But we need structure

One of the things I hear from many clients is a call for “structure” in conversations. This is a term in need of a definition, and whenever I hear it, I try to clarify what is meant. In a lot of cases, structure means having items laid out on an agenda and a clear sense that we will come to come agreement on them. “Structure” is often a synonym for “control.” I don’t have an issue with structure, but, in keeping with the previous post, control is more problematic.

Structure appears everywhere. Despite the fact that many people see Open Space meetings as “unstructured” I often talk about as highly structured gatherings. What is unfamiliar is that structure is largely self-organizing, and very complex. But make no mistake, there is a high degree of structure in Open Space. The fact that no one is in sole control of the structure gives some people the willies (including facilitators, by the way!).

Structure in Open Space is elegant because it arises as it is needed and it disappears when it is no longer required. It is emergent. It is forever in flow and changing, leaving behind it a legacy of action, learning, conversation and whatever other outcomes the group itself has generated. As a facilitator, my job is simply to hold the biggest possible container for the best possible structure to emerge. This means not intruding as unworkable structures decay and it means not imposing a pre-conceived method of dialogue on a group. It means working with leadership in shaping the space of infinite possibility with invitation but beyond that it means trusting that the people who have gathered will look after their needs. In essence this practice – holding space – is not different from what any good facilitator will do. In Open Space though, we consciously invite and allow a myriad of possibilities for conversations to organize themselves.

Reading deeply from William Isaacs book, “Dialogue”, I came across his definition of structure yesterday in a fantastic chapter on overcoming structural traps:

What is interesting about these external structures is the way they couple with individual and internal motivations. I think Open Space is most powerful when it marries individual passion and responsibility with the information structures that Isaacs is talking about. This provides the external sense of urgency and REAL work that is required to create the conditions for radical and transformative self-organization in groups.