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

Mon Sep 24 18:06:59 PDT 2012

just getting back to this, harrison...

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
> Michael -- You raise some interesting points, but I am not really sure that
> the antithesis you suggest between stability and change works out the way
> you say it does in OST or in self organization in general. (you said: "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."
>
> My experience of self organization, (which is close to, if not the same as,
> the common descriptions in the literature) goes something like this. Neither
> pure order (stability/structure) nor chaos -- but rather the ongoing dance
> in between. In classical terms this is the flow of Yin and Yang -- or the
> dance of Shiva (with two faces, order and destruction). In more modern terms
> the story goes that some system/being/entity/organization is impacted by a
> changing environment, knocking it out of prior stabile patterns and into
> chaos. From that moment on, the road divides. Either the system crashes and
> disappears or it re-organizes (self organizes) at new and higher levels of
> complexity (new stasis).
>

i think you missed the "if" in the bit you quoted, harrison... cuz i
think we are totally agreed on the dance.  my point was that we
shouldn't fall into thinking of stability OR self-organization... but
that self-organization is a balancing point, as you say, the dance in
between.  i think sometimes we take the non-control end for granted,
and that then collapses into an apparent choice between self-org and
control... when self-org isn't any choice at all... it just is.

> In Open Space, my experience is the same, although sometimes it is not so
> obvious, especially when the stakes are minimal to low. But when the stakes
> are high, with emotions to match -- it is on with the show: self
> organization at work in all of its aspects -- chaos and order, Yin and Yang,
> Shiva doing the dance. The examples are legion, but one of my favorites
> occurred with a client some years ago who had asked me to open space with
> them around "The future of their Business."

> We started out just like usual with all the partners sitting in a circle. It
> looked very calm on the surface (business as usual) -- but underneath you
> could feel some deep currents. Shortly after lunch on the first day, those
> currents surfaced. One participant put it precisely, "We have come here to
> talk about the future of our business -- but the simple truth is we have no
> business. It is finished." That sentiment went viral and by 4 pm it was
> clear to everybody that the business had dissolved. Curiously there seemed
> to be very little animosity, although my client, the president, was
> definitely surprised. All of the participants were highly skilled
> consultants who did great work and made a substantial amount of money -- but
> they were bored. It was time for something new, and they were ready.

bored.  i think this matters.  so does apathy.  and resignation and
surrender and hopelessness.  i think we talk a lot about control and
letting go... but i think one of the important dimensions that gets
less attention is the part where we're inviting people to do just the
opposite... to show up and take hold of their own power, raise a
voice, write an issue, dare to care.

i think this is one of the important bits of invitation that i've
never quite noticed before... yes, i've said it's a thing we can DO
and it's a way we can aspire to BE... but there's more... it's
important because those who feel compelled to DO something can do this
inviting thing and be not-imposing, not-controlling, close to the
center of the dance, if you will.  at the same time, it reaches out to
the skeptical, the resigned, the apathetic, the bored, and holds out a
hope and a space that they might make care and speak and act.
invitation holds a gift for people who prefer or get stuck at either
end of the balance, and gives them a way to move closer to the center,
back out onto the dance floor... in a new company or whatever.

the way i'm understanding it now is that self-organization, open
space, invitation... all ways of not-control and not-collapse.  still
trying to resolve chaos and not-caring.  i think i've heard equal
parts of concern over "what will happen if this thing really takes
off" (and turns into chaos) and "what if nobody comes" (boredom, not
caring, collapse).  for me these both play a part at the one end of
the spectrum, but i just haven't figured out, and haven't hear others
say, how this fits.  this is the story i'm fishing for.  more clarity
at the not-control end of the balance.

m

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
> [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Michael Herman
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:40 AM
> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
> Subject: Re: [OSList] OST Foundations again (Was:...)
>
> 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.or
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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