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

[Harrison Owen]

Lisa The Body Worker! I like that!! And I have no question that you do what
you do with great enthusiasm, heart, skill -- and all to positive effect.
That said, my question (quest) really goes in another direction. It is not
so much about doing something wrong. And certainly not that YOU are doing
something wrong. But perhaps we are all doing the wrong thing. Or maybe
doing anything at all. Put somewhat differently, I find myself coming to the
conclusion that much (perhaps most) of what we do, even with the best of
intentions, produces results that are the very antithesis of what we hope
for. And there is an alternative. 

In your earlier message you said, "Sometimes it is as simple as helping an
organization look at who does what tasks and re-arranging each role's tasks.
Or doing an assessment of what is reasonable pay. Or giving the organization
some sample structure for how to hold supervisor-staff individual meetings
or quarterly evaluation." Nothing problematical here, indeed I think most
people would see all of this as good, standard practice. The "right" thing
to do, as it were.

But I think there may be an implicit assumption that can lead us in the
wrong direction with the net result is that we "do the wrong thing." The
assumption is that when we confront a floundering organization, we are
engaging a structured entity that we (or somebody) created (organized),
which for whatever reason is malfunctioning. The "fix" is obvious: Adjust
the system so that it works better.

However, were the object of our attention (The Organization) something quite
different than we presumed -- our well intentioned "fix" is likely to be
irrelevant at best, and possibly destructive. It is a good idea in the wrong
situation (doing the wrong thing). I think that is our situation.

An alternative view would look something like this -- The organization we
confront is actually the product of Self Organization, and while we may have
some part in its initiation (our passion and responsibility created the
space in which the emergent organization appeared), the manner and
mechanisms of its growth come from a very different place--not us. It is an
organism, and like all organisms it emerges and evolves in response to
multiple, complex, interacting forces -- some of which are observable by us,
but the vast majority simply pass us by. Too much, too fast, too subtle.

When we, in spite of our obvious limitations, seek to impose our
understanding of design and function upon that organization, we are on very
thin ice, I think. Indeed, I would make the case that were we to set out to
create a powerful system that would limit creativity, eliminate emergent
leadership, destroy self respect, prevent communication and reduce morale to
zombie levels -- I really don't think we could do any better than the
current corporate/government/NGO model. It does one hell of a job, and when
we set out to strengthen that system with yet more organizational structures
and strategies, even with the best of intentions...

The truly amazing thing to me is that our organizations function as well as
they do in spite of our best efforts to constrain their space and force them
along paths of our choosing. However, I suppose this amazing fact is the
strongest testimony to the power of self organization. And one of our (or
certainly my) major learnings from the OST Experiment is that even brutally
conflicted and constrained organizations perform brilliantly when the space
is opened. It is not about doing anything new or different, it is quite
simply about STOP DOING all the things that inhibit superior performance. No
new structures, procedures, tweaks, trainings, programs -- just fully be
what you already are: Self Organizing! There is really no preparation needed
for Open Space if only because everybody is already there. It is just that a
lot of us are doing it badly, or trying desperately not to do it at all.
Weird!   

Once in existence, we may surely observe the organization, learn about its
function, and perhaps most importantly, learn how we may effectively live
with it, and in it. And if we are careful and attentive, we may even learn
how to enhance its growth and nurture its development (Good Body Work!). But
our efforts will always be of secondary importance. The organization will
have its own structure, its own flow, its own unique way of being. That,
after all, is the nature and definition of self organization. It is said
that the body is its own best healer, and under most circumstances it needs
only the space and time to heal. Oh sure, a little help and encouragement
along the way is great, and a good massage is Nirvana!

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 Lisa Heft
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:07 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] Is it true that Open Space does not really work when
there are many internal conflict?

Harrison my friend, that is the beauty of it.
We see things in different ways at times, at other times we see / feel / do
exactly what the other would do - always rich for co-learning.

I do not see it as 'nasty details' - I see it as wonderful stuff rich with
learning - as people telling the stories to inform what may help.  Also the
stories help me know how to work with the client on clarifying the task /
focusing question / objective for the Open Space day. It also draws out who
else to invite perhaps, rather than the original small circle the client or
community may first have been thinking about. Or a way to adjust the form of
documentation to match how they might wish to use the information, ideas and
relationships post-event. Things like that.

And I do not see actions / systems / conversations / meetings that might be
useful to groups as 'interventions'. I see them more as nutrition. I see
myself more as a body worker, helping the system breathe and access its
greatest resources: its human resources.  I like to ask about the whole
chain of things because there are some things the organism has capacity to
do for itself (exercise, nutrition, reflection) and some things I can help
with (acupuncture, massage, if you will). I feel there is value in telling
the story and being witness to the story, as well.

Just some thoughts playing off your thoughts...

Thanks for sparking my thinking,
Lisa


On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:

> 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
>
  
_______________________________________________
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