[OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space
Harold Shinsato via OSList
oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
Tue Oct 21 08:34:23 PDT 2014
Hi John,
Thank you for your engagement on the OSList - I'm greatly enjoying what
you are helping us look at.
When you spoke about "nothing mystical about" the will of the group, and
in fact, that groups don't have a "will" - this goes explicitly against
the core thinking I've experienced from several different traditions in
looking at the group in the light of systems thinking. To take one
tradition, here's a quote from what many call the "coaching bible",
"Co-active Coaching: New Skills for Coaching People Toward Success":
"A team, an organization, even a partnership or intimate relationship
exists as a living system, not simply a collection of individual parts.
A human system can be thought of as a group of interdependent members
with a common focus. The behavior of the system emerges out of the
interaction of its players and is greater than the sum of its parts. The
system itself is alive, has needs, strengths, weaknesses, values. It can
be robust or fragile. In organization and relationship systems coaching,
we refer to the system as the 'third entity'."
In this light, would you say more about your thinking that groups don't
have will?
Thanks,
Harold
On 10/16/14 12:28 AM, John Baxter wrote:
> 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 2014
> Connect 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
> <mailto: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 <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:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:37 AM
>> *To:* oslist at lists.openspacetech.org
>> <mailto: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
> <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
>
>
--
Harold Shinsato
harold at shinsato.com <mailto:harold at shinsato.com>
http://shinsato.com
twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20141021/04d5dfaa/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the OSList
mailing list