[OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space

Wed Oct 15 23:56:50 PDT 2014

I have knots about empowerment, and the ubiquitous openness of space.
These knots are about to inspire a rant.

These knots, I should start with, are not entirely the result of this
present discussion thread - it is just this discussion that prompts me to
speak.

I think I understand Harrison, if you suggest that self-organisation is
more common than we realise... if not ubiquitous, omnipresent, then at
least that we can fruitfully challenge the assumption that formal and
top-down organisation dominates how things get done.

But I can't get past the feeling that *there are lots of barriers to the
openness of space, and to self organisation*.  Everywhere and all the
time.  In my recent work, mental barriers by all involved about authority
and role relationships.  My personal barriers around trying too hard to
"empower".  My client's patronising assumptions about the "capacity" and
"maturity" of "the sector".  Information asymmetries.

So I get really conflicted when anyone starts saying "well space is open
all the time" (implication: 'so chill out cos there's nothing you need to
do').

I am also conflicted about stepping back from the goal of empowerment, as
if everybody else needs to just step into open space and take
responsibility.

Yes - many people don't realise the power that they have.  (In my last
project; nobody seemed to quite buy into the fact that *they could directly
author the document that they were trying to influence*.)

But it is also patronising to suggest that empowerment lies in just helping
people to see how powerful they are... because many people *don't* have the
power that we or they might like.  To suggest that people have the power
and just don't use it... that effectively blames them for their situation,
and washes our hands of responsibility.

The biggest barrier to group change I see time and time again is authority
figures who believe others need to change, not themselves.  (Most commonly,
that their employees need to "be empowered", and that they need to manage a
culture change program to get there... or better yet, that HR needs to
manage the change program, while we are busy getting the real work done.)

I don't pretend that empowerment is something that can be done to other
people (patronising), but I do firmly believe that we all first need to
look to ourselves and what we need to do to play our role making such a
future possible.  And, in fact, that *this is all that we can ever do*.

Maybe the wisdom in what you say Harrison is that we do this by focusing on
respect first, as a productive way to enable empowerment.

Maybe I am picking on the wrong things and have misunderstood them, and I
apologise if I have been critical.  But I also see a lot of things said
that make me uncomfortable, that knot me up.  Again, most of these things
are from my memory, not the present discussion.  While my memory might not
be the best, I'm sure it is based on something.

Thank you all for your patience and for being in this discussion

*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 Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Harrison Owen <hhowen at verizon.net> 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 <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] *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 2014Connect 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>
> 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> 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
>
>
>
> 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:* 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
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141016/03a8fc25/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 110170 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141016/03a8fc25/attachment-0004.png>