[OSList] Management and Organization

Tue Feb 4 12:40:30 PST 2014

Oh Harrison, how I love this bunch of words that you put out there... I
don't want to comment on any of them. In the same way that I always work
myself into a box if I explain too much and boy do I ever get myself into
tight and uncomfortable places. Instead I just want to invite and invite
and invite in whatever way will seem to strike the right chord with the
conditions of Open Space being there.

Thank you for encouraging me/us to continue to "nudge" and to "be
patient".  I am way better at the first than the second.

from ...
"the fundamental understanding of "organization" remains unchanged
(predesigned structure and controls with Leaders/Managers in charge) and
the new effort is to enable "leaders (to) move toward approaches that
support greater and greater self-organization." Tactically I can certainly
understand the approach, but what if organization is fundamentally,
essentially, in *totality *- Self Organizing?"

to...
"nor can I resist the compulsion to share the experience in whatever way
with whomsoever might show up. I think the bottom line may come down to:
Move slowly with empathy, and be prepared to wait."

and finally...
"I will do the Open Space in order to introduce anomaly... one more nudge
towards Paradigm Shift.

I know full well that I can't shift paradigms for people. The same is true
of Transformation, which has a lot to do with paradigm shift. Both will
happen all by themselves...or not. But I can and will nudge when given the
opportunity. After that it is all about waiting..."

Suzanne

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hello David O. and David S. I've re-titled to give the thread a new name
> if only because I think it is headed in some new directions with hopefully
> a long and useful discussion in prospect.
>
>
>
> This discussion may get a little difficult as we attempt to define and
> understand the words we are using, "Management," for example. I had in mind
> the more common garden variety of Management's role in organizations. As
> Wikipedia (that source of all useful information) notes, "Despite the move
> toward workplace democracy, command-and-control organization structures
> remain commonplace as *de facto* organization structure." (Wikipedia).
> Back in the old days a common definition of a good manager was one who,
> "Makes the plan, manages to the plan, and meets the plan." And we all know
> how that was supposed to be done. Single word: Control. Lots of Command and
> Control.
>
>
>
> David has moved in new, interesting and effective directions saying, "What
> I have found is that as I'm able to share the conditions that support
> self-organization and how they can be integrated into individuals
> leadership approach that the leaders move toward approaches that support
> greater and greater self-organization."
>
>
>
> I applaud the effort, but it seems to me it may be rather a half step. If
> I hear David's words correctly, the fundamental understanding of
> "organization" remains unchanged (predesigned structure and controls with
> Leaders/Managers in charge) and the new effort is to enable "leaders (to)
> move toward approaches that support greater and greater self-organization."
> Tactically I can certainly understand the approach, but what if
> organization is fundamentally, essentially, in totality - Self Organizing?
> If that is the situation, "greater and greater self organization" makes
> little sense for a very simple reason. It is all self organizing to begin
> with! But I guess that is just splitting hairs, and for sure the heart is
> moving in the right direction.
>
>
>
> The revolutionary in me (and yes there is some of that J) would dearly
> love to shake the organizational world by the scruff of the neck saying
> something like, Move on, Wake up! You just can't get there from here. And
> for a certainty, such an approach would have no chance of success. There
> needs to be a change in view, I am sure -- but forced change, were it even
> possible, falls back on the old way which wasn't effective then and won't
> work now. And there is another way which unfortunately requires some
> patient waiting. But we may not have to wait that long.
>
>
>
> It is a very common lament -- that, "things just aren't working." What
> "things" and the nature of their dysfunction are often left unsaid, but the
> universal uneasiness is pretty clear. To date, the usual response has been
> to do more and more of what we've always done, but maybe with a different
> name (Quality Circles, Process Re-Engineering, Dialogue, maybe even AGILE
> when mandated etc.). The results have not been inspiring. Some would even
> include Open Space Technology as a new tool. But I don't think that works
> either if the intent is to fix the old system.
>
>
>
> As the lament continues, some strange things are happening. Every now and
> again something actually WORKS! And it works even when the plans are
> busted, the leadership is incompetent, the environment sour and
> threatening. Who knows how or why - but it worked. The Brits usually call
> this Muddling Through, which is what happens when everything goes a
> different way than it was supposed to - but it all turns out fine. Phew!
>
>
>
> There is another name for this strange phenomenon. Anomaly. Anomaly
> literally means being outside the law (lawless) from the Greek *a*(without)
> *nomos* (law).  Anomalies cause one to scratch the head in wonder...How
> on earth could THAT happen? Most often, we just pass them by with a
> dismissive, "weird!" I think that is a mistake.
>
>
>
> Peter Vaill, an old friend and colleague, had a knack for seriously
> noticing anomalies. He observed that some organizations performed at levels
> of excellence that definitely blew away the competition. He called them
> High Performing Systems. The problem was, these systems broke all the rules
> of how organizations were supposed to work. As a Professor of Management,
> Peter could be accused of a flawed effort because instead of attempting to
> analyze how they worked, Peter contented himself with a delightful
> description of what they did, which he captured in a short paper (1977*),
> The Behavioral Characteristics of High Performing Systems*. I say
> delightful because he wrote in a totally colloquial fashion, and definitely
> not in the style of Academe, even though he was the (then) Dean of the
> Business School at George Washington University.
>
>
>
> Writing almost 10 years before Open Space Technology, Peter seems
> prescient, for his "Behavioral Characteristics" are a perfect description
> of the common behavior at every Open Space I have ever seen. Taking a tall
> leap in logic, I have argued (Wave Rider) that the link between Peter's
> High Performing Systems, and what we have experienced in Open Space is the
> phenomenon of self organization. Or put somewhat differently, High
> Performing Systems are well functioning self organizing systems. And in
> function and effect they are definitely anomalous for according to the
> accepted wisdom, they simply could not happen or do what they do!
>
>
>
> On the subject of Anomaly and the importance of same, the work of Thomas
> Kuhn comes to mind. Author of, "The Structures of Scientific Revolutions,"
> Kuhn gave us that wonderful concept, "paradigm," as in Paradigm Shift. As
> an historian of Science, Kuhn describes how the scientific world grew in
> wisdom and stature, passing through several understandings of the nature of
> things, on the way to new (and presumably better) ones. That passage he
> called, Paradigm Shifts. According to his story, the scientific  or learned
> community held a certain view of reality for a period of time, which worked
> very well, and seemed to explain most, if not all, of the phenomenon of
> their experience. This view (paradigm) was taken as The Truth, and defended
> with ferocity. For example, everybody "knew" at one time that the Earth was
> the center of everything and those who disagreed were considered heretics,
> and often dispatched. Galileo, for instance. Then funny little anomalies
> began to show up as people observed the heavens. If the anomalies were not
> an illusion then Earth centeredness was false - which everybody knew must
> be wrong, insanity, or worse. But the anomalies refused to go away, which
> made people more and more uncomfortable, to say nothing of angry. Then one
> shinning day the view shifted. Same old heavens as before but seen with
> totally new eyes. Paradigm shift. Very powerful and never comfortable.
>
>
>
> This brief sojourn into the History of Science can be helpful to our
> present concerns, I think, for we are facing a very similar situation in
> our understanding of organizations, as well as management. The traditional
> understanding of organization, and therefore management, has been around
> for a long time. As with all paradigms, it is taken to be The Truth, and
> those who challenge will inevitably be subject to dismissal at the
> beginning, changing to discomfort, and perhaps ending with anger. The
> reason is very simple. The investments in this particular paradigm are
> enormous, and include ways of life, ways of making a living, and for some,
> life itself. Messing with all of that cannot be done lightly.
>
>
>
> And yet the anomalies persist. Some are quite subtle and are perceived
> only as a growing sense that "things are not working as we expected."
> However, when the system/organization seems broken, it is clear that we
> must fix it and we think we know how. If the organizational process is
> screwy, then obviously we need Process Re-Engineering. But it didn't work.
> We try harder and harder, doing variants of what we've always done, and
> (surprisingly) we get what we've always got. But hope springs eternal, and
> someday we will find The Fix. Or so it says in all the books. Maybe.
>
>
>
> Other anomalies are not so subtle. Open Space Technology is such an
> anomaly. I believe it to be true that Open Space violates virtually all
> principles and practices of traditional organizational theory and
> management practice. To the extent that it (OS) works as we have
> experienced it working - much if not all of current practice is called into
> question. My view is doubtless biased, but some 20 years ago, a senior
> official from the American Society for Training and Development (pardon the
> repeat) seemingly had the same impression when he told me, after hearing
> what happened in Open Space, "Harrison, if what you say is true, then 99%
> of what we are currently do does not need to be done." I would have been
> greatly relieved had I been able to argue with him. But I couldn't. I can't.
>
>
>
> So David(s) - where does that leave us? Discretion might dictate picking
> up our toys and going home. Others might suggest heading for the
> barricades. Personally I don't think either possibility is very useful. I
> simply cannot deny what I have experienced in Open Space, nor can I resist
> the compulsion to share the experience in whatever way with whomsoever
> might show up. I think the bottom line may come down to: Move slowly with
> empathy, and be prepared to wait.
>
>
>
> And what would that mean for us and what we do...? At a practical level,
> it could mean something like this. Let's suppose that the Management of a
> very traditional Organization shows up on our doorstep. They are concerned
> that organizational function is dismal, the people seem to dislike each
> other and what they are doing, and profits have disappeared. The request is
> simple: Help!  Somewhere they heard about Open Space and believe (hope) it
> could fix their system, or at least make a start.
>
>
>
> It sounds like a marvelous opportunity, and a natural response would be,
> YES! At least that would be my response. All the essential preconditions
> for OS seem to be in place (real issue, complexity, etc) - BUT ... There
> are some issues to consider. First, if by "fixing their system" the client
> means that the "traditional Organization" is going to be put back together
> as it once was, that is a real problem, I think. The reason is simple - the
> root of their problems is precisely the system (understanding of
> organization) they were working under. Make it even stronger. Were I to
> design a system that would maximize separation and alienation, minimize
> creativity and collaboration - I don't think I could do any better than the
> system they were operating under. Fixing, or restoring that system would
> only compound their misery. Secondly, Doing an Open Space in that
> organization is quite likely to increase the general dissatisfaction with
> how things are done. As one senior executive from a very traditional
> organization said to me following an Open Space we did, "You have ruined me
> for work in this place. I am not sure whether to thank you or hate you."
> Talk about being caught on the horns of a dilemma! If fully successful with
> my task (opening space), I will have failed the clients' primary
> expectations (fixing the system) and simultaneously raised the level
> employee dissatisfaction.
>
>
>
> All true, I think. And I would still do the Open Space, but my reasons
> could cause some problems unless very carefully explained, and that
> explanation itself is problematical. At one level I will do the Open Space
> because I know that it will enable people to be more comfortable, powerful,
> sure of themselves. That's the easy part. But at another level I will do
> the Open Space in order to introduce anomaly... one more nudge towards
> Paradigm Shift.
>
>
>
> I know full well that I can't shift paradigms for people. The same is true
> of Transformation, which has a lot to do with paradigm shift. Both will
> happen all by themselves...or not. But I can and will nudge when given the
> opportunity. After that it is all about waiting...
>
>
>
> So what do you think about all that?
>
>
>
> 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%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <http://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<oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *David Osborne
> *Sent:* Monday, February 03, 2014 9:47 AM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Trust
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree OS fails as a management tool.....Self-Organization
> has become the lens I look at all my work as an individual who supports
> groups and organizations in change and in my leadership and management
> development work. It's not an either / or for me os works or doesn't work
> as a management tool.
>
>
>
> Leadership is simply supporting an organization in moving toward its
> goals. The invitation in OS is the goal or issue that people care about.
> What I have found is that as I'm able to share the conditions that support
> self-organization and how they can be integrated into individuals
> leadership approach that the leaders move toward approaches that support
> greater and greater self-organization. This is not top-down, traditional
> leadership or management. As you propose in Wave-Rider Harrison, I believe
> the principles of OS / self-organization can be integrated as a leadership
> approach with great results.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> David - I would totally agree that OS "utterly fails as a management
> tool." Then again I think that OS shares this fate/condition with all other
> "management tools," at least as I understand "management" and "tool" in the
> context of enabling effective human performance. And thereby hang the
> beginning of a long and useful discussion, I think.
>
>
>
> 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <http://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 *David stevenson
> *Sent:* Monday, February 03, 2014 1:51 AM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Trust
>
>
>
> Ho indeed Harrison! OpenSpace opens space for freedom of spirit and heart,
> choice and the weaving of our fates and destinies with that of our
> world, it does not achieve complience and so, at least to the extent that
> people are to be managed...
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Brendan said: "And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer
> of trust between mentor and sponsor" Right on! I don't think it makes a bit
> of difference how elegantly one "does" the Open Space. It is really all
> about TRUST. When I said that anybody with a good heart and good mind can
> "do it," that is just a long winded way of saying what I've always found to
> be true. Expertise is interesting. Integrity and Trust are essential. A new
> comer to the OS world, opening space for the very first time, muffing some
> lines, and forgetting others - can do every bit as well as a 20 year
> veteran. The coin of the realm is Integrity, authenticity, trust. But none
> of that should be news, for that trio is the bedrock of all positive human
> encounter, I think. Which may just be another way of pointing out that OS
> is not some special process we do, it is just life lived well. Or something.
>
>
>
> 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 <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <http://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<oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Brendan McKeague
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 01, 2014 12:57 AM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Sponsor PreWork Conversation (long)
>
>
>
> A very interesting question Chuni Li...
>
>
>
> The sponsor was being mentored by one of my colleagues in our local Open
> Space community of practice (Wave Riders) who suggested to him that OS was
> the right method/model for the task at hand.  As his coach (the formal role
> as perceived by the organisation), my colleague encouraged the sponsor to
> get in touch with me to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. The
> sponsor researched OS for himself first and then engaged me to provide the
> specialist knowledge....Harrison often says that anyone with a good heart
> and head can open space - and I agree - while at the same time, I
> acknowledge that 'Open Space wisdom' is often helpful, if not necessary, in
> situations of increased complexity and potential conflict.
>
>
>
> After his initial attraction to OS in theory, and as part of his research,
> the sponsor then ran a mini Open Space within his own jurisdiction to see
> how it worked in reality - he wished to speak from his lived experience
> when engaging with his higher-uppers.  He also watched a few of the growing
> library of YouTube clips that are so wonderful for educating potential
> sponsors.
>
>
>
> Now totally convinced, the transfer of trust was complete at various
> levels....trusting the process (OST works) AND trusting the facilitator
> (who was aligned with the essence of OST - i.e living in it) AND trusting
> that both facilitator and process were 'fit-for-purpose' in this context.
>
>
>
> And in my view , all germinating from that initial transfer of trust
> between mentor and sponsor
>
>
>
> Hope this story helps
>
>
>
> Cheers Brendan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 31/01/2014, at 1:10 PM, chunili2000 at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you Brendan for taking the time to organize and share this
> information - so precious and such a generous gift!
>
>
>
> I am curious about the sponsor who "put his neck out" to make the event
> happen.
>
> Had he experienced OST before? Did you have to "convince" him? What made
> him willing to "jump through the hoops?" Was it the OST process or was it
> you that he trusted?
>
>
>
> Chuni Li
>
> New Jersey
>
>
>
> *From:* Brendan Mc
>
>
>
> --
> David Stevenson
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Osborne
>
> [image: http://www.change-fusion.com/ChangeFusionLogo.jpg]
>
> www.change-fusion.com | 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
>
>

-- 
Suzanne Daigle
Open Space Facilitator
NuFocus Strategic Group

FL 941-359-8877
Cell: 203-722-2009
www.nufocusgroup.com
s.daigle at nufocusgroup.com
twitter @suzannedaigle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140204/75cd9d3a/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/20140204/75cd9d3a/attachment-0008.jpeg>