<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Harrison,<br>
<br>
An excellent meditation - thank you. About your Spirit Chart with
level against time, there is another graph with Potential on the
vertical, Connectedness on the horizontal, and time is reflected
as an infinite path that cycles between different levels of
structure along what looks like an infinity symbol.<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://peopleandplace.net/media/file/36/adaptive_cycle_2d.jpg">http://peopleandplace.net/media/file/36/adaptive_cycle_2d.jpg</a><br>
<br>
The idea comes from the book "
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and
Nature" by
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Lance Gunderson and C. S. Holling, though I first encountered the
idea in Michael Quinn Patton's excellent book "Developmental
Evaluation".<br>
<br>
It might seem like squeezing OS Inc. into a box, but I think it
offers Open Space Technology a clear place in the life and death
cycle for organizations to both acquire and expel structure. Not
that they ultimately have a choice to die. But as the Apostle Paul
said "I die daily", were our organizations to practice Open Space
Technology they might have an easier time letting go of what isn't
working, and see the solutions that are already embodied in the
system, and might even have a better chance at longevity (or at
least serving Spirit rather than contributing to Soul Pollution.)<br>
<br>
As you said in Wave Rider, and as I heard you report at a lunch
table at the "What is Leadership in a Self-Organizing World"
conference, OST has a deep connection to the grieving process that
Elisabeth K
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
übler-Ross described as a part of facing death. Which for me is
fascinating given how much joy I always experience - but it is
almost always accompanied other deep emotions as well.<br>
<br>
Harold<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/19/12 5:26 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:000301cdc6b5$c06a61f0$413f25d0$@net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve been thinking about us, or should I
say OS….<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems to be a truth of life that
everything (us included) has a beginning, middle and an end.
The separation between beginning and end can be quite various
(longer or shorter), but one thing is for certain. For every
beginning, there is an end. Along the way it is inevitable
that people ask, how are they doing, and what next?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is true for life in general seems to
be true for organizations of all sorts, including ours, by
which I mean the Good Old OS Community. Perhaps you never
thought of the OS Community as an organization, and certainly
if you understand organization to be what might be called The
Standard Model (The Leader, Board of Directors, and all the
Rest) the OS Community doesn’t qualify. On the other hand,
were you to look at what OS Inc. has done, that assessment
changes, I think. As a matter of fact there are loads of
Standard Model organizations that don’t even come close to our
accomplishments. First of all we have been around for 27 years
with thousands of “members” all over the world. Each year “we”
produce global gatherings in multiple places, along with
training programs and consultations. And when it comes to the
end product, Opening Space, the numbers get a little mind
boggling. Not bad at all – just don’t look too closely at how
it all gets done. J So how are we doing? Well past the
Beginning for sure, but what now, and where next? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Quite a while ago, I found myself thinking
and writing a lot about the natural life cycle of
organizations (“Spirit: Transformation and Development in
Organizations” and “The Power of Spirit”). Beginnings, middles
and ends were pretty central to this – but there was more. All
about what seemed to be happening along the way, and what, if
anything, we might do about that. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To represent my understanding of the
natural history of organizations, I came up with a simple
graph which, for lack of a better term, became known as The
Spirit Chart. Unfortunately we cannot do graphics here on
OSLIST, but the graph is simplicity itself, and so I am sure
that you can quickly draw it, or imagine it in your mind’s
eye. The vertical axis is titled “level” and the horizontal
axis is “time.” On the chart, there are two lines, one called
“Spirit” and the other “Structure.” At Time 1 (the beginning)
Spirit is high and Structure is low. Over time (moving from
left to right) the lines cross in the middle, and at the end
-- Spirit is low, and Structure is high. And there you have
it: Beginning, Middle, and End.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As you might suspect, I did not gather
masses of data in order to construct my chart. Indeed I really
can’t imagine precisely what that data might be or how to
gather it. All that said, common sense and experience supports
the story that the graph seeks to tell… All organizations
start out with High Spirit(s) – and virtually no Structure. At
the moment of creation it is all potential, a wonderful idea,
a gigantic WOW! The good news is that something is moving and
shaking. Excitement and optimism rule the day. But there is a
price. Orderly procedures simply do not exist, massive amounts
of energy is burned for minimal results, the Wheel is
constantly re-invented. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But then things change. Rules and
Structures are created to focus and direct all that wonderful
Spirit. Initially there is resistance from some Free Spirited
Folks, but the net result is positive and beneficial. Work
gets done, schedules are kept, product goes out the door. And
best of all there is plenty of Free Spirit around to
creatively explore new opportunities, new ways of doing
business.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But over time, the lines cross. The Spirit
Line and the Structure Line intersect and then separate, with
Structure rising and Spirit falling, being constrained in
smaller and smaller spaces by the overburden of Structure. For
a while nobody notices, for the organization is doing the
business in productive and orderly ways, and who could
complain about that? But there comes a time when the
organization is defined and imprisoned by its structure and
rules. Spirit is in evidence mostly by its absence – except in
the stories and memories of how it “used to be.” When you are
out of Spirit, you are out of business. At least that is the
story.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But there could be a different ending. Were
it somehow possible to release the Spirit from its prison,
renewal might happen. But for that to occur, the prison walls
must break. Or to put it in slightly different terms, the
confining structure must shatter so that the Spirit may reform
in new ways. This, I think, is an accurate, albeit
metaphorical picture of Transformation: Spirit breaking loose
to take on new form (trans-form).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So where are we? Clearly we have had our
initial WOW! And although it is certainly true that each time
some new person joins our happy Tribe, having just experienced
the opening of space for some group of people – that WOW is
heard once more. It is also true that for a large (and
increasing) number of our band the experience is no longer a
strange one. We’ve been there before, and while it is always a
delight, it really becomes quite predictable. I would never
say boring, but predictable for sure. Sit in a circle, create
a bulletin board, open a market place, and the folks will go
to work. Every time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The curious thing is that 27 years into our
adventure, our organization is still as lively and spirit
filled as it is – a status that just about everybody
recognizes in all of our common gatherings, as for example the
recent WOSONOS in London. In my own experience of
organizational life, this record is pretty remarkable. In
every other organization I have known, or been a part of, by
the time it reached its 27<sup>th</sup> year, an awful lot of
the original Spirit, enthusiasm, to say nothing of agility and
flexibility had disappeared. People talk about “mature
organizations” -- when they finally got beyond the “wild days
in the garage” (computer start-ups, for example) and settled
down into a more orderly mode of being. Think of Amazon,
Apple, Microsoft, et al. Somehow we seem to have escaped some
of that, and how could that be?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think part of the answer comes from the
nature of our “product” and what we do. The truth of the
matter is that every time we think we have it all figured out,
and have “finally” arrived at the “right” way of doing things
– we are in for some surprises. It turns out that we really
didn’t know what we were talking about. Somehow, Open Space
was/is so much more than we ever thought, and what we do/did,
so much less. What starts out looking like just another
approach to better meetings or group technique subtly morphs
into the story of the cosmos (self organization). And we
really don’t DO anything at all. We simply offer an
invitation, and then get out of the way. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To be sure, there has been a developmental
process in our approach as we have gone along, but it
apparently moves in the diametrically opposite direction from
similar processes found with other approaches. Put it all
under the heading of “Thinking of one more thing NOT to do”
and pretty soon (well maybe someday) – we’ll end up with
nothing. No approach at all!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, there have been a few signs of
approaching Middle Age. You might call it hardening of the
organizational arteries – conversations about the “right” way
to conduct an Open Space, usually accompanied by an expanding
list of critical details with attendant Do’s and Don’ts.
Fortunately we then receive a marvelous report (Sandy Gee,
being the latest) how just about everything was “wrong” – but
surprisingly – it all worked just perfectly. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To be sure I have heard some chatter about
“guidelines” (Thomas H. J) – but no proposal that we “get
ourselves organized” – and certainly nothing as forbidding as
a governmental structure with appropriate Boards and Bylaws!
So we seem to be dodging the bullet, at least for the moment.
And it may be that we have some distance to go before the end.
I doubt, however, that our longevity will ever have anything
to do with what might be called The Standard Organizational
Approach, usually characterized as “institutionalization.”
Indeed I more than suspect that once again we will find
success by going in the opposite direction. Rather than
building durable structures that might last for the ages (none
do … so far) – it will be a story of the constant shattering
of structures and procedures to release the Spirit in new and
vital directions. Transformation, I believe it is called. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But there will come an end, of that I have
no doubt. But I hope that the end of OS Inc might occur with
hardly a ripple or note. Not unlike old soldiers who never
seem to die – they just fade away. OS Inc will become quite
invisible when it is clear to all that everything is Open
Space. Blending into the woodwork, as it were. Nothing new,
Nothing special. Just what is. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Harrison<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Harold Shinsato<br>
<a href="mailto:harold@shinsato.com">harold@shinsato.com</a><br>
<a href="http://shinsato.com">http://shinsato.com</a><br>
twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/hajush">@hajush</a></div>
</body>
</html>