[OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
Daniel Mezick via OSList
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Wed Oct 15 05:37:20 PDT 2014
Hi Harrison,
Thanks for your rich reply and explanation of the role of [empowerment].
Question:
Is is true that if we have the 5 preconditions as you describe, do we
still need the following to have an effective OST event?
(Note I am assuming a private (not a public-conference-type OST event...)
Sponsor Properties:
1. A Sponsor who has permission from the org, to allocate some of the
org's scarce capital, to pay for the event expenses;
2. A Sponsor who has permission from the org, to invite people to spend
a day if they so choose, by accepting the invite;
3. A Sponsor who has permission from the org, and is /willing/ and able
to "keep it open", with all the issues "on the table" with no issues
"off limits" as described on page 20 of the GUIDE;
4. A Sponsor who has permission from the org, and is /willing/ to:
a) Represent to the people that the Sponsor's plan is to
immediately act the (as yet unknown) Proceedings and (drum roll here...)
b) ...actually follow through and act on the issues that appear
in the Proceedings, immediately following the event.
If the Sponsor is missing even one of these properties, is it advised to
proceed at all?
Daniel
On 10/14/14 3:36 PM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>
> John -- I'm rather curious what you meant by "The overall project was
> more complicated than OST?" My confusion comes in part from my
> experience that complexity is actually an essential precondition for
> OST, or more exactly the effective operation of self organization. The
> essential pre-conditions as I have experienced the are: A Real
> business issue (something that people really care about). High levels
> of complexity such that no single person or group has a prayer of
> figuring it out. High levels of diversity in terms of people and
> points of view. Lots of passion and conflict. And a decision time of
> yesterday (urgency). Given these 5 conditions, self organization in
> the more formal setting of OST or as a natural occurrence just seems
> to happen... unless...And this may be the point of problem... It is
> arbitrarily constrained... which usually means that somebody already
> has the plan/program/design and they are just looking for buy-in or
> (worst case) they are simply trying to sugar coat the pill, and make
> it seem like the folks are creating something, when in fact the cake
> is already baked.
>
> A clue to the dilemma may be in the phrase, "I struggled to help the
> client (the funding body) to really 'empower'..." I know we talk a lot
> about empowerment, but I have come to the conclusion that it is really
> a red herring, and most painfully so in those situations where you
> actually try to do it. Sounds odd, I guess, but think about it. If I
> empower you...you are in my power. And the more I try to empower you
> the worse it gets. Real empowerment, in my book, is not an act that we
> (or somebody) do, but an acknowledgement of a pre-existing
> condition...you are powerful. Of course I might encourage you a bit to
> be as powerful as you are, but it is not something I can give you. You
> must claim it for yourself. Strange as it may seem, I find the notion
> of "empowerment" to be just the opposite of that fundament of
> effective working relationships (or any relationship) RESPECT. And I
> suspect that it is precisely here that the fickle finger of fate is
> pointing to the critical issue.
>
> Another word that fits in here for me is "Patronizing." Everything may
> sound super nice, and all the proper and correct words may be spoken,
> but if the implication is that the folks (participants) really do not
> have the competence or ability to deal with the issues, it is fairly
> predictable that they will not bother to try. Or if they "try" it will
> be pretty much of a pro forma situation. Sound familiar?
>
> 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 <%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 *John Baxter via OSList
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:41 AM
> *To:* Daniel Mezick
> *Cc:* World wide Open Space Technology email list
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
>
> Hi Daniel. Thanks for your considered response.
>
> I will try to keep my response in line with the topic.... but expect
> it may meander.
>
> The OST day I was preparing for has since come and gone.
>
> I decided in the end to least give OST a crack and see what happened.
>
> It didn't go very well; but it also went well enough (vis overall
> project goals, and client expectations), so I don't feel so bad about
> it... even if I had personally envisaged more.
>
> I am not one to worry about the cannon... which means sometimes I
> break things, as I did this time. There was still an (informal)
> sponsor, the one that sent the invites. They just did not have a
> presence on the day. Thank you Daniel as you did make me think
> critically about the strength of my role as host. I think I dealt
> with that through my introduction to the day; and as it turns out the
> authority to host was not an issue.
>
> But as it turns out, that was not really the biggest challenge!
>
> The main lessons I took away about what contributed to the average result:
>
> *There needs to be clear, compelling shared work.*
>
> The overall project was more complicated than OST, so it wasn't clear
> what turning up actually meant, and I think many did not turn up on
> the basis of wanting to resolve a shared challenge (the work), as you
> might expect for OST. In straight OST terms, you could say this was
> an issue of invitation, but really it was many things.
>
> So the group was interesting. They had the heart, but not the will.
> They were committed, but without ownership of the result. I've seen
> this a lot in the community engagement field, but nowhere that I have
> used (or seen) OST.
>
> I thought about this a lot, I thought it might have been about the
> invitation and self-selection; but at the end of the day I think it
> comes down to the sense of (and invitation in to) shared work.
>
> *It is super hard to dissolve ingrained power and authority
> relationships in the short term. These can't be sidestepped by an
> external facilitator.*
>
> I struggled to help the client (the funding body) to really
> 'empower'. They talked about it and genuinely want to, but old habits
> and mental models don't change overnight. They really struggled to
> push beyond managing the process as superiours (to a set of
> subordinate participants). This is 'empowerment' within a patriarchal
> system, and it doesn't work. It felt very yucky at times.
>
> A curious side effect of this partriarchal 'empowerment' was an
> unwillingness to be clear about the work ("we want to be open and let
> them lead the process" they would say... I got the client to agree
> that /the/y were clearly the leaders, but we didn't quite work out how
> to put that into practice).
>
> Over the course of the engagement, we all took baby steps together
> that invest in their (/our) capacity to really work together in
> future. They learned a LOT in a short period of time, and so did I,
> but it was too short. By the end of the project I had the client
> calling me up to ask how they could reword things so they didn't
> reflect a control response. : ) That was good, but obviously if they
> need me for this then there is some way to go. And different client
> reps had different levels of self reflection.
>
> Hosting an isolated OST workshop against this grain was very
> ambitious, it was always going to be, no matter how we conducted
> ourselves.
>
> And perhaps 20% were very proactive, and led the bulk of the work that
> occurred... they saved the day!
>
> But the length of the OST was not enough for this leadership to really
> be contagious and precipitate a productive culture.
>
> *Or in other words: we struggled to free up authorisation to be more
> dynamic*
>
> Reading your blog post Daniel, the idea of dynamic authorisation would
> have been very useful earlier in the project. Another way of looking
> at the project: we struggled to free the space of ingrained authority
> to enable dynamic authorisation.
>
> There were lots of other insights into how we could have done it
> differently, but to me these were the fundamental stumbling blocks for us.
>
> Still, they were not too big, and I'm pleased we made a good start.
>
> My favourite feedback was "thank you, this was the first time I have
> been part of genuine engagement in more than a decade in the sector" : )
>
> Next time, we will do better.
>
>
> */John Baxter/*
>
> ///Co////Create 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 2014
> Connect with your candidates, get your voice heard by joining with
> others in your community, and Influence the future of the city/
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Daniel Mezick <dan at newtechusa.net
> <mailto:dan at newtechusa.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Yours is a very interesting story.
>
> You say:
>
>
> /"...To be honest*I am not sure* how I need to deal with this, though
> *my strategy is to accept the authority* for hosting the space in the
> next workshop, *obsolving the department of their responsibility* to
> manage the day."
>
> "...I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority candidates
> hosting something genuinely participatory. *The relevant director has
> said she doesn't want to speak formally and become The Authority for
> the day*, a position I agree with."/
>
>
>
>
>
> In the situation as described, it sounds like the org is the very
> earliest stages of moving in a direction of more
> open/participatory/inviting.
>
> Do you agree with this assessment?
>
>
>
> If this assessment is correct, based on what you describe, I would
> probably avoid attempting Open Space in the canonical form whatsoever
> (as described in the OST GUIDE) because the Sponsor role is vacant.
> Unoccupied. And so, by my reckoning, if I understand you right, a true
> Open Space event isn't even possible, because the essential
> OST-Sponsor-role is in fact not willingly occupied by anyone with
> enough authority to play that essential role well.
>
> What's clear is that someone who could function as OST-Sponsor is
> currently unwilling to do so. And so I might try a "taster" or "demo"
> event instead, where the goal is to /learn about Open Space in
> general/, and do a /little/ bit of "real" work too. Especially if the
> allotted time a mere 1/2 day, I am even more inclined to strongly
> favor this re-framing of the stated goals.
>
> So the primary and stated goal for the "taster" is learning about OST.
> Another goal for a short event might be to see who shows up
> super-interested in the art of Facilitation, and then offer to mentor
> those who do self-select by showing interest. In this manner some
> Facilitation capacity is developed inside the org, to help with
> current meetings and processes. Introducing Facilitation into typical
> meetings is a easy and effective "culture hack".
>
>
>
> For me, the total unwillingness of an obvious candidate to occupy the
> Sponsor role is a huge warning signal to slow down, pause, or even stop.
>
> Lots of people here have more experience than me, and might be willing
> to lend you some of their expertise regarding the authority dynamics
> of Facilitating an OST event with the essential OST-Sponsor-role
> completely vacant
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Daniel
>
> On 9/28/14 11:30 PM, John Baxter wrote:
>
> I am navigating some challenging authority dynamics in a project
> at the moment.
>
> I was brought in a week out from the first of three forums, and
> asked to 'facilitate a codesign process' which was at that stage a
> black box (with many hidden expectations) scheduled into that
> event (1 hour before lunch and 1 hour afterwards).
>
> It's a long journey, but you can imagine how my role has changed
> as I prepare for the third forum which I am hosting in Open Space.
>
> The overall process is an engagement between a government
> department and their funded agencies. The most obvious direct
> power dynamics are obvious, the effective power and authority
> dynamics are much more complex (though predictable).
>
> Department staff have authority challenges as much as the
> agencies. They are trying so hard to be 'neutral' and 'non
> controlling' that they are effectively reinforcing their own
> authority positions (which often have little real correlation to
> the power, knowledge etc that they imagine them to).
>
> To be honest I am not sure how I need to deal with this, though my
> strategy is to accept the authority for hosting the space in the
> next workshop, obsolving the department of their responsibility to
> manage the day.
>
> It has been interesting to watch push back so far from agency reps
> who are committed to participating, who are genuinely engaged, but
> are playing to an us-them tension that is getting in the way of
> the shared work (and serves them no good ends except protecting
> them from their own responsibility). Stand-offishness is
> gradually being resolved, though some pockets are holding firm.
>
> I am crossing my fingers for WS3 that we can traverse these and
> get into Open Space without being pushed off the bridge by the
> reactionary tension; and that once on the other side, the
> department reps can embrace Open Space and take responsibility for
> their role.
>
> We will get across /as long as I have the authority/ to host the
> space for them.
>
> I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority candidates
> hosting something genuinely participatory. The relevant director
> has said she doesn't want to speak formally and become The
> Authority for the day, a position I agree with.
>
> But it does leave something of a shell, where I am crossing my
> fingers that our time together thus far affords me the authority
> to host that space.
>
> I think we are ready. I am bringing my harness and floaties just
> in case.
>
>
> */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 2014
> Influence your city by building relationships and joining voices
> with others in your community
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList
> <oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
> <mailto:oslist at lists.openspacetech.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Harrison,
>
> So interesting how the Law of 2 Feet authorizes me, and every
> other member of an OST event, to go anywhere we may want to go.
>
> Without asking anyone else for any kind of "permission"...
>
>
> Reminds me of this past June, being in Camden with you, and
> Ethelyn, and Harold, and friends... when we were standing on the
> porch of that Camden restaurant... waiting for everyone to arrive,
> and assemble for dinner...
>
> And as we wait, I notice there is this convenient-looking,
> alternate entry-door... into the dining area.
>
> And I say: "Hmm...I wonder if we are authorized to use that door."
>
> And you say:
>
> "We're authorized to go Anywhere we want to go."
>
> ...and I like that.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> Picture of that place:
> https://twitter.com/DanielMezick/status/483054326265692161
> See also:
> https://twitter.com/danielgullo/status/483434622009999360
>
>
> On 9/25/14 4:58 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
> 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
>
> Winter Address
>
> 7808 River Falls Drive
>
> Potomac, MD 20854
>
> 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093>
>
> Summer Address
>
> 189 Beaucaire Ave.
>
> Camden, ME 04843
>
> 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261>
>
> Websites
>
> www.openspaceworld.com <http://%20www.openspaceworld.com>
>
> www.ho-image.com <http://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 *Daniel Mezick via OSList
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM
> *To:* oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
> <mailto: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 <http://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
>
> --
>
> Daniel Mezick, President
>
> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>
> (203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
>
> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
> <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
>
> Examine my new book:The Culture Game
> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
> for the Agile Manager.
>
> Explore Agile Team Training
> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
> Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>
> Explore the Agile Boston
> <http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
>
> --
>
> Daniel Mezick, President
>
> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>
> (203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
>
> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
> <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
>
> Examine my new book: The Culture Game
> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for
> the Agile Manager.
>
> Explore Agile Team Training
> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
> Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>
> Explore the Agile Boston
> <http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> <mailto:OSList at lists.openspacetech.org>
> To unsubscribe send 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
>
> --
>
> Daniel Mezick, President
>
> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>
> (203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
>
> Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
> <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
>
> Examine my new book: The Culture Game
> <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
> Agile Manager.
>
> Explore Agile Team Training
> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
> <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
>
> Explore the Agile Boston
> <http://newtechusa.net/user-groups/ma/>Community.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book:The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the
Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141015/281ef873/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 110170 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141015/281ef873/attachment-0004.png>
More information about the OSList
mailing list