<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Artur,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the furthering this discussion. I
believe all 18 methods have the potential to create good meetings and to
profoundly transform. I do know of example of profound
change for each of the 18 methods that I looked at. I would not consider it
enough to say that I have empirical evidence for my statement to be more
than an opinion. And I would heartily agree with your quote from
Peter Senge that "...<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>there's enough evidence
of success to say that change is possible and enough evidence of failure to say
that it isn't likely." <FONT face=Arial size=2>I wouldn't say that
all methods are equal, just that profound change is possible with all of
them. In other words, there are factors beyond method that are likely to
make the difference. My belief (and I don't have sufficient empirical
evidence for it to be more than an opinion) is
that </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>while method may be
one factor in success or failure the beliefs of the facilitator are an even
greater factor. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><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></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think it is the same with methods. The core
beliefs of the facilitator influence their actions and the unspoken cues they
send. Are there methods that are better fits in different
circumstances? You bet. 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. 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></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><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></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><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></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peggy</FONT><FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><BR></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=artsilva@mail.eunet.pt href="mailto:artsilva@mail.eunet.pt">Artur F.
Silva</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
href="mailto:OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU">OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 17, 2001 7:22
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Self-Organization???? (to
Peggy)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>At 01:25 11-12-2001, Peggy Holman wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">After looking closely at 18 approaches to
changing human systems for The<BR>Change Handbook, my own conclusion is
similar to Ralph's. What I have come<BR>to believe is that the choice
of approach has more to do with chemistry<BR>among practitioner, method and
client than anything else. They all have the<BR>potential to
transform. Further, I've concluded the choice of process has<BR>much
to do with the beliefs of the practitioner.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I could not
understand, Peggy, if all the 18 have the potencial to be useful to<BR>create
good meetings or if they have the potencial to profoundly transform<BR>the
organizations where they have been applied.<BR><BR>If it were the second
hypothesis that you stated, I would like to know<BR>if you are telling your
opinion or if you have researched (action research?)<BR>enough cases of
companies that applied those methods to conclude that.<BR><BR>The point is
that my information until now went in a different direction.<BR>For instance,
see the interview with Peter Senge to Fast Company in 1999<BR>in <A
href="http://www.fastcompany.com/online/24/senge.html" eudora="autourl"><FONT
color=#0000ff><U>http://www.fastcompany.com/online/24/senge.html</A></U></FONT>.
<BR><BR>The 1st question was "What's your assessment of the performance of
<BR>large-scale change efforts over the past decade?" <BR><BR>Senge answered
(in part):<BR> <BR>"My own experience at MIT and at the Society of
Learning (Sol) has mostly <BR>been with big companies. How much change have
they actually accomplished? <BR>If I stand back a considerable distance and
ask, 'What's the score'" I <BR>have to conclude that inertia is winning by a
large margin. Of course, <BR>there have been enough exceptions to that
conclusion to indicate that <BR>change is possible. I can identify 20 to 30
examples of significant <BR>sustained change efforts in the SoL community. On
the other side of the <BR>ledger, there are many organizations that haven't
gotten to first base <BR>when it comes to real change and many others that
have given up trying. <BR>When I look at efforts to create change in big
companies over the past 10 <BR>years, I have to say that there's enough
evidence of success to say that <BR>change is possible and enough evidence of
failure to say that it isn't <BR>likely. Both of those lessons are
important."<BR><BR>So it seams that change is not easy and probably not all
methods are equal.<BR>By the way this was an interview after the publication
of "The Dance of Change"<BR>where some methods and disciplines were not so
empathized as in the past and<BR>some new ones were referred - like the
concept of Communities of Practice<BR>and the OST methodology
;-)<BR><BR>Regards<BR><BR>Artur<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>