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

[Pernilla Luttropp]

Harrison!
I love the way you keep insisting on "staying out of the way" or to take a
nap. And still you are constantly here on the list, keeping me aware of what
I do when I open space, interfering if you like, but very much present.
And that makes a difference, your presence makes a difference. And I like to
think that kind of presence makes a difference in any open space.

Thanks!

Pernilla


Den 2012-12-20 21.33, skrev "Harrison Owen" <hhowen at verizon.net>:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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