[OSList] A tale of two companies

Suzanne Daigle sdaigle4 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 05:35:57 PDT 2011


Dear Peggy,

You can not know what a gift your posting is to our community and to me
personally.  The depth of what you describe will have me re-reading this
many times, hoping beyond hope, that others in our community will engage as
deeply as you have, in response to your queries. There is much under the
surface of what you describe that speaks to the malaise that exists in
thousands and thousands of companies in America and elsewhere where Open
Space is so greatly needed.

I can feel what happened in that tech company as if I was there. I can hear
the unspoken conversations (field and headquarters) having spent 25 years in
a large multi-location international manufacturing company with many changes
in leadership and many difficult dynamics between headquarters, parent
company and operating/field people.I grew up in the place you just
described; there were wonderful times with the most amazing people and there
were many very painful times that felt as you described it.

I could feel the anger, the fear, the frustrations, the mix of positive
engagement and then suddenly things coming to a screeching halt as people
imagined the same old, same old patterns of going back to work as if hearing
them speak it out loud: "Why should I do anything; it's up to THEM to
change."

A few observations and questions:

   - Day 1 was not in Open Space (I feel this did not help in the end)
   - "Stealth" action by a mid-level individual contributor familiar with
   Open Space seeding the idea of a conversational culture (this feels like a
   hidden agenda, with the intent of reforming a company).
   - Was the focus then more on process? In the descriptions, I did not feel
   that the meeting was predominantly about addressing "real issues in the
   business" where there is urgency and a need to act. Peggy I understand the
   confidentiality and sensitivity so perhaps this was a big part of the
   pre-work and that indeed the framing of this event was all about "Theme and
   Real Business Issue".
   - Who was involved in the pre-work? Who was the Sponsor? Was this person
   also the Host? How engaged in the discussions? What were the conversations
   about? Process or about the business issues that the sales and marketing
   organization?
   - How was the invitation worded? Were people forced or strongly guided to
   attend?
   - Was there enough diversity (managers? sales and marketing?)  Could
   there have been other levels and other functions (internal/external
   customers)?
   - The fact that participants were expected to include action and next
   steps in the summary report may have prevented people to go deeper in their
   emergent dialogue on the theme and to listen to each other. The first day in
   non-Open Space may have hurt too.  I know Diane Gibeault is on vacation now;
   will alert her to your posting Peggy because I know she has run into this
   "action" issue; we talked about it at length a few weeks ago.

Peggy, while the second event may have been more rewarding and confirming, I
think that what you did in the first event is the "hero's journey". I
further predict that the silence you felt, the heaviness you felt, and the
resistance you saw will have a huge impact "for the better" on this
organization and the people, whatever that is, and whatever happens.
Something got named and seen at this event. You will probably never know the
good of what was done; it will probably never be spoken fully, at least not
to you by so many who could tell you so much.

For myself, your description brought to the surface, the unease I still feel
and how misguided I can be in judging whether an Open Space event that I
facilitate was successful or not.  What challenges me most when I open space
is the feeling I have that behind the Theme, the Urgency and the Complexity,
there is something under the surface that is being released that brings up
"pain", a real visibility on the "dysfunctions" of how we operate and a
certain "vulnerability".  When that happens, inevitably it invites the
question of : "What the hell do we do now?" And perhaps when that question,
spoken or unspoken, appears, that truly is the measure of a successful Open
Space event.

Thank you again for your very precious gift of sharing all that you shared
in all of its layers! It  reminded me about how much I long to do Open
Spaces in the places that are like the company where I grew up and lived. I
know now that it is time for me to plunge there more purposefully.

Suzanne




On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:21 AM, David Osborne <dosborne at change-fusion.com>wrote:

> Peggy,
>
> Thanks for your sharing...it's expanding my own learning. I sense your
> insight into a key difference being the sponsor is important. If the top
> isn't bought in and committed to the outcomes why bother may have been the
> attitude. As I listened to the story I wondered about the urgency of the
> topic. Were they using OS as an approach to fill a meeting time or did they
> really have an urgent focal issue? The two also may be connected..... if the
> top isn't committed to the process perhaps the sense of urgency was lower.
> The other thought that came to mind for me was the rule "when ever it's over
> it's over" and perhaps the session was over despite the planned schedule.
>
> Those are my thoughts along the way.
>
> Thanks again for sharing.
>
> David
> dosborne at change-fusion.com
> www.change-fusion.com
> 703.939.1777
>
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Peggy Holman wrote:
>
> In the last few months, I opened space at a tech company and a biotech
> company. On one level, they looked similar: one functional area,
> international participation, a mix of managers and individual contributors.
>
> Yet the experiences and the outcomes couldn't have been more different!  I'll
> describe the two events and my reflections on what made the difference
> between them.
>
> *Note: I wrote the story about the tech immediately following the Open
> Space but didn't have a chance to edit and send it before the second
> experience. You'll see a couple of questions that the experience raised for
> me embedded in the story.  They took on a little different light following
> the second experience.*
>
> *Corporate dynamics at play in a technology company...*
>
> This OS was with an international sales and marketing meeting for the
> launch of a new year. Day 1 was not in Open Space.  It was a manager’s
> only session, using a mix of conversational forms (a huge stretch for the
> power point, info-out culture). It went well. People appreciated talking
> rather than just listening.  Many of the field people acknowledged the
> quality of listening from headquarters people who usually do most of the
> talking.
>
> On the first afternoon, the larger meeting – 100 people – began with a
> conversation between execs and the people in the room.  A great, candid
> conversation.
>
> On day 2, we opened the space. During the Open Space, I ran into a several
> issues that I haven't experienced before and wondered if others have.
>
> Overall, it was a terrific day. And one of the unexpected dynamics
> surfaced: the managers didn't feel complete with the conversations that they
> wanted just amongst themselves. And they didn't feel they had the space for
> their private conversation in the Open Space. My client caught wind of the
> situation as they planned to organize a session during day 3's action
> planning/next step breakout session time. That meant the management layer
> wouldn't be part of action planning/next step conversations.
>
> We negotiated having the manager session posted in the context of action
> planning/next steps so that it would be visible even if not open to
> everyone. In practice, it was announced but not posted.
>
> We added a second action oriented round of breakout sessions in the
> afternoon following a short briefing of what came out of the morning group
> to fit the timing of the manager’s session,  It made room for managers or
> others to host more action/next step sessions.
>
> *So question 1**: have others run into the managers-only dynamic?  If so,
> how have you dealt with it?  Are there questions you use in your pre-work
> for the OS to surface the issue and deal with it in advance?  We thought
> we had handled the need with the pre-meeting among managers. What signs
> might have tipped us off to the need for more?*
>
> The second dynamic completely blindsided me. Normally the second morning of
> an OS just buzzes!  Perhaps it was the party the night before but the
> group was really subdued. When I opened the space for action, no one came
> forward. Given the energy in the room, I had the sense that an elephant was
> sitting there untouched. I asked if anyone would speak to what was up.
> Someone said they didn't want to step on headquarter people's toes by
> proposing action sessions that were really HQ responsibilities. The exec in
> the room encouraged people to do so, saying that HQ was there to serve the
> field's needs.  Ultimately, five sessions on topics of importance were
> posted.
>
> After the meeting, my client said she thought the reluctance came from a
> pattern of headquarters taking field input and having the suggestions
> disappear without any feedback on what happened to the ideas or why. So why
> should field people offer anything?
>
> I got the impression that the field saw it as the responsibility of
> headquarters people to take the lead. And the HQ people already felt full up
> so they weren't stepping in. Plus, people didn't see a need for action
> sessions since they felt they’d been identifying actions throughout the Open
> Space.
>
> *Question 2: **Given that tension between field and headquarters is
> common, have others run into this sort of reluctance to post action
> sessions? Might we have anticipated this perception before it put a damper
> on things?*
>
> It was one of the only Open Space gatherings I've ever done in which people
> didn't come away saying, "Wow! Best meeting I've ever attended."  Instead,
> we heard from many that the meeting was too open and confusing.  People
> wanted to hear more from the senior managers about what was on their minds.
>  I left the experience pondering the dynamics that led to that outcome.  The
> contrast with this second meeting helped me identify some possibilities.
>
> ** **
>
> *High times in a biotech...*
>
> The work was part of a company-wide change initiative. The senior manager
> was its host.  He was actively involved. For example, he opened the
> meeting by speaking of his aspirations for the department.  He also said a
> few words at morning announcements and evening news on each of the two days.
>
> Like the tech company, this session was basically one function -- human
> resources -- with a few others invited for spice. Also similar to the tech
> meeting, people came from around the world.
>
> The meeting was a hit!  People instantly leaped out to post sessions.  With
> about 100 participants, more than 50% posted something. I don't think I've
> ever had a group that size post in that ratio. The conversations were rich
> and useful. Along with the variety of topics, people worked through issues
> around organizational levels as well as field/headquarters dynamics.  At
> least three Open Space meetings resulted, to be hosted by different
> attendees over the coming weeks.  In fact, I was invited to help with one
> of them.
>
> One other aspect of this session: I ran a workshop before and after the OS
> for about a half a dozen internal people to support them in opening space in
> the organization. We also met to reflect on the experience before morning
> announcements and after evening news during the Open Space.  In other words,
> they had already adopted Open Space as a key element of how they wanted to
> work. The organization is investing in a group of people to support
> creating a conversational culture.
>
> At a second OS I did with them a few weeks later, we brought most of the
> new practitioners together to continue to learn together. It's wonderful
> because they now have an internal community of practice to support each
> other.
>
> I was grateful to have the biotech meeting on the heels of the technology
> meeting! I went from questioning what I thought I knew to having some ideas
> of what created the differences in the experiences.
>
> *
> *
>
> *Reflections on the differences that made a difference*
>
> The biotech was committed to changing their culture and open to new ways of
> working. The OS was focused on the group envisioning how it can best
> perform its role in the company in light of those changes. The tech
> company meeting was more of a “stealth action” by a mid-level individual
> contributor familiar with Open Space.  She was seeding the idea of a
> conversational culture.  In other words, the biotech event occurred in
> fertile soil, the tech company event was breaking up the hardpan.
>
> At the biotech, the sponsor was a senior manager who was explicit about
> using the event to spark culture change.  His whole team participated
> throughout the event so there was no issue around hearing what senior people
> were thinking.  They were in the room. In contrast, the tech company host
> was a mid-level individual contributor.  She is highly trusted and used
> her influence to bring Open Space in.  Her goal was to take steps towards
> creating a more conversational culture.  Both intentions are valid. They
> just created different experiences.
>
> At the biotech, the sponsor had used Open Space at a previous organization
> as part of a successful culture change initiative. He "got" the simplicity
> of Open Space, not even feeling a need for an action round.  Instead, as
> part of session notes, we asked people to include both a discussion and a
> "next steps/commitments" section. That dealt with one of the disconnects in
> the tech company meeting.  They were confused when I re-opened the space
> for action, saying they had been naming actions throughout. The biotech
> meeting helped me see that re-opening the space for action turned out to be
> an unnecessary thing to do.
>
> The biotech meeting was offsite, so even those who were stretched by the
> Open Space stuck around because it was a big effort to leave.  That gave
> them time to warm to the experience over the two days.  The tech company
> meeting was onsite, making it easy for the senior managers and others to
> show up briefly and leave.
>
> Finally, the biotech is thriving and growing while the tech company is
> really struggling to rediscover its identity. This external factor strikes
> me as a key difference in the environments.
>
> So what does it all mean?  I would still Open Space in the tech company.  There
> were plenty of people who found the experience worthwhile, even if their
> feedback was quieter than those who were frustrated or confused. I believe
> we prepared the soil for a few seeds to take root.
>
> For the tech company to take further steps, it strikes me that the person
> who hosted the Open Space would benefit from finding informal partners,
> other inside change agents.  I like to believe that even without strong
> leadership support, she can make a dent.  As the biotech company shows,
> management involvement can be an accelerator.  Still, as I think about what
> someone sitting in the middle of an organization can do, enlisting
> partners who share interest in creating a conversational culture could be a
> way to continue to move forward.  By forming an informal community of
> learners, she can create a system of support.
>
> Could we have done better?  No doubt.  I look forward to any thoughts you
> have.
>
> Appreciatively,
>
> Peggy
>
>
>    _________________________________
> Peggy Holman
> peggy at peggyholman.com
>
>  15347 SE 49th Place
> Bellevue, WA  98006
> 425-746-6274
> www.peggyholman.com
> www.journalismthatmatters.org
>
> *Enjoy the award winning *Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into
> Opportunity <http://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/>
>
> "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get
> burnt, is to become
> the fire".
>   -- Drew Dellinger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>


-- 
Suzanne Daigle
NuFocus Strategic Group
7159 Victoria Circle
University Park, FL 34201
FL 941-359-8877;
CT 203-722-2009
www.nufocusgroup.com
s.daigle at nufocusgroup.com
twitter @suzannedaigle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110703/0c00661e/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list