[OSList] Management and Organization

Jan Höglund janhoglund at yahoo.se
Sat Aug 2 02:57:37 PDT 2014




Hi,

I've followed this list for a while but been quiet. Furthermore, I'm new to OST.

I listened to David Snowden's presentation on "Making Sense of Complexity" with great interest. He is brilliant and fun. I learned a lot, but I think there is some 'premature convergence' in his own thinking. It happens so easily. I always fall in that trap myself.

David seems to view the Law of Two Feet as a means to avoid conflict? My understanding is that the law primarily is about honoring what I care about. And I see little reason to use my two feet and avoid conflict if I care *deeply* about something.

>From my perspective, the enemy of innovation is *coercion*. That's the opposite of the Law of Two Feet, and OST...

/Jan


From: bhavmail at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 11:12:59 +0300
To: oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Subject: Re: [OSList] Management and Organization

Hi Harold,

I did 4 days of training with Dave Snowden. He is actually quite dismissive of a range of methods such as OST and AI, and calls the people who use them fluffy bunnies! His style is to be quite provocative because he wants people to wake up and think, he also calls six sigma sick stigma. He doesn't like people who he believes are relabelling existing methods as complexity methods.



At the same time, he recognises that all these methods have value in the right context, and contextual applicability is a term he often uses.



I asked him about Open Space, and within his paradigm/approach/understanding of complexity it does not fit in. His methods try to avoid premature convergence by breaking up moments of shared understanding or group think. His methods push people to scan more data and possibly unrelated data by increasing confilct, etc.



So I think OST doesn't work for the way Dave Snowden wants to approach complexity, however that is different to the question of whether it is a method that does work in complex space. Personally I think it does when used appropriately.



Hope that offers another angle.




Smiles Bhav...
I am grateful for ^



On 2 August 2014 09:02, Harold Shinsato <harold at shinsato.com> wrote:



  
    
  
  
    Chris - thank you again for the mention
      of the Cynefin framework. I very much enjoyed your youtube
      presentation about the framework to the Art of Hosting Community
      at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRn3BM56W74.
      It was well worth the 55 minutes. I especially enjoyed your
      questions and answers section.

      

      After I listened, YouTube presented a related video of a keynote
      by David Snowden to a Lean, Agile & Scrum conference in
      Europe. His talk is titled "Making Sense of Complexity". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6RfqmTZejU

      

      I found his talk brilliant. I enjoyed the insights, but also the
      challenges. David called himself a "Constructive Irritant" or a
      curmudgeon. I'm not sure I'd recommend the talk to everyone in
      this group - but there is one piece that was particularly
      confrontational and important. I carefully transcribed it for you
      here. David Snowden makes these remarks while showing a slide of a
      dragon towering over two Knights, and one Knight says "Oh No! A
      big, evil, DRAGON!". The other says "Quick! Somebody hold a
      meeting". Here is what David says (it is at 49:05 in the talk):

      

      "This sort of hold a meeting mentality, or worse still, I mean if
      there was an Agile version of this, it would be 'Quick let's hold
      an Open Space', because we can all have a nice time and nobody
      will be challenged. Just to make a controversial statement: Open
      Space is the enemy of innovation because it enforces consensus.
      There are actually larger group techniques certainly which we and
      others have developed which actually increase conflict because if
      you don't increase conflict you don't get diversity and you don't
      get proper testing. So the Law of Two Feet is the enemy of
      innovation because it allows people to avoid confrontation where
      they need to do confrontation. Right, it doesn't mean it doesn't
      have value, but it's a contextual method."

      

      This statement from David actually interfered with my sleep. I
      made me question for a couple hours my deep emotional investment
      in OST. As mentioned earlier, I saw and still see Cynefin as a way
      to help promote the use of OST. Earlier in David's talk, when he
      described how to work in the complex space, his recommendations
      sounded a lot like an OST event. But quote I offer from him was
      clearly hostile to OST. My first reaction to his "irritant"
      statement was that OST does *not* enforce consensus. But other
      parts of his statement raise interesting questions. Is there value
      in setting up large group processes that don't allow people to
      avoid confrontation? Can OST prevent needed conflict?

      

      My take on Open Space as a method is that it has been traversing
      the chasm on the innovation cycle between Early Adopter phase, and
      Early Majority. I had expected Agile to help push Open Space over
      to Early Majority. It sounds like OST may already be in the Early
      Majority phase in the Agile community based on David Snowden's
      missive against it. I've also predicted that OST will start facing
      open and active hostility as it starts to break into Early
      Majority. David Snowden may be some evidence this is happening.

      

      I'm quite curious how others receive this statement against OST
      from David Snowden.

      

      Harrison, I quite enjoy what you've written, and I think there's
      something in OST that most consultants and organizational
      development experts are going to miss simply because the
      fundamental assumptions of their traditions go 180 degrees in the
      opposite direction of Open Space, wave riding, and the ancient
      mystery we might now call our self-organizing universe. For me, I
      don't think there is any end to the digging, because there is no
      way a "theory of everything" will ever be able to capture it all.
      And still, there are some of us that have not yet tired of
      digging. But my aim in the digging into game theory, Agile,
      Cynefin, brain science, Tavistock and group relations, sociology,
      psychology, etc. etc. is not "how to deal with massive complexity
      ... by ... making models, and gathering data." The joy in the
      digging is not to try to get to the bottom of it. There is no
      bottom. There will never be a theory of everything. But making
      maps, as long as we understand their fundamental limits, is a
      wonderful thing. As long as we don't confuse them with the
      territory.

      

          Harold

      

      

      On 7/31/14 12:59 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:

    
    
      Good

          thinking Peggy, and having spent no small amount of time,
          paper, and ink exploring the world of emergence or self
          organization – I can definitely appreciate the effort. Helping
          people to develop an awareness of the flow of the enterprise
          is definite plus. Having said that, I find myself needing to
          issue a caveat. Producing a model, even a very good model, of
          the flow of self organization as it relates to complexity, is
          not to suggest that we can fully understand the process, even
          less that we could predict or control it. My experience has
          been that the more I know, in the sense of actual experience
          and perception, the less I understand. Perhaps it is the
          advance of senility, but I find my rational capacity totally
          overwhelmed and over-awed by the magnificent mystery of our
          evolving cosmos. This is not simply the majesty of infinite
          space/time – but equally the fantastic complexity, diversity
          and connectedness of the smallest creatures. The Hummingbirds,
          for example who feed at my window. The Paramecium (single
          celled protozoa that swim in my lake). A single snow flake.
       
      Some

          might take my statement as the despairing cry of an old man.
          The “old man” part is dead on... but there is no despair. Just
          the opposite, in fact. It feels just wonderful! I am reminded
          of conversations over the years with various “Systems
          Thinking” friends. Bright people all, with enthusiasm
          unbounded. They were certain that if they thought hard enough,
          collected data long enough – for sure they could design the
          perfect system, or at least understand the one of which they
          were a part (their business, etc.). They sensed victory just
          over the hill, and I surely wished them well. For myself,
          inspired by their effort, I tried to do the same. But for me,
          the harder I tried, the worse it got. In fact it became an
          infinite regression into ultimate complexity. One could call
          it an exercise in despair. But that is not how it felt...
          Liberation was more to the point with the realization that you
          just couldn’t get there from here...Wonderful!
       
      But

          how to deal with massive complexity in real life situations if
          not by thinking about it, making models, and gathering data?
          It is not that thought, models and data were somehow evil or
          useless, but in terms of my quest, they only led down a rabbit
          hole out of which I could not come. And the harder I tried,
          the deeper I sunk... It felt just wonderful to just stop
          digging! But the complexity of life remained.
       
      Somewhere

          along the line an odd curiosity captured my attention. As our
          marvelous natural experiment in self organization (AKA OST)
          proceeded, it dawned on me that contrary to all of my
          preconceived notions, multiple groups of people of all sorts
          and conditions from every part of the world seemingly engaged
          their complex, self organizing world in an effective and
          productive fashion without benefit of prior instruction,
          models of whatever sort, intense facilitation (handholding)...
          In a word it appeared to be a natural act. Even more counter
          intuitive (counter to my intuition and expectations) was the
          fact that in those (relatively few) situations in which either
          I or some colleague had endeavored to “prepare” the
          participants with conceptual models, exercises of various
          sorts, or explanation of the process (other than the normal OS
          invitation to sit in circle) there was no visible sign of
          improved performance, so far as I could see, and in fact there
          was some indication of a decline. Now, almost 30 years into
          the experiment I also have to say that my most difficult
          groups, without exception, were those composed of The
          Professionals. Those people who made it their business to
          THINK about all the details (facilitators, systems theorists,
          etc.). Eventually even these folks “got with the program” and
          everything happened just as it usually does in Open Space. But
          the shift occurred, as I saw it, only when they stopped
          thinking about it.
       
      I
          think there may be a lesson here. Engaging complexity is not
          primarily a rational act. Even though complexity is a basic
          existential concern for all of us, right up there with Death –
          the resolution to our dilemma will not be found through
          rational enterprise (thinking about it). A major frustration
          for us all! But the good news is that we do not have to travel
          that route. Indeed we really don’t have to travel at all.
          We’re already there!
       
      Proof

          is a slippery word, but I think it fair to say that the 30
          year Natural Experiment of Open Space has rendered a verdict
          almost as good. Highly Probable. Given our experience of
          1000’s of groups effectively dealing with complex, conflicted,
          inflammable issues prepared only by a 10-15 minute
          invitation/introduction...It is highly probable that the
          essential skills and mechanisms were already present within
          the group prior to their arrival at the circle. In short they
          were “already there.” No need to think about it. Just Do it!
       
      Once

          done, it is then time for rational reflection. In truth our
          innate capacity for dealing with complexity, once awakened,
          flows so seamlessly that most people hardly notice. At the end
          of every Open Space in my experience the people evidenced some
          real sense of joy, satisfaction, completion... and little
          appreciation of how it all happened. It just was. That is all
          they know, and all they care to know. That status may be more
          than sufficient in the moment, but it is also true that
          rational reflection in all its forms (model building, data
          collection, etc) can enhance the appreciation, and deepen the
          experience. 
       
      As

          one who has spent a lifetime doing all that “rational
          activity” from model building to data collection (well, story
          collection J),

          I can truly appreciate and applaud the effort. Useful
          undertaking, I think. BUT none of that can hold a candle to
          the profound sense of wonder and awe that I experience in the
          silence of my not-knowing. That is truly wonderful.
       
       
      Harrison
       
       
       
        
          
       
      
        Winter
            Address
        7808
            River Falls Drive
        Potomac,
            MD 20854
        301-365-2093
         
        Summer
            Address
        189
            Beaucaire Ave.
        Camden,
            ME 04843
        207-763-3261
         
        Websites
        www.openspaceworld.com


        www.ho-image.com


        OSLIST
          To
            subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the
            archives of OSLIST Go to: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
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140802/b216098f/attachment-0005.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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


More information about the OSList mailing list