Ah Language -- it is always interesting. Can't live with it and can't live without it -- so we do the best we can. As always it is a pleasure and privilege to "talk" with you, Artur. Most especially when there is something to talk about -- like points of difference.
I guess the heart of the matter (at least as I hear you) is my suggestion that all organizations are essentially self-organizing. Or as I think I said, "There is no such thing as a non-self organizing system." I loved your conversation about organizations and Kauffman's "essential pre-conditions." I have no problem with the bulk (all?) of what you are saying. Not a doubt about it: a relatively safe protected environment is not common place in many (most?) business organizations. Diversity is lacking, as also sparse prior connections. All true. But when I look at the picture and see basically what you see -- my conclusion is rather different. I still think all organizations are essentially self-organizing -- however when that process stops, or is severely retarded -- the net effect is death, immediate or slowly. And frankly, I think that many of our organizations are well on the way to their demise. The early signs are present in their dysfunctionality (they don't/can't do their job very well) -- and also in the growing levels of toxicity in their environments. People who work in such places are sick and getting sicker (stress, strain, burnout and the like.) Self-organization for me is a (the?) basic process of life -- and when it stops, life stops. When we are privileged to do an Open Space in such an environment, I think what we are doing is organizational CPR. The real point of the OS is to enable the patient to breath (self-organize) once again. Or, failing everything else, the OS can become a good funeral. Under no circumstances are we creating something new, nor are we bringing something to the organization that it did not naturally possess. We are just trying to help the organization (and the people involved) get a life. In other words, become again what they were in the first place -- an effective self-organizing system. I think. Then we come to definitions! Most important if we are going to understand each other!! The issue I think is whether we (Global OS) are a community or an organization. You opt for the former, and I am quite happy to say -- BOTH. As a matter of fact, any organization which is not also a community is a pretty poor organization. The fact that we have a number of examples of organizations that don't seem to qualify as communities is a sad state of affairs. Although I guess you could say that even the worst offenders are still communities, if only communities of the miserable. A number of years ago I came up with a definition of organization which has been published in multiple places -- so I guess I am stuck with it. An organization for me is "Two or more people gathered together to do something." That about covers the waterfront, including everything from a family of two to the largest corporation. I suppose even the whole planet. Size may vary, structure may vary, purpose may vary -- but the constants in my view are a) people (more than one) b) relationship c) common task. Eliminate any one of these and you don't have an organization. Simple minded perhaps, but it has always worked for me. And with such a definition there is not a doubt in my mind (feeble though it may be) Global OS is definitely an organization -- and a very successful one -- precisely because it is a community. Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Drive Potomac, Maryland 20845 Phone 301-365-2093 Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Artur Silva Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Four Principles, One Law -- Comments from Artur Harrison: Thanks for your kind comments. This is a difficult dialog for me - first because it is with you, second because it must be conduced in English (that is NOT even my second language and where I express myself with some difficulties) and third because it is in a mailing list. If, at any moment, you think I am being disrespectful please attribute that to my bad command of the language. I would like to have some hours (or days) to talk quietly about this around some martinis. The point is that I think that we are approaching some sort of bifurcation - what kind of bifurcation, and to where, is not clear to me yet... If I understand well my thoughts (which I am not sure ;-) and yours (even less...) then we are in disagreement about some points. I will try to summarize. --- Harrison Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > It is no surprise that OST works without mention of > the 4 Principles and One > Law - at least not to me. That is your statement, Harrison - not mine. I have never tried to use OST without reference to the law, and I think that it would NOT work as the law is IMHO the main foundation of OST. I admit that with the law and the other "foundations" (the invitation, the circle, enough diversity, etc, etc) everything follows including MAYBE the principles. So I am proposing that without the law there is no OST, and that the principles are much less fundamental than the other foundations. At least "not needed" - eventually (please forgive my heresy) non-existing. But the main point is not that one but the question of self-organization. We all agree that in OST we have self-organization. (But it is not clear what "self-organization" means in this context - more about that later). Some will add "where does this self-organization came from? It doesn't come from anywhere. It was already there. So, all organizations are self organizations". (We only make the "revelation" of it - after all, we didn't know that, but we are all in the photography business...). Are all organizations self-organizations? Yes AND No. It depends on what we are calling "self-organization". Let me give an example - was a Crystal created by nature's self-organization? The answer is yes. And then is a Crystal self-organizing. Maybe yes, if we accept that some forms of self-organizations are "closed ones" and will not develop/self-organize further. But if we consider the conditions for the "emergence of a new order" as the conditions for self organization than a Crystal is NOT self-organizing as the majority of organizations are not. When you, Harrison, summarized Kauffman's conditions for self-organization-as-creation-of-a-higher-level-order, you described five conditions (OST Non Guide, page 7). 1) a relatively safe, protected, nutrient environment - this happens very often in OST but NOT in the formal organizations (companies, public administration, etc) 2) High levels of diversity - this happens often, but not always, in OST but rarely in companies (we talk about the "culture of a company" to refer to the level of uniformity within that company - hence, the lack of diversity). 3) High levels of complexity - OK, this is today present everywhere - even if there are administrations that don't know that... 4) A drive for improvement - this is created often in OST by the problem that allowed for OST to be called in action, but is doesn't happen in Public Admin as also in many companies 5. Sparse prior connections - this happens sometimes in OST - created in my opinion by the law - but not normally in companies where everything is previously "hardwired". So, in this precise sense of "self-organization of higher level order" the majority of organizations ARE NOT self-organizations, and OST is a good tool to reduce the "hardwired condition" and to create a self-organizing open space for the duration of the event. Having said that, it is not a surprise that I disagree with the following: > I would agree with Artur that OST is > not the method to create > organizations of that sort - because I don't really > think they need to be > created. They are already there, albeit buried (...) No, organizations are not "already there". And yes self-organization cannot be created/controlled - but it can be nurtured... > And last but not least, Artur, I do know of at least > one Open (InterActive, > learning) organization. It is us. According to my definition we are not an organization but a community, which is a completely different animal... Best regards Artur __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
