<html>
A short time ago, Peg Holman forwarded some of our discussion on
Appreciative Inquiry to the AI-List and then posted responses, one of
which came from Jack Brittain. I sent him a private note and that started
a conversation -- which follows in slightly edited form. Jack has posted
the results on the AI List, and I am completing the cycle by posting the
same here. Happy reading on this chilly Maine Day. Last Friday it was 97
degrees. This morning, as a result of a gift from our Canadian friends to
the North, the temperature was 39 degrees, with frost predicted for
tonight. Ah Sweet Summer -- how soon you are gone...<br>
<br>
Harrison <br>
<br>
<br>
************************************************<br>
I received the following comment from Harrison Owen, someone<br>
whose work has played a big role in how I think about organizations
and<br>
how I approach organizational change. I am responding to his
comment,<br>
and I want to share it with the AI List because my response involves
an<br>
issue that I think deserves greater attention in discussions of
change<br>
and change methods: the role of power and how it is distributed.<br>
<br>
Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
> <br>
> By a 'round about means your comments on Grief work and
organizations<br>
> showed up on the OSLIST -- the list serve for Open Space Folks.
We<br>
> certainly appreciated them, and Thank you. But I was a little
curious<br>
> when you remarked:<br>
> <br>
> <i>"Just maybe the fallacy of "dealing with grief" is
that implicit in<br>
> the method is accepting powerlessness. Certainly relevant to dealing
with<br>
> individual issues like death of loved ones, but I am dubious of
the<br>
> validity of this model for organizational
applications."<br>
</i>> <br>
> You may well have a point here, but that has not been my
experience.<br>
> So, for example, when there is a death in a family, it is
commonly<br>
> noted that the process of grief commences to work for the
whole<br>
> family. Shock. Anger, Denial... but then you may argue that a
family<br>
> is not an organization. I could see the point, but would disagree
--<br>
> at least by my definition of "organization" -- which is
"two or more<br>
> folks gathered together to do something." At a larger level, I
presume<br>
> you were around when Jack Kennedy was shot. It seemed to me
that the<br>
> whole country engaged the process. I can remember exactly where I
was<br>
> when I received the first news, and the incredible shock that
news<br>
> created -- followed almost immediately by deep anger and no little
bit<br>
> of denial. It couldn't be true -- surely later reports would
set<br>
> things right...<br>
> <br>
> In the corporate world, I have found that significant moments
of<br>
> ending (plant closures, major lay-offs etc) produced exactly the
same<br>
> results for the people involved. When the bad news arrives, the
shock<br>
> is palpable, closely followed by denial ("They can never do
That...").<br>
> I have found that knowing the pattern of grief-at-work has
been<br>
> incredibly helpful to me as I worked to assist those in the middle
of<br>
> their personal maelstrom, not only as a diagnostic, but more<br>
> importantly as a guide to specific sorts of interventions. II
find<br>
> that there is no way the short circuit the process (skip steps, as
it<br>
> were) but there are ways to speed the process and facilitate a<br>
> positive outcome -- ie folks get on with their lives.<br>
> <br>
> So -- does the model work? It seems to for me and if you are<br>
> interested in a fuller description, I have written about it
fairly<br>
> extensively. The early versions are now out of print, but in two of
my<br>
> more recent books, The Spirit of Leadership(1997), and The Power
of<br>
> Spirit: How Organizations Transform (2000), I cover a lot of the
same<br>
> territory, and hopefully explore some new ground. Both books
are<br>
> published by Berrett-Koehler.<br>
> <br>
> Harrison Owen<br>
<br>
There is no doubt that people in organizations experience grief and
that<br>
there is a process of grieving that is important.<br>
<br>
What I am concerned about, and want to challenge, is the wide<br>
application of what I term the "grief model" in organizational
change.<br>
My point is not that grief does not exist and does not need to be
dealt<br>
with, but rather that the emphasis on "accept the hand you were
dealt"<br>
is over applied in organizational change and is ineffective because
it<br>
emphasizes powerlessness on the part of those impacted by change.
In<br>
other words, what I term the "fallacy of grief" is that as an
approach<br>
to change it encourages acceptance of powerlessness rather than<br>
mobilizing the total system in the change effort. I will go even
further<br>
and argue that the grief model -- when applied to organizations --
is<br>
not about change, it about maintaining the power status quo.<br>
<br>
An example. One of the most devastating experiences of my work life
was<br>
seeing a coworker maimed by a machine. While going to college, I was
a<br>
summer helper at a box manufacturing plant, where most of the
production<br>
process was printing the boxes. One of my coworkers was cleaning a<br>
printing press preparing for the next job and had his hand and arm<br>
pulled into the print rollers. It took about 20 minutes to extract
his<br>
limb from the machine, by which time emergency workers were on hand
to<br>
give him blood to keep him alive from massive blood loss and cart
him<br>
away to try to repair his crushed and permanently maimed limb. He
was<br>
alive, but would never be the same again. The work crew was
absolutely<br>
devastated, sitting in stunned silence looking at the trail of
blood<br>
leading out the plant door where Carlos was wheeled into the
waiting<br>
ambulance. Over the next few days we grieved, we listened to twice a
day<br>
updates on Carlos’ condition, glad to hear he would not lose his
arm,<br>
and we sorted through the events to understand what had happened
and<br>
what it meant. I do not hold this up as an example of a company<br>
effectively dealing with grief, but rather to point out that we<br>
eventually accepted what had happened without anything really
changing<br>
in how we did our work or how the plant was run.<br>
This is not to suggest that grief does not exist in organizations
and<br>
need to be dealt with. It does. When a coworker suddenly dies, there
is<br>
grief and respecting grieving is important. But this is about the
status<br>
quo, not change. <br>
<br>
One of the aspects of appreciative inquiry, open space, and other
large<br>
system change models I find appealing is that they focus on
mobilizing<br>
power at every level of the organization. What they recognize is
that<br>
power does not have to be a zero sum game. Instead, by enlisting
the<br>
entire system in the change process, the total energy and power to<br>
produce change is expanded and the likelihood of success is
enhanced.<br>
And these approaches do not focus on acceptance of what is, but
rather<br>
envisioning and realizing what might be.<br>
<br>
I want to conclude with a personal reference. My grandfather,
Walter<br>
Gillette, was an alcoholic. He was able to find sobriety for 40
years,<br>
but it was a lifelong struggle. He prevailed through active
involvement<br>
with AA. He is one of my heroes, as he was such an imperfect human
being<br>
who brought dignity to his life by accepting his demons and choosing
to<br>
rise above them. Something important in his life, and influencing
the<br>
life of his family, was the serenity prayer:<br>
<br>
God, grant me the Serenity to accept what I cannot
change,<br>
The Courage to change the things I can,<br>
And the Wisdom to know the difference.<br>
<br>
As I experience appreciative inquiry, and associated participation<br>
models like open space, they are about finding courage and wisdom.<br>
Certainly serenity has a place as well, but it is courage and
wisdom<br>
that are at the core of the change process. And I do not think these
are<br>
found in AI through the "power of positive thinking," but
rather by<br>
mining the strengths and triumphs of the human spirit in
organizations.<br>
And these are just as valid in the midst of despair as they are in
the<br>
midst of overwhelming success. They may be harder to surface, and we
may<br>
need to help along a grieving process, but this does not mean they
are<br>
not stories of courage and wisdom that are lessons in change that
can<br>
inform the organization’s future.<br>
<br>
=================== Jack <Brittain@Business.Utah.edu> <br>
<br>
Jack -- Courage and wisdom are certainly essential for useful change and
transformation in the way we do business at all levels of our lives. But,
as you note, serenity has its place as well. However, I do not experience
serenity as giving in to hopelessness, but rather a clear eyed
recognition of the facts of our existence. Hopelessness, at least
in my life, is anything but serene. Genuine serenity occurs only when I
can take things as they are, AND move on in some useful and positive
ways. It is all about letting go of what you can't change in order to
open space for new possibility. For me, serenity is the exact opposite of
powerlessness -- it may be the most powerful state of my life.<br>
<br>
As for the Griefwork Cycle and its application to our lives, individual
and organizational, I don't think that is about powerlessness or
hopelessness either, although both can certainly occur. In my view, the
appearance of either or both is not a function of the cycle itself, but
rather its arrest prior to full completion. If completed, griefwork adds
to our store of wisdom, courage, and serenity.<br>
<br>
There are a number of ways to describe the essential elements of the
cycle. My version is as follows: 1) Shock/Anger, 2) Denial, 3)Memories,
4)Open Space as Despair, 5) Open Space as Silence, 6) Vision 7) New Life.
1 and 2 are pretty obvious and need no description. Memories(3) is what
happens when those involved cycle through the happenings before "the
event." Some times this gets ritualized as in an Irish Wake which is
quite simply story telling -- all about the dear departed and our
relation to him/her. Despair is the truly painful one. It comes at the
moment of full recognition that It is ALL over. The shock is gone, the
anger subsided, all the stories have been told -- and there is nothing
left to hope in, hence dis-pair. The bad news is that it hurts like Hell.
But there is a positive side as well -- for in despair we have the
opportunity to go through the cathartic moment of finally letting go.
Those who council that we not despair really don't get the picture -- we
either go through it, or spend our life in it -- and we all know people
who live their life in despair. But that I believe is their choice. It is
all about letting go, and should you choose to hang on --- you must live
with the results.<br>
<br>
Once through Despair, and most of us make it, there is an incredible
moment of silence -- pure open space. It is all gone, but equally it is
all potential. Some folks choose to check out at this point. Those of us
who choose to go on do so, I think in response to a question which may be
posed in any number of ways. The question is: "What are you going to
do with the rest of your life?" One possible answer, of course is
"Nothing." And that is pretty much it. But another response is
possible -- which usually shows up with words like, "I wonder
if...." I wonder if I can find a new job, new life partner, new...
When you combine wonder and imagination (if) Vision is born, I think. And
with Vision something new is breaking into view. <br>
<br>
That is the short version, and for the full treatment, I can only refer
you to either (both) of my books <i>The Power of Spirit, and The Spirit
of Leadership.. </i>But now for some comments and observations.<br>
<br>
First, I think that the grief work cycle is essentially hardwired into
us. We don't have to invent it, and most of us make it through. It is the
way we grow, emotionally, intellectually, as individuals, and I think as
organizations. And with that growth comes a fuller manifestation of our
power (not powerlessness or hopelessness). So we could just let it
happen.<br>
<br>
Then again, I find that there are some real advantages to be found in
actually making the process work for us, and assisting our fellows in the
journey. It is very much like the process of birth. There are a series of
un-skippable steps, and each one is harder than the one before, but at
the end you have a baby. If a mother knows the stages of birth, you can
keep track of where you are, and that is important, ' cause in the moment
the pain can be very disorienting. And precisely here is the essential
role of the midwife. she does not carry the baby, won't birth the baby,
but just by being there and acting as guide and witness along the way,
she/he performs an invaluable function -- or so I am told by those who
have had the experience. <br>
<br>
When it comes to life, ending (death) and (hopefully) rebirth in
organizations, something like a midwife can be very helpful. Indeed that
would be my understanding of the deepest parts of the practice of a
consultant. It is not about taking power. It is not even about giving
power. It is all about creating the space and time (open space) in which
the full (renewed) power of life may be manifest. At least that is my
thought and experience.<br>
<br>
Harrison<br>
<br>
<br>
<div align="center">
Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854 USA<br>
phone 301-469-9269<br>
fax 301-983-9314<br>
Summer Phone 207-763-3261<br>
Summer Address<br>
189 Beaucaire Ave.<br>
Camden, ME 04843<br>
website
<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
Open Space Institute website
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
</div>
</html>