<!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 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>I am so tickled! I have been away from the list for a month and as a
result read about 200 messages in one sitting. Perhaps because of this
concentration, I noticed something that excites me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The thread on hierachy was moving into a discussion of the
occurence of hierarchies in nature. The
focus shifted with Birgitt's message on the listserv archives becoming
more public.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What I saw was that Birgit took us from the abstract -- talking about
hierarchies in nature -- to a real-life experience of what it is
like to be in a conscious self-organizing community's version of a
hierarchy. After all, Michael took on the role of leader (passion bounded
by responsibility) and made a decision that affected everyone on the list.
(BTW, I'm going to use the term CAS or complex adaptive system as a near-enough
substitute for conscious self-organizing community because it is MUCH faster to
type.) I think decision making is a key aspect of what leaders, as the
tops of the hierarchy, do. I thin it is quite challenging to
understand decision making in CASs. It is also a topic of great
interest for me. The thoughts and examples from this real life situation
that follow are in no particular order.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A CHANCE TO LEARN; DECISION MAKING IN A DIFFERENT SEQUENCE</DIV>
<DIV>What is currently playing out is a great chance for us all to learn more
about leadership and decision making -- key aspects of hierarchy -- in
CASs. For one thing, I would say that the decision making process didn't
end with Michael's action, rather that is where the process started. And
it is in action right now. It is a bit elusive to see this because we
generally think of action following the decision -- whether behind closed doors
in a traditional hierarchy or in the circle or marketplace of a CAS. I
submit that in this situation, the decision making process is simply
happening in a different order: </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- an action was taken, </DIV>
<DIV>-- in the wonderful self-correcting way of CASs, the system, through
Birgitt, pushed back (even in a CAS, this can take an act of great courage --
thank you for that, Birgitt) </DIV>
<DIV>-- and now the community is engaged in reflecting on the implications
of the action. </DIV>
<DIV>-- Ultimately, the conversation will wind down with either
another action or not -- in effect, a decision to stay the course or alter
it. Certainly, learning will have occurred for
many. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WHEN DECISIONS ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL</DIV>
<DIV>One of the aspects of hierachy that people most dislike is that they have
no control over decisions that affect them. In a traditional organization,
the leaders often make decisions without consulting
others. Yuk. Michael fits the definition of leader in an Open
Space -- operating from personal passion bounded by responsibility. And
guess what? A decision he made affected all of us and just as in
a traditional hierachy, someone in the system -- Birgitt -- spoke out to
say, as I understood her messages, that she didn't like the decision being made
without her having a say. Makes sense to me! Guess whether the
hierarchy emerges naturally or not the same dislike of being
affected by other's choices can arise.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ROLE OF GOOD INTENTIONS</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>One good news aspect of organizations and communities that operate as
a CAS: the people in them seem to consistently hold the belief that
people's intentions guide actions that are on behalf of the whole. No one
questioned Michael's motive was to serve the community and open more space in
the world. I guess in traditional hierarchies, when people believe the
leadership is well intentioned, they are called enlightened despots or
benevolent dictators and when there isn't a belief that leaders operate for the
good of the whole, the leaders are called tyrants. Personally, I
think there's something about what binds the CAS together that makes acting for
the good of the whole highly likely to be the case. I may mangle this a
bit, but I believe CASs form around strange attractors. In social
systems, I think of the organization or community's purpose as the
attractor. In the case of this community, while Chris Weaver's comment
about OSlist's purpose not being explicit is true, people pretty consistently
talk about this as a place of support and connection, a place to tell stories,
ask questions, learn, mentor and be mentored in that oh so wonderful act of
opening and holding space in the world. So, while not explicit, those who
are attracted and stay are in pretty close proximity on purpose. Anyway, I
think that when people connect through a shared sense of purpose and act from
personal passion and responsibility, spirit comes out to play. This seems
to bring out the best in us, hence actions, are well intentioned.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RISKS OF LEADERSHIP AS DEFINED BY PASSION AND REPSONSIBILITY</DIV>Are there
risks in this approach to leadership -- passion bounded by
responsibility? Absolutely. Who knows what independent action
someone might take without fully understanding the impact? I think this is
in part why people comfortable in traditional organizations find the idea of an
organizational CAS so unnerving. </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>FLUIDITY OF DECISIONS</DIV>
<DIV>A big difference between the traditional and what is happening here is the
degree of fluidity around action and decision. </DIV>
<DIV>In a tradtional organization, this are pretty rigid. You may not
like a decision or know the rationale, but you know who did it.
In a CAS, as Birgitt pointed out, other than Michael, it isn't at all clear who,
if anyone else, was involved. Does it matter? I don't know but it
does speak to the fluidity of decision making in a CAS -- it can come from
anyone at anytime. No wonder many managers find OS terrifying!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Traditionally, a decision is made, executed and it's complete.
Perhaps there's some reflection and adjustment but it is often quite
difficult. In the CAS I think there is a different framework to
be learned: nothing is linear, just having a beginning and an ending.
Everything is part of a larger pattern, a cycle. Rather than seeing a
decision as a one-time event, I think it is useful to learn to
experience a decision as part of a flow, inspired by something
that came before and ever shifting as more is learned. One great aspect of
this is the recognition that nothing is fixed, decisions can always be changed
(even if it isn't always easy). I think this makes experimentation much
less stressful and much more fun.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ANOTHER ROLE OF BUTTERFLIES</DIV>
<DIV>Just as in traditional organizations, people may be challenged by the
decision or discussion and leave the list or become fearful that speaking out is
too risky. I think CASs have a nice way of dealing with this:
butterflies. I learned a few years ago of this aspect
of butterflies --conversations that people don't feel ready or
safe enough to have in the whole group or even in the marketplace.
Ultimately the butterfly conversations resolve and disappear, become
clear enough to be voiced in a more visible way or run into someone who takes
the leadership (passion bounded by responsibility) to speak it in the
marketplace or the whole. I am willing to bet that Birgitt has had some
behind the scenes conversations with some folks - butterflies in flight.
(Birgitt -- if you're willing -- please let us know if this is the
case.)</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>CAN ACTIONS BE UNDONE? </DIV>
<DIV>Now here's something that I wonder about in this sort of decision making:
reversing the action. As long as the decision can be undone, this sort of
decision making works (albeit not always comfortably; I suspect it feels VERY
messy right now because it is so different from our norms). What
about those decisions that can't be reversed easily? I would hope that
those issues would find their way into conversation BEFORE action but not sure
how that can be guaranteed. Even if stated as a given that irreversible
actions are discussed first, in a list this fluid, I'm not sure this can be
sustained. It is area I see for exploration.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ATTITUDE OF SERVICE</DIV>
<DIV>One other aspect: I think one of the characteristics of any healthy
system is that actions are taken because of an intention to serve others and the
whole. In traditional organizations, one of the breakdowns that happens
fairly quickly is that serving the people with position power becomes the focus
for most everyone. After all, they're the ones who can provide the
rewards. In a CAS, when anyone can emerge as a leader and the source
and nature of rewards is less clear there is a very different dynamic, one about
which there is still much to learn.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, after months of silence, here are a lot of words from me. Enjoy
(or not).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Love from sunny Seattle,</DIV>
<DIV>Peggy</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>_______________________________<BR>Peggy Holman<BR>The Open Circle
Company<BR>15347 SE 49th Place<BR>Bellevue, WA 98006<BR>425.746.6274<BR><A
href="http://www.opencirclecompany.com">www.opencirclecompany.com</A></DIV></BODY></HTML>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:
<p>
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html