[OSList] From linkedin today
Michael M Pannwitz
mmpannwitz at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 00:46:55 PST 2014
Dear all,
large systems, for instance the European Union, have discovered that
many things are vastly complex and that attempts to deal with them
through "traditional" methods are very cumbersome or fail entirely. A
while back, they introduced various approaches, such as the "Method of
Open Communication" or "Open Method of Coordination" etc. One core idea
is to have a certain issue not dealt with in the traditional manner but
to put it out for discussion at an informal level not aiming primarily
at reaching decisions but more to raise the level of information,
coordination, understanding, transparency and what not.
This "mode", I think is also one of the reasons why many parts of the
European bureaucracy is using OST. Recently I was asked to submit a
proposal (I dont know how many thousands of folks received it, but many
because these calls for proposals have to be published europewide) for a
particular project in Serbia in which the prerequisites spelled out were
taken directly from standard OST texts.
Cheers
mmp
> Thank you Peggy and David
>
> I' will think over all your answers
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Peggy Holman <peggy at peggyholman.com
> <mailto:peggy at peggyholman.com>> wrote:
>
> I have a different response to Christine’s question:
>> if we want to keep the system healthy and alive, what should we
>> do ?”
>
> I’d say take responsibility for what you love.
>
> A system exists through the interactions among its diverse agents.
> Some of those agents, whether in an organism or in an organization,
> attend to the system’s health. Think of the role of kidneys for
> flushing out toxins. In human systems, people, rather than cells,
> organize stuff. You could argue that hierarchies are an
> overcompensation of a system that ultimately leaves unflushed
> toxicity in its wake, sometimes killing off the organization. Or at
> least making it function in less optimal ways.
>
> As David said, as we come to understand principles of
> self-organizing, we’re better equipped to do stuff that is congruent
> with natural patterns. I think current trends towards network forms
> of organizing are a promising experiment in a system’s agents
> working with those natural principles. Sort of a permaculture for
> human systems.
>
>
> Christine, to your questions about size:
>> But then how do you do with very large systems ? Or does it mean
>> that any system that is too large to come regularly together as a
>> whole is oversized ? should split into several smaller systems to
>> keep its good health
>
> Important questions. I suspect as we learn more about how networks
> function, the answers to your questions will get clearer. I can only
> speculate. I can imagine people meeting on behalf of the whole in
> transparent ways that are open to anyone who cares to show up. And
> if overwhelming numbers want to be there, perhaps intersecting
> circles come into play. Layers of wholeness exist in systems. So
> those who feel called to convene on behalf of the whole take
> responsibility for it. And connect with others who share in that
> sort of stewarding function. Holding it all lightly and not working
> too hard, of course. :-)
>
> Just mulling…
>
>
> Peggy
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> Peggy Holman
> peggy at peggyholman.com <mailto:peggy at peggyholman.com>
> Twitter: @peggyholman
>
> 15347 SE 49th Place
> Bellevue, WA 98006
> 425-746-6274
> www.peggyholman.com <http://www.peggyholman.com>
> www.journalismthatmatters.org <http://www.journalismthatmatters.org>
>
> *Enjoy the award winning *Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into
> Opportunity <http://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/>
> Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information
> ecosystem
> <http://www.journalismthatmatters.net/the_emerging_news_and_information_eco_system>
>
> "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not
> get burnt, is to become
> the fire".
> -- Drew Dellinger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, David Osborne
> <dosborne at change-fusion.com <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com>> wrote:
>
>> Christine,
>>
>> I think the tendency toward coherence or fragmentation is the
>> organizing principle.
>>
>> I see supporting coherence as a part of the process, not an
>> organizing principle in itself. It's a choice, similar to the
>> other individual and group choices that are a part of
>> self-organization.
>>
>> Most of us here on the list serve choose to facilitate / host open
>> space sessions. I'd suggest this choice usually leads to building
>> coherence. So it is with other coherence supporting choices.The
>> system may or may not do it itself.
>>
>> Another way I would frame it is that organizations I frequently
>> work in are stuck in patterns that they are dissatisfied or
>> frustrated with. Think poor business results, customer
>> satisfaction, work environment, employee engagement / satisfaction
>> etc. Control is the great inhibitor of self-organization and often
>> prevents new coherent patterns being able to emerge. I find that
>> I can often guide or make suggestions that enable these groups to
>> tap into the power of organization to create new self-reinforcng
>> patterns that they prefer. And my involvement and the choice to be
>> open to my suggestions are all choices that are part of the
>> self-organization. I'm suggesting that we / they that support
>> coherence are also part of the self-organizing, not separate from it.
>>
>> I don't mean to be cryptic in my above comments. I find myself
>> continuing to build my own (and hopefully shared) language that
>> describes self-organization. I loved the statement earlier in this
>> exchange that compared self-organization to gravity. I do believe
>> they are both laws that operate invisibly all the time. The point
>> made was that understanding gravity is key to being able to fly to
>> the moon. I think similarly the more we understand and can share
>> the principles of self-organization, we can help humanity fly
>> versus staying stuck in conflict and competition.Thus my continual
>> search to find better ways of sharing and communicating.
>>
>> I'm really enjoying tracking and participating in this dialogue
>> and thanks to all that are contributing and listening/reading.
>>
>> David
>> 703-939-1777
>> dosborne at change-fusion.com <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com>
>> <image.png>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Christine
>> <chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com
>> <mailto:chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David
>>
>> Very interesting, that makes sense to me. Does it mean that
>> supporting coherence of the system as a whole should be an
>> organizing principle ?
>> But then Harrison will say I guess that it is not necessary,
>> as self org. will take care of the system itself.
>> Then there is something that I don't understand about
>> self-org. : if we want to keep the system healthy and alive,
>> what should we do ?
>>
>> Christine Koehler
>> 06 13 28 71 38 <tel:06%2013%2028%2071%2038>
>>
>>
>> Le 9 janv. 2014 à 22:20, David Osborne <
>> dosborne at change-fusion.com
>> <mailto:dosborne at change-fusion.com>> a écrit :
>>
>>> I found the questions about how do you keep a system as a
>>> coherent whole fascinating.
>>>
>>> Part of the dance is the back and forth between coherence and
>>> fragmentation. Chaos offers both opportunity and threat, new
>>> life and death. Coherence leads to new life patterns
>>> emerging, fragmentation leads towards death and the cycle
>>> toward new life continues. In my experience there is lot's
>>> that can be done to reinforce, nurture and support coherence.
>>> Holding the space is one aspect. Drawing attention and
>>> building consensus around what is emerging is another,
>>> supporting parts of the system through conflict in a manner
>>> that continues to increase the likelihood of coherence is a
>>> third. There are many more...and those are some quick
>>> thoughts for now. All of this can and is done with in the
>>> context of self-organization and someone having the passion
>>> and taking the initiative to do it. The two are not mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>>
>>> Cheers to all.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM, christine koehler
>>> <chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:chris.alice.koehler at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Peggy
>>>
>>> If I simplify what you say (and I apologize for it), I
>>> understand that you say that what keep a self-organized
>>> system coherent as a whole is coming regularly together
>>> as a whole, following our two feet to sessions called
>>> around we love, coming back as a whole, dispersing again
>>> for the evening. Of course I would tend to agree with
>>> that. But then how do you do with very large systems ? Or
>>> does it mean that any system that is too large to come
>>> regularly together as a whole is oversized ? should split
>>> into several smaller systems to keep its good health ?
>>>
>>> and what about decision making ?
>>>
>>> Christine
>>> end 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
>
--
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin, Germany
++49 - 30-772 8000
Check out the Open Space World Map presently showing 423 resident Open
Space Workers in 71 countries working in a total of 143 countries
worldwide: www.openspaceworldmap.org
More information about the OSList
mailing list