[OSList] OST Foundations again (Was:...)

[Michael Herman]

some thoughts following harrison.  i've missed some parts of the
previous threads he and artur have sprung from, so maybe this goes in
a weird direction or echoes other comments.  just in case not, i'll
give it spin here...



i understand the story that all organizations are open and
self-organizing, and find it useful to a point.  that point comes when
we start to look at parts of the organization that seem to be about
resisting or managing or controlling or things other than opening
space which we make synonymous with self-organization.  so for me the
self-organization story is a half-solution of sorts, at least the way
i think i hear it usually told in our circles.

what i'd like to add to the self-organizing story, what i think we
often leave out of our story, is a view to the ongoing tension between
stability and movement.  every organization and every living being and
even things like planets (and i'm guessing molecules/crystals) exhibit
the characteristics of both -- in constant tension.  so what?

well, if we let self-organization be about the balancing and
rebalancing of that ongoing tension, rather than a set of conditions
and a natural unfolding biased in the direction of movement, then
those who would apparently resist or slow the unfolding of open space
are not working against the natural state, they are working to balance
it.  they are still part of it.

so for me an open space meeting is not synonymous with
self-organization, it's merely a point on the spectrum of
organizational movement, ease, speed and such.  it's one piece of a
portfolio of happenings, each of which has their own limits on what
can result or what can be changed.  there is a rich diversity of ways
of being, more and less rigid bureaucracy to matrix/network structures
to open markets or social media forms, to spontaneous "movements" like
we saw recently in egypt and libya and tunisia.

i think if we fall into thinking that control and stability are bad or
misguided or unhelpful and that open space, called self-organization
is good and joyful and fun and productive, we miss the real story...
the balance between these things.

in other places i've learned about something called mutuality, defined
as being aware of and allow two distinct ways of being be true at the
same time and together.  in its most basic, think of being aware that
you ARE and aware that i also AM, distinct and individual AND that
simultaneously WE are something too.  for me, the joy and space and
other goodies we associate with open space comes from the simultaneous
tension between and confluence of such polarities.  even the ease of
movement in open space meetings is understood in contrast to tighter,
slower ways of working and lots of really great open space meetings
rely on bureaucratice structures to process our invoices and send us
payments.

inside open space meetings, we have the four principles that say
nobody's in control and the law of two feet that says that each of us
is "in charge" of his/her own movements.  we invite this balancing of
tension between passion and responsibility.  between small groups and
plenaries, in the "breathing" or pulsing format of an OS meeting or
longer process.  i am aware of the whole of the group as a
facilitator, AND aware of all of my own sensations as a body AND
simultaneously aware that i am present with AND not part of the group
i'm working with.  these just to name a few.

so i think self-organization is these initial conditions, and it's a
sort of ease and flow and speeding movement to things, but also it's
stability and control and all the slower speeds and more durable
formations that we find in organizations everyday.  those who doubt or
resist open space are not against the natural order of things, cuz
they can't ever be separate from it.  so i think the real story and
process and practice of self-organization is the one of ongoing
tension.

and the thing about this ongoing tension is that there are no
spectators, there are no resistors, only lifetime members and
first-team players, everyone on the field at once, running fast or
standing still, with nobody in charge, and our four main conditions
ever present in so many places... and opening space becomes not a tool
for those who would "move faster" or more naturally, but a way of
being that doesn't choose stability or movement as the better thing,
holds the two poles and all the diversity between them to be together
AND be as they are.

m






--

Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
312-280-7838 (mobile)

http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org



On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
> Artur – As usual you are there! To continue the conversation, some thoughts
> about your comments: --
>
>
>
> You said, “It is true that everything self-organize. But there are known
> phenomena (like crystals, for instance) where past self-organization created
> a "closed system". In what concerns organizations, if they cease to have
> enough diversity or of being open to the environment they can also get
> trapped in an "almost closed organization".
>
>
>
> In what concerns an OST event that doesn't matter much - just see if the
> pre-conditions are there, and if they are, just do it! But from the point of
> the view of the organization/community that is not enough: they have a
> concern (that I share) about what comes next. How can we (they) profit from
> that "magic" in the medium/long term? And that is, for me, a different
> question - a different animal, would you probably say.”
>
>
>
> I like your “almost closed organization.” My starting premises are – All
> Systems are open. All systems are self organizing. And that includes human
> systems. But as you say, there are some “almost closed organizations.” What
> gives? One thing is that while we cannot/do not organize self organizing
> systems – it is totally possible to stop or certainly impede the process of
> self organizations. It seems to me, this is what happens in many, many
> organizations. When our efforts are fully successful, the organization dies.
> Even with partial success, we managed to reduce organization function to
> minimal levels. This is a story that is told every day and the outward
> symptoms are lack of creativity, boredom, frustration, low morale, etc. All
> the things that we can now charge a lot of money to fix! But there is an
> easier way (but not so good for the/our bottom line) – just re-energize the
> self organization process, and most of the pathology will fall away, if the
> patient is not already dead. I think this is what happens every time we open
> space in a seemingly closed, moribund, hidebound, autocratic organizations.
> Seems like magic, but it is not – Just good old self-organization doing its
> job.
>
>
>
> I know that it “seems” like systems are closed – but I think that is only
> appearance. Even those that seem the most protected (closed) will respond to
> a changing environment – showing that they are (despite all our best
> efforts) really open. That response may be problematical – the business just
> dies – but it is a response, and the system is open, no matter what we do.
>
>
>
> 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: Saturday, September 15, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: oslist at openspacetech.org
> Subject: Re: [OSList] OST Foundations again (Was:...)
>
>
>
> Thanks for coming back to this question about the OST foundations, MMP and
> HO.
>
>
>
> Some comments inline.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
>
>
> To: 'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:56 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [OSList] OST Foundations again (Was: Re: Dealing with
> conflicts)
>
>
> Michael P. raised some interesting points  (...)
>
>
>
> I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who have encountered OST
> in one way or another (facilitator, participant, or just hearsay) think of
> it as one amongst many -- maybe very good, even the best, but one among many
> other methods. As such it is a process to be learned, a skill set to be
> developed from "pre-work to follow-up." What the facilitator does is
> critically important and there are better, even "right" ways to "do" it --
> with "essential elements" -- which are subject  to debate, modification, or
> removal.
>
>
>
> That is probably a true statement, but is also probably a wrong
> understanding from those that come in contact of OST... For me, OST is not
> something we can combine with other (more directive) methods, that quite
> often destroy the self-organizing nature of OST, and give a central role to
> the facilitator at the expense of making the participants feel controlled,
> childish and disempowered.
>
>
>
> If the pre-conditions are right (and we all know what those are) then OST is
> the method. If those pre-conditions are not met, OST shall not be used. And
> what to do with those customers, as a consultant or facilitator? Probably
> simply say "there are a lot of other facilitators out there that use other
> methods - talk to one of them, but please be conscious that some of them
> will probably propose to you something they think - or say  - it's Open
> Space, even if it is not.
>
>
>
> In what concerns the pre-work, of course, it is essential, for the OST
> facilitator to assure that/if all the pre-conditions are met and give some
> advice on the theme, who to invite, how to word the invitation, etc. But
> there is no need to have always a certain number of meeting (say 3, for
> instance) or to create a "meeting committee" that is a "cross section of the
> stakeholders", or anything like that. If 1 pre work meeting is enough, 2 are
> too much. If 2 meetings are needed, 3 is one too much. Etc.
>
>
>
> The same with the follow up. Even if this needs a further comment, below...
>
>
> I can certainly understand why people might think this way, after all it
> fits into the standard paradigm of what has now become a full blown
> profession: Facilitation. The Master Facilitator has multiple tools, using
> each as appropriate, with finesse. We have whole catalogues which describe,
> in varying detail, the richness of the Facilitator's Tool Box. People get
> certified, licensed, franchised -- you can probably even get a degree! And
> at some level it all seems to work.
>
> Personally I would (or at least should) be delighted if all of this were
> correct. And if Open Space is anywhere near as good as we seem to think, my
> cup would run over, to be sure. As the originator of this miraculous process
> I might reasonably claim genius, and had I taken the time to patent or
> trademark my invention, lucrative franchises could have been mine to enjoy.
> But it didn't quite work out that way.
>
>
>
> I think your choice was simple generosity. Or you have understood that, like
> Newton with the apple, you have stumbled upon a "general law of the
> Universe" (or of facilitation methods - appropriate for Organizational
> Transformation and not so much for Organizational Development btw), that
> doesn't belong to you - neither to anyone else - with that name or with any
> alias(es).
>
>
>
> That is no longer a matter of your choice. You have chosen once and for ever
> not to trademark or franchise OST and decided it was a part of human
> heritage. For me, the fact that OST is nor certified or trademarked, neither
> certifiable or trademarkable by anyone comes with the territory. And I would
> not have joined the OST Community if there was not that simple message
> "anyone with a good head and a good heart can do it"... and then spend a
> life time to perfect it...
>
>
>
> So for me it is unacceptable that anyone assumes the right to certify or
> trademak OST, or a part of OST, or OST in combination of any other (mostly
> directive) "facilitation methods". I, for one, have not given anyone the
> right to do that and people that do that have (and must have) their own
> lists and sites, but have putted themselves out the OST community, except
> when it concerns only with the use of OST.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The truth of the matter is that building a business has never been an
> interest of mine, or at least any sort of business with all the standard
> accoutrements. But that is only a small part of the story. The real story is
> that the more I experienced and thought about Open Space, the less sense it
> made. Based on the literature, my training, and the experience of most of my
> colleagues Open Space should not work. It could not work, if only because it
> violated every single practice and principle of group management, indeed
> management itself. But it did work -- and as I thought about it became clear
> that my contribution, either in design or implementation, was vanishingly
> small. Embarrassingly -- Open Space seemed to work all by itself.
>
> Sooner or later some pieces came together and seemed to fit. It was all
> about self organization. You have heard me ad nauseam on the subject, but
> suffice it to say that when viewed as an example of self organization it all
> makes sense -- indeed it is quite predictable. When viewed through the lens
> of "standard theory and practice" OS is odd to say the least, verging on
> weird, counter-intuitive, and wrong. Making the connection with self
> organization was, for me, a passing through a portal -- and it sure wasn't
> Kansas anymore (a reference to the magical journey of Dorothy and Toto into
> the Land of OZ). Wherever I got to wasn't what I expected, and it only got
> worse.
>
> My realizations didn't happen all at once and doubtless not in the order I
> describe them -- but over time several things came to clarity -- at least I
> thought so. First there was the sneaking suspicion changing to strong
> conviction that Open Space was not some weird apparition, a break with
> reality. It WAS reality. All this began at the conclusion of wonderful
> events when the enthusiastic participants became a little wistful... with
> words something like, "This was wonderful. Too bad we have to get back to
> reality!" My joking response was, "Maybe this is reality?" It then became
> clear that was no joke.
>
> Self organization, as I have come to understand it, is not something we can
> choose to do (or not do) -- it is what we essentially are. Self organizing.
> To the extent that Open Space is an intense and intentional "outbreak" of
> self organization it is not strange to, or apart from life as a whole -- it
> is all of a piece. We could say -- All the world is Open Space and not be
> far from the truth.
>
> To the extent that this realization is not just gross egotism, hysteria, or
> worse, there are some interesting corollaries. First, if self organization
> is fundamental to life, it is not something we have to learn. It comes with
> the territory -- our life. Secondly, self organization (by definition)
> happens all by itself. No help needed.
>
> QED: If Open Space is self organization at work, we don't have to learn it,
> nor do we "do" it. If anything, it does us. And paradoxically, the more we
> seek to do the longer it takes for self organization to "Kick in."
> Practically this means if you do a whole series of "warm-up" exercises it is
> basically a waste of time unless the exercises have some intrinsic merit of
> their own. In like manner, the more we seek to learn or teach the process
> itself to the participants (or sponsors) the longer it will take to get to
> the business. And there is no need: Everybody already knows.
>
> Maybe everybody already knows, but they don’t know that they know, and need
> to see it happen to recognize that they already "knew"… Hence the surprise
> many participants feel when they first encounter a (real) OST event; and
> that probably they would not “see” if their first encounter is with an "OST
> training" of some sort...
>
>
>
> Bottom line for me in this strange new world -- Just Do it! Make sure the
> initial conditions are present and then at the first opportunity -- Sit in a
> circle... well you know the rest.
>
> And what about all those other methods? Well, if all the world is Open Space
> and Open Space isn't a method, it is just a funny name for living with
> passion and responsibility...
>
> And Pre-Work, Lisa's favorite? To be sure there is lots of "pre-work" to be
> done on you -- bringing yourself to that quiet, centered place where there
> is nothing to do, for nothing can be done. No judgment, no fear, no rules --
> just quiet presence from which to invite others for the creation of new
> life. Welcome to Open Space!
>
> As for the group... there really isn't any way that I know of to get them
> ready. I think lisa mentioned that it took more than a year of hard effort
> to get everything together with the 50 Palestinians and Israelis. I am sure
> that is true, and actually a gross underestimate. Pulling that gathering
> together was part of the lifelong struggles of some marvelous and sensate
> people -- it was also just life in The Middle East. But when it came to my
> pre-work with that group, that might be measured in minus quantities. The
> group arrived in Rome in the middle of a blinding rain storm -- they had a
> late chaotic meal and went to bed. The next morning at 9 am there were 50
> tired, hopeful, fearful, angry, frustrated, anxious people sitting in a
> circle when a gentleman most of them did not know stood and said, "Welcome
> to Open Space." Two days later that same group was standing the same circle
> hugging, and in some cases kissing. I did nothing. I think that is what we
> all do...
>
> So it isn't Kansas, for sure. And definitely not what we might expect. And I
> think we are just beginning to figure out what's going on.
>
> Harrison
>
> PS -- For the story of Rome go to:
> http://openspaceworld.com/opening_space_for_peace.htm
>
>
>
> I completely agree with everything else, Harrison. But I still have some
> doubts about one thing.
>
>
>
> It is true that everything self-organize. But there are known phenomena
> (like crystals, for instance) where past self-organization created a "closed
> system". In what concerns organizations, if they cease to have enough
> diversity or of being open to the environment they can also get trapped in
> an "almost closed organization".
>
>
>
> In what concerns an OST event that doesn't matter much - just see if the
> pre-conditions are there, and if they are, just do it! But from the point of
> the view of the organization/community that is not enough: they have a
> concern (that I share) about what comes next. How can we (they) profit from
> that "magic" in the medium/long term? And that is, for me, a different
> question - a different animal, would you probably say.
>
>
>
> How do you see this short term (event) versus medium/long term issue?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Artur
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>