[OSList] The OST Game

Mon Oct 14 13:53:55 PDT 2013

Paul - Can always count on you. Thanks

ho

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>
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 paul levy
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 4:48 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game

Harrison 

Whatever you experienced as OST when it first escaped has largely become a
game. A game of training. A game of "go back to base and read the manual".
Even you play a regular game on here as one of the elders who keep defending
OST against change (oh yes you do). It's become a game with a book of
instructions with bells, anti-clockwise circle walking and "rules". That's a
shame and, thankfully, fairly pointless as it keeps on escaping in different
and lovely ways anyway.

Now, opening space, that's something really worth trying... 

(Waits as the usual elders line up to deliver their wise pronouncements)...

So it goes.

Paul Levy

On Monday, 14 October 2013, Harrison Owen wrote:

A marvelous conversation... and I have been absent a bit for a good cause, I
hope. I have been doing my homework, reading all the assigned material about
broken reality and culture hacking. Interesting journey! And along the way I
came upon an odd realization - I really just don't like games! Seems it had
something to do with early childhood trauma... my mother just loved games,
and she would beat me unmercifully. Oh well. Unfortunately that aversion
carried on into my adult life, particularly as it related to the so called
Group Dynamics games that we were all supposed to play prior to serious
discussion. Seems like you just couldn't have an adult interchange without
some "warm-up" to break the ice. Or so they said. Really bugged me. I just
couldn't believe that consenting adults could not communicate without some
elaborate foreplay - funny tools drawn from the omnipresent Facilitator's
Tool Box.

So much for my inherent pathology and prejudices, but there may be something
of a positive outcome. I simply had to believe that given reasonable
conditions, human beings could sit down and talk productively with each
other - all by themselves. As adults. It did take two martinis to get me
there... but "there" was (guess what) Open Space.  We have been doing that
ever since, and it turns out that children do just as well. 

What may have started as childish rebellion (against Mother, Facilitators,
etc) has only gotten worse. With increasing age and experience it has become
clearer and clearer that the less I do the better things work. It is not
that I have no agency or contribution, but it does turn out that the ambient
wisdom and capacity of the individuals and groups that I am privileged to
interact with so vastly exceeds my own that I would do very well to fold my
hands and shut my mouth. Anything else has me working much too hard, and
generally messing things up... Such are the eye glasses through which I view
my world. Distorted perhaps, and different for sure, but I'm stuck with it.
And it is through those glasses that I read my assignments, beginning with
"Reality is Broken." 

Jane McGonigal weaves a fascinating tale of the strange (to me) world of
Game Makers, Gaming, and Gamers. I can certainly understand why she has
created a stir, and I applaud her massive research and clear prose. That
said, my reaction was close to horror, and the thought that the world and
techniques she describes should become a model and a means to fix our world
was pretty close to terror. Doubtless much of this can be ascribed to my
aforementioned phobia - but I suspect that others might share such feelings.
Two points stand out in my mind-Gaming is addictive, a point she develops in
infinite detail, and secondly that good Game Makers actually capitalize on
this phenomenon and make every effort to enhance the addictive power.  Their
success is obvious and awesome. It seems that one massive, online game
attracted 5,000,000 man/years of attention. George Orwell, where are you now
that we need you?

I joke a bit - and my concerns run deeper. When Jane says, "Reality is
Broken," I feel constrained to ask, Who's reality? Not mine, for sure. It is
not that I experience every day as a walk in the park, but there have been
precious few moments when I have felt bored, without challenge,
non-productive and unappreciated/respected. And I have many friends and
colleagues around the world who seemingly have a similar experience.
Doubtless that makes us odd, perhaps aberrant, but there is a certain
consolation in numbers. We are not alone. 

When I think about the factors that positively contribute to my reality they
include such things as the indeterminacy of my surroundings. The moment I
think I know where it is all headed, I am confounded by the twists of
happenstance. Then there is the total lack of clarity when it comes to goals
and objectives. Certainly I have hopes and desires, but just about every
time I have locked on some particular outcome, it doesn't turn out that way
- usually better. And lastly, if there are clear cut rules, I certainly have
never found them. Of course there are moments when I think it is all a
dreadful mistake and I am scared to death. But even that has its positive: I
know I am alive. So for me, my reality is doing just fine. Exciting,
challenging, growthful, rewarding -- In fact it seems to be working
perfectly.

I am truly sorry for those who have a different experience, but if reality
for them is broken, it is reasonable to ask, Who broke it? Or could it be
that it isn't really broken, they just think it is, if only because it
doesn't measure up to their expectations. That would certainly be the case
if reality was supposed to work by clear cut rules, heading in a
pre-determined direction, always under somebody's control. That
understanding of reality is certainly alternate to anything I know anything
about. It just never happened, and if it did I believe it would be
unendingly boring. But that might account for the Game Maker's success - for
if I read Jane correctly, that is pretty much the reality they create. And
if that is the reality you want, no wonder people spend 5 million man/years
immersed in it!

And on to a related question: Is OST a game? Possibly, but not according to
Jane's rules/criteria. To be sure, there is a correlation with Jane's first
criteria: Opt in = Voluntary Self Selection, and  a second one relating to
Good Feedback (we might say documentation). But it seems to me it all goes
downhill from there. If there are any rules in Open Space, I have yet to
encounter them. To be sure there are 5 principles and a law, but none of
them are things you have to do. In fact they all seem to emerge no matter
what you do - all by themselves. As for a clear goal, I think you have
precisely the opposite. Everything begins with a question, and under the
best of circumstances there is no attachment to outcomes. As we say,
Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.

Just to drive a little deeper. If OST is not a game - what is it?

Drum roll... Cutting edge revelation...

OST... is ... Life. 

It does not bring anything new. Represents no mind bending revelation. In
fact it doesn't DO a thing. Nothing. OST simply and quietly invites us to
be, fully, what we already are - ourselves. It really is shocking. Just be
yourself as you really are. Drawn by a question (Quest) - you are invited to
explore what you really care about. No foregone conclusions. No prior
exclusions (givens). No rules prescribed (by somebody else). Just be
yourself and take it from there. Of course it helps to be honest. What do
you really care about? And if you care, take responsibility for what you
care about. Nobody else will. And you don't need an act of Congress,
Parliament, the Legislature, or the writings of the latest Guru. It's just
you. 

But not just you. Who shares your passion? Who will join you in the assumed
responsibility? In advance you simply don't know, nor can you predict. But
when it happens, you know it happens. Life not only goes on - it gets deeper
and richer with the shared passions and responsibilities that weave the rich
tapestry of the human odyssey.

I know you have heard this song before, but I think it bears re-singing. The
temptation to change this simple invitation into some complex process,
procedure, structure is almost overwhelming, driven I am sure by our hope to
improve and also  perhaps to make it something we own or do. Something that
requires the professional touch, as it were. But the truth of the matter, I
believe, is that there really isn't anything to improve and still less to
do. Above all, Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and always think of one less
thing to do.

So where does all this discussion leave Agile and OST, or more exactly the
relationship between the two? Closely united, I believe - but perhaps not in
the way that Dan and others seem to be suggesting, even though that way
appears to be eminently rational and definitely a good plan.

I understand that Agile (as described in the Agile Manifesto) is an elegant
set of principles which await implementation (adoption) through some method
or process, SCRUM for example. The principles are magnificent and represent
the latest iteration of a longish tradition beginning perhaps with Quality
Circles, and passing through Excellent Organizations (Tom Peters et al),
Learning Organizations, with possibly a side trip through Process
Re-Engineering. In every case, elaborate processes, procedures, and
protocols were designed in order to bring the noble ideas into everyday
practice. In every case the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the several
efforts was considerable (aided I suspect by the fat consulting fees that
could be generated). And in every case I believe we learned many useful
lessons. However, in terms of the desired outcome, which might be described
as "enhanced organizational function," I think the record is less than
positive. Only people of a certain age will even remember Quality Circles,
Excellent Organizations seem evident mostly by their absence, The Society of
Organizational Learning disbanded last year, and Process Engineering has
been retired by general consensus as an embarrassing failure. Jane McGonigal
may just have written the epitaph, "Reality is Broken." Whether Agile and
its several implementation procedures (SCRUM, etc) will meet a similar fate
remains to be seen.

Reasonable people might well ask, how could we invest so much and accomplish
so little? Doubtless there are multiple answers, but one stands out for me.
We've been trying to organize self organizing systems. This is a thankless
task if only because we will never get it right; the systems involved (our
businesses, countries, organizations) are so complex, inter-related, and
fast moving that we can't even think at that level - let alone effectively
structure and control them. Even worse it seems all too often that our best
efforts and intentions make the situation worse - our fixes end up with
painful unintended consequences. But worst of all our efforts are not needed
because the system itself, all by itself, can do a better job.  Frankly our
efforts are just plain clunky.

It is precisely at the point where I think other efforts have been less than
successful that OST may enable Agile to succeed -- but not by facilitating
the adoption Agile as a set of principles, but in a much more immediate and
direct fashion: by enabling Agility. The principles are definitely nice, but
what we truly care about is real, meaningful, organizational agility, which
others might call High Performance, and Open Space demonstrably delivers on
that score. My favorite story, of course is the AT&T design team for the '96
Olympic Pavilion. In 2 days they designed a $200,000,000 structure which had
taken them 10 months on a previous effort. That is a 15,000% increase in
productivity. Not bad. 

If that were the only instance of such a phenomenon it would be interesting
but not helpful, but there are others, a lot. And how does all that work? It
is just a well functioning self organizing system. And if you ask whether it
is all scalable - the answer is it is already scaled to the highest levels.
Been around for 13.7 billion years, and the Cosmos (along with everything
else) is the product. Don't adopt Agile, BE agile. Honestly, it is a natural
condition if we stop trying to fix it. 

So I think we have some very good news here. Reality ain't broke and serious
Agility is available any time we want to open the space to let it happen.
And if you were wondering who all those friends and colleagues around the
world who know that their reality is unbroken (albeit painful sometimes) you
can start by looking in a mirror. Yes, I am talking about all those folks
who have wandered into Open Space to discover, many times in spite of
themselves - that deep, meaningful, productive, playful, respectful
encounters with their fellows can and do happen. That is just a taste, of
course - but it can happen all the time -- 24X7. I know.

Harrison

Harrison Owen

7808 River Falls Dr. <x-apple-data-detectors://3> 

Potomac, MD 20854 <x-apple-data-detectors://4> 

From:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20131014/7e27783b/attachment-0008.htm>