[OSList] control?

Tue Jun 24 14:09:29 PDT 2014

Michael - Some thoughts on your thoughts...

To make the observation that nobody is in control in Open Space (or anywhere
else for that matter) is quite solid and true to my experience. But it is
important to note that we are saying "nobody" - as in no one person or small
group. For many, such a statement is viewed as naive, woo--woo, or worse.
For me it is just practical good sense for a very basic reason. Being in
control requires that you actually know what is going on - what you don't
know or are unaware of simply can't be under your control. By definition.
And the Cosmos in which we live is so enormous, complex, interconnected and
fast moving that the vast majority of it is simply beyond our ken. To
pretend otherwise is illusory at best, and certainly vaulting hubris. 

The fact that many people, doubtless the majority, think and act otherwise -
does represent a problem. For us, our minority status pushes us preciously
close to that marvelous condition called insanity - seeing things that
nobody else can see. Personally, however I find our problem to be quite
minor compared to the difficulties of all the "True Believers." Caught up in
what I can only characterize as "The Illusion of Control," these folks have
created  and sustain vast institutions built upon the model of hierarchical
control which are increasingly demonstrating massive ineffectiveness (they
can't do what they are supposed to do) combined with disastrous and
destructive impact on many of the poor souls who find themselves caught in
the machine.

I guess that all sounds pretty extreme, but I don't think I am saying
anything essentially different than Michael ("At one level these are people
are 'free' to resist but at the likely cost of their job, or their life.").
But there is a concern here, I think which derives from how we see our job.
If we see our role as supporting the people (which seems to be what Michael
is saying) - there is certainly a place for what I might call palliative
care. This is not about supporting the institution(s), or even "fixing" them
(I suspect they are well beyond any "fix") - but rather being with the
people in their pain. Extended hand holding, so to speak - which is indeed
good and useful.

However, should the role be viewed either as supporting the institutions,
and/or "fixing the people" so that they fit the institutional framework - I
have some real discomfort. I believe our hierarchical, control oriented
institutions are doing precisely what they were designed to do: eliminate
surprises, control variables - producing (supposedly) efficiency,
effectiveness, and if possible, profit. Some do it better, and some do it
worse, but they all try. And in the process there is no small amount of
collateral damage for all the people involved. They find their lives
constrained, disrespected, minimalized - to the point that they would prefer
to be just about anywhere but at work. And this is called "Making a living?"

Yes I know - we have lots of good people, who with the best intentions in
the world are trying to make things better. While the scope and nature of
their efforts vary widely, all seem to involve inventing/designing a new
system which might do a better job. We have Quality Circles, Participatory
Management, Matrix Organizations, Agile Organizations, etc, etc, which are
then imposed (mandated) - and strangely, regardless of the good intent, the
experience to date is that we end up right back where we started. The names
have changed, but the reality is the same. I think there may be a lesson
here. The problem is not the newly designed system, but rather its
imposition (mandate).

Fair question - Alternatives? Are we left with Extended Hand Holding as the
only useful approach? I don't think so and I am also certain that a fruitful
alternative WILL NOT BE designing another better, different system. Our
experience with Open Space can be helpful. 

When we say that nobody is "in control" in Open Space, it is not the case
that there are no controls. By the same token, we might describe OS as
"non-structured" - but we would be in error, I think, to say there are no
structures. In fact I experience massive amounts of both control and
structure, but with a significant difference. Both are emergent and
intrinsic - they spring forth naturally from the nascent organization as it
emerges. I call this Appropriate Control and Structure. It is native to that
organizational situation, and none other and therefore appropriate
(congruent) with the people who come, the tasks they perform, and the
environment in which it all takes place. Change any of those three and the
structures and controls will immediately change as well. They are intrinsic
and emergent as opposed to extrinsic and imposed. Best of all they really
work to the point that many people are not even aware of their presence. 

And where does that leave us? Certainly not with a magic wand to immediately
cure the evils of the Beast. And for sure we cannot impose the Open Space
Model System. I am not quite sure what that would be, but I am convinced
that it would be just as bad and ineffective as our previous efforts. I do
believe, however, that our approach can be much more measured and subtle.
Strange as it seems, time is on our side. And of course, if you run out of
time, it doesn't make much difference anyhow. 

Simple take: Just open space wherever, whenever, however, with whomever
about whatever that people care about. That could be about "Doing an Open
Space" - but more usually I think it is about inviting our fellows to claim
their passion and move. Some will, and some won't. The cost as Michael
points out, can be extreme. But life by definition is risky. No risk - no
life. Or something. But our special gift to the situation is to enable
people to reflect on what happens. Just notice... when you gave up control
useful things happened. It won't happen all at once (for sure!) - but the
Times they are a 'changing. Someone said.

ho 

From: OSList [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Wood
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:23 AM
To: oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Subject: [OSList] control?

In OST work we may find ourselves declaring that 'no one is in control'.  I
think that's probably largely true in my own experience. I rarely feel like
I'm in control of anything, and certainly not of anyone else. Realising this
has been very liberating.

And yet what are the full implications of this statement?  I'm supporting
people in a large hierarchically structured organisation where a lot of
staff feel very disempowered. In effect,  they feel 'controlled'. How?
Fairly simple things like if they resist the punishing demands being placed
on them (do more with less), then their contracts will not be renewed. Or we
might take a more dramatic example of places where people find their liberty
curtailed at the end of a gun. They may also feel like they are being
'controlled'.

At one level these are people are 'free' to resist but at the likely cost of
their job, or their life. 

So when we say 'no-one is in control', is the corollary of this statement
that 'we all have freedom and exercising that freedom might be very
painful'?  

Michael Wood

Perth, Western Australia

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140624/ef90e731/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