[OSList] A tale of two companies/Dissolving Power

Chris Corrigan chris.corrigan at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 10:06:19 PDT 2011


Having spent a solid eight hour evening drinking Setuland Snaps, singing and taking sauna in Estonia a couple of years ago, I can say with some authority, and very fond memory, that sauna space is most excellent open space!  

Chris

Sent from my iPhone

On 2011-07-12, at 2:09 AM, Mikk Sarv <tuulepuu at gmail.com> wrote:

> Reading this I recalled our centuries old tradition of sauna. Every Saturday afternoon the time flow was disrupted. The name for Saturday in our language was half-day - 'puulpäiv'. All went to sauna naked - men and women, rich and poor, old and young, without distinction. The general rule was that one should never refuse to offer to whoever comes drinking water from well and sauna, when it was heated.
> Besides cleaning in hot temperature the sauna was alos place for inside cleansing. Unsolved issues were addressed and discussed, perhaps like in swetlodge tradition among American native people. 
> Now I understand, that this tradition enabled people to open space regularily and to solve issues, to enable and to make use of the self-regulation process.
> 
> Thanks for interesting thread!
> 
> Mikk Sarv
> 
> 
> 
> 2011/7/10 Peggy Holman <peggy at peggyholman.com>
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110712/f6ae7997/attachment-0008.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list