My responses are below, following the
******************************************************
Peggy
----- Original Message -----
From: Artur F. Silva
To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Self-Organization???? (to Peggy)
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 am offering 2 variations:
1. The same situation, the same method, handled by facilitators with
different beliefs will lead to different results. The point being that the
different beliefs have a strong impact.
2. The same situation, different method, same facilitator will lead to
similar results. In other words, the beliefs of the facilitator have the
greater impact, no matter the method.
**********************************
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".
***********************************************
I agree with your point about directiveness. In a funny way, it led to my
conclusion about the power of the facilitator's beliefs. I discovered an
interesting irony when working with the different contributors to my book. I
kept asking questions about where the power was. 100% saw power increasingly
belonging to participants. Even those that I perceieved to be the most
directive saw themselves as letting go of power and creating greater openness.
When I started exploring this, I realized how much it has to do with their
current knowledge base. To state this in an extreme way, if all I know is
dictatorship and someone invites me to offer an opinion, that creates more
freedom. If I've never seen even greater freedom (like an OS), just asking is
a breakthrough. So, by my standards, with Open Space as a context, just
inviting an opinion is quite directive. To those experiencing this new freedom
for the first time, it is a great innovation and can transform.
***************************************************
