[OSList] Management and Organization
Daniel Mezick
dan at newtechusa.net
Sun Feb 9 07:04:24 PST 2014
Hi Suzanne,
Thanks for your great and timely essay! I have 5 things to say about it.
1/ Self-organization does not SELL well. We must use a catchy slogan
like "high performance" instead. We have to say "high performance" to
company leaders, since they do not speak the language of
self-organization and therefore do not care whatsoever about it. It
means nothing to them.
We must use MUCH less-evolved language when selling.
Think: "The way to efficiency is through the act of *self-organizing*.
Proven methods like Open Space can help."
Say: "The way to efficiency is through the act of using proven
*high-performance* methods. Open Space. can help."
2/ Open Agile Adoption is a high-performance sell. It does not try to
sell self-organization. It DOES self-organization. Explaining all the
theory does not get the business. I therefore do not discuss self-org,
passage-rites and liminality etc unless and until they ask.
3/ There is an opportunity to artfully sell Open Space by selling
"high-performance Agile adoptions." Open Space as a means to an end. I
am using the phrase "rapid and lasting Agile adoption" and "high
performance" interchangeably when talking to sponsors and it works.
4/ It's a huge leap to being Open Space mainstream in business, and
reaching the larger goal is best done step by step. The obvious and open
entry point for Open Space in typical orgs is Agile adoptions-
ESPECIALLY the broken ones, and the landscape is littered with them.
The entry point for OST in most orgs is the Agile-adoption entry point.
That's the crack where the light gets in. We enter HERE. And then, see
what develops in the wider context....outstanding results are hard to
deny. We get them. From that place we can engage formal leadership in a
real conversation about SELF ORGANIZATION.
Once we have their ear!!
5/ Broken Agile adoptions have many causes; the root cause is some form
of "an unwillingness to let go and go all the way."
Mandates kill engagement. Mandates are the reciprocal- the opposite- of
the Law of 2 Feet. Once the people are TOLD what to do and FORCED to do
Scrum or whatever, the effort is dead on arrival. Dead! Lifeless. When
that goes on for a year of more, imagine the tremendous energy being
built up. The difference of potential. The VOLTAGE. The folks show up
disengaged...dead and lifeless...resentful....is the term "zombies" to
harsh? I hope not! Now, imagine a genuine and authentic Open Space event
with all issues about the Agile adoption ON THE TABLE. And a clear path
OUT of the morass. With management on committed to act on proceedings.
That unlocks and unshackles loads of latent energy. A broken Agile
adoption is the PERFECT setup for introducing Open Space. The danger is
that it will be implemented incompletely, without "all issues on the
table" up front, and the commitment from leadership to act after the
event. If that's what they ask for, I politely decline the opportunity
to "serve" in that way. I tell them it is probably (is) NOT the time for
me to be their coach. Maybe later; people (leaders) do after all change
their minds. Keep inviting!
Now, to be clear: management is not going to come calling unless they
are "out of aces" and the adoption is clearly a mess. Then they come
looking for you, and make that call. It's a fantastically GREAT setup
for Open Space: big huge important issue, loads of potential for
conflict, and a time-for-action of yesterday. Perfect !
Daniel
www.DanielMezick.com
203 915 7248
On 2/8/14 11:24 PM, Suzanne Daigle wrote:
> *So what do you think about all of that?*... asks Harrison at the end
> of his original post.
>
> A loaded question to say the least.
>
> Well I've been thinking about it....A LOT. Though really, there's no
> surprise in this plain talk--probably more plain talk than I've ever
> seen on this subject.
>
> Plain talk about management and leadership, whether the definition of
> it, our view of it, our pursuit of it, or our conversations around it,
> which leads me to think about:
>
> "When it really comes down to it, what is it that we are really
> promising management and leadership when they ask us about Open Space?
> What is it that they are really asking of us? What reassurances are
> they looking for? What is the implied promise that we are giving? Why
> is it so hard to find the right words to engage in a meaningful
> dialogue around what we are really inviting?"
>
> Under the surface of it all, we know what management and leadership
> are asking for. We know they want that fix, the predictability, the
> reassurance of outcome, of high performance, of results and probably a
> return to the way things were or as they remember them to be...but was
> it really ever that way? And could it ever be that way again?
>
> We all know that what the clients are asking for is not possible. How
> can we ever predict or plan the complex future we are living into with
> any certainty at all? It would seem that we have ample evidence of the
> futility of even attempting to do so or worse believing that we can.
> And yet we do, over and over again. Working harder and harder,
> searching for that next best model or system or structure or approach,
> spending hours and hours learning more and more, planning, predicting
> and forecasting and then later analyzing the gaps where we did not
> meet plan and spending more and more hours, explaining the variances.
> We massage our words, we try to describe in ways that will seem
> familiar and similar to the existing models to entice and reassure. By
> falling in the trap of promises, are we not also colluding with what
> we know to be true...that control doesn't work no more than
> predictability does.
>
> And as we busily work on this, life is passing us by.
>
> Harrison in an earlier post said:
>
> "For the last several years I have been asking for, pleading for,
> begging for an extended and deep conversation which starts with the
> premise that this is a self organizing world, beginning, middle and
> end. Living fully and productively in such a world requires that we
> think some new, and (some would say) radical and heretical thoughts
> about management, leadership, the nature of organization, power...and
> much more. Good old OST gives us a good experimental base, but that is
> just the beginning. I think. And while some might see OST as a useful
> "tool" for the enhancement of organizations as we know them, in my
> view OST is a wonderful Trojan Horse, which, in a not so subtle
> manner, blows those understandings and ways of working quite out of
> the water. It clears some space for the new conversations to take
> place, while simultaneously offering some useful contributions to the
> content of those conversations."
>
>
> I too year for these conversations...with the clients and others.
> What's more, we know that Open Space gives us the feeling and
> experience that something much bigger and better is right there under
> the surface. The SHIFT that people often experience is life-changing
> or could be if individuals trusted their experience and did not try so
> hard to talk themselves out of what felt so natural... simply because
> it does not match up with the good old predictability models of
> Leadership and Management.
>
> It was this experience that ignited my passion and my courage to jump
> into life. I wonder now if it is not time to speak more clearly, more
> forthrightly about self-organizing, about one less thing to do, about
> chaos and order.
>
> As Harrison yearns for extended and deep conversations on
> self-organizing, I yearn for more and more Open Space and *more plain
> talk* along the lines of "Folks, let's face it; it's just not working.
> Time to try something new or rather time to go back to something
> that's been lying there right under our nose all these billion years.
> It's everywhere, in nature, in our living systems: it's called
> self-organizing. It's our best teacher and the one that has withstood
> the test of time".
>
> Along with the plain talk and inviting, I also want to wear my passion
> on my sleeve without holding back. I want to show how much I yearn for
> work and life to be more joyful, more fun and more productive because
> people are doing "one less thing of the stuff that is a waste to do"
> and "many more things that they enjoy and believe in".
>
> I also see others wearing their heart on their sleeves, speaking
> clearly and with great conviction what they want to see in the world
> of work.
>
> Harrison you said:
>
> I think the bottom line may come down to: Move slowly with empathy,
> and be prepared to wait.
>
>
> I'll admit that I can't buy into that. I feel too much urgency. Life
> may prove me wrong, doors may slam shut but I'm willing to take that
> chance.
>
>
> But what I can buy into is this:
>
> "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." *
> *
>
>
> **
>
> And perhaps if enough of us help nudge it towards that paradigm shift,
> we will start a real tipping point.
>
> Suzanne
>
> **
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:41 PM, David Osborne
> <dosborne at change-fusion.com <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com>> wrote:
>
> Many thanks Harrison...very helpful.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net
> <mailto:hhowen at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> David, Listen to your words... "we're exploring the question
> of how can we have some structure and boundaries and yet
> provide space for self-organization. It's hard to find models
> that enable both."
>
> I hate to say it, and you won't be surprised, but I think you
> are working much too hard. Sounds to me suspiciously like a
> variant of "organizing a self organizing system." Especially
> that part about "find(ing) models." The systems you are
> contemplating (your business and the Association) are their
> own best models. Nothing else will even come close because
> they are unique. And if self organization is anything like I
> think it is, one of its major activities is the creation of
> "structures and boundaries." That, by definition, is what self
> organizing systems do, along with a few other things. So the
> key activity for me would be to stop looking for models, and
> start paying careful attention to how your two self organizing
> systems naturally express themselves in structure and form.
>
> Initially your task will be complicated by all those "other"
> structures and forms that have been laid on, arbitrarily I
> would say, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time
> -- in accord with the latest "models," or "accepted practice."
> After all, we think we all know what an organization SHOULD
> look like.J
>
> But there is a way through the forest, I think, which is
> actually the "design principle" I employed in the development
> of Open Space Technology. You've heard it before. *Think of
> one more thing NOT to do*. Just keep striping away those forms
> and procedures that you thought to be essential for your
> organizations' function. Don't try to do it all at once, and
> start with what I might call the low hanging fruit. Those
> things that just get done, even though nobody can remember why.
>
> Then notice what happens. If something comes back, that is
> pretty good evidence that it was a natural form or structure,
> and your systems, in their own wisdom, felt the need. On the
> other hand, if it stays gone, just say bye, bye, enjoy the new
> space, and get on with your business.
>
> It is true, of course that some structures and forms are
> required by external authorities: Taxes, annual reports, and
> the like. In those situations, I have found it helpful to ask,
> "What is the minimal level of form and structure required to
> get the job done?" For some reason, people seem to make the
> simplest things unendingly complicated. /In extremis/ there is
> a presumption that if it is simple, it can't be any good. I've
> noticed this on more than one occasion with the public
> perception of OST, especially among those who have never been
> involved. I suppose this has something to do with the Expert
> Syndrome -- if you make it complicated enough you will surely
> require the services of an Expert to help you through. For a
> fee of course. And to be honest, we in the OS community
> sometimes seem to be guilty of the same thing.
>
> So there are some suggestions to get started. If you want
> more, and probably more than you want -- you might take a look
> at Part II of /Wave Rider/, "A Wave Rider's Guide to the
> Future." And for a slightly different slant see Part IV of the
> /Power of Spirit,/ "The Care and Feeding of the Interactive
> Organization." And just to be clear, an Interactive
> Organization is my term for a conscious, self organizing system.
>
> Harrison
>
> PS -- And for the record, all of the above are by yours truly
> and available from Amazon.com and the publisher, Berrett-Koehler.
>
> Harrison Owen
>
> 7808 River Falls Dr.
>
> Potomac, MD 20854
>
> USA
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
>
> Camden, Maine 04843
>
> Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
>
> (summer) 207-763-3261 <tel: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>
> [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
> <mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *David Osborne
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:57 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
>
> Harrison,
>
> I had to laugh at my own words as I re-read them.. /."support
> leaders in adopting approaches that move toward greater and
> greater levels of self-organization." /The system of course is
> self-organizing all the time !!!
>
> Opening space enables the system it to move closer and closer
> to high performance versus stuckness, stagnation, decline and
> death. If I restate what I was trying to express, I think we
> can Open Space in big ways as an OS does and/or in small ways
> through the openness in leadership approaches that provide
> more space for passion, creativity, personal responsibility
> etc. This is working at the micro-level though versus the full
> paradigm shift you describe. I agree with your description
> whole-heartedly.
>
> You raise for me very pragmatic questions. Both in our small
> company, ChangeFusion, and in a global membership organization
> I'm involved in we're exploring the question of how can we
> have some structure and boundaries and yet provide space for
> self-organization. it's hard to find models that enable both.
>
> I'd love to hear if others have suggestions of examples.
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Harrison Owen
> <hhowen at verizon.net <mailto: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 <tel:301-365-2093>
>
> (summer) 207-763-3261 <tel: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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:301-365-2093>
>
> (summer) 207-763-3261 <tel: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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:301-365-2093>
>
> (summer) 207-763-3261 <tel: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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 <tel:703.939.1777>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> www.change-fusion.com <http://www.change-fusion.com> |
> dosborne at change-fusion.com <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com>
> | 703.939.1777 <tel:703.939.1777>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> www.change-fusion.com <http://www.change-fusion.com> |
> dosborne at change-fusion.com <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com> |
> 703.939.1777 <tel:703.939.1777>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Suzanne Daigle
> Open Space Facilitator
> NuFocus Strategic Group
>
> FL 941-359-8877
> Cell: 203-722-2009
> www.nufocusgroup.com <http://www.nufocusgroup.com>
> s.daigle at nufocusgroup.com <mailto:s.daigle at nufocusgroup.com>
> twitter @suzannedaigle
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140209/92f431d4/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/20140209/92f431d4/attachment-0008.jpeg>
More information about the OSList
mailing list