Four Principles, One Law - and organisations (longish)

Fri May 28 10:21:00 PDT 2004

Preface:

What a beautiful dialogue on this list again. How i wish i could just sit and talk with you all, seeing your faces and hearing your voices instead of using this "half-way-technology" of internet. I really have to make it to Goa!

Context:

All the postings from the last days have been living and wandering on my mind... self-organized, of course. I am quoting only some thoughts who have been esp. inspiring for me:

Harrison: I truly believe that all organizations are self-organizing, a fact clouded over by the fact that a number of well intended, but deluded people think they essentially created and maintained those organizations - and further that they are actually in charge. The major impact of OST is to enable us to see through the clouds!

Therese: Martin Luther King... "I cannot be who I ought to be until you are who you ought to be." AND: in this moment, I see OS in everything.

Michael Herman: the levels of org evolution AND
os seems to transcend the opposition and still include the distinctions.

Arthur: the need to unlearn Model 1 to reach Model 2 AND do the second and third principle apply in life and os at all?

Phil: So it is about doing first. Being, yes, as usefully as you can be, but being alone, what does it accomplish.

My contribution (don't know yet what it is so please allow me thinking "aloud"):

To me, open space is about acknowledging individual and collective truth(s). And truth is always there - existing in a parallel universe - even if not told or realized. Earth has been a ball even when people still believed it is a disk. And whenever i pretend something there is a part inside of me and inside of the others who knows i am pretending. That is when the need to controll (myself / others) comes into play.
Going hand in hand with this open space is about highly esteeming differences. To allow everyone to be him- and herself. And grounded on that BEING to allow everyone to DO what he or she really wants to do. (Phil, I agree: Being alone is not enough but just doing without being is neither.)
And third open space is about indivudally taking responsibility for my being and my acting. Those in charge learn to let go their planing and controlling. And those not in charge learn to let go their victim position ("what all i would do if only..."). 

Concluding: To me, the highest benefit of open space technology is the change of our indivudal and collective belief system. And in my opinion the biggest and mostly needed change in our belief system is to acknowledge that in every single moment we all are best serving ourself and our environment by being who we want to be and doing what we want to do. Which is only another expression for "following what has heart and meaning" instead of fulfilling expectations (my own and other's).

Connecting this with unlearning Model 1 to be able to reach Model 2 - or learning to be myself and allowing others to be themselves - or following what has heart and meaning for me and accepting everyone else to follow what has heart and meaning for them - or rigorous loving myself and others:

I agree that we learn to play games and roles but i am not sure this is only because of our environment and society. Could it not be that learning to be and love myself = being honest is one step on the ladder of development every human has to make? And could it not be that the normal way includes the conscious step before we can reach the unconscious again? (Refering to they four levels of learning being posted on this list some weeks ago).
Could it not be that all this is just about growing up - growing up individually and as a society?

I wonder if it is only due to our culture that we learn to get our needs fulfilled by doing what others want or if this is a normal thing every human being learns on its way of life while developing from the dependent state of being (child) to the independent (adult).
See this as a simple modell, please, i am painting black and white: As a baby I have feelings and needs and act them out without delay. Crying, smiling, whatever. As a child i find out how to behave to get my parents and my families attention. And wanting to have my needs fulfilled i am refining my technic. This is still the state of dependence.
Growing up i can decide whether to follow the old patterns or to create my own independent way of being. And with every step towards more independency i am more and more responsible. On a individual level: i have to decide if i want to run back to mum and dad if i fell hurt by life or make it by myself and with friends. Same on the organizational level: Rigid organizations often take good care for their members - if they are following the "families" rules. And i have to decide if i want to be part of an organisation which offers 'security' or if i want to build my own life and workplace and take more responsibility. What i want to point out is that "those in charge" to me aren't the "bad guys". It's a game with two players.

Getting back to ost, the os-org and the principles:

More and more i let go "either or" and welcome "as well as".
On the organizational level this means: Yes, all organizations are self-organizing systems. And yes, there is an evolution as you are describing, michaelh - and at the same time i now believe ALL organizations already are communities. Maybe a community which i would not want to be part of. Some are more conscious about what holds them together others are not. Some are more "body", others more "intellect" some have a bigger part of taskforce others more hierarchy. But like in the medicine-wheel all the parts are needed. I suppose if an organization totally looses the experience of being a community it falls apart. And indivuduals who are not part of the community any more either quit their job or get mobbed out (german expression again?!).

Reaching the second and third principle:
> Whoever comes is the right people
> Whatever happens is the only thing that could have

Your said, Arthur, that they only apply in open space if a 'good' theme has been chosen and a 'correct' invitation has been written. But what is 'good' and 'correct'? The chosen theme will attract exactly the people who are attracted by that theme. And this is the only thing that could happen. May not be the expected result but let's not forget "be prepared to be surprised" which is missing until now in our exchange. If an organisation sets out an invitation which is not 'really' inviting this shows the true state of this org. It may not be the org i want to work with as a facilitator. But it's not my job to judge them and to make them fulfill my expectations. It's their way of being. And that's okay. 

I vote for the principles being true in life and in every ost-meeting. And i vote for using them intentionally as long as we are still stuck within our old belief-system. Admitting i still am - at least parts of me in parts of my life. And that is the reason why i love open space and dedicate my actual life to it (referring to a question michael m pannwitz posted some days ago): open space helps me changing my belief system and being the person i want to be.

Longish - but finally reached the end.

Thank you, who accompanied me on this way,
hope what i wrote is not too mixed up.

My two euro-cents..

Marei

*
*
==========================================================
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20040528/dc91fcf1/attachment-0015.htm>