[OSList] Management and Organization
Michael M Pannwitz
mmpannwitz at gmail.com
Sat Aug 2 03:53:47 PDT 2014
Dear Jan,
greetings to you as ex-lurker.
It seems to me that anything reducing the space for "innovation" and
many other goodies through coercion, control, manipulation, etc. often
with the intention to bring forth innovation and the like is stultifying
and an insult to the selforganisation-force.
In my experience, expanding time and space for the
selforganisation-force will enventually bring about what complex
adaptive systems need for themselves. And there seems to be nobody under
the sun that could figure out or predict what that might be. And there
is no need for it. Chaos to order is for free and will take place all by
itself if not hampered (even that will not work in the long run,
hampering, I mean, systems will deal with that with genius etc.).
Have a great day
mmp
On 02.08.2014 11:57, Jan Höglund wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <http://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
> <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 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
>
--
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin, Germany
++49 - 30-772 8000
Check out the Open Space World Map presently showing 395 resident Open
Space Workers in 68 countries working in a total of 142 countries
worldwide: www.openspaceworldmap.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
More information about the OSList
mailing list