[OSList] A tale of two companies
douglas germann
76066.515 at compuserve.com
Sun Jul 17 16:46:32 PDT 2011
Artur--
The issues I raise are the larger societal ones: do we suppose it is a
good thing to promote competition? Especially when it comes to learning?
And my second question is like the first: does competition for learning
align with what *we* (as in the open space community) know of reality?
:- Doug.
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 14:51 -0700, Artur Silva wrote:
> Doug:
>
>
>
> In what concerns your first question, and to understand what are my
> assumptions (indeed, the assumptions of the Shell study Arie de Geus
> reported) you may read a post I sent in 2001 to a different list, that
> is still online here: http://www.learning-org.com/01.07/0155.html.
>
>
>
> In what concerns your second question, the study is based in "real
> companies", so it is at least aligned with what they thought to be the
> "reality"...
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Artur
>
>
>
> PS: I like very much the other post of yours, where you said: "The
> Open Space disrupted business as usual" which is why I call
> us "community disorganizers!". Maybe we can try to convince Harrison
> to include that in the 4th edition of the User's Guide ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: doug <os at footprintsinthewind.com>
> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
> Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 2:38:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies
>
> Artur and all--
>
> Just what are the assumptions inherent in a phrase like "learn faster
> and more profoundly than other organizations?" Do they align with what
> we know of reality?
>
> :- Doug.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 20:50 -0700, Artur Silva wrote:
> > 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
>
>
More information about the OSList
mailing list