<html>
Thank you very much for your further explanations, Peggy. I think I will
need <br>
some time to reflect and try to digest the information. In the meanwhile
I have <br>
one more question and some comments to further the dialogue. <br>
<br>
At 17:14 17-12-2001, Peggy Holman wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>I seem to recall
that you have an information systems background, as do I. In the
early days, were you ever in discussions about which programing language
is best for a given task? Often, the conclusion we'd reach is that
it is possible to program anything in any language. While some
languages are more conducive to particular tasks than others, in the
hands of a skilled programmer, it is possible to make anything work.
</font>I think it is the same with
methods.<font face="arial" size=2></blockquote><br>
</font>Yes I do and I understand your point - one can use different
programming<br>
languages with success. But I am note sure if the same is true of
using<br>
different programming methods (say "spaghetti programming"
versus structured <br>
programming versus object oriented programming). So I would expect
methods<br>
to be one of the factors or success - not the only one of course, but one
of them. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>And yet, I can take
the similar circumstances and put different facilitators in them using
the same method and get results with widely differing impact.
Further, I believe I could take the same facilitator, use different
methods and get similar results. </font></blockquote><br>
Sorry, I can't understand the last sentence - similar to the previous
sentence (different<br>
impacts) or similar impacts? <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>I don't have
empirical evidence for this. It is an opinion reached by
observation of, discussion with, and reading of comments from a variety
of people using a variety of methods. I think what started me down
this path was the deep conviction of virtually every expert that their
way was the most effective. One thing they all had in common was an
expectation that what they were doing worked and worked profoundly.
Additionally, there was the evidence of talking with people using these
same methods in similar circumstances and getting much less powerful
results. What was different? I think this is fertile ground
for research.</font></blockquote><br>
Have you obtained your information mainly from the change agents or have
you <br>
checked that out with the people of the "changed organization"?
The problem is <br>
that the facilitator (and even the sponsor) can be biased - for a matter
of research<br>
it would be interesting to talk with people at various levels of the
organizations<br>
that were subjected to change. (By the way I don't like to use the
expression I<br>
have used "organizations subjected to change" as they must
always be "agents" <br>
and not only "subjects" for any profound change to take place).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite> <font face="arial" size=2>My untested
theory is the factors involved in success include sponsor beliefs
(particularly around their passion for and audaciousness of the desired
future, sense of invitation to particpate, generosity of spirit),
facilitator beliefs (particularly around people's capacity to act wisely
for the good of the whole as well as themselves), and method. I'd
love to hear other perspectives on this.</font></blockquote><br>
I tend to agree with you. What confused me at first was the fact that all
18 methods<br>
could be equally effective. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite> <font face="arial" size=2>By the way,
the reason Open Space is so core to my own practice is it makes it so
visible that people have the capacity to create what they want. I
have seen other methods get people there but there's something so elegant
in OS's simplicity in enabling people to live this experience. And
at a practical level, there's something that Harrison mentions a
lot. If I can accomplish the same thing with a lot less work,
doesn't that make sense to do? </font></blockquote><br>
I agree with the elegance. But I think the point is not only
elegance.<br>
<br>
If Harrison's statement that "less is more" is true than I tend
to think that<br>
"more is less" is also true. So I have doubts about methods
where the facilitator <br>
"facilitates too much" as they tend to disempower people
(except the facilitator <br>
himself).<br>
<br>
Further I tend to agree with Lewin that to change an organization first
the old <br>
rules and procedures must be unfrozen. And I think OST is more apt to
unfreeze <br>
previous rules and procedures that some other methods that are more
"directive". <br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Artur<br>
<br>
</html>