Thanks a lot Peggy! I didn´t know this wordelful story about Open Space
Organizations. It's very inspiring! I am very greatful of being part of this
community!!
Agustin
Kari, thank you for bringing this theme up again,Thank you so much for this
beautiful reminder Peggy,and thank you Birgitt !!!for leading the way for Open
Space Organizations and sharing you deep knowledge so generouslyWith gratitude
to all of youTova
From: Peggy Holman via OSList <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
To: Open Listserv <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org>
Cc: Peggy Holman <pe...@peggyholman.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OSList] Is there experience in developing Open Space further in
organizations and networks after the initial intervention
Kari,
Check out Birgitt William’s stories in the OSlist archives about the social
service organization she ran as an Open Space Organization. Among her posts, my
favorite is one where she listed her lessons about Open Space Organizations:
https://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org/msg03764.htmlMy
story of the Open Space Organization Part 2 of 418 Jan 2001
I’ve put an excerpt from it below called Ingredients of the Open Space
Organization.
Another favorite insight from Birgitt is captured in this message, called Open
Space client opportunity from July 20, 2000:IN EACH AND EVERY EXAMPLE INCLUDING
THE ONE AT WESLEY, ABOUT THREE
TO
FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST OPEN SPACE EVENT AND ONCE SOME OF THE NEW WAYS
OF OPERATING ARE IN PLACE, THERE IS A REVOLT BY STAFF THAT IS VERY LARGE
AND AWFUL FOR THE LEADERSHIP. Even though staff want the change at the
start, they rebel and get very angry at the leadership. In all cases it is
about this time that leadership ends up in tears, wondering if they have
made a BIG mistake, doubting themselves as competent leaders.
COACHING/MENTORING/HAND HOLDING from the consultant is critical at this
time just as the midwife holding the hand of the woman in labour when
things start to get really bad just before birth. It is exactly the time
not to try to fight what is happening, and the most important thing the
coach can do is to reassure and to tell stories of how "normal" this stage
is. When everyone gets through this stage, staff start talking about how
angry they were but how they now get it. And leaders talk about their anger
at Open Space but when asked if they would do it over again, always say
that they WOULD. In every case they said that although the transition had
been very painful, that the stuff was out in the open that had always been
under the surface and had always gotten in the way (ie: Dead Moose stuff)
*****
Ingredients of the Open Space Organization
Below, I present a list of what we learned to pay attention to as an Open
Space Organization. We refined this during those three years, actively and
intentionally learning together to capture what worked.
1. The grief cycle at work promoting understanding and tolerance
All staff were introduced to an understanding of the cycle of griefwork and
challenged to view situations within Wesley Urban Ministries from a
perspective that rather than dealing with "resistance to change", we could
be dealing with a person working through the grief cycle. This promoted
understanding and tolerance, and brought a shift towards deferring judgement
about others.
2. Storytelling promoting awareness, collectiveness, empathy, truth
Time was taken at regular intervals, every three months or so, for staff to
tell stories. These were stories of the organization, of their immediate
work in the organization or the larger context. Story telling time was seen
as valuable, with all stories-sads, glads, and mads-being valued. Sometimes
pictures and other artifacts accompanied the story telling. Through the
story telling, we wove a story of a corporate culture that fostered social
justice and valued all people as precious.
3. The story of the organization including purpose, values and vision
We worked to achieve great clarity about our purpose, values and vision
throughout the organization that was understood by all who were involved
with the organization. The purpose, values, and vision were taken into
account during every Policy and Operating decision that was made. All
decisions and actions were upheld to ensure congruity with the purpose,
values and vision.
4. The deep essence, working with what is not seen including Spirit
We realized that much of what we spent our energy on as an organization
especially energy in dealing with conflicts involved attention to behaviors
and actions. As a staff we started talking about a theory that was known as
the "iceberg theory", attesting that most of what was really going on in the
organization was below the level of the visible (behaviors and actions) and
at the levels of emotion, meaning, perception and interpretation. We started
putting more energy to discussing the unseen. Some of this was done by our
discussions about purpose, values and vision. Equally as valuable to
shifting our attention to what we started calling the deeper essence of the
organization was to spend time regularly to discuss our assumptions about
the organization, and about specific areas of work. And we had discussions
about the role of Spirit.
5. Holding as many meetings as possible using Open Space Technology
Every Open Space Technology meeting we held was designed to bring results.
Sometimes key areas were identified that we agreed required further Open
Space Technology meetings. We held an annual two day Open Space Technology
meeting for organization-wide strategic planning, periodic full day Open
Space Technology meetings within different working units, and regular
monthly short four hour Open Space Technology meetings to discuss key items
that had emerged.
6. When holding a meeting that is task focused that is not appropriate for
Open Space Technology, we held the meeting with process and format conducive
to the values inherent in Open Space Technology including sitting in a
circle with no tables, using process facilitation involving whole brain and
intuition.
7. Recognizing when a meeting was open for participation or was simply to
provide predetermined direction and information.
When providing predetermined direction and information, we were clear that
the meeting was not a participative one and we kept those to a minimum and
short.
8. Working with chaos by learning about it and navigating with it rather
than trying to manage it.
We had discussions within the organization about chaos, about chaos and
change being constant and how to work with it. We started using words like
navigating with change and started to talk about and laugh about the
impossibility of managing change. This affected how we did our planning,
shifting us away from linear goal setting and strategic planning, and
leaving room for new opportunities as they emerged.
9. Formal leadership committed to leading in a different way.
We altered the role of management to one in which we identified management
tasks as those that removed barriers for the job to get done, and one that
ensured that we provided resources for the job to get done. A significant
way of doing this was managing the organization in a way that paralleled the
Open Space Technology meeting, complete with an ongoing bulletin board and
opportunities to attend discussion sessions that could be set by anyone,
based on passion and responsibility. At the Board level, it was essential
that the Board was in a policy governance model.
10. Clarifying "givens" for the organization and clarifying "givens" for
each OST meeting.
This was probably the biggest breakthrough that we had in our journey to
become and then sustain ourselves as an Open Space Organization. After the
third month of Open Space Technology meetings, staff rebelled at the start
of a meeting saying that they did not want any more of these meetings. When
we discussed what the trouble was, amidst a great deal of anger from the
staff, they said that every time they came up with a creative solution at an
Open Space Technology meeting, they felt shut down afterwards by finding out
about some reason why it couldn't be done. Usually the reason was legitimate
and usually I was the one who gave it. I had been unaware of this or the
impact. My intentions were good. It was also apparent that staff were
rebelling against the new responsibilities for solutions in the
organization. This is what Harrison Owen called "freedom shock".
This took us to discussing the "givens" or limits that we worked within as
an organization. We then pared the "givens" down to what truly was a "given"
and all staff, Board and volunteers proceeded with our Open Space Technology
meetings, knowing up front what was and was not doable.
11. Bringing the processes and changes to everyone's awareness
We frequently discussed organizational processes and changes so that we all
paid attention to the organizational whole and how it ran. This enabled us
all to be "keepers of the vision" and to move forward as a collective whole,
each person being given the chance to make his/her personal meaning out of
it all.
12. Organizational lifecycle
We studied and worked with knowledge about organizational lifecycles and
worked intentionally to challenge ourselves to keep ourselves at peak
performance in relation to structure being appropriate to support the spirit
of the organization and of achieving the purpose.
13. Understanding authority, accountability, and responsibility in a
framework of working with energy from passion and responsibility.
We worked from a belief that all people were precious and valuable and that
the wisdom to do what needed to be done was amongst the people involved with
the organization. In doing so, we had discussions about accountability,
authority, and responsibility to ensure that we were clear about these while
simultaneously working with passion and capturing maximum energy to move
things forward without getting in our own way with too many rules.
________________________________Peggy Holman
Co-founder
Journalism That Matters
15347 SE 49th Place
Bellevue, WA 98006
206-948-0432
www.journalismthatmatters.org
www.peggyholman.com
Twitter: @peggyholman
JTM Twitter: @JTMStream
Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity
On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Harrison Owen via OSList
<oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote:
Kari… The answer is YES – with multiple examples. Long, long ago in the Great
State of Kentucky (USA), Some strange things happened… The University of
Kentucky Center for Rural Health Loyd Kepferle and Karen Main For reasons
remaining somewhat obscure, it turns out that Open Space often migrates from
the status of "meeting methodology" towads a new status as, "the way we do
business around here." One might assume that an organization doing business in
an open space mode would accomplish little. That does not seem to be the
reality, for Open Space frames the total operation, and internally there is an
appropriate alternation between open exploration of new opportunities and
pre-determined, structured responses to known situations. The key word is
"appropriate." In those situations where people know what to do and there are
systems in place to take care of that particular business, that is the way
things work. On the other hand, when novelty is the order of the day open space
becomes the dominant mode. The people in Kentucky have been experimenting with
all of this, and what follows is a description of their efforts. vvvvvv The
employees of the Center for Rural Health believe that the Center exists as one
mechanism for making life better for people who live in rural Kentucky and
rural America. These people include our students, our patients, our
constituents and of course, ourselves. We try to make life better by educating
people for better 40 careers in health care, through the health services
provided in our clinic, through our Community programs which help people
improve their health care systems, through research and policy analysis coupled
with advocacy for improving health in rural areas, and through programs which
will help all of our employees achieve their potential. The Center is a complex
organization functioning within the rules of a much larger bureaucracy to which
we are accountable (the University Kentucky Medical School). While the
philosophy enunciated below is one of personal empowerment, we recognize that
we are not empowered to act in ways that are contradictory to University rules
and regulations. Some of our programs, such as the academic programs, may be
more constrained by these rules than others, such as Community Programs. In
addition, while we espouse an egalitarian philosophy, we recognize that for the
purposes of accountability, there is an implicit hierarchy within the Center.
For example, while employees interested in technology are strongly urged to
explore innovations that may help our programs, they will require information
from the Center Administrator regarding availability of funds since the
Administrator is accountable to the Director for not overspending the Center's
budget. In this example, however, if funds were not available from the Center,
this information would only lead the technology group to consider other funding
sources. It would not negate their right to improve our programs. We believe
that even with these limitations, the vast majority of problems and
opportunities which come to the Center can be resolved by maximizing the
talents and creativity of our 41 employees through empowerment. In this regard,
we believe that all of us are using our abilities to make the Center succeed.
ALL OF OUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE EQUAL. In these efforts there is no hierarchy or
"chain of command". We simply perform different functions. To operationalize
this philosophy, we are working hard to make a process we experimented with a
reality in every day life at the Center. The process is called "Open Space".
The main idea of this process is that "People who care most passionately about
a problem or opportunity have the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to do something
about it". This basic idea supersedes all notions of a hierarchical
organizational structure which requires individuals with problems or ideas to
proceed through several layers of authority in order to articulate a
problem/solution or idea before it can be addressed or implemented. Underlying
this approach is the idea that success is dependent on commitment which comes
from Ownership which is dependent on power. There are only five constraints on
this model of personal empowerment: 1. When a problem or opportunity is to be
discussed, there must be wide notification of the meeting time and place so
anyone who is interested can attend. 2. Proposed solutions/ideas must be
broadcast widely so they can be acknowledged as Center policies, programs or
procedures; or, if they are contradictory to University of Kentucky rules,
another solution can be sought. 3. Proposed solutions cannot be hurtful to
anyone else. 4. Proposed solutions should channel our limited resources in such
a way as to have maximum impact on achieving 42 our goal. 5. Accomplishing the
work for which we were hired takes precedence over our group work. However, if
the RIGHT people (those who really care) are involved in any topic, they will
find a way to make sure their work is completed and the work of the group is
brought to a successful conclusion. There are NO CONSTRAINTS on the following:
1. Who can call a meeting. 2. The type of problem or opportunity that is being
addressed. 3. The availability of time to have a meeting. 4. Who may attend a
meeting. 5. The availability of information necessary for a group to work. Open
Space assumes a consensual process will be observed by the ad hoc groups that
form and that all ideas will be considered respectfully by the people in the
group. Within a group, the convener takes responsibility for articulating the
situation under discussion. Another member of the group will act as a recorder.
Between the two of them they will develop a brief report of the meeting and
circulate it to everyone else at the Center. The ad hoc group may choose to
modify its plans based on feedback. In this kind of organization there is
little reason for an ongoing committee structure. Some groups, for example the
academic program heads, may have reason to meet on a regular basis. But we
believe committees are most useful when they are composed of people who are
really interested and when they are established to deal with relatively
discreet situations and then dissolved. While we believe this is a good way to
develop a truly successful organization, it is an approach to organizational
behavior which is fraught with insecurity which, in the short run, may produce
fear, anger and frustration. It will take a long time for 43 those of us who
have lived in hierarchical and paternalistic organizations to believe we are
really empowered. We, at the Center for Rural Health, recognize this philosophy
is somewhat revolutionary and will be uncomfortable for all of us some of the
time. But we also believe people do their best when they are empowered to
control the conditions that affect them. We also think that solutions which are
imposed on people rather than generated by the people who are affected are
doomed to failure. Finally, we think we have a wonderful opportunity to test
this theory because of the quality of the people who work for the Center. If we
are wrong, then, in the spirit of Open Space, we are empowered to throw it out
and adopt another philosophy. For further information contact: Loyd Kepferle /
Karen Main Center for rural Health 100 Airport Garden Drive. And if you want
your own copy (with many other examples) go to www.openspaceworld.com Look in
“Books,” and check out “Tales From Open Space.” Can’t rember when we published
it, but sometime in the ‘90’s. A while ago. Harrison Winter Address7808 River
Falls Dr.Potomac, MD 20854301-365-2093 Summer Address189 Beaucauire AveCamden,
ME 04843207 763-3261 Websiteswww.openspaceworld.comwww.ho-image.com From:
OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Kári
Gunnarsson via OSList
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 8:06 AM
To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Cc: Kári Gunnarsson
Subject: [OSList] Is there experience in developing Open Space further in
organizations and networks after the initial intervention Hi my dear open
space family I wonder if there is experience in developing Open Space further
in organizations and networks after the initial intervention and how we could,
each of us, go about inviting this experience to participating in the next and
future Wosonos events. Who are the people that want to explor how to develop
the OST approach further in their organizations and networks? I think we
usually call them sponsors! With love Kári
_______________________________________________
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
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.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
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
