[OSList] A tale of two companies

[doug]

Peggy and all friends--

Question 1: It was 1975 when I last lived inside a Fortune 200
corporation, so take this with a grain of salt. What came through my
sixth sense on reading this was that somehow it was not a good mix to
have both managers and field people in this particular OS. They had
different issues to be worked by.

Question 2: speaks of the same dynamic to me: a very highly controlled
group, where the inside circle did not want interlopers, or were so
perceived.

Had one company just recently acquired another in this tech company? It
feels we/they to me.

Hopefully this gives a bit of a different echo from the hills across the
way.

			:- Doug.


On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 16:29 -0700, 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
>  
> "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