Such a rich exploration! I want to return to a thread in an earlier message from Dan to highlight another aspect of this transition in world view from hierarchy as the default architecture for getting stuff done to self-organization as a frame of reference for getting stuff done.
It has to do with sponsorship and who occupies the role of sponsor if the person with position power in a hierarchy is saying I'll issue the invitation but don't want to speak as sponsor at the event, as in John's story. Dan said: > because the Sponsor role is vacant....by my reckoning a true Open Space event > isn't even possible, because the essential OST-Sponsor-role is in fact not > willingly occupied by anyone with enough authority to play that essential > role well. Reading this, I wanted to jump up and down to say you are well positioned for a transfer of authority from the traditional sponsor to a self-authorizing collective voice of sponsorship. I'm going to use the example of Spirited Work to illustrate what leadership and authority can look like in a system operating in Open Space as its architecture for organizing. For those unfamiliar with Spirited Work (SW), it was a community that met each season (4 times a year) in Open Space to explore what it means to be a spiritual being in a material world. SW evolved a governance system based on stewardship. And how it formed was a lesson in transitioning forms of authority. SW started with a group of four leaders: Anne Stadler, who conceived the idea, and three people she asked to join her to make it happen. In essence, they were the sponsoring authority. And people were quite happy with what they did. SW could have continued under their leadership. But they did something remarkable at the end of the first year. They invited others to self-select into leadership. They were mindful about the transition, suggesting two conditions: a commitment to a year of service and a personal practice of some sort. The latter condition was congruent with the culture of the community. The name we ultimately used for that group was stewards. That group of stewards acted as the sponsoring body on behalf of the community. If decisions came up that we felt needed the larger community, questions were posted in the marketplace. And if the community felt something needed attention that the stewards hadn't handled, that, too, showed up in the marketplace. So the community lead itself, handling everything from finances to efficient dishwashing in creative ways. The stewards provided a convenient proxy voice of authority with the marketplace as a principle feedback mechanism for things that needed community attention. So to John's situation, rather than no OS because there's no sponsor, how about an invitation by the sponsor for others to step in and join in being the voice of authority on behalf of the organization? I think this aspect starts connecting the threads on public vs. organizational Open Space with this conversation on authority. When SW took on the feel of an ongoing entity (not just discrete quarterly OS meetings), it had to learn how to govern itself. Sounds like some organizations are ready to make that transition. Exciting times! Peggy Sent from my iPad 425-746-6274 www.peggyholman.com > On Sep 29, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > > Hi John, > > Yours is a very interesting story. > > You say: > > > "...To be honest I am not sure how I need to deal with this, though my > strategy is to accept the authority for hosting the space in the next > workshop, obsolving the department of their responsibility to manage the day." > > "...I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority candidates hosting > something genuinely participatory. The relevant director has said she > doesn't want to speak formally and become The Authority for the day, a > position I agree with." > > > > > In the situation as described, it sounds like the org is the very earliest > stages of moving in a direction of more open/participatory/inviting. > > Do you agree with this assessment? > > > > If this assessment is correct, based on what you describe, I would probably > avoid attempting Open Space in the canonical form whatsoever (as described in > the OST GUIDE) because the Sponsor role is vacant. Unoccupied. And so, by my > reckoning, if I understand you right, a true Open Space event isn't even > possible, because the essential OST-Sponsor-role is in fact not willingly > occupied by anyone with enough authority to play that essential role well. > > What's clear is that someone who could function as OST-Sponsor is currently > unwilling to do so. And so I might try a "taster" or "demo" event instead, > where the goal is to learn about Open Space in general, and do a > little bit of "real" work too. Especially if the allotted time a mere 1/2 > day, I am even more inclined to strongly favor this re-framing of the stated > goals. > > So the primary and stated goal for the "taster" is learning about OST. > Another goal for a short event might be to see who shows up super-interested > in the art of Facilitation, and then offer to mentor those who do self-select > by showing interest. In this manner some Facilitation capacity is developed > inside the org, to help with current meetings and processes. Introducing > Facilitation into typical meetings is a easy and effective "culture hack". > > > > For me, the total unwillingness of an obvious candidate to occupy the Sponsor > role is a huge warning signal to slow down, pause, or even stop. > > Lots of people here have more experience than me, and might be willing to > lend you some of their expertise regarding the authority dynamics of > Facilitating an OST event with the essential OST-Sponsor-role completely > vacant > > > > Kind Regards, > Daniel > > >> On 9/28/14 11:30 PM, John Baxter wrote: >> I am navigating some challenging authority dynamics in a project at the >> moment. >> >> I was brought in a week out from the first of three forums, and asked to >> 'facilitate a codesign process' which was at that stage a black box (with >> many hidden expectations) scheduled into that event (1 hour before lunch and >> 1 hour afterwards). >> >> It's a long journey, but you can imagine how my role has changed as I >> prepare for the third forum which I am hosting in Open Space. >> >> The overall process is an engagement between a government department and >> their funded agencies. The most obvious direct power dynamics are obvious, >> the effective power and authority dynamics are much more complex (though >> predictable). >> >> Department staff have authority challenges as much as the agencies. They >> are trying so hard to be 'neutral' and 'non controlling' that they are >> effectively reinforcing their own authority positions (which often have >> little real correlation to the power, knowledge etc that they imagine them >> to). >> >> To be honest I am not sure how I need to deal with this, though my strategy >> is to accept the authority for hosting the space in the next workshop, >> obsolving the department of their responsibility to manage the day. >> >> It has been interesting to watch push back so far from agency reps who are >> committed to participating, who are genuinely engaged, but are playing to an >> us-them tension that is getting in the way of the shared work (and serves >> them no good ends except protecting them from their own responsibility). >> Stand-offishness is gradually being resolved, though some pockets are >> holding firm. >> >> I am crossing my fingers for WS3 that we can traverse these and get into >> Open Space without being pushed off the bridge by the reactionary tension; >> and that once on the other side, the department reps can embrace Open Space >> and take responsibility for their role. >> >> We will get across as long as I have the authority to host the space for >> them. >> >> I don't think it is feasible for the obvious authority candidates hosting >> something genuinely participatory. The relevant director has said she >> doesn't want to speak formally and become The Authority for the day, a >> position I agree with. >> >> But it does leave something of a shell, where I am crossing my fingers that >> our time together thus far affords me the authority to host that space. >> >> I think we are ready. I am bringing my harness and floaties just in case. >> >> >> John Baxter >> CoCreate Adelaide Facilitator, Director of Realise consultancy >> CoCreateADL.com | jsbaxter.com.au >> 0405 447 829 >> | >> @jsbaxter_ >> >> City Grill— An Election Forum More Magnificent Than Any Ever Seen, Saturday >> 18 October 2014 >> Influence your city by building relationships and joining voices with others >> in your community >> >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList >>> <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: >>> Hi Harrison, >>> >>> So interesting how the Law of 2 Feet authorizes me, and every other member >>> of an OST event, to go anywhere we may want to go. >>> >>> Without asking anyone else for any kind of "permission"... >>> >>> >>> Reminds me of this past June, being in Camden with you, and Ethelyn, and >>> Harold, and friends... when we were standing on the porch of that Camden >>> restaurant... waiting for everyone to arrive, and assemble for dinner... >>> >>> And as we wait, I notice there is this convenient-looking, alternate >>> entry-door... into the dining area. >>> >>> And I say: "Hmm...I wonder if we are authorized to use that door." >>> >>> And you say: >>> >>> "We're authorized to go Anywhere we want to go." >>> >>> ...and I like that. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> Picture of that place: >>> https://twitter.com/DanielMezick/status/483054326265692161 >>> See also: >>> https://twitter.com/danielgullo/status/483434622009999360 >>> >>> >>> <mime-attachment.png> >>>> On 9/25/14 4:58 PM, Harrison Owen wrote: >>>> Daniel... You really did it! I think. Your language comes from a place I >>>> don’t know... which is to say that I probably wouldn’t say what you say in >>>> the way that you do (duh). BUT when I run my “translator” it comes out >>>> sounding pretty good! So... I can’t help with the questions you have >>>> raised. Actually I think you are doing pretty well on your own, and >>>> (hopefully) will incite others to a similarly riotous performance. Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harrison >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Winter Address >>>> >>>> 7808 River Falls Drive >>>> >>>> Potomac, MD 20854 >>>> >>>> 301-365-2093 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Summer Address >>>> >>>> 189 Beaucaire Ave. >>>> >>>> Camden, ME 04843 >>>> >>>> 207-763-3261 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Websites >>>> >>>> www.openspaceworld.com >>>> >>>> www.ho-image.com >>>> >>>> OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives >>>> of OSLIST Go >>>> to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Daniel Mezick via OSList >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:39 AM >>>> To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org >>>> Subject: [OSList] Authority Distribution in Open Space >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Greetings to All, >>>> >>>> For the past several years I have attended conferences of the Group >>>> Relations community, and encouraged others to do the same. I've studied >>>> their literature, and harvested some important learning as a result. One >>>> of the things I have come to understand a little bit better is the role of >>>> "authority dynamics" in self-organizing social systems. >>>> >>>> Link: >>>> www.akriceinstitute.org >>>> >>>> Over the past several years I've been using Open Space with intent to >>>> improve the results of my work in helping companies implement Agile ideas >>>> in their organizations. We do an initial Open Space, then the folks get >>>> about 3 months to play with Agile (we carefully use the word >>>> "experimentation" with management,) then we do another Open Space after >>>> that, to inspect what just happened across the enterprise. The initial and >>>> subsequent Open Space events form a "safe" container or field in which the >>>> members can learn... as they explore how to improve together by >>>> experimenting with new practices, and see if they actually work. I call >>>> the process Open Agile Adoption. >>>> >>>> Link: >>>> OpenAgileAdoption.com >>>> >>>> This seems to work pretty good. It seems to "take the air out of" most of >>>> the fear, most of the anxiety and most of the worry that is created. The >>>> key aspect is consent: absolutely no one is forced to do anything they are >>>> unwilling to do. No one is coerced to comply. Everyone is instead >>>> respectfully invited to help write the story, and be a character in the >>>> story...of the contemplated process change. Open Agile Adoption encourages >>>> a spirit of experimentation and play. >>>> >>>> The spirit of Open Space is the spirit of freedom. Isn't it? In the OST >>>> community, we discuss and talk a lot about self-organization, >>>> self-management and self-governance. The Agile community also talks about >>>> these ideas a lot. >>>> >>>> So I have some questions. What is really going on during self-organization >>>> in a social system? What are the steps? What information is being sent and >>>> received? >From whom, and by whom? Is the information about authority >>>> important? How important? Can a social system self organize without regard >>>> to who has the right to do what work? How do decisions that affect others >>>> get made in a self-organizing system? >>>> >>>> Who decides about who decides? How important is the process of >>>> authorization in a self-organizing system? Is self-organization in large >>>> part the process of dynamic authorization (and de-authorization) in real >>>> time? >>>> >>>> What is authorization? Can self-organization occur without the sending and >>>> receiving of authorization data by and between the members? >>>> >>>> Is Bruce Tuckman's forming/storming/performing/adjourning actually >>>> decomposing the dynamics of authorization inside a social system? >>>> >>>> The essay below attempts to answer some of these difficult questions. I'd >>>> love your thoughts on it. Will you give it a look? >>>> >>>> >>>> Essay: Authority Distribution in Open Space >>>> http://newtechusa.net/agile/authority-distribution-in-open-space/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Daniel Mezick, President >>>> >>>> New Technology Solutions Inc. >>>> >>>> (203) 915 7248 (cell) >>>> >>>> Bio. Blog. Twitter. >>>> >>>> Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. >>>> >>>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. >>>> >>>> Explore the Agile Boston Community. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Mezick, President >>> >>> New Technology Solutions Inc. >>> >>> (203) 915 7248 (cell) >>> >>> Bio. Blog. Twitter. >>> >>> Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. >>> >>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. >>> >>> Explore the Agile Boston Community. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > -- > Daniel Mezick, President > > New Technology Solutions Inc. > > (203) 915 7248 (cell) > > Bio. Blog. Twitter. > > Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. > > Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. > > Explore the Agile Boston Community. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
