[OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space

[Harold Shinsato via OSList]

Harrison,

A deep bow of gratitude for your thoughts around the patronizing quality 
of "empowerment" as well as the rich questions raised in your response 
to Daniel.

Thank you for this quote "...if we understand OST simply to be an 
invitation to maximize the ongoing process of Self Organization - the 
basics are already in place and fully operational..."

You say *the basics* are already in place. That seems to imply that 
using OST (for now at least) is helping us get beyond the basics. Is 
there anything else that helps us get beyond the basics for Self Organizing?

Also, to your statement "When there's a will (desire/care), there's 
almost inevitably a way." Whose will? Is it the "will" of the 
Group/Organization as a whole?

So despite the duly authorized say so of the Boss/Sponsor (or lack 
thereof), if the "will" of the Group is to do something, it will find a 
way. Could we better consider "Sponsor" support as the "will" of the 
Group? And if the will of the Group is at odds with the Boss's will, how 
do we tell when it'll be ok/safe/legal to run OST despite the Boss "just 
saying no"?

     Thanks!
     Harold



On 10/15/14 10:47 AM, Harrison Owen via OSList wrote:
>
> Dan – Your Sponsor Properties are intriguing. My first-take response 
> would be, Sure. All are useful. And the same could be said for having 
> any party. After all, who would want to go to a party when there is 
> nowhere to go, nothing to consume (resources), and the party itself is 
> contrary to all regulations? End of report. Full stop!
>
> But is it? If so a whole mess of teenagers, Gen-X’s, what have you, 
> would be very surprised. My experience aligns with theirs. When 
> there’s a will (desire/care), there’s almost inevitably a way. Somehow 
> the space clears, the consumables manifest, and who cares about the 
> regulations. A fellow parent once said in jest that the fastest way to 
> insure a massive neighborhood teen blowout was 1) Restrict all likely 
> participants to their bedrooms. 2) Remove any and all possible 
> “consumables,” and 3) Issue a proclamation that the Party Can’t 
> Happen. That’s not a joke son. But of course such behavior could never 
> happen in a well managed, bureaucratic organization. Right?
>
> Maybe. But my organizational experience suggests a rather different 
> conclusion. I spent some 10 years in the (US) Federal Health Care 
> establishment, mostly the NIH (National Institutes of Health), which 
> most folks at the time (1970-1980) would describe as hugely 
> bureaucratic and generally well managed. I can’t give you a totally 
> accurate account, but I venture to guess that something like 50% of 
> all the “program initiatives” I was involved with occurred without 
> “official” sponsorship, with little to no resources, and no time or 
> space allocated going in. In one situation where we were working to 
> spell out something called “Competence Based Re-licensure” for 
> physicians – which was about as popular as a skunk at a garden party – 
> we worked together for  better than a year, involved a broad base of 
> experts (including the past Director of NIH), and produced a product 
> which is still having influence today. At the conclusion of our 
> efforts, the Director of NIH came to me and asked what the budget had 
> been. My response: “I don’t know sir. We never found one.”
>
> Doubtless that is just the aberrant behavior of HH Owen. But if so, 
> that marvelous creative source of innovation, The Skunk Works, could 
> never have happened. I think Tom Peters named the critter, but anybody 
> involved with the creation of new products and who honestly describes 
> how they happened, will recognize the beast. The poster child, of 
> course is the “Post-it” from 3M. If you listen to the voice of 3M 
> today, you might think that the new product arose from a careful plan, 
> richly resourced, and fully blessed by the corporate powers that be. 
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Post-its was actually the 
> product of a small motley crew, with virtually no resources, except 
> those they could “borrow,” often operating in secret to avoid 
> corporate censure.
>
> But what does all this have to do with Open Space? Nothing, I guess. 
> And everything, I do believe. Obviously Open Space as a formal entity 
> (sit in circle...) had nothing to do with any of the above. It didn’t 
> exist. On the other hand if we understand OST simply to be an 
> intentional invitation to maximize the ongoing process of Self 
> Organization – the basics are already in place and fully operational, 
> as has been the case for 13.7 billion years. I have found it very 
> worthwhile to consider the operation of naturally occurring “Open 
> Space” as a guide to our own efforts with OST. And there is a lot to 
> consider, but in the area of “sponsorship” it would seem that what Dan 
> has suggested may well be true, but is by no means the whole story. In 
> a word, there is a lot more than meets the eye. I think.
>
> 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 *Daniel Mezick via OSList
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:37 AM
> *To:* oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
>
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141015/5e3e5bfc/attachment-0004.htm>