what you're saying about fear makes a lot of sense, opening and closing, if we think about it somatically, bodily. we are born with an innate ability to curl up as little bodies, but we actually have to discover, learn, practice and strengthen to be able to uncurl, stand up straight and walk toward anything. so our earliest experiences as bodies would seem to be leveraged into our organizational bodies, and how we talk about them. that explains why the purpose is so important in open space, a lot like setting the toy out of reach and inviting the baby to crawl and then walk to get it. also speaks to why it's important to *live* it and not just talk about it. if all our elders ever did was talk about walking, likely most of us would not have attempted and mastered it. so it's quite natural on the one hand, and it also takes a certain kind of developed and practiced strength on the other.
-- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://ManorNeighbors.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Harrison Owen <hho...@verizon.net> wrote: > Herewith Artur…**** > > ** ** > > * Space closes,** innovation withers, agility get clunky – and > organizational health shows critical signs of decline in terms of loss of > productivity, efficiency, effectiveness – to say nothing of employee morale > and self-respect*. Not a pretty picture.**** > > ** ** > > Would you agree then that those organizations, at that point in time, can > be considered "closed"?**** > > ** ** > > HO -- I suspect it may be a totally natural reaction – but my observation > is that fear (from whatever cause) closes space. In the US we speak of > “circling the wagons” to describe what happens when danger (real or > perceived) lurks – it is the classical defensive posture. When the danger is > real, the response can be effective, but as a long term solution it is > limiting to say the least. With the wagons circled, it is very hard to move > to new places J So the organizations alluded to above are either closed or > closing. But in any case they can hardly be considered vital, alive, and > growing. The tragedy is that, when the fear is a self inflicted wound – the > response (closing space) is literally suicidal.**** > > ** ** > > Artur -- Would you agree that all the past discussions about the "givens" > were precisely about that - one way to try to shield the executives that > some "givens" will be out of discussion at the OST event?**** > > ** ** > > HO – Sure – but definitely not the only way. Variants include, “Doing a > little bit of Open Space” – just to make sure that things don’t “get out of > control.” Truthfully we have multiple ways of avoiding reality and > preserving illusion. Think of all the stories about The Emperor’s Clothes. > **** > > ** ** > > Artur -- And what do you think about an almost opposite strategy for the > Pre-work of trying to "prepare" the prospective client that he/she will lose > control but that is ok...? (I say "almost opposite" as your way seems to > recommend that the facilitator gets out of the way and let the client think > and decide, and the other is almost trying to "educate the client"...)**** > > ** ** > > HO – Educating the client is an essential undertaking, for sure. Which > immediately raises the question – what is the most effective means (of > education)? In cases where the problem arises because of ignorance or > misunderstanding of the “facts” – the way forward is pretty straight > forward. Present the facts and make the argument. Case closed. But I think > the situation relative to “fear of loss of control” places us in very > different waters. From the point of view of our Executive, all of the facts > of his experience, to say nothing of the practice of (many of) his peers and > the burden of the literature say that the preservation of control is the > sine qua non of professional competence. To be out of control is to be out > of a job! And furthermore, what happens in Open Space (or is purported to > happen) simply couldn’t happen. So why would you want to go there?**** > > ** ** > > I think that what we are dealing with here may better be understood as a > discontinuous leap or paradigm shift. By definition, rational argument won’t > get you there. But genuine experience can. Not always, and sometimes with > degrees of pain and discomfort – depending on the level of resistance. > Participating in Open Space is one way of gaining that experience. Can you > prepare people for that experience? Maybe, but I think it is equally > possible that your efforts at preparation could well convince the hesitant > Executive never to take the trip. If you clearly and honestly describe what > will happen, telling folks that they will find themselves in a complex, > swirling environment with ideas and issues catalyzing unknown results over > which you, Mr/Ms Executive will not have a shred of control -- that could > produce a convinced stay at home! It is not unlike swimming I think. You can > do all the dry land exercises you like, and have ever so many people calling > – come on in the water is fine! But at the end of the day you just have to > get in the water. And for sure it is no help to have somebody assure you > that you need not worry because you will only get a “little bit wet.”**** > > ** ** > > Harrison**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Harrison Owen**** > > 7808 River Falls Dr.**** > > Potomac, MD 20854**** > > USA**** > > ** ** > > 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)**** > > Camden, Maine 20854**** > > ** ** > > Phone 301-365-2093**** > > (summer) 207-763-3261**** > > ** ** > > www.openspaceworld.com**** > > www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)**** > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST > Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > **** > > ** ** > > *From:* oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org [mailto: > oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Artur Silva > *Sent:* Sunday, September 11, 2011 8:58 AM > > *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list > *Subject:* Re: [OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof** > ** > > ** ** > > Thanks for your tough provoking post, Harrison. Some thoughts and questions > inline.**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Harrison Owen <hho...@verizon.net> > *To:* 'World wide Open Space Technology email list' < > oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2011 11:07 PM > *Subject:* [OSList] Control, Perceived Control, and the Loss Thereof**** > > Keith wrote: “Loss (or perceived loss?) of control is also something that > some senior leaders struggle with.”**** > > **** > > True – and not only in Open Space. It may be my own perversity, but I find > this to be a very useful struggle which may bring these folks to a deeper > understanding of themselves, the organizations they serve, and the world in > which we live. The actual truth of the matter (and for sure my personal > experience) is that control of the sort they are afraid of losing never was > theirs to begin with. Agonizing over something the doesn’t exist is not > only a little silly, it also bespeaks of something approaching delusion, if > not delusion itself. The pain of their agonizing is to be regretted, but it > is a self inflicted wound, and unfortunately its impact is not limited to > the nervous executive(s). It can (and often does) effect the entire > organization in adverse and sometimes lethal ways.* Space closes,innovation > withers, agility get clunky – and organizational health shows > critical signs of decline in terms of loss of productivity, efficiency, > effectiveness – to say nothing of employee morale and self-respect*. Not a > pretty picture.**** > > ** ** > > Would you agree then that those organizations, at that point in time, can > be considered "closed"? **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > (...) **** > > ** ** > > There is no question in my mind that there are massive good works to be > done coaching executives through their addiction to control. And it really > is an addiction, I think, and should be treated as such. Those in the > “Addiction Business” will tell you that, of the many barriers and > difficulties to be faced and overcome –* The Enabler is a major obstacle > to health. Enablers are typically good hearted souls who in the name of > sympathy, empathy and compassion do little things, and large, to effectively > shield the addict from a direct confrontation with his/her addiction. I more > than suspect that when we seek to shield an executive from the possibility > of losing control in Open Space, we are doing something of the same sort, > and for sure we are not doing anybody a favor*. *Should our efforts take > the form of assuring people that “certain” items/issues will be kept > carefully under protective cover (read “control”), that constitutes promises > we can’t keep.* If the items/issues are truly important to somebody (other > than the nervous executive) – they will be present, one way or another. If > not in a “session” then for sure in some back hall conversations where it is > most likely that they will fester and grow. **** > > ** ** > > Would you agree that all the past discussions about the "givens" were > precisely about that - one way to try to shield the executives that some > "givens" will be out of discussion at the OST event?**** > > ** ** > > Pre-work, as Lisa Heft is wont to tell us, is important. But I find that > (at least in the case of executive fears) it can be pretty straight forward. > I simply describe what Open Space is and the kinds of results I have > witnessed, making little reference to how it works – unless asked. In most > cases we proceed directly to operational concerns: Theme, location, dates, > etc. But in the event that the conversation moves to issues of control and > the perceived lack of same, I tend to call for a time out, suggesting that > maybe they need some more time to think about their needs and the > appropriateness of Open Space. If I don’t think they have heard me, I put it > a little stronger. I suggest that they think about any other way to achieve > their ends. And should they run out of options, call me back. I run about > 50/50 on the call backs. But when they call they are ready to go. So am I. > **** > > ** ** > > And what do you think about an almost opposite strategy for the Pre-work of > trying to "prepare" the prospective client that he/she will lose control but > that is ok...? (I say "almost opposite" as your way seems to recommend that > the facilitator gets out of the way and let the client think and decide, and > the other is almost trying to "educate the client"...)**** > > **** > > Thanks for any clarifications.**** > > ** ** > > Regards**** > > ** ** > > Artur**** > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > >
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org