Nelson, New Zealand
Blogging on a sunny fall afternoon from Te Tau Ihu, or the Top of the South Island region of New Zealand. The beautiful weather here – including a brisk warm wind off the Tasman Sea coming over the light blue waters of Nelson Bay – kind of nicely reflects my mood at the moment.
I was invited here to facilitate a day of Open Space for an Maori economic summit which brought together entrepreneurs, iwi trusts, government folks and Pakehea (or non-Maori) businesses for the tourism, and resource sectors. Our day in Open Space was yesterday and it was a blast. People connected like crazy, including one woman whose topic was “I need a job.” in her session, four people joined her and created a business plan to get her into a viable self-employment situation. That experience wasn’t at all unique with other business plans drafted up around Te Reo (language) funding opportunities, and the creation of a Maori economic development forum in this region to support enterprise.
Like the use of Open Space in other indigenous communities, people in the closing circle claimed it as Maori, and in order to leave it here and support that idea, we are just now finalizing the logistics for a two training workshop that starts tomorrow to train folks in community agencies and government in the process.
More reports if I get a chance or when I get home. In the meantime have a look at the work being done by Wakatu Incoirporation, one of the sponsors of the Summit which is a trust that acts on behalf of five iwi (tribes) in this region.
I’m heading off to New Zealand for 10 days, so blogging might be light. I’ve collected another ten intereting links for your perusal. So here is the latest edition of Parking Lot linkage:
- The Open Space of Democracy (not THAT Open Space, but a cool read nonetheless) by Terry Tempest Williams
- Speaking Differently: Deconstruction/Meditative Thinking as the Heart of “the Faculty of Observing” via wood s lot (and where does he find this stuff! Thanks Mark…)
- Library and Archival Exhibitions on the Web via MeFi. Lose yourself in this for a while.
- Introduction to Calculus. Just what I need.
- A Theory of Architecture. Another online book via Tesugen
- A lesson from the arts. What managers can learn from jazz. First noted through Frank Patrick’s blog
- Classics in the History of Psychology from York University. Huge collection of online psychology texts, including Jung’s General Description of the Types
- The Conversing Company: its culture, power and potential. Paper by my friend Alan Stewart (another friend that needs a blog!).
- Rick Mercer’s Monday Report. The fastest crash course in understanding Canada.
- Strategic Questioning. Long article on the practice of asking questions in a variety of settings. Via Global Chicago
Enjoy!
We’re really humming now. Harrison Owen replied to my stories post on the OSLIST with these comments, among others:
This is interesting soup indeed. I think the real positive here is the emphasis on Story Telling. For 40 odd years, ever since the days when I presumed to be an academic delving into the mysteries of myth, ritual and culture in the ancient near east — I have felt that we (all of us humanoids) are essentially story-tellers, it is the way we make meaning and communicate meaning (as in the natural first question of a new person — “What’s the story?”). For the last 20 years, after having fallen into the world of Open Space, I have observed that a (maybe “the”) central activity in an Open Space is storytelling, and it is certainly “fuzified” storytelling, for initially there is no single story, nor story teller. It is what I have called Collective Storytelling. Meaning emerges, and action follows (usually) as the collective tale comes into being, having been woven from the myriad narrative strands brought forward by the participants. Frank Smits is definitely riding a train I have been on for quite a while, and although that certainly doesn’t make all of this “true” — it is certainly in line with my fundamental prejudices. The fact that he casts the discussion in the new language of complexity theory is an added gift, for it gives me (gives us) a new set of spectacles with which to view our experience. (If anybody cares for the details of my random thoughts, check out Chapters 11 and 12 in my book, “The Power of Spirit” (Berrett-Koehler,
2000) For an earlier and more arcane version of all of this read the opening chapter of my first book, “Spirit: Transformation and Development in Organizations” — now out of print)
2000) For an earlier and more arcane version of all of this read the opening chapter of my first book, “Spirit: Transformation and Development in Organizations” — now out of print)
But I am not sure that Smits appreciates the full depth of Storytelling as meaning making. First of all, although it is true that stories can be told with words, this in my experience is just the tip of the iceberg. Powerful stories which shape and form cultures (otherwise known as myths) appear in the rich garments of ALL modes of human communication — the total dance of a peoples’ life. This may seem just an academic quibble, but I think it has some real implications concerning our ability to fully understand what is taking place. In a word, we are faced with a level of complexity (even with a small group of humanoids) that simply boggles the mind. And when it comes to the role of the facilitator, the boggled mind is not helpful, particularly if the facilitator’s role is as Smits describes it —
“But, in order for Facilitators to participate, as a listener, a ‘neutral’ narrator or focaliser, they need to be able to understand the language, power relationships, semiotics, etc. in the group of people. In other words, they need to be ‘external insiders’. As the name suggests this is a very paradoxical role (see Figure 6). By somehow becoming an ‘insider’ there is potentially an element of ‘risk’ for the Facilitator with the outcome (emergent action). A delicate balance.”
A “delicate balance” indeed — and one which I suspect is neither possible nor necessary. Does that mean then that as facilitators in Open Space there is nothing we can do? If “doing something” means acting as the “focalizer,” then I believe the answer is, Yes. Bluntly stated, we simply do not have the horsepower to do that — to say nothing of the mental capacity. But there are realms where we can and do “do something.” Specifically, we can create the space for storytelling. We can even shape that space when we work with the client around the theme. And lastly, we can also create a space for reflection. But when it comes to telling the story, interpreting the story, and acting on the story — I think the people do it all by themselves. Which, after all is what self organization is all about.
As the man says, interesting soup. There is a piece of Smits’ paper that I haven’t addressed yet, and that is the way stories are contextualized in power relationships. Here’s the idea:
- We gather knowledge about the world through observing and interpretation.
- Observed “facts” don�t give us the whole picture, so we need interpretive stories to make meaning out of what we observe.
- Stories represent part of the truth, and as such, non-linear stories dwell in a power space within the organization. Telling the story can be powerful; having the story believed can be even more powerful.
- Here’s the money shot from Smits: “Stacey (2001a, 183) argues that when there is diversity of participation in the conversations that happen in organisation, there is the potential for the organisational identity to be �threatened�. In the language of Gover (1996) �our identities are being constitutes and reconstituted with their physical, cultural and historical contexts�. The roots of narratives and identity, he claims, �merge, inextricably embedded and nurtured in the soil of human action�. But this is complicity! Stories and identity are being formed by human action (�experience� in Stacey�s words) and at the same time form human action.”
This is amazing, because it gets at some of the writing and thinking I have been doing about “living in truth.” I don�t see the term “threatened” as being a bad thing. I see it as inviting a decentering of organizations away from command and control models where the stories are churned out of a high level communications suite and the drones are expected to buy the stories. These stories can be about anything: the organization’s mandate, the way it is in the world, the kind of people we are, the kinds of things we make and do, where we have come from and where we are going…all the ripe fields of human mythmaking and meaning making.
Complexity and diversity in participation threatens the organization’s identity because it pokes holes in the large assumptions that the powerful pieces of an organization can sometimes hold over everyone else. These power stories could be societal and cultural myths or beliefs as well, and they could inhibit a huge set of opportunities and potentials. By inviting a large diversity of people into the shared meaning-making storyspace, we invite challenge to the myths and a much more dynamic process of social and organizational truth telling that makes organizations or societies very robust. And I think that is a very good thing. It’s good for democracy, it’s good for productivity, it’s good for engagement. People recover their agency, groupthink becomes a thing s of the past, minds are opened and passion AND responsibility is engaged.
The story of the OST meeting I did last weekend illustrates this writ small, but I think we cannot underestimate the power of letting go of that power of control over the stories and the myths. People might ask “but where do we then find stability for our organization or society?”
And in a changing world I would have to reply “thank me later…”
Yes to this from Carla Verwijs:
: The good thing about stories is that it is not ‘just another technology’, it’s something that’s already there in the organisation. You only have to discover them and listen (be open). Everything you wouldn’t read in glossy corporate brochures and promotional videos and that show you the inside of the company, you’ll hear in peoples’ stories. Stories are the heart of the company. Stories are about people, culture, wishes, dreams, new ideas. And that’s what makes them so interesting to me.
Ton is musing about organizational structure:
While browsing the Actionable Sense Wiki…I came across this statement of mine, that I scribbled down some weeks ago:
Organisations are clusters of relationships between people. |
The invididual and the network are the relevant economic units, not the organisation. |
Value is in the relationships, organisations are transactions along those relations.
The first statement puts people and their relations in the spotlight, thus including informal structures in orgs, not just the formal ones.
The second includes all stake holders in any situation from the get-go not just share holders.
The third brings into view that the prime goal of organisations is value creation, not it’s own continuity.
The sum total accepts every organisation as a temporary phenomenon, created and dismantled to fit value creating endeavours by networked individuals. Would this be called something like the ‘Open Space Organisation’?
And I replied:
Have a look at Michael Herman’s ideas of the Inviting Organization.
What the Inviting Organization does for me is that it starts with the intrinsic motivations for people to aggregate into structures. The results look something like what you’ve drawn, but the origins, the role of the founder, you might say, all come back to an invitation.
In these kinds of organizations where structures evolve and dissolve as they are needed, the anchor for me is the invitation that is issued. We gather around it, work with each other and then go our seperate ways when it’s over…issueing new invitations all along the way.
For more on these kinds of organizational structures, have a look at Birgitt Williams’ Conscious Open Space Organization, Alan Stewart’s conversing company and Harrison Owen’s Interactive Organization.
For me the key is that we begin the process of organizational development from within individuals rather than with the structure determined from the outset. In otherwords, we begin with the subjective and intersubjective relationships, as Ton has noted, and then build our structures out from there.
I have to post more on the internal/external stuff soon…! Look for a clearer way to represent it all in an upcoming post.