[OSList] A tale of two companies/ Coming and Going

Harrison Owen hhowen at verizon.net
Mon Jul 11 04:51:49 PDT 2011


Part of Peggy’s tale that I noticed but didn’t really see was the part about
Senior Management, “coming and going.” (Thank you Eva!). I suspect that the
real issue was that the perceived rules of play were unequal. To wit – The
Seniors could do as they pleased and all the peons were stuck? 

 

Coming and going in itself is not a problem in my experience, and may be a
very essential dynamic. For example, I have opened space in a Hospital which
simply could not afford to “shut down” for the occasion. So Everybody
(almost) showed up for the opening and the close, and in between they came
and went as need arose. Worked like a charm with the unanticipated benefit
of effectively turning the whole hospital into an Open Space. But everybody
was in the “flow.” 

 

I can see the dynamic being very different, and unpleasantly so, should the
seniors just flit about while everybody else was supposed to keep their
noses to the grindstone. I guess it is an old fashioned idea, but to me that
is just plain rude and disrespectful. No wonder the place was just kind of
snarky! But I seriously doubt that the rudeness and disrespect emerged
because of the Open Space. Sounds more like a well practiced routine.

 

Harrison

 

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 Eva P Svensson
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 4:57 AM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies

 

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

 <http://www.epshumaninvest.se/> 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 <http://www.peggyholman.com/> 

www.journalismthatmatters.org <http://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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

_______________________________________________
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/20110711/13ffe75a/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list