[OSList] Is it true that Open Space does not really work when there are many internal conflict?

[Harrison Owen]

Good one, Kari! ("Is Open Space not working when there are many internal
conflicts?") 

For me the place to begin is with a clear understanding of "working," and I
find that there are at least three questions (meanings) here. You have to
make sure you which one you are asking and answering. Specifically, do you
mean, Does Open Space work in formal terms? -- i.e. people sat in a circle,
opened a market place, etc -- The answer in my experience is, Yes at the
100% level. If you mean Does Open Space work as a productive activity? --
were critical issues/opportunities raised, clarified, and usefully dealt
with? Again the answer in my experience is Yes and pretty close to the 100%
level. However, if you mean "works" as in "solves all problems forever and
ever..." it gets a little more complicated, and depends greatly on the
situation and context.

There are multiple examples of Open Spaces involving large groups of very
angry and/or confused people resolving major complex issues by the end of
the closing circle. I wrote up one of the earliest in the opening chapter of
the User's Guide. In that situation 240 people consisting of Federal, State
and Local officials along with a equal number of Native Americans had the
task of writing guidelines for the expenditure of $1.5 billion for Highways
on Tribal lands. This group had been fighting for 2 years, and absolutely
nothing had been accomplished. When the meeting began the group had only 2
months additional time before the whole $1.5b would disappear back into the
US Treasury. In the course of the gathering the discussion was indeed hot
and heavy, putting it mildly. However, by the closing circle, the task had
been accomplished, the guidelines had been created. To be sure, those
guidelines had to be put in formal, legal language -- But by any reasonable
standard it can be said that Open Space worked in and through intense
conflict.

In a different situation and context the question becomes more nuanced and
complicated -- but the answer, simply put, is the same. Open Space works.
For example, I am currently working with a relatively large organization
(2000+ employees) which was described to me by several of the senior folks
as "dysfunctional." When I asked what that meant they said something to the
effect that the anger, low morale, missed communication, games playing, etc.
was so severe that nobody really even knew what the problems were, and for
sure the productive output of the organization was seriously compromised.
They wanted to do an Open Space for their Washington people and did I think
it would work? 

I had no problem saying, Yes. At least it always had worked so long as the
participants fell somewhere within the genetic pool of Homo sapiens.
HOWEVER, that is only the beginning of the story. The truth, it is really
quite easy to enable any group of people, who share some common concern,
albeit in highly diverse and conflicted ways -- to reach a point of intense,
meaningful, and productive interaction and solutions. But that is just a
start, albeit a good one -- and never to be confused with eternal salvation.
What next?

The simple fact of the matter is that if a group of people, having
experienced deep, meaningful and productive joint activity (in the Open
Space) are simply thrown back into the situation which caused all the
dysfunction in the first place -- they are twice damned. They have seen the
lights of Paris, and are definitely back on the farm. Now they know, as
perhaps they never did before, just how really miserable they are, and worse
yet -- they know it could be better. In an odd way, this is real progress,
but very painful and not conducive to a long term, positive outcome.  

Right here we run head on into all the "nasty details" so well described by
my friend Lisa H. ("...without looking at the whole ecology of
communication, history, context, resources, differences, internal and
external reasons for issues that feel like conflict, communication styles,
what happens before and after the event, how the event fits into the ongoing
work of the community or organization, and so on....").

But when it comes to finding the way forward, I have to take a different
path than friend Lisa seems to be suggesting. If I understand her correctly,
the critical next steps involve careful analysis of all the "nasty details"
(I think we call it Systems Thinking) combined with strategic interventions
(re-organizations, etc) to achieve the fix.

This is a great idea and Grand Theory -- but frankly it gives me a massive
headache. I simply can't think all that and I seriously doubt that anybody
else can either. It is simply too massive, too complex, too interconnected,
too fast moving. Mind boggling -- and I really don't think I am stupid, just
finite human. And when it comes to designing useful solutions, the stakes
have just simply gone off the charts. I don't think we can do that! But more
to the point, my experience tell me, we do not have to. 

If we have learned nothing else in the 27 year Natural Experiment Called
Open Space it is that Self Organization is powerful and effective. Left to
its own devises, the organization (any group of people gathered together to
do something) will in short order manifest orderly patterns that enable
their efforts. Those patterns (structures) may be minimal, but they work.
And if we provide some minimal initial focus (sit in a circle, create
bulletin board...), what happens naturally appears to happen with even
greater dispatch. All we have to do is stay out of the way. This is not a
process we do, as in run, create, even facilitate. It is what we are, and it
happens all by itself.

Perhaps it is an unjustifiable leap -- but I absolutely believe that the
only difference between the Organization of a group of people in Open Space
and Organization of any other sort is a matter of size and duration. It is
all self organizing. And in all cases it remains true: Organizing a self
organizing system is not only an oxymoron, but stupid, a waste of time, and
ineffective. Truth is the organization (organism) can and will do a much
better job -- and virtually every effort on our part slows things down and
effectively thrown a "spanner" in the works. Putting it in the baldest of
terms, our efforts to organize the system and create the "fix" actually
create most of the pain and dysfunction we seek to resolve. Self inflicted
wounds.

So when we follow the path that Lisa suggests, which of course is also the
path that most all of contemporary management theory and practice supports,
we are essentially adding fuel to the fire and creating new levels of
potential dysfunction. Our "fixes" may seem to work for the moment, but in
all too short a time we hear the magic words - Re-Organize! Re-Organize! The
good news is that it does keep all managers, consultants, and I'm sorry to
say, facilitators employed. But it is an odd situation: Seems we create the
very problems we are then paid to resolve. 

Total heresy I know, but on the off chance that some grain of truth may
reside therein -- what is the alternative? My experience says that the
alternative is a simple one, and one we already know: Open Space. 

This might mean "doing an Open Space"--but more usually it would mean
applying the lessons learned from our Natural Experiment in our everyday
world of life and work. The lessons have been multiple, but we might start
with the simple ones. For example, when starting a project INVITE
participation -- DON'T Order it. And guess what, the right people will turn
up. And when they do show up, get rid of the tables and work in a circle.
And forget about the Program Plan; elicit the passions and responsibilities
of those who cared to come. Well you get the idea.

All of this is really the heart and soul of the 5th Principle "Wherever it
happens is the right place." And we will learn, I think, that it can and
does happen anywhere and everywhere.

Goodness me, I have gone on. And indeed there is a lot more to go. If you
are interested in my best shots to date, check out my last two books, "The
Practice of Peace," and "Wave Rider." But better yet just start with your
own experience and let it grow. It could really get exciting.

So Kari -- Does Open Space work in conflicted spaces? You bet! And
everywhere else as well.

Harrison  





    

Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA

189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843

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

-----Original Message-----
From: oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
[mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Kári Gunnarsson
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:17 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: [OSList] Is it true that Open Space does not really work when there
are many internal conflict?

Is Open Space not working when there are many internal conflicts?

This is stated in one of the reports from the Wosonos2012 "The limits of
Open Space"

I believed that the passion fueling the conflict was the stuff that fuels
the Open Space activities and without this fuel nothing real will happen for
nobody will care sufficiently to have an opinion or take up a conflict.

I am not able image the case where the many internal conflicts will inhibit
the Open Space if the preconditions are fulfilled, perhaps someone could
enlighten me about such a case.

Is there a different approach that is better for such condition, will
nothing work or will Open Space work?

with love from Iceland and with a hope for an answer Kári.
_______________________________________________
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