[OSList] A tale of two companies

Sun Jul 3 07:35:04 PDT 2011

Peggy - Good show and thanks for the sharing. In answer to one of your
questions - I have surely "been there and done that" - and I suspect most
other folks with some experience can say the same. And I have a rather
different take on the scene, which begins with a plea - Don't beat on
yourself! Sure there may have been some things you could have done or said
that "might" have changed things, but at the end of the day I think what you
have here is a classic example of WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get).
Your Tech company would seem to be like many others (see Suzanne's note) -
locked in their own collective pathology of rigid control. The wonder is
that they function at all, and given some more time going down the same road
- they will run out of road. A good funeral will be in order.

I often think of Open Space as a sort of organizational Rorschach Test.
There is no predetermined content or behavior - and the participants are not
TOLD to do anything. They are invited to be fully themselves. In many cases
they respond by displaying fully functional self-organizing behavior - and
then the whole thing just catches on fire and flies. People are often
surprised by the manifest enthusiasm and productivity, but the truth of the
matter is that was there all the time - but nobody had ever invited "it" to
come out and play.

And we have other situations (e.g. your "Tech Company").  The invitation is
identical - Be your selves fully. Bring all your passion and responsibility!
And what shows up is a painfully accurate reflection of the situation -
depressing and dysfunctional! The Open Space "worked" (as it always does) -
but the result is probably not what would have been hoped for. The simple
truth of the matter is the neither Open Space, nor any other approach, can
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. What you see is what you get/got!

As painful as all this might be, there are many potential benefits. In one
case my client, having clearly seen the true nature of its situation,
decided to dissolve operations. Actually there was no new information
because everybody "knew" just how bad things were - but nobody dared say it.
When the space was open, the obvious became inescapable and the question was
finally asked: Do we really want to be this miserable? And the answer was a
resounding, No! I thought this was marvelous because suddenly a large number
of people had the opportunity to go out to do something fun and useful. The
president (my client) was not quite so positive, but given a little time for
reflection he eventually saw the light. Several months later we met for a
drink and he greeted me with a funny smile. I asked him what was up to which
he replied, "Thank God it's over. Now I am having some fun!  Thank you!!"

Other folks are resolved to continue in their misery, now made even worse by
virtue of the fact that the elephant has been named and alternatives
glimpsed, if only briefly. I am always amazed at the capacity for
self-inflicted suffering. But some folks really seem to enjoy it?

So Peg - Thanks! Sounds to me like everything worked out just perfect. If I
had any suggestion it might be to offer the Tech Folks the opportunity to
reflect on their situation. They could learn a lot. Not so much about Open
Space (and what went "wrong" with the process) - but about themselves. As
for Open Space, it did just fine, as it always seems to do. But after some
13.7 billion years, the kinks have been pretty well worked out of the
system, I suspect.

Harrison  

Harrison Owen

7808 River Falls Dr.

Potomac, MD 20854

USA

189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)

Camden, Maine 20854

Phone 301-365-2093

(summer)  207-763-3261

www.openspaceworld.com

www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST
Go to:
<http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org>
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org

From: oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
[mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Peggy Holman
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 7:30 PM
To: Open Listserv
Subject: [OSList] A tale of two companies

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
<http://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/>  into Opportunity

"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not get burnt,
is to become 
the fire".
  -- Drew Dellinger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110703/788de859/attachment-0008.htm>