[OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space

Sun Oct 12 22:30:46 PDT 2014

Harold, interesting reflection on Open Space and victimhood.

To me it shows that, even if we are "always in Open Space", the space is
not really open.
It makes me think then that "always in Open Space" is really just saying
that self-organisation is in operation.  Perhaps that does not mean that we
really have the freedom implicit in 'Open Space'.

Does that resonate?

For now, I have an outstanding reply to Daniel to get back to...

*John Baxter*
*CoCreate Adelaide Facilitator, Director of Realise consultancy*
CoCreateADL.com <http://cocreateadl.com/localgov%E2%80%8B> |
jsbaxter.com.au <http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/>
0405 447 829
 | 
@jsbaxter_ <http://twitter.com/jsbaxter_>

*City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen
<http://citygrill.eventbrite.com.au>!, Saturday 18 October 2014Connect with
your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with others in your
community, and Influence the future of the city*

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Harold Shinsato via OSList <
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

>  Daniel,
>
> It's been a while. I've offered only silence to authority as I've watched
> the list and reflected on this topic.
>
> Could it be that many of the most resonating posts on the OS List receive
> a response of silence? The theme of the antonym of "Lonely" rings in my
> ears around this question. The silence can be carried as indinewmaganik,
> beloved and accompanied by Spirit, like a question/session boldly convened,
> where no ones comes, alone but not lonely, at an Open Space - or in Life.
>
> This sense of lonely-antonym came again to me this morning as I listened
> to Karolina's voice in her blog post that included reflections before the
> WOSonOS on her walk, alone, through Belgrade seeing buildings deeply
> damaged from the recent wars. And her thoughts about how much she wanted
> things to happen, for people to step forward in action. But later, with the
> help of another attendee, she could shift to the abundance of what actually
> was present and happening in the WOSonOS. I want a lot of things to happen
> too. And maybe my wanting things to be different blocks my ability to enjoy
> what actually is happening.
>
> What does any of this have to do with Authority Distribution?
>
> Perhaps nothing ... or maybe everything?
>
> I quite enjoyed the link to the blog you added in your reply to me. The
> post had the title "Darwin meets Dilbert: Applying the Law of Two Feet to
> your next meeting." My goodness. How can Authority *not* have relevance in
> OST when we start out with a *LAW*. Laws are all about authority, no? But
> curiously, you allude that this Law removes the legitimacy of the victim
> role. If you're responsible for your experience in Open Space, if you're
> the victim, you're also the perpetrator. What I really most enjoyed in
> Jonathan Opp's blog post was his quote from Dr. Seuss.
>
> You have brains in your head.
> You have feet in your shoes.
> You can steer yourself in any direction you choose.
>
> Hey Harrison - this sounds a lot like what you told us when we visited you
> in Camden. And it definitely is the Law of Two feet in rhyme.
>
> So - ok Daniel. Another query for you? If *Open Space* is actually
> operating all the time, and Open Space invalidates the Victim role, does
> that mean we can't actually be Victims. If so, why are there so many? Could
> it be the roles of Victim/Perpetrator/Rescuer - could it be they are all
> illusions? Wizards cast spells, and we actually buy them? Does that mean
> Victims take on Victimhood willingly? That doesn't feel right, at least not
> completely. But maybe Open Space is something we wake up to. And if so,
> does that mean Authority is only alive in the dream?
>
> Or are we the ones inviting others into roles of Authority or lack there
> of?
>
> So, what actually is going on here?!? Are the inmates running the asylum?
> Or maybe they(we) should be?
>
>     Blissfully Confused,
>     Harold
>
>
>
> On 9/28/14 6:37 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList wrote:
>
> Hi Harold,
>
> You say:
>
> *"..I struggle to translate is the concept of coercion and authority from
> the vantage of "it's all open space". Can we really be coerced? How are we
> all already "opting in" to empower the "authorities"?*
>
> *"...Could we just be volunteering for the victim part of our stories?*
>
> *"...I have some thoughts about this, but I wonder what you would say to
> such a challenge to the relevance of "authority" in OST?*
>
>
>  Hmmm...interesting questions for sure.
>
> My current belief is that authorization dynamics are central to the
> general dynamics of Open Space. And if it is "Open Space all the time" then
> authorization dynamics as desribed in my essay are also there... all the
> time.
>
> Regarding the Open Space meeting format: If we begin at the beginning;
> that is, at the start of arranging an actual Open Space event in an
> organization, we immediately work to identify and locate someone "duly
> authorized" by the organization, to do the things the Sponsor does, and say
> the things the Sponsor says. Someone to occupy the Sponsor role. To do
> that, the person occupying the role must have substantial authority in the
> organization, usually of the formal variety.
>
> Right? Put another way: if the Sponsor is lacking in authorization, can
> they actually be effective? Larger question: Can the meeting still actually
> work? What about the post-meeting follow-through?
>
> So here we see how *authorization shows up a the very start of any
> contemplated Open Space event inside an organization*.
>
>
>
>  One last thing: last time I checked, "victims" are kind of rare in Open
> Space. Something about the subtext of "the Law of 2 Feet...."
>
> "...The Law of Two Feet concept was published in an article by Harrison
> Owen <http://www.openspaceworld.com/brief_history.htm>, a member of an
> organization advocating Open Spaces Technology, a model for organizing
> meetings that's based around open participation. Here's how Owen describes
> the rule:
>
> “...Briefly stated, this law says that every individual has two feet, and
> must be prepared to use them. Responsibility for a successful outcome in
> any Open Space Event resides with exactly one person—each participant.
> Individuals can make a difference and must make a difference. If that is
> not true in a given situation, they, and they alone, must take
> responsibility to use their two feet, and move to a new place where they
> can make a difference.”
>
>
> http://opensource.com/business/10/8/darwin-meets-dilbert-applying-law-two-feet-your-next-meeting
>
>
>  Daniel
>
> On 9/26/14 6:49 PM, Harold Shinsato via OSList wrote:
>
> Fantastic essay, Daniel. I'm a bit freaked out by Harrison talking about
> his "translator" after diving into T.S.Kuhn's book where he says paradigm
> shifts require "translators" because new and old paradigm holders live in
> different worlds, where even common terms may be fundamentally different.
>
> What I struggle to translate is the concept of coercion and authority from
> the vantage of "it's all open space". Can we really be coerced? How are we
> all already "opting in" to empower the "authorities"?
>
> Could we just be volunteering for the victim part of our stories?
>
> I have some thoughts about this, but I wonder what you would say to such a
> challenge to the relevance of "authority" in OST?
>
> Thanks,
> Harold
>
> Daniel... You really did it! I think. Your language comes from a place I
> don’t know... which is to say that I probably wouldn’t say what you say in
> the way that you do (duh). BUT when I run my “translator” it comes out
> sounding pretty good! So... I can’t help with the questions you have
> raised. Actually I think you are doing pretty well on your own, and
> (hopefully) will incite others to a similarly riotous performance. Thanks!
>
>
>
> Harrison
>
>
>
> *From:* OSList [mailto:oslist-bounces at lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Daniel Mezick via OSList
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM
> *To:* oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
> *Subject:* [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
>
>
>
> Greetings to All,
>
> For the past several years I have attended conferences of the Group
> Relations community, and encouraged others to do the same. I've studied
> their literature, and harvested some important learning as a result. One of
> the things I have come to understand a little bit better is the role of
> "authority dynamics" in self-organizing social systems.
>
> Link:
> www.akriceinstitute.org
>
> Over the past several years I've been using Open Space with intent to
> improve the results of my work in helping companies implement Agile ideas
> in their organizations. We do an initial Open Space, then the folks get
> about 3 months to play with Agile (we carefully use the word
> "experimentation" with management,) then we do another Open Space after
> that, to inspect what just happened across the enterprise. The initial and
> subsequent Open Space events form a "safe" container or field in which the
> members can *learn*... as they explore how to *improve* together by
> *experimenting* with new practices, and see if they actually work. I call
> the process Open Agile Adoption.
>
> Link:
> OpenAgileAdoption.com
>
> This seems to work pretty good. It seems to "take the air out of" most of
> the fear, most of the anxiety and most of the worry that is created. The
> key aspect is *consent*: absolutely no one is forced to do anything they
> are unwilling to do. No one is *coerced* to *comply*. Everyone is instead
> respectfully *invited* to help *write* the story, and be a *character* in
> the story...of the contemplated process change. Open Agile Adoption
> encourages a spirit of experimentation and play.
>
> The spirit of Open Space is the spirit of freedom. Isn't it? In the OST
> community, we discuss and talk a lot about self-organization,
> self-management and self-governance. The Agile community also talks about
> these ideas a lot.
>
> So I have some questions. What is really going on during self-organization
> in a social system? What are the steps? What information is being sent and
> received? From whom, and by whom? Is the information about *authority*
> important? How important? Can a social system self organize without regard
> to who has the right to do what work? *How do decisions that affect
> others get made in a self-organizing system?*
>
> Who decides about *who decides*? How important is the process of
> *authorization* in a self-organizing system? Is self-organization in
> large part the process of dynamic authorization (and *de-authorization*)
> in real time?
>
> What *is *authorization? Can self-organization occur without the sending
> and receiving of authorization data by and between the members?
>
> Is Bruce Tuckman's forming/storming/performing/adjourning actually
> decomposing the *dynamics of authorization* inside a social system?
>
> The essay below attempts to answer some of these difficult questions. I'd
> love your thoughts on it. Will you give it a look?
>
>
> Essay: Authority Distribution in Open Space
> http://newtechusa.net/agile/authority-distribution-in-open-space/
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Daniel
>
> --
>
>
>
> --
> Harold Shinsato
> harold at shinsato.com
> http://shinsato.com
> twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141013/7b0f1d35/attachment-0004.htm>