Harrison my friend, that is the beauty of it.
We see things in different ways at times, at other times we see /
feel / do exactly what the other would do - always rich for co-learning.
I do not see it as 'nasty details' - I see it as wonderful stuff rich
with learning - as people telling the stories to inform what may
help. Also the stories help me know how to work with the client on
clarifying the task / focusing question / objective for the Open Space
day. It also draws out who else to invite perhaps, rather than the
original small circle the client or community may first have been
thinking about. Or a way to adjust the form of documentation to match
how they might wish to use the information, ideas and relationships
post-event. Things like that.
And I do not see actions / systems / conversations / meetings that
might be useful to groups as 'interventions'. I see them more as
nutrition. I see myself more as a body worker, helping the system
breathe and access its greatest resources: its human resources. I
like to ask about the whole chain of things because there are some
things the organism has capacity to do for itself (exercise,
nutrition, reflection) and some things I can help with (acupuncture,
massage, if you will). I feel there is value in telling the story and
being witness to the story, as well.
Just some thoughts playing off your thoughts...
Thanks for sparking my thinking,
Lisa
On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Good one, Kari! ("Is Open Space not working when there are many
internal
conflicts?")
For me the place to begin is with a clear understanding of
"working," and I
find that there are at least three questions (meanings) here. You
have to
make sure you which one you are asking and answering. Specifically,
do you
mean, Does Open Space work in formal terms? -- i.e. people sat in a
circle,
opened a market place, etc -- The answer in my experience is, Yes at
the
100% level. If you mean Does Open Space work as a productive
activity? --
were critical issues/opportunities raised, clarified, and usefully
dealt
with? Again the answer in my experience is Yes and pretty close to
the 100%
level. However, if you mean "works" as in "solves all problems
forever and
ever..." it gets a little more complicated, and depends greatly on the
situation and context.
There are multiple examples of Open Spaces involving large groups of
very
angry and/or confused people resolving major complex issues by the
end of
the closing circle. I wrote up one of the earliest in the opening
chapter of
the User's Guide. In that situation 240 people consisting of
Federal, State
and Local officials along with a equal number of Native Americans
had the
task of writing guidelines for the expenditure of $1.5 billion for
Highways
on Tribal lands. This group had been fighting for 2 years, and
absolutely
nothing had been accomplished. When the meeting began the group had
only 2
months additional time before the whole $1.5b would disappear back
into the
US Treasury. In the course of the gathering the discussion was
indeed hot
and heavy, putting it mildly. However, by the closing circle, the
task had
been accomplished, the guidelines had been created. To be sure, those
guidelines had to be put in formal, legal language -- But by any
reasonable
standard it can be said that Open Space worked in and through intense
conflict.
In a different situation and context the question becomes more
nuanced and
complicated -- but the answer, simply put, is the same. Open Space
works.
For example, I am currently working with a relatively large
organization
(2000+ employees) which was described to me by several of the senior
folks
as "dysfunctional." When I asked what that meant they said something
to the
effect that the anger, low morale, missed communication, games
playing, etc.
was so severe that nobody really even knew what the problems were,
and for
sure the productive output of the organization was seriously
compromised.
They wanted to do an Open Space for their Washington people and did
I think
it would work?
I had no problem saying, Yes. At least it always had worked so long
as the
participants fell somewhere within the genetic pool of Homo sapiens.
HOWEVER, that is only the beginning of the story. The truth, it is
really
quite easy to enable any group of people, who share some common
concern,
albeit in highly diverse and conflicted ways -- to reach a point of
intense,
meaningful, and productive interaction and solutions. But that is
just a
start, albeit a good one -- and never to be confused with eternal
salvation.
What next?
The simple fact of the matter is that if a group of people, having
experienced deep, meaningful and productive joint activity (in the
Open
Space) are simply thrown back into the situation which caused all the
dysfunction in the first place -- they are twice damned. They have
seen the
lights of Paris, and are definitely back on the farm. Now they know,
as
perhaps they never did before, just how really miserable they are,
and worse
yet -- they know it could be better. In an odd way, this is real
progress,
but very painful and not conducive to a long term, positive outcome.
Right here we run head on into all the "nasty details" so well
described by
my friend Lisa H. ("...without looking at the whole ecology of
communication, history, context, resources, differences, internal and
external reasons for issues that feel like conflict, communication
styles,
what happens before and after the event, how the event fits into the
ongoing
work of the community or organization, and so on....").
But when it comes to finding the way forward, I have to take a
different
path than friend Lisa seems to be suggesting. If I understand her
correctly,
the critical next steps involve careful analysis of all the "nasty
details"
(I think we call it Systems Thinking) combined with strategic
interventions
(re-organizations, etc) to achieve the fix.
This is a great idea and Grand Theory -- but frankly it gives me a
massive
headache. I simply can't think all that and I seriously doubt that
anybody
else can either. It is simply too massive, too complex, too
interconnected,
too fast moving. Mind boggling -- and I really don't think I am
stupid, just
finite human. And when it comes to designing useful solutions, the
stakes
have just simply gone off the charts. I don't think we can do that!
But more
to the point, my experience tell me, we do not have to.
If we have learned nothing else in the 27 year Natural Experiment
Called
Open Space it is that Self Organization is powerful and effective.
Left to
its own devises, the organization (any group of people gathered
together to
do something) will in short order manifest orderly patterns that
enable
their efforts. Those patterns (structures) may be minimal, but they
work.
And if we provide some minimal initial focus (sit in a circle, create
bulletin board...), what happens naturally appears to happen with even
greater dispatch. All we have to do is stay out of the way. This is
not a
process we do, as in run, create, even facilitate. It is what we
are, and it
happens all by itself.
Perhaps it is an unjustifiable leap -- but I absolutely believe that
the
only difference between the Organization of a group of people in
Open Space
and Organization of any other sort is a matter of size and duration.
It is
all self organizing. And in all cases it remains true: Organizing a
self
organizing system is not only an oxymoron, but stupid, a waste of
time, and
ineffective. Truth is the organization (organism) can and will do a
much
better job -- and virtually every effort on our part slows things
down and
effectively thrown a "spanner" in the works. Putting it in the
baldest of
terms, our efforts to organize the system and create the "fix"
actually
create most of the pain and dysfunction we seek to resolve. Self
inflicted
wounds.
So when we follow the path that Lisa suggests, which of course is
also the
path that most all of contemporary management theory and practice
supports,
we are essentially adding fuel to the fire and creating new levels of
potential dysfunction. Our "fixes" may seem to work for the moment,
but in
all too short a time we hear the magic words - Re-Organize! Re-
Organize! The
good news is that it does keep all managers, consultants, and I'm
sorry to
say, facilitators employed. But it is an odd situation: Seems we
create the
very problems we are then paid to resolve.
Total heresy I know, but on the off chance that some grain of truth
may
reside therein -- what is the alternative? My experience says that the
alternative is a simple one, and one we already know: Open Space.
This might mean "doing an Open Space"--but more usually it would mean
applying the lessons learned from our Natural Experiment in our
everyday
world of life and work. The lessons have been multiple, but we might
start
with the simple ones. For example, when starting a project INVITE
participation -- DON'T Order it. And guess what, the right people
will turn
up. And when they do show up, get rid of the tables and work in a
circle.
And forget about the Program Plan; elicit the passions and
responsibilities
of those who cared to come. Well you get the idea.
All of this is really the heart and soul of the 5th Principle
"Wherever it
happens is the right place." And we will learn, I think, that it can
and
does happen anywhere and everywhere.
Goodness me, I have gone on. And indeed there is a lot more to go.
If you
are interested in my best shots to date, check out my last two
books, "The
Practice of Peace," and "Wave Rider." But better yet just start with
your
own experience and let it grow. It could really get exciting.
So Kari -- Does Open Space work in conflicted spaces? You bet! And
everywhere else as well.
Harrison
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
