[OSList] Management and Organization

Sun Jul 27 12:35:52 PDT 2014

Thanks for this distinction Harrison......it makes perfect sense.

David

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

> David – The connection between connectivity and complexity is a given as
> far as I am concerned. And I think we need to make a distinction between
> complexity and the awareness of complexity. I know it is common folk wisdom
> to recall the simpler life of yesterday, usually with some sense of lament
> for a lost time, but I rather suspect that the level of complexity is what
> is has always been – massive. What has changed is our capacity to perceive
> that complexity. If the story that the physicists tell is valid (and why
> not?) every neutrino, quark and boson – from the very first... is still
> rattling around somewhere, somehow exercising some force or impact. Seems
> like everything is connected – first to last, top to bottom, past to
> future. That’s Complexity! And most human beings for most of their time on
> earth didn’t have a clue.
>
>
>
> From where I sit, the fact that human beings are becoming increasingly
> aware of the complexity of the cosmos of which we are an infinitesimal
> (nevertheless complex) part, is good news indeed. Whether we can
> effectively and creatively deal with this new awareness remains to be seen.
> But I am sure it will be exciting.
>
>
>
> 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 <http://%20www.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
>
>
>
> *From:* OSList [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Osborne
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:28 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> Thanks so much for this post....it has once again stirred my thinking on
> all of this.
>
>
>
> Another model that I find helpful that is similar to Cynfin is the
> agreement / certainty matrix. It adds another dimension to the problem
> solving which is even if we knew the answer could we get others to agree to
> do it??? It is based on the work of Ralph Stacy, I believe originally
> created by Brenda Zimmerman as a visual model:
>
>
>
> This is a link for those interested in more:
> http://dev.change-management-toolbook.com/mod/book/view.php?id=74&chapterid=58
>
>
>
> The other thought that I have related to this discussion relates to the
> comments that more-and-more complex problems seem to be emerging based on
> the pace of Change. I once heard John Holland, one of the early
> contributors to the emergence/complexity field state that complexity id
> directly correlated to connectivity. As connectivity increases, there is
> greater potential for something new and different to emerge. If we look at
> how connectivity has increased over the past two decades It's easy to see
> why complexity is increasing. I'm actually surprised we haven't had more
> disruptive change.
>
>
>
> Onward and upward
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM, <chris.corrigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I seek simplicity in trying to describe where and how Open Space does it’s
> magic.
>
>
>
> One of the ways I have had excellent success over the years in describing
> this work is derived from David Snowden’s work on the Cynefin framework.
>
>
>
> The short story is this:
>
>
>
> We are faced all the time with problems that are basically knowable, and
> problems that aren’t.  Knowable problems mean that with the right knowledge
> and expertise, they can be fixed.  A technical team can come together and
> analyse the causes, work with what’s available and craft a solution.  Then
> they can get an implementation plan in place and go ahead and do it.  These
> kinds of problems have a start line and a finish line.  When you are done,
> you are done.  Building a bridge is one of those kinds of problems.  You
> build it and there is no tolerance for failure.  It needs to be failsafe.
>
>
>
> Open Space doesn’t work well for those kinds of problems because the
> solution is basically already known, or at least knowable.
>
>
>
> Then there are problems for which no know solution exists, and even if you
> did get a solution, you can’t really “solve” the problem because the
> problem is due to a myriad of causes and is itself emergent. For example,
> racism.  Look around and you will find very few people that identify
> themselves as racists, but look at the stats for Canadian society for
> example and you see that non-white people are trailing in every indicator
> of societal success.  Essentially you are seeing the results of a racist
> society but no racists anywhere.  This is an emergent problem.  Racism
> itself is a self-organizing phenomenon, notwithstanding the few people that
> actively engineer racist environments.  Such a problem didn’t really start
> anywhere and it can’t really end either.  What is needed is a way of
> addressing it, moving the system away from the negative indicators and
> towards something else.
>
>
>
> In other words, this is a complex problem.
>
>
>
> The way to solve complex problems is to create many “strange attractors”
> around which the system can organize itself differently.  Open Space nis
> the best method I know of for creating such strange attractors, as they are
> born from the passion and responsibility of those that want to create
> change, and they are amplified by people coming together to work on these
> things.
>
>
>
> It’s “post and host” rather than “command and control.”
>
>
>
> And because you can’t be sure if things are going to work out, you have to
> adopt a particular mindset to your initiative: one that is “safe to fail.”
>  In other words, if it doesn’t work, you stop doing it.  If it does work,
> you do more of it.  And all the way along you build in learning, so that
> the system can see how change is made and be drawn towards those
> initiatives that are currently making a difference.  Certainly this kind of
> problem solving is not useful for building a bridge, as you cannot afford a
> failure there.  But for problems with no known solutions, it is brilliant.
>
>
>
>
> Harrison has spent decades outlining this simplicity in even less words
> than I have now and his writing and thinking is, and continues to be far
> ahead of it’s time and maybe a little under appreciated because it is
> delivered in simple terms like “don’t work so hard.”  But ultimately this
> is the best and most important advice for working in complex systems.
>
>
>
> Open Space.  Do it.  Learn. Do it again. Don’t work so hard.
>
>
>
> More than that really starts to build in the delusion that people can
> possibly know what to do.  From that place solutions will be deluded.  That
> they may work is pure luck.  Open Space offers us a disciplined approach to
> addressing complexity in an ongoing way.  Don’t be fooled by its
> simplicity.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Harrison Owen < hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Love what you are saying... and I think you may be working much too hard.
> From where I sit, the basic reality is that all the World is
> self-organizing. That includes all the stuff we think we “organized.” So
> the bottom line is – we are all self organizing, and some of us are doing
> it better. Which is to say that some folks are struggling to invent what is
> already happening “all by itself,” and others are allowing (appreciating)
> what is happening all by itself.  For me, Open Space is simply a great way
> of “practicing” what is already happening. Even if we think it isn’t. Or
> something.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *From:*  OSList [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org
> <oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org>] *On Behalf Of *agusj
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:25 PM
> *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
>
>
>
> Hello Harrison, David S and David O,
>
>
>
> I find the thread of this conversation very interesting and inspiring. In
> my opinion, the success of using OS to transform businesses in
> self-organizing organizations depends of the way you do it. It is very
> different to use OS as a means to experience a different way of
> organization than using OS as a means to allow organizations to have an
> experience of themselves from a context of self-organization.
>
>
>
> An option of the first approach is to use OS as an isolated practice in
> the "old system". This way maybe it can help to fix something, but it is
> very possible that it is not going to make a real difference, if the
> organization does not transfer in any way the underlying conditions of OS
> to its everyday environment.
>
>
>
> An example of the second approach is to use OS as a Trojan horse, acting
> like a hacker. Under this scenario, the organization adopt OS as a common
> practice because its effectiveness to solve problems or to foster
> innovation, or whatever. This way, its continued use over time probably
> generates a new cultural context that facilitates the emergence of
> self-organization. It could take time, but the chance that
> self-organization put down roots is higher than with the first approach.
>
>
>
> Agustin
>
> PS - Recently I read a book that shows the cases of some organizations
> that are defying the "old system" very succesfully. The name of the book is
> Reinventing Organizations written  by Frederic Laloux.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:*  Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net>
> *To:* 'World wide Open Space Technology email list' <
> oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:09 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Management and Organization
>
>
>
> 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
>
> (summer)  207-763-3261
>
>
>
> *www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com>*
>
> *www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com>* (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:* 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> 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 <301-365-2093>*
>
> (summer)  *207-763-3261 <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 <301-365-2093>*
>
> (summer)  *207-763-3261 <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 <301-365-2093>*
>
> (summer)  *207-763-3261 <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
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> www.change-fusion.com | dosborne at change-fusion.com | *703.939.1777
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Osborne
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Osborne
>
> 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
>
>

--

David Osborne

www.change-fusion.com | dosborne at change-fusion.com | 703.939.1777
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140727/2df32f1f/attachment-0004.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