<html>
My friend Birgitt Williams appears to have some difficulty with the
notion that organization, forming in Open Space, is in fact
self-organization at work. Or in her words,
<font color="#FF0000">"For me, the conscious Open Space
Organization, as I understand it is not a self organizing
system."</font> And in answer to the question -- If not
self-organization, then what -- she says,
<font color="#FF0000">"Rather, a matrix or nutrient field is
provided that is clearly bounded and ready to nurture whatever is
created. The matrix then gets filled in by choices that are life
nurturing or life depleting. The conscious Open Space Organizations is
life nurturing rather than life depleting."</font> All of which
seems to me to be a rather nice description of self-organization at work.
Be that as it may, it occurs to me that it might be useful to chat a bit
about why I find the theory of self-organization so attractive,
particularly in reference to the Open Space experience, either as event,
or a continuing phenomenon.<br>
<br>
First off, please note that it is the <i>theory</i> of self-organization.
And theory is never to be confused with The Truth or The Facts. It's only
theory. But mere theory is a not nothing -- rather it is a way of
looking at things (that's what the word in Greek means --"To
See"). Or more broadly, <i>a theory is a way of looking at things,
enabling comprehension and prediction.</i> In short, with a good theory
we find it possible to understand what is going on, and also to make some
reasonable predictions about future occurrences.<br>
<br>
The formulation of Self-organization theory which I find to be most
attractive is that proposed by Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute,
which he describes in his book, <i>At Home in the Universe
(Oxford)</i>. Simply stated, Kauffman argues that given certain quite
simple pre-conditions "order happens." These pre-conditions
include the following: 1) A relatively safe and protected, nutrient
environment, 2) High levels of diversity in terms of the elements present
in that environment. 3) High levels of complexity in terms of potential
inter-connections. 4) A drive for improvement, or in more standard
evolutionary terminology, a search for fitness. 5) Sparse prior
connections in terms of the available elements (everything is not
previous "hardwired." 5) The whole thing is on the edge of
chaos.<br>
<br>
Kauffman might be described as a theoretical biologist, although I am not
quite sure what he calls himself. His intent is to account for the origin
of order, particularly in living creatures, at the molecular level. In a
word, he addresses the interesting question as to how we got from primal
ooze to us. I am sure the jury of his peers is still out, but quite
clearly his colleagues take him seriously, if not with the details, then
certainly with the major thrust of his argument. <br>
<br>
Needless to say, I am not competent to judge his science, but upon
reading his work, I was immediately struck with the similarity between
his pre-conditions and what for years I have described as the presenting
circumstances for the use of Open Space. Which are: 1) A real business
issue of great concern. 2) High levels of complexity in terms of the
elements of the issue. 3) High Levels of diversity in terms of those
involved. 4) The presence of actual or potential conflict. 5) A decision
time of yesterday -- ie an urgent need for improvement. Even without
going through a detailed comparison, I would hope that you can see the
relationship. And if you do want the details, you might check my book,
<i>The Power of Spirit: How Organizations Transform</i> (Berrett-Koehler,
2000).<br>
<br>
So what good is all this in practical terms? First off, it provides an
interesting way of looking at, and possibly answering, the nagging
question (for me) of why Open Space works anyhow. I was trained to know
that organization at the human level only occurred as the product
of prodigious effort and great skill. It required brilliant design,
execution and endless maintenance. What we experience in Open Space
simply cannot happen. But of course it does. It appears that quite
inadvertently I stumbled upon the essential pre-conditions of
self-organization. <br>
<br>
A related question for me has been why does Open Space work just about
anywhere it has been tried, regardless of the education, ethnicity,
economics, national origin, etc of the group? The answer would appear to
be that the groups are "already there." There is nothing new to
learn or do, although there may be much to unlearn and stop doing. It
would appear, perhaps, that from the moment of the Big Bang, we and all
the rest of the cosmos have been operating under what might be called The
Laws of Self-Organization, even as we operate under the Laws of
Thermodynamics, Gravity, and the like. Seen from this perspective, the
"workability" of Open Space is precisely what one would expect,
given the essential "Laws" of our environment. One consequence
of all this is that the notion of <i>creating</i> an Open Space
Organization is a little absurd. It already is -- no creation
necessary.<br>
<br>
Life for us humanoids, however, seems to be a tad more complex and
multi-faceted than life at the level of atoms and molecules. Sorry, there
seems to be some hierarchical order. Thus while it is true that we and
all rocks are bound by the Law of Gravity, it is obvious that we can to
some extent circumvent that Law -- or better -- learn to use it to our
advantage. Which is precisely what we do when we fly in an airplane. But
it is noteworthy-- the airplane would not work if you eliminated gravity.
It is only because we are pulled "down" that we can go
"up" -- surfing on a wave of air. <br>
<br>
I suspect the same thing is true with the laws of self-organization
and their local manifestation every time we open space. We can't
repeal those laws, but we can learn to work with them to our advantage.
And that for me is the great adventure of the moment. So if you don't
like the notion of Self-Organization relative to Open Space, not to
worry, it is just a theory. However, to the extent that the theory is
explanatory of some previously non-understood phenomenon (Open Space
works!???) and is predictive of future conditions, it could be useful. At
least I think so.<br>
<br>
Harrison<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<div align="center">
Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854 USA<br>
phone 301-469-9269<br>
Open Space Training
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.com</a>
<br>
Open Space Institute <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
Personal website <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU<br>
</u></font>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,<br>
view the archives of <font color="#0000FF"><u>oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu<br>
</u></font>Visit: <a href="http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></u></div>
</html>