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

Sun Sep 11 14:37:50 PDT 2011

Good stuff, Birgitt! But I am not quite sure where you are going. Which is fine. And as an old time activist (on the streets in the early ‘60’s) I surely recognize the “Good Guys – Bad Guys” scenario. It wasn’t very accurate, but it certainly was thrilling. Power to the People, Baby! Maybe we have progressed a little? A nuance, here or there?

ho

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> 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 Birgitt Williams
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 4:07 PM
To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list'; 'Artur Silva'
Subject: Re: [OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof

Dear friends and colleagues,

A story that comes to mind as I read this thread is one of a granddaughter at age 3 running around the house, shouting in sheer delight “I am a human being”. It was a discovery for her that day and she was very excited. I continue to share in the excitement of being human…a human being and not a human doing.

Along the way, I have made some discoveries. One is that reality as we perceive it is only an illusion, and that if there are twelve people in a room, there are twelve perspectives of reality. Once upon a time in my activist years, I thought of reality as having good guys and bad guys, a light shirt team and a dark shirt team, and I bought into the illusion of this polarized duality, believing that I could ‘liberate’ others. I acted accordingly and led marches on City Hall, and so on. It is no longer how I perceive reality. In my current reality, there is no ‘us’ and ‘them’, only ‘us’. And the ‘us’ is doing our best to figure out life on planet earth. 

Another story that I like is one in which God and Goddess created the Universe, identified some laws or givens for it all to work well, and then asked those souls who wanted to be born into human form to remember to take along their instruction manuals so that life on earth could be easy and to live with our birthright which is ‘JOY’. A lot of us were excited to come to Planet Earth. I suspect those of us who love participatory methods like Open Space Technology, Whole Person Process Facilitation, Appreciative Inquiry, World Café and so on knew each other before incarnating in this incarnation and we agreed that there was important work to do together. We were so sure that we knew how to navigate life on Planet Earth that we threw the instruction manuals away, ignored the meta-givens that we were presented with that would bring about the conditions for us to live in continual joy, and now we are left realizing that those instruction manuals would be handy indeed.  There are the givens of creation…I wish I understood them better, although some are now clear to me.

I am of the belief that if something is presented and you find it useful, then use it. If you find that you are not in harmony with it, then don’t use it. You are your own guru and you will know best. One great test to determine if something is useful is to ask questions that come from NLP about something presented as fact by asking, if this were true, what would I see, what would I hear, what would I feel….and one that I think is useful is ‘what would I know?” . and then conduct life and work from what you conclude is useful.

I find it useful to have adopted beliefs in ‘us’, in a unified field, in a recognition of emergence and expanded consciousness. What have you found it useful to have adopted beliefs in? And how do these beliefs affect your work with OST?

Blessings to all,

Birgitt

From: Harrison Owen [mailto:hhowen at verizon.net] 
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:06 AM
To: 'Artur Silva'; 'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
Subject: Re: [OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof

Herewith Artur…

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"?

HO -- I suspect it may be a totally natural reaction – but my observation is that fear (from whatever cause) closes space. In the US we speak of “circling the wagons” to describe what happens when danger (real or perceived) lurks – it is the classical defensive posture. When the danger is real, the response can be effective, but as a long term solution it is limiting to say the least. With the wagons circled, it is very hard to move to new places J So the organizations alluded to above are either closed or closing. But in any case they can hardly be considered vital, alive, and growing. The tragedy is that, when the fear is a self inflicted wound – the response (closing space) is literally suicidal.

Artur -- 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?

HO – Sure – but definitely not the only way. Variants include, “Doing a little bit of  Open Space” – just to make sure that things don’t “get out of control.” Truthfully we have multiple ways of avoiding reality and preserving illusion. Think of all the stories about The Emperor’s Clothes.

Artur -- 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"...)

HO – Educating the client is an essential undertaking, for sure. Which immediately raises the question – what is the most effective means (of education)? In cases where the problem arises because of ignorance or misunderstanding of the “facts” – the way forward is pretty straight forward. Present the facts and make the argument. Case closed. But I think the situation relative to “fear of loss of control” places us in very different waters. From the point of view of our Executive, all of the facts of his experience, to say nothing of the practice of (many of) his peers and the burden of the literature say that the preservation of control is the sine qua non of professional competence. To be out of control is to be out of a job! And furthermore, what happens in Open Space (or is purported to happen) simply couldn’t happen. So why would you want to go there?

I think that what we are dealing with here may better be understood as a discontinuous leap or paradigm shift. By definition, rational argument won’t get you there. But genuine experience can. Not always, and sometimes with degrees of pain and discomfort – depending on the level of resistance. Participating in Open Space is one way of gaining that experience. Can you prepare people for that experience? Maybe, but I think it is equally possible that your efforts at preparation could well convince the hesitant Executive never to take the trip. If you clearly and honestly describe what will happen, telling folks that they will find themselves in a complex, swirling environment with ideas and issues catalyzing unknown results over which you, Mr/Ms Executive will not have a shred of control  -- that could produce a convinced stay at home! It is not unlike swimming I think. You can do all the dry land exercises you like, and have ever so many people calling – come on in the water is fine! But at the end of the day you just have to get in the water. And for sure it is no help to have somebody assure you that you need not worry because you will only get a “little bit wet.”

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: Sunday, September 11, 2011 8:58 AM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof

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/20110911/6742c8f3/attachment-0008.htm>