Dear all,
large systems, for instance the European Union, have discovered that
many things are vastly complex and that attempts to deal with them
through "traditional" methods are very cumbersome or fail entirely. A
while back, they introduced various approaches, such as the "Method of
Open Communication" or "Open Method of Coordination" etc. One core idea
is to have a certain issue not dealt with in the traditional manner but
to put it out for discussion at an informal level not aiming primarily
at reaching decisions but more to raise the level of information,
coordination, understanding, transparency and what not.
This "mode", I think is also one of the reasons why many parts of the
European bureaucracy is using OST. Recently I was asked to submit a
proposal (I dont know how many thousands of folks received it, but many
because these calls for proposals have to be published europewide) for a
particular project in Serbia in which the prerequisites spelled out were
taken directly from standard OST texts.
Cheers
mmp
Thank you Peggy and David
I' will think over all your answers
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Peggy Holman <pe...@peggyholman.com
<mailto:pe...@peggyholman.com>> wrote:
I have a different response to Christine’s question:
if we want to keep the system healthy and alive, what should we
do ?”
I’d say take responsibility for what you love.
A system exists through the interactions among its diverse agents.
Some of those agents, whether in an organism or in an organization,
attend to the system’s health. Think of the role of kidneys for
flushing out toxins. In human systems, people, rather than cells,
organize stuff. You could argue that hierarchies are an
overcompensation of a system that ultimately leaves unflushed
toxicity in its wake, sometimes killing off the organization. Or at
least making it function in less optimal ways.
As David said, as we come to understand principles of
self-organizing, we’re better equipped to do stuff that is congruent
with natural patterns. I think current trends towards network forms
of organizing are a promising experiment in a system’s agents
working with those natural principles. Sort of a permaculture for
human systems.
Christine, to your questions about size:
But then how do you do with very large systems ? Or does it mean
that any system that is too large to come regularly together as a
whole is oversized ? should split into several smaller systems to
keep its good health
Important questions. I suspect as we learn more about how networks
function, the answers to your questions will get clearer. I can only
speculate. I can imagine people meeting on behalf of the whole in
transparent ways that are open to anyone who cares to show up. And
if overwhelming numbers want to be there, perhaps intersecting
circles come into play. Layers of wholeness exist in systems. So
those who feel called to convene on behalf of the whole take
responsibility for it. And connect with others who share in that
sort of stewarding function. Holding it all lightly and not working
too hard, of course. :-)
Just mulling…
Peggy
_________________________________
Peggy Holman
pe...@peggyholman.com <mailto:pe...@peggyholman.com>
Twitter: @peggyholman
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
425-746-6274
www.peggyholman.com <http://www.peggyholman.com>
www.journalismthatmatters.org <http://www.journalismthatmatters.org>
*Enjoy the award winning *Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into
Opportunity <http://peggyholman.com/papers/engaging-emergence/>
Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information
ecosystem
<http://www.journalismthatmatters.net/the_emerging_news_and_information_eco_system>
"An angel told me that the only way to step into the fire and not
get burnt, is to become
the fire".
-- Drew Dellinger
On Jan 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, David Osborne
<dosbo...@change-fusion.com <mailto:dosbo...@change-fusion.com>> wrote:
Christine,
I think the tendency toward coherence or fragmentation is the
organizing principle.
I see supporting coherence as a part of the process, not an
organizing principle in itself. It's a choice, similar to the
other individual and group choices that are a part of
self-organization.
Most of us here on the list serve choose to facilitate / host open
space sessions. I'd suggest this choice usually leads to building
coherence. So it is with other coherence supporting choices.The
system may or may not do it itself.
Another way I would frame it is that organizations I frequently
work in are stuck in patterns that they are dissatisfied or
frustrated with. Think poor business results, customer
satisfaction, work environment, employee engagement / satisfaction
etc. Control is the great inhibitor of self-organization and often
prevents new coherent patterns being able to emerge. I find that
I can often guide or make suggestions that enable these groups to
tap into the power of organization to create new self-reinforcng
patterns that they prefer. And my involvement and the choice to be
open to my suggestions are all choices that are part of the
self-organization. I'm suggesting that we / they that support
coherence are also part of the self-organizing, not separate from it.
I don't mean to be cryptic in my above comments. I find myself
continuing to build my own (and hopefully shared) language that
describes self-organization. I loved the statement earlier in this
exchange that compared self-organization to gravity. I do believe
they are both laws that operate invisibly all the time. The point
made was that understanding gravity is key to being able to fly to
the moon. I think similarly the more we understand and can share
the principles of self-organization, we can help humanity fly
versus staying stuck in conflict and competition.Thus my continual
search to find better ways of sharing and communicating.
I'm really enjoying tracking and participating in this dialogue
and thanks to all that are contributing and listening/reading.
David
703-939-1777
dosbo...@change-fusion.com <mailto:dosbo...@change-fusion.com>
<image.png>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Christine
<chris.alice.koeh...@gmail.com
<mailto:chris.alice.koeh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi David
Very interesting, that makes sense to me. Does it mean that
supporting coherence of the system as a whole should be an
organizing principle ?
But then Harrison will say I guess that it is not necessary,
as self org. will take care of the system itself.
Then there is something that I don't understand about
self-org. : if we want to keep the system healthy and alive,
what should we do ?
Christine Koehler
06 13 28 71 38 <tel:06%2013%2028%2071%2038>
Le 9 janv. 2014 à 22:20, David Osborne <
dosbo...@change-fusion.com
<mailto:dosbo...@change-fusion.com>> a écrit :
I found the questions about how do you keep a system as a
coherent whole fascinating.
Part of the dance is the back and forth between coherence and
fragmentation. Chaos offers both opportunity and threat, new
life and death. Coherence leads to new life patterns
emerging, fragmentation leads towards death and the cycle
toward new life continues. In my experience there is lot's
that can be done to reinforce, nurture and support coherence.
Holding the space is one aspect. Drawing attention and
building consensus around what is emerging is another,
supporting parts of the system through conflict in a manner
that continues to increase the likelihood of coherence is a
third. There are many more...and those are some quick
thoughts for now. All of this can and is done with in the
context of self-organization and someone having the passion
and taking the initiative to do it. The two are not mutually
exclusive.
Cheers to all.
David
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM, christine koehler
<chris.alice.koeh...@gmail.com
<mailto:chris.alice.koeh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Peggy
If I simplify what you say (and I apologize for it), I
understand that you say that what keep a self-organized
system coherent as a whole is coming regularly together
as a whole, following our two feet to sessions called
around we love, coming back as a whole, dispersing again
for the evening. Of course I would tend to agree with
that. But then how do you do with very large systems ? Or
does it mean that any system that is too large to come
regularly together as a whole is oversized ? should split
into several smaller systems to keep its good health ?
and what about decision making ?
Christine
end an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
<mailto: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
--
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin, Germany
++49 - 30-772 8000
Check out the Open Space World Map presently showing 423 resident Open
Space Workers in 71 countries working in a total of 143 countries
worldwide: www.openspaceworldmap.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
