The way I was using the word "Mission" was equivalent to "Purpose", that is, I was definining mission as "the purpose/reason for which the organisation exists".
The question I floated was, "HOW the formal leadership (say, the potential Sponsors of Open Space) go about the process of articulating direction [by which I meant mission/purpose]? How does this direction get arrived at in the first place, who decides and on what basis?". I guess I am starting to understand Harrison's proposition that the direction gets arrived at via someone caring (who could be any person, not just one of the "formal" leaders of an organisation) and then seeing how many others share that care (thereby forming a nexas of caring). We seem to be seeing a large scale of nexus of caring forming up in recent months in the USA. Barack Obama "posts a vision" and lots of people show up and increasingly "buy into" that vision....and a huge internet/mobile phone facilitated system self organises over a few months to network the campaign. Often that caring has not arrived out of a vacuum, but has emerged out of existing stories - we stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. My own context is the church where I (as clergy) wrestle, within myself and with others, with some very inherrited "command and control" ways of doing leadership. I am thinking that the role for formal leadership (i.e. clergy and lay leaders in my context) would be to a) talk about what we really care about deeply (because we are still part of the whole system) and b) provide a safe, nutrient rich environment for others to float what they care about (taking an Open Space approach). One of the "boundaries" (thankyou Larry) which exists for the clergy is that we are still are charged, in a formal sense, with passing on certain stories and conducting certain rituals which carry a tradition. But in the more Open Space environment, the tradition is more explicitly a "living/evolving" tradition. Rather than the formal leadership saying, "this is the way we do it and it's not up for any conversation", the leadership approach becomes far more conversational - hence the mission/purpose of the organisation, while retaining some kind of central core of narrative, becomes more open to a contextually specific outworking which is far more open to the wisdom of the whole system/environment. I am reading Parker Palmer's book (he is an American Educationalist, with a Quaker background), "A Hidden Wholeness" where he says, "Truth is an eternal conversation about things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline"(page 127). Sounds rather like Open Space doesn't it. In one of this lectures, Pope Benedict also pointed out that the word "University" comes from "Universitas", meaning, "Conversations of humanity". This theme of conversation just keeps emerging. Leadership as a facilitation of conversation, conducted with passion and discipline??? How does that sound? Michael Wood -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of douglas germann Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 11:04 AM To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Subject: Re: Wave Rider: Who is the self organizing? Larry-- Really glad to "see" you back on the list! Did the surgery go well for you? It seems to me that both the members and the leaders of a group are part of the system, and I am beginning to grasp what Harrison says about them being a very small part of the system. But small jets (I am told) can direct large streams of water and other fluids, so I suspect that might also be true of human systems, such as communities. So I see the leaders (that is all of the members, ideally, or at least many of them in open space) as part of the self-organizing system. At least at this hour of the night! Michael-- It seems to me that the leaders are a larger group than just those with titles, yes? So do they not have the responsibility for setting their own boundaries? Even in the midst of your friend's democratic swamp and my friend's "Group grope?" Is not the grope and the swamp just part of the stew we all go through everyday, every project, every meeting? And is it possible that that is a good thing, part of the softening up of the meat and vegetables so we have a savory meal? Jack-- I like your notion that mission keeps us from working on what our purpose is. Beyond your question for me is a more sticky one--what is the purpose of a community or possibly even a country? Sure a country might have a constitution of some sort, but I seem to recall that Great Britain got along for many centuries without one, until some upstarts forced one on the Crown. But a community, say a neighborhood in a city or a town, might be just a collection of whoever happens to live there, without any written charter. What then? Who decides what it's purpose is? Does it have a purpose at all? Does it make a difference that no one knows what its purpose is? Can a case be made that the purpose might just be emergent? For instance, in the community someone thinks something needs to be done for the environment, so they organize a recycling drive. That drive has a purpose--recycling wherever, whenever, etc. But the community lives on without (written) purpose. Yes? :- Doug. On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 10:35 -0400, Larry Peterson wrote: > Doug: > > I can't reply for Harrison, but I have some thoughts on the importance > of "leaders" in self-organizing processes. I think it is about > articulating the direction and the "boundaries" within which self-organization happens. > > I've recently been reading "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kauffman > -- it is a tough scientific read so I'll read it again. He does make > a strong scientific case for "self-organization" from molecules up -- > including biological and human systems (like economies). He provides > some "proof" that systems are not reducible to quantum/physics > phenomena. He states that cells (for example) self-organize the next > level of boundaries within which self-organizing processes happen and > without the boundaries it wouldn't happen. Boundaries are clearly > semi-permeable with their environment, but real enough to give some definition to the reality. > > "Leaders", maybe, in human systems are those people who articulate > both the frame and the direction well enough to help create the > conditions for more effective self-organization in that direction. > Formal leadership can also help by committing resources in a certain > direction. Certainly the role of formal leaders in organizations where > I have opened the space have been key to both event success and longer term engagement of others. > > The other book I've read is "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Friedman. He > clearly believes that to more intentionally address the climate change > crisis upon us, a new regulation frame has to be created by formal > leadership -- governments. (He has some understanding that this > creates the conditions for > innovation.) Otherwise, it will continue to be too easy and cheap to > use fossil fuels that we will not make the switch and the next 20 > years are critical to reduce the carbon and the number of climate > change calamities that will befall us (and keep us alive as a > species). Certainly the crises won't be eliminated. > > Now that my surgery is over and healing is on my agenda, I'm hoping to > read and think and contribute more. > > Larry > > > Larry Peterson & Associates in Transformation Toronto, Ontario, Canada > mailto:la...@spiritedorg.com 416.653.4829 http//:www.spiritedorg.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of > douglas germann > Sent: October-28-08 10:29 AM > To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu > Subject: Wave Rider: Who is the self organizing? > > Harrison-- > > If we self organize our work, why do you make such a point that we did > not do it ourselves? (eg, Wave Rider, p 133) > > I suspect the answer has to do with debunking the notion that someone > did it for us: The Leader. However, in point of fact, the people > organized it, organically and largely unconsciously. That's what I am > seeing. In other words, you seem to be saying, in the realm of humans > working together, it was not done by just a few of us, but by all of us. > Yes? > > But if just a few of "The Leaders" did it for us, is it not because we > abdicated our role in the process to them? So even that is self > organizing? > > When we are speaking of human enterprise, who is the self who organized? > > :- Doug. > > * > * > ========================================================== > osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > > To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: > http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist > > * > * > ========================================================== > osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > > To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: > http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist