In replying to Tom Dell (LO15920 re: after the downsizing), Doc Holloway
(in LO15938) responded with these comments regarding the use of Open
Space:
"I think that your company is ripe for a well-facilitated open space
meeting, bringing a variety of stakeholders together to tackle the issues
that are most important to them and you.
Using that as your starting point, you may find that your organizational
members begin working together to come up with new answers (and energy)
and new means of communicating. The risk in going with this methodology
is that organizational changes need to reflect the input from the open
space participants. this means that it is very important to correctly
frame the question by which you'll attract the voluntary contribution of
issues and answers; and it is critical that you identify what topics are
not "on the table."
I had been thinking about your situation Tom, and when Doc offered this
suggestion it seemed a reasonable approach. We've used Open Space quite a
bit and have seen it accomplish some remarkable things. For some reason
Tom's email had me thinking more along the lines of how to have headed off
the situation to begin with -- probably because I contemplated the long,
rough road his organization has ahead of it. The beauty of the Open Space
approach is that is doesn't try to design specific outcomes or try to fix
things. Instead, it systemically connects the threads of the organization
and unlocks the creative potential of the employees. It enables the
organization to behave more fully as a self-organizing system that has had
a healthy shot of adrenaline.
As Doc mentions, the members will begin working together in new and
surprising ways that are unpredictable at this point. If unimpeded, a
neural network will emerge and/or be strengthened. Coordinated
action-at-a-distance will manifest.
I'm not sure what the risks are for employing Open Space. I'm inclined to
say none. As a facilitator, I risk not being invited back when I
facilitate Open Space. Not because I've ever seen it have negative impact
on an organization, but more so because it has the potential for
threatening those that authorize the Open Space event/process. Open Space
makes some very enabling promises to an organization, both explicitly and
implicitly. It promises that the future will be (not can be, but will be)
different. Roles will adjust. Stewardship will be called for.
High-control will be discouraged. Enabling structures will emerge.
Strengths will be honed and honored rather than homogenized. Dynamic
combinations of strengths will appear as a "dance."
Light will shine into an organization allowing members to see and seize
new ways. As a result of the process, people will be changed. How those
seeds grow and when the fruit emerges will vary, but grow and emerge they
will. So I don't see much, if any, of an organizational risk. Discomfort
maybe, but the real risk may be in not doing it. Whenever fragmentation
of an organizational system is reversed and the system receives a positive
reinforcing spin, I can only imagine goodness.
As far as ensuring that the organizational changes reflect the input from
the open space participants, I might say it a slightly different way. I
would first try to quantify and articulate any outside limits to what
changes should be allowed. Then within those boundaries, I would simply
try to stay out of the way of the changes that manifest as a result of
Open Space. In fact I would repeat the OS process on various scales
throughout the coming months -- being careful to include (read invite) all
stake holders and customers (competitors too, if you're up to some
stretch).
I say invite, because this has to be a strictly voluntary process. Please
don't try this with "prisoners" as it simply is not fair to them. Put
your hopes and dreams out in front of the members. Make a genuine
invitation and the right people will be present. Don't confuse strength
with physical numbers of participants. The invitation into Open Space is
critical. It has to be genuine. It has to be from the heart as well as
from the head. It has to reflect real issues which people can engage with
passion. It must focus the members, but not prescribe the content or
outcomes.
Open Space will increase the connection of community, providing reserves
for the trying times as well as support and forgiveness for risk taking.
The shared vision will become more vivid and compelling. More roving
leadership will manifest. Work will get done. Customers will be served.
I've seen Open Space model nearly every concept embodied in
Living/Learning Organizations without using the first bit of terminology
or buzzword. My belief is that an organization subsequently benefits from
going deeper with LO teaching and learning experiences to help understand
what happens in Open Space. But what a wonderful beginning point when
people have received an experience base large enough to put future
learning into context.
Thanks to Doc (and to Tom), for bringing me back to a passion.
John Dicus
--John Dicus | cca@ourfuture.com Cornerstone Consulting Associates | http://www.ourfuture.com Growing Learning Communities Through Whole-System Experiences Consulting | Facilitation | Workshops | Seminars | Speaking 2761 Stiegler Road, Valley City OH 44280 800-773-8017 | 330-725-2728 (fax) ** Experiences in Stewardship V -- April '98 **
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>