[OSList] Orgs that Failed to Implement Self-Organization?

[Michael M Pannwitz]

Dear David,

you are touching basic issues, which I enjoy.
Getting to basic issues fuels a wider dialog.

Yes, self-organizing has been around since the Big Bang, in everything.

And it shows up regurlary and predictably in OST gatherings. Regardless 
of the conditions that are characteristic of any such gathering. And it 
shows up more or less impressively or noticeably in all kinds of 
situations that are in no way OST events: Tahir Place, Playground, New 
York City, Fridays for Future, neighborhood events... and on and on.

If there is a gathering and it is announced that it will have the form 
of an OST event and that promise is not met, selforganizing will happen 
nonetheless and sometimes with high action that can cause the event to 
close. And while it is certain that there will be change (everything 
changes all the time) there is no predicting what kind of change will 
happen or that a particular change will emerge.

If you go at this with the assumption that the influence of the "force 
of selforganization" can be "seen" in the manifestation of what we 
perceive as "selforganizing" in groups, organizations and systems... 
such as a group of small children selforganizing their activities 
without any apparent leadership (parents) or hired facilitators (us) 
having productive fun... it might be worth taking a closer look at that 
"force".
Taking a closer look aint easy because little is really known (in the 
Scientific meaning of "know") about the "force of selforganization". I 
suspect that has to do with the universal nature of the force. A 
characteristic that is not satisfyingly "researchable" with our limited 
abilities and skills.

One way of looking at it which I find useful for the unfolding of 
selforganization is paying attention to some of the prerequisites that 
expand time and space for the "force" to thrive in. Mind you, its there, 
it will unfold. However, it can be hampered... especially observeable in 
groups, organizations and systems that we ourselves have thought up and 
supplied with all sorts of "control" mechanisms.

Harrison has described how he saw the prerequisites that some deep 
thinkers discovered to be prerequisites for the emergence of "life" 
considerable time after the Big Bang also apply for an OST event. His 
quest into this realm was definitely influenced by the "force of 
selforganisation" which, however, had no idea what this would lead to 
(in the sense that we have "ideas").
Ok, he described the "adapted" prerequisites that, when in place, would 
have a positive influence on the chances for the  "force" to get more 
time and space for its play.

In my practice of OST as facilitator, getting the clients ("hosts") to 
check on the prerequisites led to either accepting the contract for an 
OST event or to suggest that they needed something else or to offer ways 
to them to have more of the prerquisites in place. This often resulted 
in changing from "mandated participation" to "voluntary participation" 
with the additional work of producing a real invitation, or expanded 
"diversity of participants" (not only inviting teachers of the school 
but everybody that has to do with the school or is effected by the 
school such as neighbors or financed the school, parents, or works in 
the school or offers experience in his business to students in the 
school....).

Other prerequisites that are often mentioned such as high level of 
conflict, complex issue, open question no single person or group has an 
answer to, decision time of yesterday... also need to be checked on by 
the client/sponsor.

As you have noticed, one of the challenges for a facilitator (struggling 
with being totally present and entirely invisible) is meeting ones own 
care and passion while working as a facilitator.
Care and passion, especially when joined by responsibility, powerfully 
move wicked issues into action. Without these elements, little will 
happen in the circle, market place, in the breakout sessions and the 
ensuing action planning. But what actually happens among the 
selforganizing participants is not the playground of facilitators. That 
is best illustrated by the facilitator also disappearing bodily just 
after the marketplace phase... taking a nap. This is a tough number for 
many of us. But it is the acid test. Often not tolerated by sponsors (is 
this what we are paying you for?) and participants (where is your 
responsibility? Dont you see that this is a whole mess?).

 From this perspective, care, passion and responsibility seen that way 
get into the way of the work of the facilitator... and the more freely 
unfolding "Force of Selforganization".

This I vaguely realized for the first time during an OT-Conference in 
Higlands, North Carolina (conducted as an OS) when an Indin Shaman, 
invited by HO, offered a session for us one evening to meet our 
ancestors. He sat in the center drumming, all of us sitting on the floor 
around him. After a while he said: "I love you all but I dont care for 
you." He was very present and did abolutely nothing. After another long 
stretch of time in which most of us had fallen asleep and gone into 
wherever we all returned from shared our experiences from that unusual 
realm.

My take on caring (in the role of facilitator once the OST event has 
been opened by the sponsor) is that the less you care the more time and 
space will be available for the "force of selforganisation" to unfold.
I have many stories on this. One entered into a seemingly minor aspect 
of the way I did a bit of "on the job training" for new members of the 
os-team. At the point at which participants are invited to go to the 
center and write their issue and name on a sheet of paper... two of the 
the new team members were asked to stand at each end of the Bulletin 
Board. Their task was to do nothing and just stand there. Even if 
participants had not signed their issue, or the paper fell to the floor, 
or was posted without a time/space post-it, or engaged in a chat with 
other participants in front of the Bulletin Board while others were 
still announcing their issues... all the new team members stuck to their 
task. In debriefing, they reported on the initial torture (not being 
allowed to follow their instinctiv care-urge) they experienced... and 
also that they saw, as everyone else did, that after a short time the 
participants themselves clicked into the selforganizing modus and 
intervened among themselves. This modus predictably expands tremendously 
during the further course, especially when it is the 16 hours, sleeping 
twice, kind of 3 day event.

I seriously doubt that it is possible to "influence the self-organizing 
process"... or even do things that lead to "positive change" (what about 
"negative change"?). Or, what is "positive" or "negative" change?
(I once experienced a facilitator in an OST event who commented on every 
issue posted, suggested which issues were related and should be 
clustered, which did not fit into the overall theme... I am sure he 
cared and was passionate but was actually engaging himself in a realm 
that was none of his business and actually had becomed a space-invador. 
What would have happened if a participant became space invador, which is 
not so rare? Would he notice, get into a fight, ...?).

Come in the "prerequisites" that need to be checked and be in place for 
the Force of Selforganization to fully play out in an OST event.
I rather call them prerequisites and not factors because they play a 
role in the first contact and the ensuing contact meeting with the 
sponsor... long before the event itself. And they are an important 
orientation for the sponsor to decide whether OST (with the attached 
prerequisites) is what is needed.
Sticking with the client/sponsor in checking the prerequisites relieves 
me from "selling" OST (which many of us feel to be impossible anyhow but 
keep trying)... the decision is all with the sponsor with the 
"prerequisites" as a "tool" and my peace of mind knowing that with the 
prerequisites in place the event will be ok, as always.

I wonder about the experiences we have had among us consciously working 
with this tool in the very early stages of the overall process leading 
to an OST event.

Greetings from Berlin
mmp


> 
> Am 21.06.2019 um 15:32 schrieb David Osborne:
>> Michael,
>>
>> Your email triggered a few thoughts for me.
>>
>> My thoughts on self-organization are heavily influenced by lunches at 
>> the Glen Echo Inn with Harrison.  From these lunches, I learned 
>> several things that I have been practicing and working with for over a 
>> decade now related to self-organization. The first of which is the 
>> premise that you and others have shared here that self-organization is 
>> happening all the time...it's all self-organizing. We don't have to 
>> make it happen. What happens in Open Space though are that certain 
>> conditions are set that enable change to emerge ......rather than 
>> intractable, complex issues with diverse views staying stuck.
>>
>> One different view I've had with Harrison is that we don't have to do 
>> anything at all ....we can just let it all happen. While this is true. 
>> I've had a human problem, I care. Passion and caring is part of the 
>> root energy that fuels both open space and self-organization. My 
>> caring has led me to want to figure out how can we influence the 
>> self-organizing process to lead to positive change the help whatever 
>> the broader organism is, group, organization, country, society, etc.
>>
>> You raise the point about focusing on the"factors" that affect 
>> self-organization. That is where I've invested my time and energy over 
>> the past decade and what I've discovered is that while we cannot 
>> control change or the self-organizing process we can influence the 
>> speed and direction of change quite dramatically if we focus on and 
>> adjust these factors.  It's very powerful and I believe the future of 
>> change.
>>
>> best to all,
>>
>> David
>>
>> *David R. Osborne*
>> Organization and Leadership Development

>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:53 AM Michael M Pannwitz 
>> <mmpannwitz at gmail.com <mailto:mmpannwitz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Jake and you others,
>>
>>     I am intriguing myself with your quest for pitfalls in regard to
>>     "implement self-organization".
>>     If it is assumed that "self-organization" is inherent in all groups,
>>     organisations, systems and in all processes on this planet and in the
>>     universe and has been since the Big Bang, it would not be 
>> necessary to
>>     "implement self-organization".
>>     In fact, attempting to "implement self-organization" could in 
>> itself be
>>     the pitfall. This would jive with the notion that a sure fire way to
>>     impede self-organization is to mess with it (that is, control it).
>>
>>     Picking up on what Rob just wrote
>>     "By definition self organisation occurs despite any efforts to 
>> make it
>>     happen."
>>     I suspect that
>>     "Self-organisation is hampered by efforts to make it happen."
>>
>>     I also wonder if it would be helpful to distinguish between
>>     "self-organization" as we observe it everywhere around us (such as
>>     children self-organizing their game on a playground or a butterfly
>>     unfolding from a chrysalis or a break-out group in an os-event
>>     self-organizing their activities) and the "force of 
>> selforganization".
>>
>>     Assuming  that the force of selforganzation is behind 
>> self-organization
>>     it might be useful to focus on the "factors" that would support an
>>     environment in which the force of selforganization can thrive, 
>> unfold...
>>
>>     One of the stories we have is the development of OST itself. OST was
>>     dreamt up originally as a way to organize a conference in a few hours
>>     instead of a whole years work (a wonderful gift that was borne out of
>>     being bored with working hard). After it kept working in various
>>     settings with a vast minimum of pre-implemented structure, no
>>     panels, no
>>     speakers, only one facilitator... his originator began wondering 
>> on why
>>     it was working.
>>
>>     We know the rest of the story and have payed attention to the 5 or 
>> 6 or
>>     7 prerequisites that now have been tested in thousands of events 
>> which
>>     need to be in place for the "force of selforganisation" to do its 
>> thing
>>     which we then perceive as "self-organization".
>>
>>     Its simple but not easy.
>>     Is not facing that which seduces to twists, adulterations, creating
>>     surrogate cocktails...?
>>
>>     Greetings from Berlin
>>     mmp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Am 21.06.2019 um 04:04 schrieb Juliane Martina Roell (Structure &
>>     Process) via OSList:
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > Jake Yeager via OSList schrieb am 20.06.19 um 19:31:
>>      >> Hey everyone,
>>      >>
>>      >> Does anyone know of organizations that attempted to implement
>>      >> self-organization but failed? If so, do you know some of the
>>     factors
>>      >> that contributed to the failure? We hear about the successes, 
>> like
>>      >> Semco and AES, but rarely about the failures. I'd like to
>>     understand
>>      >> better what the pitfalls are and also what the success rate is.
>>      > Hi Jake,
>>      >
>>      > what do you mean by "implement self-organization"?
>>      > How would one go about doing that?
>>      >
>>      > Best Regards,
>>      >
>>      > Juliane.
>>
>>     --     Michael M Pannwitz
>>     Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin, Germany
>>     ++49 - 30-772 8000
>>     mmpannwitz at gmail.com <mailto:mmpannwitz at gmail.com>
>>