[OSList] A tale of two companies/Dissolving Power

[doug]

"The Open Space disrupted business as usual" which is why I call us
"community disorganizers!"

				:- Doug.





On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 10:56 -0700, Peggy Holman wrote:
> Harrison,
> 
> 
> To your point, at the second Biotech OS that I did, a constant theme
> was "we are facing the same issues that we have been for years with no
> resolution".  Well, beyond just declaring that they were going to do
> it differently this time, in the closing circle, one of the managers
> said that a group of them had gotten together at lunch and taken on
> one of those chronic issues.  They came to a new and easily
> implementable solution.  He declared it the most productive 10 minutes
> in years.  Think about it...ten minutes to resolve an issue that had
> been stuck for years!  (Of course, the preceding day and a half of
> time together in Open Space made that 10 minutes viable.)
> 
> 
> Harrison has already eloquently spoken to what made the difference,
> starting with this powerful observation:
> > 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. 
> 
> 
> The Open Space disrupted business as usual, creating the space in
> which they ran into their own frustrations head on.  And they had the
> room to do something about it because of the shift in the
> relationships that comes from the "random encounters" of who gets to
> interact with whom.  Further, the space was an invitation to be
> pioneers, together facing their shared issues.  And when the habitual
> conflicts around stuck areas surfaced ("we know who owns the xyz
> function"), they took on the dysfunctions and came to agreements that
> none could have done on their own or in a linear fashion.
> 
> 
> Peggy
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
> 
> > 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.J The 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 where it 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
> >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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