[OSList] Structure -- Heavy, lite, whatever....

Sat Mar 1 11:11:25 PST 2014

Thanks for this reminder Harrison.

David

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> wrote:

> I just love the serendipity! The LIST was dead silent for a day or two,
> and suddenly there is this marvelous conversation about structure, heavy,
> lite, whatever. Turns out OSLIST was not dead at all. Just gestating. And
> during that period of gestation, I received a note from a friend raising
> issues about structure. That note turned me on, and I replied at length -
> not knowing a thing about the burgeoning conversation online. Imagine my
> surprise when I signed on! And being the lazy sort that I am ... I am
> simply passing on my response to my friend with his name removed. But he
> does know that stuff is happening on OSLIST, and perhaps he will join us?
>
>
>
> Ho
>
>
>
> *************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> XXXX -- Love to talk about structure. As a matter of fact, it is a subject
> I have found myself pondering increasingly over the past several years,
> often taking me to some odd places, which shouldn't surprise you, knowing
> me as you do.
>
>
>
> Your observations and questions are rich places to start,  ("Nothing gets
> done without a structure. Open Space is a minimal structure which is why it
> doesn't get in the way of self-organization. Does it mean that it is the
> only minimal structure? Can it be combined usefully with some other minimal
> structure? Are there situations where another minimal structure might be
> just as or more useful?"). However, my wanderings, make it necessary to
> back off a bit, explain a bit, and then proceed. Sorry for the detour, but
> it is the best I can do. J
>
>
>
> Last spring, Peter Block did a conference, and prior to its opening, he
> invited me to sit for a filmed interview which he moderated. I don't
> remember how the subject came up exactly, but Peter asked me what I thought
> about structure, and my reply surprised even me. I said that I rather
> thought that structures were possibly a figment of our imagination, or at
> the very least a snapshot of the process of reality at a moment in time. My
> basic thought was that everything from the moment of the Big Bang is
> flowing energy, which does in fact assume certain configurations in the
> moment, and then flows on. What we call structures are actually a
> freeze-frame representations of a moving process. Thus whenever we depict a
> structure it is always a picture of how things were in that moment now
> past. That picture does not, and cannot, capture the present reality, and
> it is no predictor of future configurations. Perhaps not figments of our
> imagination, but artifacts of our memory?
>
>
>
> So, for example, if you look at a mountain, we might say that for sure we
> are confronting a "Structure," some might say an eternal structure.
> Mountains, after all seem to hang about for a bit. But all of that is only
> "true" within our restricted (one might say, infinitesimal) snap shot of
> time. Extend that time frame to cosmic proportions and the solid mountain
> structure transmutes into a flowing sea of cresting waves.
>
>
>
> I rather suspect that the same sort of thinking applies to Organizational
> Structures. Most people, I believe would acknowledge that the famous
> Organization Chart is most notable for its irrelevance. At best it
> represents how someone thought things should look, but everybody "knows"
> that isn't how things work. Were we to move from something supposedly cast
> in stone, or at least printed in all the corporate manuals, to a more
> contemporaneous representation, we have a similar problem. No matter how
> hard we try we have, at best, a snap shot of how things were at that point
> in time.
>
>
>
> The situation doesn't get much better with the structures we design. They
> can only represent how we hope things will work, and even if the design is
> truly detailed and elegant, the moment they are put into operation, things
> change. I think this is true at every level of our endeavors, from the
> "design" of a simple meeting or process up to the design of a whole
> corporation. It may look great on paper, but the instant the "start" button
> is depressed - things change.
>
>
>
> If any of this thinking coincides with how things actually are, we have
> some interesting difficulties. Or at least all those who presume the
> priority of structure as an *a priori* truth in organizational life, have
> some difficulties. They (whoever "they" are) take it as an article of faith
> that FIRST you create/design the structure and THEN you do the business.
> That certainly makes logical sense, but I fear the logic is based on a
> pretty weak reed. A figment of our imagination, I could say.
>
>
>
> I believe the source of our difficulty arises from that strange creature
> you and I so much enjoy, the phenomenon of Self Organization. I will
> confess that my infatuation with the critter over the last 50 years has led
> me into some strange places, to say nothing of heretical opinions, as some
> would see it - but it has been a fun ride. The history of that adventure is
> lengthy and convoluted, but as I approach the end of my journey I have come
> to two conclusions, which may well be the only things I have truly learned
> in 78 years on the planet. Whether this is the result of Insight or
> Alzheimer's I can't say - but the conclusions are as follows:
>
>
>
> All systems (including all human systems) are open.
>
> All systems (including all human systems) are self organizing.
>
>
>
> The first conclusion (All systems open), I take to be self evident. It is
> also true that I can't think of any possible way to prove it. In the
> scientific community, as I read the literature, I think there would be
> substantial agreement. From the cosmos as a whole down to the level of the
> lowliest Quark, with ants and asteroids in between, it is all one big
> churning mass with each element actually, or potentially, interacting with
> all others for 13.7 billion years. Yes there are discrete systems, here
> today and dissipated tomorrow - but none stand in splendid isolation. It is
> all connected and therefore open to any and all interactions. At least that
> is how I hear the story.
>
>
>
> The second conclusion (All systems self organizing) certainly could be
> open to debate, but from where I sit, it is the natural correlate of the
> first. In as much as all systems are open they are all subject to the
> pushes, pulls and challenges of the external environment, which is
> constantly shoving them out of their comfort zone (equilibrium) into
> chaos.  Self organization is the natural response through which life and
> existence is sustained. And it doesn't *start* with order (structure). It
> *creates* order/structure. In a word, structure is emergent. Which is
> what self organization is all about.
>
>
>
> How and why all this alchemy takes place is obviously a matter of major
> moment. If you can accept the work of Stuart Kauffman "the magic sauce"
> seems to be a set of very simple pre-conditions, which if present,
> automatically initiate the process. But note, these are preconditions and
> not structures. Indeed one of the preconditions is the *lack* of
> pre-existing structure. My memory is a little foggy, but I think Kauffman
> describes this as "minimal prior connections." Another one of his
> preconditions is that the system be at the "edge of chaos" which is
> actually the dissolution of structure. I understand that Kauffman's work is
> subject to ongoing discussion, but I have not seen any substantial
> disagreement with his core idea, although others surely suggest different
> conditions or ways of describing them.  On more familiar ground, I like
> Kauffman's explanation/preconditions because they parallel almost exactly
> the "essential preconditions for Open Space" which I had noticed for a
> number of years before I ever heard of Kauffman. When asked when to use
> Open Space my response was that it always seems to work when the following
> preconditions are in effect. 1) A real business issue that people care
> about. 2) With mind numbing complexity 3) lots of diversity. 4) Much
> passion and conflict. 5) A real sense of urgency.
>
>
>
> And now - at long last - back to the points/questions you raise about
> structure and Open Space. In all honesty I just do not think that the
> initiation of Open Space has anything to do with structure, minimal or
> maximal. Certain preconditions - YES. But structure, NO. Structure does
> manifest in Open Space (as it does in all self organizing situations) - but
> it is emergent, and not prior. At least that has been my experience.
>
>
>
> Recently I have found myself fascinated with what I might call "natural
> occurrences" of Open Space. This began with a conversation with Claudia
> Gross, a friend and colleague from Egypt. We were talking about the events
> of Tahrir Square in which she participated. She remarked that the overall
> impression of the happening was that of a great mob scene, with thousands
> of people milling about in apparently random patterns. Occasionally someone
> would ascend a makeshift podium and address the crowd, but there was
> something else going on. Smaller groups would form in the midst of the
> mass, spiraling inwards to form circles of conversation. In the center of
> these circles, the focused attention was such that the ambient noise and
> confusion seemed shut out. The conversations themselves were intense but
> respectful. To be sure there were flashes of passion, but there was also a
> sense of shared intimacy, and people spoke of an awareness of brotherhood
> and connectedness. The conversation circles would continue for a time, some
> longer, some shorter - and then the circles would dissolve, only to form
> again with different people in a different place. Sounded an awful lot like
> Open Space to me, but its occurrence was purely a natural phenomenon. There
> wasn't a facilitator in sight, and certainly no prior structure or process.
> It was all emergent.
>
>
>
> Some little time later, I had occasion to speak with another friend who
> had been in Tiananmen Square, and she reported precisely the same
> phenomenon. Those are my only two examples, but I strongly suspect that
> were one to make a broader study of such events, the Natural Open Space
> would be seen as a regular occurrence. All of which made me think that we
> needed a 5th Principle - "Wherever it happens is the right place."
>
>
>
> So where does all this leave our discussion? For me it comes out something
> like this. Open Space is in fact a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is
> clearly not a process that I, or anybody else, invented, and it is
> certainly not initiated by  a "structure" of our design, be that heavy or
> light - see Tahrir Square above. However, when the essential conditions are
> present, it is possible to invite or "allow" space to open. Of course it is
> always possible to fight or oppose this natural emergence - which sadly is
> what much of management seems to be about.
>
>
>
> It is also true that we may encourage the appearance of Open Space with
> the provision of certain simple elements: a place to meet, chairs to sit
> in, magic markers, post-its, flip charts, and even temple bells. J But
> none of that is essential. In fact Open Space works all by itself. Self
> organizes. I think.
>
>
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
>
>
> Harrison Owen
>
> 7808 River Falls Dr.
>
> Potomac, MD 20854
>
> USA
>
>
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
>
> Camden, Maine 04843
>
>
>
> Phone 301-365-2093
>
> (summer)  207-763-3261
>
>
>
> www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20>
>
> www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website)
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of
> OSLIST Go to:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140301/93649306/attachment-0007.htm>