chris macrae wrote:
Chris- my view would be that its always possible that some organisations will get stuff done in spite of hierarchy's excesses
Beyond possible: I think it happens ALOT. In really rigid hierarchies, like bureaucracies, my experience is that most stuff happens in spite of the hierarchy. And when you look at how it happens, it's a network or a matrix.
But I don't see why understanding of organisations hasn't got beyond recognising that hierarchy is only one of several systems that a thriving people-investing organisations needs to be structured around Why not ask the triple accountability and design question applied to the relationship infrastructures that all organisations are: What's the best of hierarchy how can this interface with the best of self-organising and how can we mix this withy the best of networking across organisational boundaries, we are wasting most people's working lifetimes
I agree with you. I think maybe the reason this stuff hasn't caught on is perhaps because people don't always link it to the bottom line. It sounds like a nice abstract conversation, but until people can see it in action AND that it makes as much money as the prevailing wisdom, folks won't always be keen to adopt a change. And I think that stories about successes in other places don't always convince people to try new ways of organizing. The story has to come from one's own experience. An Appreciative Inquiry-type of discovery approach does wonders in this respect, inviting people to connect with optimal experiences in their past and inviting design to arise out of that latent capacity. But it also means some detailed introspection to link the experience of the past in what might be a very different context, to the present situation. Just how does my experience singing with a choir make this company money again?
Since we have the methods of open space and organisational transformation well worked out, my assumption is that the only thing that could possibly continue to cause such a system blockage to openness is wrong measurement
Measurement uber alles is tricky because it immediately privileges the quantifiable over the qualifiable. And certainly, we need to measure things, but I'm leering of forcing qualitative experiences into measurement-friendly formats. By necessity it strips what is most important about the experience. How do we measure the effect an OST meeting has on a person that has suddenly seen the possibilities offered by truly self-organizing work teams?
It seems to me it's a case of taking the arguments of wrong measurement and open space together if we wish to sustain transformation through any conflict that traditional organisations are almost perfectly geared to compound
Taking these things together gives a true picture of the organization. Measure what you can measure, interpret what needs interpretation. Include both as ways of generating understanding and making meaning out of organizational endeavours. Chris -- CHRIS CORRIGAN Bowen Island, BC, Canada (604) 947-9236 Consultation - Facilitation Open Space Technology Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot Homepage: http://www.chriscorrigan.com ch...@chriscorrigan.com * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
