engaged in the delivery of those
services (in another situation you might call them franchised agents but the
franchise is for free). Local, national, and international meeting have
regularly taken place. Funds have been generated at some significant level
through the provision of services (OST makes money!). A core, albeit
constantly changing, group provides virtually instant technical advice and
support (OSLIST). Multiple websites are maintained to supply general
information and support to practitioners. Hundreds of training programs
have, and are being offered globally. And - last but not least - we have
been in business for almost 20 years.
Of course, there was never business plan, organization chart, constitution
and bylaws, and not an executive nor executive committee in sight. Now it
may be observed that we do have Four Principles and One Law, but none of
that came from a committee, nor have they ever been ratified by any
constituent body. Both Law and Principles just seemed to show up along the
way as observations of current reality, but not as prescriptions for
behavior. Actually, all they do is instruct us to do what we were going to
do anyhow. It is true that many on the outside (if there is an outside)
would view the law and principles as illegal, immoral and fattening at the
least, and probably subversive. We just know they feel good - and eliminate
all the guilt. Some kind of an organization this is???? Shouldn't have
happened - but it did. More amazingly it all works. Well, most of the time.
So what is the point of all this apparently self-serving reflection? One
might assume that the intent is to justify, or perhaps glorify, Open Space
Technology. But it is absolutely clear to me that the magic has nothing to
do with Open Space Technology. My contribution was to allow the spirit of
two martinis to take me to some new/old interesting places. And our
collective contribution has been to explore those spaces and share our
findings. But we didn't create a thing. It was already there, now called
self organization. As a matter of fact it had been there for billions of
years. We just hadn't noticed. In a word, we have experienced a marvelous
blinding flash of the obvious, and in the process may have come to realize
what we already are.
And now - at long last - back to Open Space Technology as a halfway
technology. A halfway technology, in case you don't know, is something you
do just to get started. It may seem grand and glorious, not to say wonderful
and elegant at the beginning. But over time the true colors appear. It is
just plain clunky. Why on earth should it be necessary to sit in a circle,
create a bulletin board, open a market place - just to be what we already
are? Seems like an awful lot of wasted effort, useless work. We have been
accused with some justification of inventing the ultimate scam in which the
client does all the work, and even writes the report - while we do little or
nothing. I find myself wondering how to radicalize all this - so that we
totally go out of business. All being. No doing.
I don't expect the answers immediately, or even tomorrow. But it could be
fun to think about.
Harrison
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, Maryland 20845
Phone 301-365-2093
Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com <http://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
*
*
==========================================================
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
>From Thu May 13 14:26:35 2004
Message-Id: <THU.13.MAY.2004.142635.0400.>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:26:35 -0400
Reply-To: Tim at timlannan.com
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Tim Lannan <tim at timlannan.com>
Organization: Tim Lannan Consulting
Subject: Agenda Setting complication
In-Reply-To: <200405131728.i4DHSEX21955 at listserv.boisestate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01C438F6.4C31F830"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C438F6.4C31F830
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
After the conclusion of a recent open space, one of the planners shared
feedback she had received from another participant who had elected not to
post a topic because she did not want to bend over in front of the group
because of concern about her "fat butt." We had a brief discussion about
what to do to accommodate those with this concern, as well as those who have
disabilities that may not permit them to pick up paper and markers or who
may be wearing clothes that might make bending over in front of a group
embarrassing. This is the first time I received this feedback, and so was
wondering if others have received similar input and have suggestions for how
best to address it. Best,
tim
tim at timlannan.com
*
*
==========================================================
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
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C438F6.4C31F830
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Mistral;
panose-1:3 9 7 2 3 4 7 2 4 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h1
{margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
font-variant:small-caps;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 97.0pt 1.0in 97.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>After the conclusion of
a recent open space, one of the planners shared feedback she had received from
another participant who had elected not to post a topic because she did not
want to bend over in front of the group because of concern about her “fat
butt.” We had a brief discussion about what to do to accommodate
those with this concern, as well as those who have disabilities that may not
permit them to pick up paper and markers or who may be wearing clothes that
might make bending over in front of a group embarrassing. This is the
first time I received this feedback, and so was wondering if others have
received similar input and have suggestions for how best to address it.
Best, </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><b><i><font size=6 face=Mistral><span style='font-size:
24.0pt;font-family:Mistral;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></i></b></em></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><b><i><font size=6 face=Mistral><span style='font-size:
24.0pt;font-family:Mistral;font-weight:bold'>tim</span></font></i></b></em></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><a href="mailto:tim at timlannan.com">tim at timlannan.com</a></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
*
*
==========================================================
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
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C438F6.4C31F830--
More information about the OSList
mailing list