[OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space

Wed Oct 15 23:28:02 PDT 2014

Interesting questions Harold.

My first thought regards "will" - there's nothing mystical about it.
Groups don't have will, individuals have will... groups just exhibit
collective behaviour when these wills are aligned... though I guess it
takes much more than that!

I think the magic (if not mysticism) of self organisation is that people
can and do get together and do things themselves, regardless of formal
authority from a boss or a group.  All they need is to get adequate
resources working towards an intent, with access to the right levers
(including time, passion, social capital...; money is often down the list
of importance).

The Formal Organisation assumes that this doesn't happen, but we all know
that it does.  Harrison gives good examples.

One or two or three people with aligned will might be enough for "where
there is a will there is a way".  Or in the case of the Pirate Party of
Sweden (I just posted here about Swarmwise), the required "will" was
225,000 votes... and of course the thousands of activists who needed to
campaign in order to catalyse that will.

*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 16, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Harold Shinsato via OSList <
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:

>  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 <http://%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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141016/3b5bcb43/attachment-0004.htm>