[OSList] The OST Game

[Daniel Mezick]

I'm loving the richness of this conversation. I'm loving it so much!

One question that comes up for me repeatedly, as I read and ponder the 
responses to OST-as-game: what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing 
behavior? Is the question even worth answering? If so, why so? If not, 
why not?

Where do I go, with this line of reasoning? Here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology


On 10/14/13 4:53 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
> 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.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <www.ho-image.com%20> (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 *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:*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 

Daniel Mezick, President

New Technology Solutions Inc.

(203) 915 7248 (cell)

Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog 
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.

Examine my new book:The Culture Game 
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the 
Agile Manager.

Explore Agile Team Training 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. 
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>

Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20131014/461f1f66/attachment-0008.htm>