[OSList] A tale of two companies/Dissolving Power
Artur Silva
arturfsilva at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 11 14:33:46 PDT 2011
Thanks for your comments, Harrison. Part of it was "just in time learning".
Marvelous.
Regards
Artur
PS: And, of course, I red the Wave Rider. Indeed, I have and red 12 books from
you (but one must count only 11, as I have two different editions of the User's
Guide)
________________________________
From: Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 2:20:21 PM
Subject: [OSList] A tale of two companies/Dissolving Power
Artur – I would never suggest that Power is somehow absent in Open Space or as
you say, “dissolves.” In fact my experience is just the opposite. When space is
opened and the people really get to work, the ambient power is, for me, truly
awesome. Indeed the flow and focus of Power is vastly more effective, may I say
“powerful,” than is ordinarily experienced in the “normal” organizational
setting, including such places as IBM at it autocratic best/worst. For example,
I once had a large IBM consulting group (250 people) in a 2 day Open Space. They
were facing a complex of technical issues which they had been struggling with
for several years to no avail. Their approach to that point had been standard
IBM procedure. The senior executive and his management team planned everything
with precision, they carefully organized the working groups and tightly
controlled their process – in a fashion you are well familiar with.JThe result
had been two years of constant failure and near misses. All of this changed in
Open Space. Precisely the same group of people managed to deal with the same
group of issues in an elegant fashion, productive of workable solutions – in 2
days.
The difference was embarrassingly obvious, and in fact there were a few red
faces in the management team, but one could scarcely argue with success. But
what was the cause of the difference? It was surely not the absence of Power –
but rather the way Power manifests and was utilized. Under the “old rules” Power
is concentrated at the “top” and then passed on down the line in small dribbles
and drabs. The problem was that the whole mechanism was so cumbersome and slow
that when the external conditions changed or new technologies emerged, which
they did constantly and quickly, the “elegant design and process” was left in
the dust. One more failure or near miss.
In Open Space the total intelligence and experience of the assembled body, which
was immense, was cut loose to deal with the issues, not in a linear sequential
fashion, but in a simultaneous, multi-tasking environment which was simply white
hot. And the power flow was brilliant – but the locus and focus of that power
shifted constantly from group to group, individual to individual. Mapping that
flow would have been an interesting study, but the study would always have been
multiple steps behind the reality – and any pretence of prediction would have
been doomed to failure. Too quick, too complex, mind blowing. Playing by the
old rules was not a possibility, and from the view point of those rules, what
happened was simply impossible, which was the source of redness on the faces of
the Management team.
Of course, what happened is a common experience in Open Space – not because of
the magic of Open Space but rather the power of the underlying force of any well
functioning self organizing system which we did not design, create, and
certainly don’t “run.” It is the “natural” way. Obviously we can choose to go a
different way – and many do just that. And the results speak for themselves.
Making such a choice always mystifies me, but it clear that many folks would
rather maintain the illusion of “Being in Control” at the expense of
effectiveness and profitability. But that is a choice.
There is a place for formal structure and controls, but I think that place is a
small one, useful for defining boundaries and identity. But it is a lousy way to
run a business, or at least a very ineffective way. I often think of the Formal
system as the ossified residue of the last self-organization. Rather like the
Lobster’s shell which works quite well until things change – the lobster grows.
I have written rather extensively about all this in Wave Rider, if you are
interested.
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
From:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
[mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Artur Silva
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 11:51 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies
Peggy, Harrison, Suzanne, David, Doug and Chris:
I ended last Friday a very intensive work period, to finish the first (and
bigger) phase of my students' examinations and submitting a paper to a
Conference. In the meanwhile, I have read the first marvelous initial post of
this thread from Peggy, and the interesting answers that followed.
After Peggy's first mail I had the intention - but not the time - to write some
comments. This afternoon, when I had the time, I reread everything, but before
beginning to write I have received all the careful answers that Peggy sent to
each of the comments.
Now it is almost all said, and my comment is only concerned with a small point
where this thread relates with the paper I wrote, namely the importance of Power
and Care (that I prefer to "Love") in the tech company's experience Peggy shared
with us.
As many of you know, I have been struggling, after some years, with two related
questions:
1) first, how can we create the "Patterns of a Learning Architecture" for a
company (or other organization) so that it can learn faster and more profoundly
than other organizations, especially in what concerns questions of generative
(double-loop) learning, and namely when "sensible questions" are at stake? In
other words: how can we change the learning patterns of a company (which usually
have strong learning disabilities) if and when that change is possible? (which
btw assumes that it is not always possible...)
2) Second, what is - or can be - the role of OST in all of this?
Of course, one can always say that power doesn't exist at all, or that "you
never have to let go of it, because you never had it in the first place" (I am
paraphrasing a recent answer from Harrison to Eleder's "Quote").
Or, at least, we can say that, in many situations we all know of, Power can be
kind of "dissolved" in the OST event(s) - in a way that it can't be in other
more "directive approaches", like "team building", to give only one example.
But what happens in those situations were power doesn't "dissolve"? (Having
worked 20 years for IBM, I know a lot of situations where the best intentions of
senior professionals and middle managers couldn't change what was decided "at
the Top".)
And what happens in those situations whereit is not even good for the future of
the organization that power dissolves too quickly, as the "person in charge" has
a more clear and compassionate vision that the people that contest her/him, even
if - or especially when - those ones are the majority?
Any comments?
Best regards from late night in Lisbon
Artur
________________________________
From:Peggy Holman <peggy at peggyholman.com>
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 9:31:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies
Hi Chris,
I have followed up with my client. To paraphrase a comment from the client:
when the community is part of creating the change and leadership is engaged, the
invitation may seem more authentic and therefore participating is less of a
stretch.
Ironically, the group is in the midst of a re-org, with little information to
anyone. Based on my contact's reflections, I see no appetite to reflect on the
experience. And I doubt there will be much, if any, forward motion.
The power dynamic was certainly an important factor. Thanks for the reference
to Adam's work.
Even when the agenda isn't hidden, if it is coming from the middle, as this
event demonstrated, it may well be rejected. The group took on some real
business issues but steered clear of anything related to the power structures.
In retrospect, that makes sense. Management didn't open the door to that
arena.
And you're so right: when that opening appears, things will shift. Given the
amount of denial at play, it will likely be pretty messy when it happens. So
Engaging Emergence may well be a help! In fact, my contact just gave a copy to
the group's manager.
Peggy
On Jul 8, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Chris Corrigan wrote:
Both Suzanne and Harrison have made some excellent reflections here...Peggy,
have you had a chance to follow up with the tech company folks? Seems like an
important harvest from that experience is a naming of some of the things that
are holding them back. They may choose to use OST or some other process for
these conversations, but it certainly seems apparent that without talking about
this stuff, they are not going to move forward well.
Your story does point to an important question that I have been in recently, and
that is, how do we relate what we are doing to the realities of power in the
organization? Adam Kahane's recent work on Power and Love has highlighted the
need to be sensitive to both the relational and the transactional contexts at
play in an organization. Using processes like OST is often a vote for the
relational to be activated in the work, but if the transactional power dynamics
are at play, people will often behave the way you describe. Suzanne names it
well - a well-intentioned hidden agenda - and the effect can be that it
increases mistrust and confusion and people feel that the intervention has not
actually dealt with the real issues.
When the opening appears for THAT conversation, things will flow. And that is
where YOUR book has much to offer around the skills of working with emergence
and disruption.
C
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:28 PM, doug <os at footprintsinthewind.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Facilitation - Training - Process Design
Open Space Technology
Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot
Site: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/
upcoming Art of Hosting retreats:
Bowen Island, BC - October 23 - 26th
Saskatchewan - September 19 - 22nd
_______________________________________________
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/20110711/299456f4/attachment-0008.htm>
More information about the OSList
mailing list