[OSList] Open Space and Boundaries

Harold Shinsato harold at shinsato.com
Tue Apr 8 13:39:06 PDT 2014


Beautiful. Are the containers formed by the vectors of caring, or are 
the vectors of caring caused/nurtured/enabled by the container?

I'm with Harrison on this one - the containers - including OST itself - 
were really formed by "the vectors of caring", i.e. Spirit. The best we 
can do as facilitators is invite people to what's already there.

The "experts" in economics at venerable institutions used to teach, and 
unfortunately in too many places continue to teach, that inflation is 
caused by rising prices. When in fact the opposite is true. (Look it up 
in a dictionary.)

I still find it fun to study the containers, and I hope folks won't be 
discouraged from continuing the dialog. But I'm extremely grateful for 
this reminder of the correct direction of causality here. It's really 
like looking at the world as round, when all the experts "know" it's flat.

Thank you Harrison for helping us wake up to this!

     Harold

On 4/8/14 1:48 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
> David -- I have known Glenda for some years, and have always found her 
> to be bright, fun and contributory. She has some wonderful insights 
> about self organization, and she works very hard. As a good academic, 
> she certainly does her detail, sometimes a bit more than I feel I want 
> or need, but good for all of that. However, when it comes to enhancing 
> our function in a self organizing world (or Open Space), I suspect she 
> is working a bit too hard. She and her fellows have developed a whole 
> series of approaches and exercises which enable you to do what I find 
> pretty much happens all by itself. But that is probably just me. And 
> for those of you who want to know more about Glenda, I suggest her 
> latest book --
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Action-Leveraging-Uncertainty-Organization-ebook/dp/B00C3WSKV4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396971594&sr=1-1&keywords=glenda+eoyang 
>
>
> And now back to containers and boundaries. The issue (our differences) 
> may be purely semantic  -- but maybe not. As I think back over lots of 
> Open Spaces, and more particularly what I might call the natural 
> appearance of Open Space (Tahrir Square, for example, or the coffee 
> pot) I fully agree that from the outside they all look like 
> bounded/contained experiences. There seems to be an inside and an 
> outside, a container of some sort. But the question for me: -- Is that 
> boundary/container externally imposed, and therefore prior to the 
> process of self organization as a precondition -- or is the 
> boundary/container a PRODUCT of the process of self organization?  As 
> I read Glenda, she would opt for the former: Container as 
> precondition. I find myself coming down on the other side -- The 
> apparent container is actually a product of the process. In a word, 
> what starts out unbounded and disassociated (random people and things) 
> coalesces into a meaningful form, or better, organism/organization -- 
> which is what self organization is all about, I think.
>
> I grant you that in an Open Space the "room" would seem to be a 
> pre-existing container, but I don't see it as essential. In fact I've 
> "done" a number of Open Space in the middle of an open field. And when 
> you look at natural occurrences, I think it becomes quite clear that 
> pre-existing boundaries/containers don't really have much to do with 
> what is happening. They may be convenient or inconvenient, but not 
> determinative. The other things you mention (time slots, bulletin 
> board, etc.) don't fit for me either. Helpful to be sure, but you can 
> get along quite well without any of it, or so I've found.
>
> So what is going on? My sense is that self organization with humans 
> (in Open Space and/or everyday) commences when some sort of a vector 
> of caring shows up which draws people together. Someone, somewhere, 
> sometime says, or just thinks, "I care about... Not just a little bit, 
> but I really care and am prepared to take responsibility for what I 
> care about. " If this care/concern is shared -- and others care for 
> the same thing, but maybe in very different ways... the ball starts 
> rolling.
>
> In Open Space, this caring is made concrete and specific with the 
> invitation. Of course, when the invite is sent out nobody has a clue 
> whether anybody will come... but if they care, they will come, and 
> given a date/place, electronic or physical they will all show up in 
> one time/space. The vector of caring will draw them in...
>
> If the story I am telling roughly reflects the facts on the ground, I 
> think there are some interesting and serious implications for the role 
> of the facilitator and the function of the container. EVERYTHING is 
> well on the way before there is a facilitator in sight or container at 
> hand. In a word, the system, from the first moment of its emergence 
> does it all by itself. We are bystanders, midwives at best. And the 
> container (whatever that might be) is the product of the process ... 
> and not the precondition or cause.
>
> 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.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> 
> [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *David 
> Osborne
> *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2014 12:26 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Open Space and Boundaries
>
> Harrison,
>
> I think this is one of the few times I have a different point of view 
> that you. I believe OS's have natural containers built in. I also 
> believe you need a container for open space to be effective. I think 
> the difference stems from having a different definition or viewpoint 
> on what a container is and can be. My view has been heavily influenced 
> by Glenda Eoyang's theory and work in this area. For something new to 
> emerge from self organization something has to hold our bind the 
> diverse agents together for them to have exchanges across their 
> differences.
>
> - The room or space the OS is being held in is a container.
>
> - A concept or idea that people care about brings the people 
> together.....it binds or contains them creating the space to have the 
> conversations to emerge.
>
> - The bulletin board is a container.....scheduling a specific 
> conversation at a specific place and time.
>
> In my experience there are always multiple containers that are 
> massively intertwined.
>
> My thoughts along the way.
>
> David
>
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Michael Wood <michael.wood at uwa.edu.au 
> <mailto:michael.wood at uwa.edu.au>> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Harrison, for your response to my question on 'boundaries', 
> particularly your paraphrasing of my question - which was spot on. 
>  One thing I've taken from this brief conversation is that although 
> considering the boundaries can be useful, we also need to accept that 
> boundaries are never entirely clear, always moving on a spectrum from 
> clear to uncertain/murky and if we, as a sponsor or facilitator, get 
> overly bound up with boundaries then we might have moved, once again, 
> into being too controlling.
>
> Michael Wood
> Perth, Western Australia
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:01:40 -0400
> From: "Harrison Owen" < hhowen at verizon.net <mailto:hhowen at verizon.net>>
> To: "'World wide Open Space Technology email list'"
>         < oslist at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OSList] Open Space and boundaries
> Message-ID: <000301cf4f56$00776480$01662d80$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> It has been common for us to speak of Containers and Boundaries as 
> somehow essential to Open Space. I can't quite find the place, but I 
> do remember saying something like that myself, as in, "The role of the 
> facilitator is to create the container..." It certainly made sense at 
> the time, but I always felt a little uncomfortable with the image. Too 
> mechanical, coercive... too something. And Michael has brought the 
> subject up again. "So...here we have a situation where the 
> 'boundaries' are actually in a state of complex flux and uncertainty. 
> The financial 'givens' are ambiguous; there is no 'locum'
> pastor in place because of legal uncertainties with the existing 
> pastor...etc." You might call it "messy boundaries" -- and he raises 
> the question whether one should press ahead with Open Space, or wait 
> until the "mess" is settled down. On the one hand, Michael "hunches" 
> that one should press on -- Open Space. But his hesitation comes, I 
> suspect, from the prior notion that fixed boundaries/containers are 
> necessary for an effective Open Space. What to do?
>
> Some thoughts (new ones for me): Containers are great for cooking 
> soup, but are unneeded and maybe even problematical in Open Space. It 
> is all about holding things together. In Open Space groups of people 
> come together to deal with their issues. At the very least that would 
> mean gathering in some common time/space, be that physical or 
> electronic. It would seem that this co-location could be facilitated 
> were some suitable "container" provided, presumably by the 
> sponsor/facilitator. This certainly makes sense, and as a rough way of 
> speaking, it seems to describe what is going on. But as I think about 
> it, I think we may be missing a most important point. Coming together 
> in Open Space happens because people care to come. And they continue 
> their connection as long as they care to do so. (Law of two feet)
>
> >From the "outside" it might look as if they were held in place by a
> container, but that is illusory. The actual dynamics are centripetal, 
> the force is mutual attraction... people are "there" because they care 
> to be there and not because they are contained by some external 
> structure. In a word, we as facilitators really don't do a thing, and 
> creating a container is the least of what we DON'T do. The people, 
> from the beginning, do it all.
>
>
> Of course, there are situations where groups come together under 
> orders, mandates, whatever. And they are definitely "contained." It is 
> also true that the tighter that container, the less likely self 
> organization will take place. If true, providing a container is not 
> only unnecessary but also destructive. In the name of Opening space, 
> we effectively close it. Or so I suspect it might be. Just thinking...
>
> Anyhow Michael, should my mental peregrinations lead anywhere useful, 
> it would seem that your "hunch" was spot on. Forget the 
> boundaries/container.
> Just invite the space to open.
>
> 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com>
> www.ho-image.com <http://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>
> [mailto: oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>] On Behalf Of Michael 
> Wood
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:59 PM
> To: ' oslist at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>'
> Subject: [OSList] Open Space and boundaries
>
> A Case Study....
> One of the principles that I have generally worked with in Open Space 
> is helping the client get clear on the 'boundaries' of the space 
> that's being opened. For example, helping people who come into the 
> space to know 'what up for grabs here and what isn't? What decisions 
> have already been made?'
>
> So picture this (purely hypothetical of course)....a church community 
> in which the pastor has (in many peoples' opinion) run off the rails 
> and the main church body is in the process of trying to dismiss him; 
> the church is in compete disarray and completely conflict ridden, many 
> people have left; the pastor who holds all the keys, banking 
> passwords; church telephone connections etc etc, has taken legal 
> advice and had hunkered down in the church owned house where he 
> continues to hold the reigns of power (via some of his 'allies' in the 
> church) despite not formally being the Pastor of the church anymore....
>
> So...here we have a situation where the 'boundaries' are actually in a 
> state of complex flux and uncertainty. The financial 'givens' are 
> ambiguous; there is no 'locum' pastor in place because of legal 
> uncertainties with the existing pastor...etc etc.
>
> So in terms of 'Opening Space', do we wait a bit longer until some of 
> the legal boundaries are clarified, OR open space right away in the 
> midst of the mess....my hunch is the latter, but any thoughts from 
> anyone?
>
> Cheers
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org> To unsubscribe send an email 
> to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org> To unsubscribe send an email 
> to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org>
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
> End of OSList Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3
> *************************************
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org 
> <mailto:OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org>
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
> --
>
> David Osborne
>
> http://www.change-fusion.com/ChangeFusionLogo.jpg
>
> www.change-fusion.com <http://www.change-fusion.com> | 
> dosborne at change-fusion.com <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com> | 
> 703.939.1777
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


-- 
Harold Shinsato
harold at shinsato.com <mailto:harold at shinsato.com>
http://shinsato.com
twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140408/d302a33d/attachment-0008.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8138 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140408/d302a33d/attachment-0008.jpeg>


More information about the OSList mailing list