<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">Doug:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">In what concerns
your first question, and to understand what are my assumptions (indeed, the
assumptions of the Shell study Arie de Geus reported) you may read a post I
sent in 2001 to a different list, that is still online here: </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-fareast-language:PT"><a href="http://www.learning-org.com/01.07/0155.html"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;color:blue;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">http://www.learning-org.com/01.07/0155.html</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">In what concerns your second question, the study is based in "real companies", so
it is at least aligned with what they thought to be the "reality"...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">Artur<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:PT">PS: I like very
much the other post of yours, where you said: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:PT">"The Open Space disrupted business as usual"
which is why I call us </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 14px; ">"community disorganizers!". Maybe we can try to convince Harrison to include that in the 4th edition of the User's Guide ;-)</span></div><div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 14px; "><br></span></div><div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 14px; "><br></span></div><div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; "><br><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> doug <os@footprintsinthewind.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> World wide Open Space
Technology email list <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, July 12, 2011 2:38:03 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies<br></font><br>
Artur and all--<br><br>Just what are the assumptions inherent in a phrase like "learn faster<br>and more profoundly than other organizations?" Do they align with what<br>we know of reality?<br><br> :- Doug.<br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 20:50 -0700, Artur Silva wrote:<br>> Peggy, Harrison, Suzanne, David, Doug and Chris:<br>> <br>> <br>> I ended last Friday a very intensive work period, to finish the first<br>> (and bigger) phase of my students' examinations and submitting a paper<br>> to a Conference. In the meanwhile, I have read the first marvelous<br>> initial post of this thread from Peggy, and the interesting answers<br>> that followed. <br>> <br>> <br>> After Peggy's first mail I had the intention - but not the time - to<br>> write some comments. This afternoon, when I had the time, I reread<br>> everything, but before beginning to write I have received all
the<br>> careful answers that Peggy sent to each of the comments.<br>> <br>> <br>> Now it is almost all said, and my comment is only concerned with a<br>> small point where this thread relates with the paper I wrote, namely<br>> the importance of Power and Care (that I prefer to "Love") in the tech<br>> company's experience Peggy shared with us.<br>> <br>> <br>> As many of you know, I have been struggling, after some years, with<br>> two related questions:<br>> <br>> <br>> 1) first, how can we create the "Patterns of a Learning Architecture"<br>> for a company (or other organization) so that it can learn faster and<br>> more profoundly than other organizations, especially in what concerns<br>> questions of generative (double-loop) learning, and namely when<br>> "sensible questions" are at stake? In other words: how can we change<br>> the learning patterns of a company (which usually have strong
learning<br>> disabilities) if and when that change is possible? (which btw assumes<br>> that it is not always possible...)<br>> <br>> <br>> 2) Second, what is - or can be - the role of OST in all of this? <br>> <br>> <br>> Of course, one can always say that power doesn't exist at all, or that<br>> "you never have to let go of it, because you never had it in the first<br>> place" (I am paraphrasing a recent answer from Harrison to Eleder's<br>> "Quote"). <br>> <br>> <br>> Or, at least, we can say that, in many situations we all know of,<br>> Power can be kind of "dissolved" in the OST event(s) - in a way that<br>> it can't be in other more "directive approaches", like "team<br>> building", to give only one example. <br>> <br>> <br>> But what happens in those situations were power doesn't "dissolve"?<br>> (Having worked 20 years for IBM, I know a lot of situations where the<br>> best
intentions of senior professionals and middle managers couldn't<br>> change what was decided "at the Top".)<br>> <br>> <br>> And what happens in those situations where it is not even good for the<br>> future of the organization that power dissolves too quickly, as the<br>> "person in charge" has a more clear and compassionate vision that the<br>> people that contest her/him, even if - or especially when - those ones<br>> are the majority?<br>> <br>> <br>> Any comments?<br>> <br>> <br>> Best regards from late night in Lisbon<br>> <br>> <br>> Artur<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ______________________________________________________________________<br>> From: Peggy Holman <<a ymailto="mailto:peggy@peggyholman.com" href="mailto:peggy@peggyholman.com">peggy@peggyholman.com</a>><br>> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list<br>> <<a
ymailto="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org">oslist@lists.openspacetech.org</a>><br>> Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 9:31:55 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [OSList] A tale of two companies<br>> <br>> Hi Chris,<br>> <br>> <br>> I have followed up with my client. To paraphrase a comment from the<br>> client: when the community is part of creating the change and<br>> leadership is engaged, the invitation may seem more authentic and<br>> therefore participating is less of a stretch.<br>> <br>> <br>> Ironically, the group is in the midst of a re-org, with little<br>> information to anyone. Based on my contact's reflections, I see no<br>> appetite to reflect on the experience. And I doubt there will be<br>> much, if any, forward motion.<br>> <br>> <br>> The power dynamic was certainly an important factor. Thanks for the<br>> reference to
Adam's work. <br>> <br>> <br>> Even when the agenda isn't hidden, if it is coming from the middle, as<br>> this event demonstrated, it may well be rejected. The group took on<br>> some real business issues but steered clear of anything related to the<br>> power structures. In retrospect, that makes sense. Management didn't<br>> open the door to that arena.<br>> <br>> <br>> And you're so right: when that opening appears, things will shift.<br>> Given the amount of denial at play, it will likely be pretty messy<br>> when it happens. So Engaging Emergence may well be a help! In fact,<br>> my contact just gave a copy to the group's manager.<br>> <br>> <br>> Peggy<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On Jul 8, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Chris Corrigan wrote:<br>> <br>> > Both Suzanne and Harrison have made some excellent
reflections<br>> > here...Peggy, have you had a chance to follow up with the tech<br>> > company folks? Seems like an important harvest from that experience<br>> > is a naming of some of the things that are holding them back. They<br>> > may choose to use OST or some other process for these conversations,<br>> > but it certainly seems apparent that without talking about this<br>> > stuff, they are not going to move forward well. <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > Your story does point to an important question that I have been in<br>> > recently, and that is, how do we relate what we are doing to the<br>> > realities of power in the organization? Adam Kahane's recent work<br>> > on Power and Love has highlighted the need to be sensitive to both<br>> > the relational and the transactional contexts at play in an<br>> > organization. Using processes like
OST is often a vote for the<br>> > relational to be activated in the work, but if the transactional<br>> > power dynamics are at play, people will often behave the way you<br>> > describe. Suzanne names it well - a well-intentioned hidden agenda<br>> > - and the effect can be that it increases mistrust and confusion and<br>> > people feel that the intervention has not actually dealt with the<br>> > real issues. <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > When the opening appears for THAT conversation, things will flow.<br>> > And that is where YOUR book has much to offer around the skills of<br>> > working with emergence and disruption. <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > C<br>> > <br>> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:28 PM, doug <<a ymailto="mailto:os@footprintsinthewind.com" href="mailto:os@footprintsinthewind.com">os@footprintsinthewind.com</a>><br>> >
wrote:<br>> > Peggy and all friends--<br>> > <br>> > Question 1: It was 1975 when I last lived inside a Fortune<br>> > 200<br>> > corporation, so take this with a grain of salt. What came<br>> > through my<br>> > sixth sense on reading this was that somehow it was not a<br>> > good mix to<br>> > have both managers and field people in this particular OS.<br>> > They had<br>> > different issues to be worked by.<br>> > <br>> > Question 2: speaks of the same dynamic to me: a very highly<br>> >
controlled<br>> > group, where the inside circle did not want interlopers, or<br>> > were so<br>> > perceived.<br>> > <br>> > Had one company just recently acquired another in this tech<br>> > company? It<br>> > feels we/they to me.<br>> > <br>> > Hopefully this gives a bit of a different echo from the<br>> > hills across the<br>> > way.<br>> > <br>> > :- Doug.<br>> > <br>> >
<br>> > <br>> > On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 16:29 -0700, Peggy Holman wrote:<br>> > > In the last few months, I opened space at a tech company<br>> > and a biotech<br>> > > company. On one level, they looked similar: one functional<br>> > area,<br>> > > international participation, a mix of managers and<br>> > individual<br>> > > contributors.<br>> > ><br>> > > Yet the experiences and the outcomes couldn't have been<br>> > more<br>> > > different! I'll describe the two events and
my<br>> > reflections on what<br>> > > made the difference between them.<br>> > ><br>> > > Note: I wrote the story about the tech immediately<br>> > following the Open<br>> > > Space but didn't have a chance to edit and send it before<br>> > the second<br>> > > experience. You'll see a couple of questions that the<br>> > experience<br>> > > raised for me embedded in the story. They took on a<br>> > little different<br>> > > light following the second experience.<br>> > ><br>> >
> Corporate dynamics at play in a technology company...<br>> > ><br>> > > This OS was with an international sales and marketing<br>> > meeting for the<br>> > > launch of a new year. Day 1 was not in Open Space. It was<br>> > a manager’s<br>> > > only session, using a mix of conversational forms (a huge<br>> > stretch for<br>> > > the power point, info-out culture). It went well. People<br>> > appreciated<br>> > > talking rather than just listening. Many of the field<br>> > people<br>> > >
acknowledged the quality of listening from headquarters<br>> > people who<br>> > > usually do most of the talking.<br>> > ><br>> > > On the first afternoon, the larger meeting – 100 people –<br>> > began with a<br>> > > conversation between execs and the people in the room. A<br>> > great, candid<br>> > > conversation.<br>> > ><br>> > > On day 2, we opened the space. During the Open Space, I<br>> > ran into a<br>> > > several issues that I haven't experienced before and<br>> > wondered
if<br>> > > others have.<br>> > ><br>> > > Overall, it was a terrific day. And one of the unexpected<br>> > dynamics<br>> > > surfaced: the managers didn't feel complete with the<br>> > conversations<br>> > > that they wanted just amongst themselves. And they didn't<br>> > feel they<br>> > > had the space for their private conversation in the Open<br>> > Space. My<br>> > > client caught wind of the situation as they planned to<br>> > organize a<br>> > > session during day 3's action planning/next
step breakout<br>> > session<br>> > > time. That meant the management layer wouldn't be part of<br>> > action<br>> > > planning/next step conversations.<br>> > ><br>> > > We negotiated having the manager session posted in the<br>> > context of<br>> > > action planning/next steps so that it would be visible<br>> > even if not<br>> > > open to everyone. In practice, it was announced but not<br>> > posted.<br>> > ><br>> > > We added a second action oriented round of breakout<br>> >
sessions in the<br>> > > afternoon following a short briefing of what came out of<br>> > the morning<br>> > > group to fit the timing of the manager’s session, It made<br>> > room for<br>> > > managers or others to host more action/next step sessions.<br>> > ><br>> > > So question 1: have others run into the managers-only<br>> > dynamic? If so,<br>> > > how have you dealt with it? Are there questions you use<br>> > in your<br>> > > pre-work for the OS to surface the issue and deal with it<br>> >
in advance?<br>> > > We thought we had handled the need with the pre-meeting<br>> > among<br>> > > managers. What signs might have tipped us off to the need<br>> > for more?<br>> > ><br>> > > The second dynamic completely blindsided me. Normally the<br>> > second<br>> > > morning of an OS just buzzes! Perhaps it was the party<br>> > the night<br>> > > before but the group was really subdued. When I opened the<br>> > space for<br>> > > action, no one came forward. Given the energy in the room,<br>> >
I had the<br>> > > sense that an elephant was sitting there untouched. I<br>> > asked if anyone<br>> > > would speak to what was up. Someone said they didn't want<br>> > to step on<br>> > > headquarter people's toes by proposing action sessions<br>> > that were<br>> > > really HQ responsibilities. The exec in the room<br>> > encouraged people to<br>> > > do so, saying that HQ was there to serve the field's<br>> > needs.<br>> > > Ultimately, five sessions on topics of importance were<br>> > posted.<br>> >
><br>> > > After the meeting, my client said she thought the<br>> > reluctance came from<br>> > > a pattern of headquarters taking field input and having<br>> > the<br>> > > suggestions disappear without any feedback on what<br>> > happened to the<br>> > > ideas or why. So why should field people offer anything?<br>> > ><br>> > > I got the impression that the field saw it as the<br>> > responsibility of<br>> > > headquarters people to take the lead. And the HQ people<br>> > already felt<br>> >
> full up so they weren't stepping in. Plus, people didn't<br>> > see a need<br>> > > for action sessions since they felt they’d been<br>> > identifying actions<br>> > > throughout the Open Space.<br>> > ><br>> > > Question 2: Given that tension between field and<br>> > headquarters is<br>> > > common, have others run into this sort of reluctance to<br>> > post action<br>> > > sessions? Might we have anticipated this perception before<br>> > it put a<br>> > > damper on things?<br>> >
><br>> > > It was one of the only Open Space gatherings I've ever<br>> > done in which<br>> > > people didn't come away saying, "Wow! Best meeting I've<br>> > ever<br>> > > attended." Instead, we heard from many that the meeting<br>> > was too open<br>> > > and confusing. People wanted to hear more from the senior<br>> > managers<br>> > > about what was on their minds. I left the experience<br>> > pondering the<br>> > > dynamics that led to that outcome. The contrast with this<br>> > second<br>>
> > meeting helped me identify some possibilities.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > High times in a biotech...<br>> > ><br>> > > The work was part of a company-wide change initiative. The<br>> > senior<br>> > > manager was its host. He was actively involved. For<br>> > example, he<br>> > > opened the meeting by speaking of his aspirations for the<br>> > department.<br>> > > He also said a few words at morning announcements and<br>> > evening news
on<br>> > > each of the two days.<br>> > ><br>> > > Like the tech company, this session was basically one<br>> > function --<br>> > > human resources -- with a few others invited for spice.<br>> > Also similar<br>> > > to the tech meeting, people came from around the world.<br>> > ><br>> > > The meeting was a hit! People instantly leaped out to<br>> > post sessions.<br>> > > With about 100 participants, more than 50% posted<br>> > something. I don't<br>> > > think I've ever had a group
that size post in that ratio.<br>> > The<br>> > > conversations were rich and useful. Along with the variety<br>> > of topics,<br>> > > people worked through issues around organizational levels<br>> > as well as<br>> > > field/headquarters dynamics. At least three Open Space<br>> > meetings<br>> > > resulted, to be hosted by different attendees over the<br>> > coming<br>> > > weeks. In fact, I was invited to help with one of them.<br>> > ><br>> > > One other aspect of this session: I ran a workshop before<br>> >
and after<br>> > > the OS for about a half a dozen internal people to support<br>> > them in<br>> > > opening space in the organization. We also met to reflect<br>> > on the<br>> > > experience before morning announcements and after evening<br>> > news during<br>> > > the Open Space. In other words, they had already adopted<br>> > Open Space<br>> > > as a key element of how they wanted to work. The<br>> > organization is<br>> > > investing in a group of people to support creating a<br>> >
conversational<br>> > > culture.<br>> > ><br>> > > At a second OS I did with them a few weeks later, we<br>> > brought most of<br>> > > the new practitioners together to continue to learn<br>> > together. It's<br>> > > wonderful because they now have an internal community of<br>> > practice to<br>> > > support each other.<br>> > ><br>> > > I was grateful to have the biotech meeting on the heels of<br>> > the<br>> > > technology meeting! I went from questioning what I thought<br>> >
I knew to<br>> > > having some ideas of what created the differences in the<br>> > experiences.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > Reflections on the differences that made a difference<br>> > ><br>> > > The biotech was committed to changing their culture and<br>> > open to new<br>> > > ways of working. The OS was focused on the group<br>> > envisioning how it<br>> > > can best perform its role in the company in light of those<br>> > changes.<br>> > > The tech company meeting was
more of a “stealth action” by<br>> > a mid-level<br>> > > individual contributor familiar with Open Space. She was<br>> > seeding the<br>> > > idea of a conversational culture. In other words, the<br>> > biotech event<br>> > > occurred in fertile soil, the tech company event was<br>> > breaking up the<br>> > > hardpan.<br>> > ><br>> > > At the biotech, the sponsor was a senior manager who was<br>> > explicit<br>> > > about using the event to spark culture change. His whole<br>> >
team<br>> > > participated throughout the event so there was no issue<br>> > around hearing<br>> > > what senior people were thinking. They were in the room.<br>> > In contrast,<br>> > > the tech company host was a mid-level individual<br>> > contributor. She is<br>> > > highly trusted and used her influence to bring Open Space<br>> > in. Her<br>> > > goal was to take steps towards creating a more<br>> > conversational<br>> > > culture. Both intentions are valid. They just created<br>> > different<br>> >
> experiences.<br>> > ><br>> > > At the biotech, the sponsor had used Open Space at a<br>> > previous<br>> > > organization as part of a successful culture change<br>> > initiative. He<br>> > > "got" the simplicity of Open Space, not even feeling a<br>> > need for an<br>> > > action round. Instead, as part of session notes, we asked<br>> > people to<br>> > > include both a discussion and a "next steps/commitments"<br>> > section. That<br>> > > dealt with one of the disconnects in the tech company<br>> >
meeting. They<br>> > > were confused when I re-opened the space for action,<br>> > saying they had<br>> > > been naming actions throughout. The biotech meeting helped<br>> > me see that<br>> > > re-opening the space for action turned out to be an<br>> > unnecessary thing<br>> > > to do.<br>> > ><br>> > > The biotech meeting was offsite, so even those who were<br>> > stretched by<br>> > > the Open Space stuck around because it was a big effort to<br>> > leave.<br>> > >
That gave them time to warm to the experience over the two<br>> > days. The<br>> > > tech company meeting was onsite, making it easy for the<br>> > senior<br>> > > managers and others to show up briefly and leave.<br>> > ><br>> > > Finally, the biotech is thriving and growing while the<br>> > tech company is<br>> > > really struggling to rediscover its identity. This<br>> > external factor<br>> > > strikes me as a key difference in the environments.<br>> > ><br>> > > So what does it all mean? I would still Open Space
in the<br>> > tech<br>> > > company. There were plenty of people who found the<br>> > experience<br>> > > worthwhile, even if their feedback was quieter than those<br>> > who were<br>> > > frustrated or confused. I believe we prepared the soil for<br>> > a few seeds<br>> > > to take root.<br>> > ><br>> > > For the tech company to take further steps, it strikes me<br>> > that the<br>> > > person who hosted the Open Space would benefit from<br>> > finding informal<br>> >
> partners, other inside change agents. I like to believe<br>> > that even<br>> > > without strong leadership support, she can make a dent.<br>> > As the<br>> > > biotech company shows, management involvement can be an<br>> > accelerator.<br>> > > Still, as I think about what someone sitting in the<br>> > middle of an<br>> > > organization can do, enlisting partners who share interest<br>> > in creating<br>> > > a conversational culture could be a way to continue to<br>> > move forward.<br>> >
> By forming an informal community of learners, she can<br>> > create a system<br>> > > of support.<br>> > ><br>> > > Could we have done better? No doubt. I look forward to<br>> > any thoughts<br>> > > you have.<br>> > ><br>> > > Appreciatively,<br>> > ><br>> > > Peggy<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > _________________________________<br>> > > Peggy Holman<br>> >
> <a ymailto="mailto:peggy@peggyholman.com" href="mailto:peggy@peggyholman.com">peggy@peggyholman.com</a><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > 15347 SE 49th Place<br>> > > Bellevue, WA 98006<br>> > > 425-746-6274<br>> > > <a target="_blank" href="http://www.peggyholman.com">www.peggyholman.com</a><br>> > > <a target="_blank" href="http://www.journalismthatmatters.org">www.journalismthatmatters.org</a><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning<br>> > Upheaval into<br>> > >
Opportunity<br>> > ><br>> > > "An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire<br>> > and not get<br>> > > burnt, is to become<br>> > > the fire".<br>> > > -- Drew Dellinger<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> >
><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > <br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > OSList mailing list<br>> > > To post send emails to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> > > To unsubscribe send an email to<br>> >
<a ymailto="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> > > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br>> > <br>> > ><br><span>> > <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a></span><br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > OSList mailing list<br>> > To post send emails to <a
ymailto="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> > To unsubscribe send an email to<br>> > <a ymailto="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > -- <br>> > CHRIS CORRIGAN<br>> > Facilitation - Training - Process
Design<br>> > Open Space Technology<br>> > <br><span>> > Weblog: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot">http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot</a></span><br><span>> > Site: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.chriscorrigan.com/">http://www.chriscorrigan.com/</a></span><br>> > <br>> > upcoming Art of Hosting retreats:<br>> > Bowen Island, BC - October 23 - 26th<br>> > Saskatchewan - September 19 - 22nd<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > OSList mailing list<br>> > To post send emails to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> > To unsubscribe send an email to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org"
href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br>> > <a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> OSList mailing list<br>> To post send emails to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> To unsubscribe send an email to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br>> <a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org"
target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>OSList mailing list<br>To post send emails to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>To unsubscribe send an email to <a ymailto="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org" href="mailto:OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org">OSList-leave@lists.openspacetech.org</a><br>To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:<br><a href="http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org</a><br></div></div><div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; position: fixed; "></div>
</div></body></html>