[OSList] A tale of two companies

[Eva P Svensson]

Hi Peggy and all,
As I am a bit "late" on reading - maybe my thoughts have been thought by others and share on the list - I will see as I scroll down in my inbox - and if so - the delete button is close :-) But if not - here are some thoughts from a place where you soon will be :o))

My first two cents is that the fact that the management team had a need to speak amongst themselves created a mistrust (that I am sure was there before) and so -"why should we put up needs for action" - maybe involved from the staff - to me it sounds like the elephant in the room was lack of trust. I have not experienced that (yet...) but I had a strange OS meeting some years ago - well the OS meeting was not strange but what happened afterwards was. In short - we did not do any action planning - but voting on the hottest topics and what came up as a clear #1 was then not taking into consideration in our follow up meeting - and I ran into another elephant which was  (my words) "week leadership" which I think I would have seen if I had done the pre meeting properly. At this time the theme was so clear so we did not do a proper one and I think if I had done for example a time-line where actions and important things had come up - I would have had a better way to foresee what was happening..

Then I wonder  about what you say here "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."   I normally have that section in the  report - "ideas for next step" and still re-open if the purpose is to go to action planning. I don't think it is one less thing to do - because it helps people to be more concrete, to focus and really take responsibility.

And finally I do think you are right (of course :o)) that all the external environments factors made a difference - especially if the management team come and goes during what ever meeting - says something about the importance of it..

sunny greetings from Sweden
:o)
Eva
Bästa hälsningar
 
Eva P Svensson
 
EPS Human Invest AB
Member of Beyond Performance Group
 
"Verksamhetsutveckling genom människor skapar långsiktigt välmående företag och organisationer"
 
Anåsbergsvägen 22, 439 34 ONSALA
Besöksadress; Norra Allégatan 8, Göteborg
Tfn: 0300-615 05, Mobil; 0706- 89 85 50
www.epshumaninvest.se
Skype: eva.p.svensson
Besök gärna min blogg; www.epshumaninvest.blogspot.com/
"Jag kan inte lära dig något. Allt jag kan göra är att ställa frågor till dig, och låta dig själv finna svaren." Sokrates








3 jul 2011 kl. 01.29 skrev Peggy Holman:

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110711/d71fb0ae/attachment-0008.htm>