Thank you very much for your further explanations, Peggy. I think I will need some time to reflect and try to digest the information. In the meanwhile I have one more question and some comments to further the dialogue.
At 17:14 17-12-2001, Peggy Holman wrote:
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. I think it is the same with methods.
Yes I do and I understand your point - one can use different programming languages with success. But I am note sure if the same is true of using different programming methods (say "spaghetti programming" versus structured programming versus object oriented programming). So I would expect methods to be one of the factors or success - not the only one of course, but one of them.
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.
Sorry, I can't understand the last sentence - similar to the previous sentence (different impacts) or similar impacts?
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.
Have you obtained your information mainly from the change agents or have you checked that out with the people of the "changed organization"? The problem is that the facilitator (and even the sponsor) can be biased - for a matter of research it would be interesting to talk with people at various levels of the organizations that were subjected to change. (By the way I don't like to use the expression I have used "organizations subjected to change" as they must always be "agents" and not only "subjects" for any profound change to take place).
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.
I tend to agree with you. What confused me at first was the fact that all 18 methods could be equally effective.
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?
I agree with the elegance. But I think the point is not only elegance. If Harrison's statement that "less is more" is true than I tend to think that "more is less" is also true. So I have doubts about methods where the facilitator "facilitates too much" as they tend to disempower people (except the facilitator himself). Further I tend to agree with Lewin that to change an organization first the old rules and procedures must be unfrozen. And I think OST is more apt to unfreeze previous rules and procedures that some other methods that are more "directive". Regards Artur
