Well said, well said.
To continue with my bodyworker analogy - ours is not to 'fix'.
Ours is to support wellness. To help the organism / organization do
its best work.
Underline 'its work', not our doing for them.
I notice how an acupuncturist's work reminds the body of system flow.
It is like a re-set mechanism for wellness.
Regular acupuncture (exercise, whatever) brings the body back home to
itself, to its own abilities and learning.
Just like regular Open Space - or even one Open Space - brings the
organization and individuals in it back home to themselves,
recognizing and strengthening their own abilities and learning.
Ahhhhhh.....
Lisa
On Dec 20, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
Lisa The Body Worker! I like that!! And I have no question that you
do what
you do with great enthusiasm, heart, skill -- and all to positive
effect.
That said, my question (quest) really goes in another direction. It
is not
so much about doing something wrong. And certainly not that YOU are
doing
something wrong. But perhaps we are all doing the wrong thing. Or
maybe
doing anything at all. Put somewhat differently, I find myself
coming to the
conclusion that much (perhaps most) of what we do, even with the
best of
intentions, produces results that are the very antithesis of what we
hope
for. And there is an alternative.
In your earlier message you said, "Sometimes it is as simple as
helping an
organization look at who does what tasks and re-arranging each
role's tasks.
Or doing an assessment of what is reasonable pay. Or giving the
organization
some sample structure for how to hold supervisor-staff individual
meetings
or quarterly evaluation." Nothing problematical here, indeed I think
most
people would see all of this as good, standard practice. The "right"
thing
to do, as it were.
But I think there may be an implicit assumption that can lead us in
the
wrong direction with the net result is that we "do the wrong thing."
The
assumption is that when we confront a floundering organization, we are
engaging a structured entity that we (or somebody) created
(organized),
which for whatever reason is malfunctioning. The "fix" is obvious:
Adjust
the system so that it works better.
However, were the object of our attention (The Organization)
something quite
different than we presumed -- our well intentioned "fix" is likely
to be
irrelevant at best, and possibly destructive. It is a good idea in
the wrong
situation (doing the wrong thing). I think that is our situation.
An alternative view would look something like this -- The
organization we
confront is actually the product of Self Organization, and while we
may have
some part in its initiation (our passion and responsibility created
the
space in which the emergent organization appeared), the manner and
mechanisms of its growth come from a very different place--not us.
It is an
organism, and like all organisms it emerges and evolves in response to
multiple, complex, interacting forces -- some of which are
observable by us,
but the vast majority simply pass us by. Too much, too fast, too
subtle.
When we, in spite of our obvious limitations, seek to impose our
understanding of design and function upon that organization, we are
on very
thin ice, I think. Indeed, I would make the case that were we to set
out to
create a powerful system that would limit creativity, eliminate
emergent
leadership, destroy self respect, prevent communication and reduce
morale to
zombie levels -- I really don't think we could do any better than the
current corporate/government/NGO model. It does one hell of a job,
and when
we set out to strengthen that system with yet more organizational
structures
and strategies, even with the best of intentions...
The truly amazing thing to me is that our organizations function as
well as
they do in spite of our best efforts to constrain their space and
force them
along paths of our choosing. However, I suppose this amazing fact is
the
strongest testimony to the power of self organization. And one of
our (or
certainly my) major learnings from the OST Experiment is that even
brutally
conflicted and constrained organizations perform brilliantly when
the space
is opened. It is not about doing anything new or different, it is
quite
simply about STOP DOING all the things that inhibit superior
performance. No
new structures, procedures, tweaks, trainings, programs -- just
fully be
what you already are: Self Organizing! There is really no
preparation needed
for Open Space if only because everybody is already there. It is
just that a
lot of us are doing it badly, or trying desperately not to do it at
all.
Weird!
Once in existence, we may surely observe the organization, learn
about its
function, and perhaps most importantly, learn how we may effectively
live
with it, and in it. And if we are careful and attentive, we may even
learn
how to enhance its growth and nurture its development (Good Body
Work!). But
our efforts will always be of secondary importance. The organization
will
have its own structure, its own flow, its own unique way of being.
That,
after all, is the nature and definition of self organization. It is
said
that the body is its own best healer, and under most circumstances
it needs
only the space and time to heal. Oh sure, a little help and
encouragement
along the way is great, and a good massage is Nirvana!
Harrison
Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
Camden, Maine 04843
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
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lisa Heft
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:07 PM
To: World wide Open Space Technology email list
Subject: Re: [OSList] Is it true that Open Space does not really
work when
there are many internal conflict?
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
_______________________________________________
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
