[OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof

[Artur Silva]

Thanks for your tough provoking post, Harrison. Some thoughts and questions inline.


________________________________
From: Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list' <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 11:07 PM
Subject: [OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof


Keith wrote: “Loss (or perceived loss?) of control is also something that some senior leaders struggle with.”
 
True – and not only in Open Space. It may be my own perversity, but I find this to be a very useful struggle which may bring these folks to a deeper understanding of themselves, the organizations they serve, and the world in which we live. The actual truth of the matter (and for sure my personal experience) is that control of the sort they are afraid of losing never was theirs to begin with. Agonizing over  something the doesn’t exist is not only a little silly, it also bespeaks of something approaching delusion, if not delusion itself. The pain of their agonizing is to be regretted, but it is a self inflicted wound, and unfortunately its impact is not limited to the nervous executive(s). It can (and often does) effect the entire organization in adverse and sometimes lethal ways.Space closes, innovation withers, agility get clunky – and organizational health shows critical signs of decline in terms of loss of productivity, efficiency,
 effectiveness – to say nothing of employee morale and self-respect. Not a pretty picture.

Would you agree then that those organizations, at that point in time, can be considered "closed"? 


(...) 

There is no question in my mind that there are massive good works to be done coaching executives through their addiction to control. And it really is an addiction, I think, and should be treated as such. Those in the “Addiction Business” will tell you that, of the many barriers and difficulties to be faced and overcome –The Enabler is a major obstacle to health. Enablers are typically good hearted souls who in the name of sympathy, empathy and compassion do little things, and large, to effectively shield the addict from a direct confrontation with his/her addiction. I more than suspect that when we seek to shield an executive from the possibility of losing control in Open Space, we are doing something of the same sort, and for sure we are not doing anybody a favor. Should our efforts take the form of assuring people that “certain” items/issues will be kept carefully under protective cover (read “control”), that constitutes promises we
 can’t keep. If the items/issues are truly important to somebody (other than the nervous executive) – they will be present, one way or another. If not in a “session” then for sure in some back hall conversations where it is most likely that they will fester and grow. 

Would you agree
that all the past discussions about the "givens" were precisely about
that - one way to try to shield the executives that some "givens"
will be out of discussion at the OST event?

Pre-work, as Lisa Heft is wont to tell us, is important. But I find that (at least in the case of executive fears) it can be pretty straight forward. I simply describe what Open Space is and the kinds of results I have witnessed, making little reference to how it works – unless asked. In most cases we proceed directly to operational concerns: Theme, location, dates, etc. But in the event that the conversation moves to issues of control and the perceived lack of same, I tend to call for a time out, suggesting that maybe they need some more time to think about their needs and the appropriateness of Open Space. If I don’t think they have heard me, I put it a little stronger. I suggest that they think about any other way to achieve their ends. And should they run out of options, call me back. I run about 50/50 on the call backs. But when they call they are ready to go. So am I.

And
what do you think about an almost opposite strategy for the Pre-work of trying to
"prepare" the prospective client that he/she will lose control but
that is ok...? (I say "almost opposite" as your way seems to recommend that the
facilitator gets out of the way and let the client think and decide, and the
other is almost trying to "educate the client"...)
 
Thanks
for any clarifications.

Regards

Artur
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110911/c2d138c7/attachment-0008.htm>