Collaborative Research
into
Open Space Technology,
Self-Organization and Emergence
Toronto,
Canada
DRAFT - For distribution to
Open Space of Canada Institute web site
Dialogue Report #1
Subject: : Effects of On-Line OST and Face to Face OST on the Communication Process
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: : Osho
Key Points:
Judi has participated and assisted in 4
on-line conferences in OST using
Some participants need a while to figure our chat space.
What is lost when we are not in each others’ physical presence?
What is found when we are not in each others’ physical presence?
Speaking to a few participants after On-line OST, there can be the suspension of habitual patterns. For some it is liberating as bumblebeeing and butterflying is easier – no one “sees” me stand up and walk away – there is no need for social conditioning of making excuses to go – there is no physical evidence.
Some also notice a liberating space in the reply. You can’t blurt out a response as easily – keyboarding needs to happen.
For some there can be a suspension of the expert status and easier to ask “what do you mean”?
When I read your statement or question I read it in my voice – you can’t push my buttons physically. I can choose to take it as a confrontation if I wish to. Another wonderful way to see my own mind.
Osho’s center gets 30,000 hits per month and they have students around the world.
Whatever you’ve got to work with – do it the best you can.
What feedback can be built in?
With search engines, etc., this kind of use of the technology is more accessible, easier to find.
As technology is becoming more prominent – this is a great research topic.
We don’t see this as an either/or, we see
it as an AND – lets look at both methods, not versus.
Dialogue Report #2
Subject: Research Criteria: what is needed to make OST research meaningful and relevant to organizations and executives?
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
Jean-Pierre
Beaulieu
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Christopher, Sharon, JJudy,
Rodger, Sheryel, Judy, Kelvie, Miriam
Key Points:
·
We
want the research to be meaningful to 3 audiences: the academic, practitioners
and end users
·
Purpose
of research: to demonstrate that OST is powerful and identify the conditions
that make it effective.
·
The
criteria are as follows:
1.
Academic
legitimacy
2.
Longitudinal
studies
3.
External
captured
4.
External
analysis
5.
Comparative
research approach
6.
Multiple
sites
7.
Hard
data
8.
Meaningful
to the 3 audiences
The
research could, should address the 3 phases on an interventions:
·
Beginning:
enabling readiness for practice, i.e. openness , awareness and trust
·
Middle:
OST
·
End
: Sustaining effectiveness: what are the conditions, success factors, role of
leadership and set of skills required.
Dialogue Report
#3
Subject: Are
overlapping self-interests, co
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Pat Sniderman
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Glenda, Frank, Osho, Monica,
Judi, Audrey
Key Points:
·
Self-interest
can be viewed in a negative light. In self-organization and emergence, it can
be positive as part of mutual self interest with others. People identify and
create patterns of overlapping mutual
interests that make a difference for them – an exchange that helps drive
merging self-organisation.
·
Mutual
interests exist in the context of the relationship between or among the
parties. When emergence happens, relationship itself is viewed as something
separate from the parties and is respected. (Container) Once the respect for the container/ community/
relationship itself is lost of forgotten (i.e. by one party thinking he or she
is in control of the other, or can do it alone) it becomes unbalanced and
emergence is blocked. To stay in the relationship/ emergent/ community/
organization parties need to feel they are giving and getting value for value.
(If you are not learning or contributing, use your two feet.) When exchange
balance is upset, sometimes we become overly controlling or we withdraw
altogether. Martyrs, burnout, sacrifices.
·
Out
thought patterns cause us to believe we are separate and in control when in
fact we are part of the whole. We just prefer to believe we are not. Once we
recognize and accept the whole, emergence is possible.
·
We
get locked into the familiar and tend to replicate patterns when re recognize
similarity and think this is “normal”. People who grow up in war torn
countries, for instance, see this as familiar. We need to interrupt, ask
different questions, find new spaces, places. Need discontinuity and a change
in historical connections (sparse prior connections)
·
Need
an open flow of information throughout
any organization. The termite queen sits at the top of the…. Laying eggs.
Worker termites sit around her seeming to fan her. Scientists have recently
discovered that in fact they are giving her information about the kinds of eggs
she needs to lay. She has no power but is central to the colony’s survival.
(bulletin board)
·
The
circle is an underlying principle of emergence and it serves the purposes
of finding mutual self-interests,
respect for the container and sharing
information. This has been understood by many cultures i.e. Hopi for ever.
·
The
possibilities for finding mutual self-interests require a variety of
currencies in the container. People seek different kinds of currencies from
the exchange relationships. Emergence happens when there are many possible
currencies available to meet different needs. Work organisations could
facilitate the possibility of emergences by offering a variety of currencies
i.e. more time, time off, respect, additional resources for research
·
Cannot
force self-organization from the outside
·
Self-organizing
systems both attract and repel.
Dialogue Report #4
Subject: TOOT
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: IrmaJean, Jean Pierre, Shikai Osho, Monica, Judy
Robertson
Key Points:
·
TOOT
– Time out of time
Noticed that similar to my practice of meditation, OST as a portion of time away from the normal provides a container for the group to “see” itself”.
Individual
letting go of time, being fully present and fully attentive to the group.
How do
we as individuals bring ourselves to a conclusion to move forward to next part.
Relationship and build trust with self.
Spoke
about the undercurrents – 2 day OST “Managing Money Better”, different from
daily work in silos – met as a team, now bonuses based on team work. Stated in
closing circle that no one forced them to so what they didn’t want to do;
discovered common ground.
Time
out of time – time to see my habitual patterns, to let go of the roles I have
placed you in.
Conditions
for self-organizing – doing something a little different? Like when we travel and can let go of roles,
feel free of labels – expand our consciousness.
Take
simple and make it complex. In this moment, am I having a good time – if not –
go somewhere else.
One 13
year old son said felt frustrated – and said needed a time out –
self-organizing!
Evolutionary
steps – we see someone else is in the room, conditions change, now how do we
work so everyone benefits. If everyone gets up and uses the law of two feet because
I’m taking over the conversation – it is in my face!!
Work in
indigenous peoples, wisdom traditions, shamanic societies – many of these
conditions are part of being. In restorative justice circles – processes are
similar. Natural leader emerges in the culture to facilitate meetings. Ho’oponopono and Maaori Ohana Gathering used for families. Processes similar to
open space – the breath in the opening circle is similar to prayer in these
customs. As a facilitator we are not manipulating a group or forcing our
beliefs – we do have our own practices of spirit.
Questioned
the inclusivity of OST – in some cases people feel
they don’t fit in, cultural norms are not to sit in a circle and meet eyes,
different learning styles don’t mesh with the process. Is the process biased
and exclusive> My way of the highway? Like a cult – we have the answer –
everyone to it this way. And yet evolution happens through difference. Is there
enough openness?
Provide
space and opportunity for you to talk about what you are comfortable with –
some components may not work for others.
Worked
in some cultures where it is an insult to disagree with someone – you always
agree.
Discussed
OST with children – in schools, OST in the classroom, maiken
practice, appreciative practices.
Time
Out Of Time – time to see how we put people in roles, slap in our beliefs!
Interesting
to see what comes up in time out of time – not it is time for lunch!!
Dialogue Report # 5
Subject: Open Space as an Evaluative Research Method
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Irmajean Bajnok
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Sybil, Miriam, Michelle, Larry, Harrison, Becky, Irmajean
Key Points:
·
Open
space as a methodology to evaluate and monitor an intervention
·
Assumes
an action reflection model of research, with a view of incorporating research
results into ongoing change processes in real time
·
Acceptance
of OS as a research methodology depends on your view of research
·
Need
to keep in mind that the open space event itself as an evaluation method would
itself cause change
·
Within
the evaluative research event, evaluators would track themes overtime using
events and themes as evidence. In
addition what happens after the OS evaluation event would also be important
·
If
OS is to be funded as part of an evaluative research proposal, we need to use
language that connects research world with OS. In research terms OS could be
seen as “multiple self organizing focus groups”, that yield data that could be
analysed using qualitative methods.
Basically the participants would (other than for the basic question),
define the more specific research questions related to the issue.
·
It
is important though to differentiate between focus groups and OS.
·
Focus
groups are selected, and usually discuss or respond to a set of questions,
identified by the researcher, with an outside facilitator
·
With OS the issues and or questions would be
those relevant to the participants
·
Major
difference between Focus groups and OS is creating the question. The themes identified by the group become the
questions.
·
In
data analysis researchers can look at issues, responses, trends over time in
relation to the issues, and who thought what about what
·
Concerns
re OS as a research methodology
·
There
is a danger of stifling the freedom and
openness
·
Need
to continue to be transparent with all participants receiving all information
·
Need
to enable participants to work on results that come from the OS process so they
have buy, otherwise what is in it for participants to be interested in
evaluation
#1 Tentative model of OS as an evaluation
methodology based on discussion
·
General question asked i.e. What
are the themes and or issues that are related to the impact of _________ on
__________?
·
OS used to define themes and explore using multiple self organising
focus groups
·
Results shared with all
·
Results used by researchers to begin to monitor impact
·
Repeat process as above
·
Researchers begin to monitor changes over time
·
Other data collection means can be used such as measures of standard
indicators, surveys etc.
Opens
space has an advantage of providing snap shots of issues, and response to
issues in real time
Two
other models identified
#2. Larry’s Model
Change
Made
Environment OS used to identify issues OS to measure results
#3 Harrison’s Model
Issue
Clear, But Needs more Work, for Action
Could
use this process to monitor organizations over time to determine changes and movement
toward agreed upon goals
Conclusions:
Given
assumptions of an action reflection model of evaluation research, and
thinking
of OS evaluation research as using
multiple self organizing focus groups, OS can be looked as a methodology for
action research
OS
used in this way engages the participants in defining the issues to be
evaluated and monitored over time
OS
provides a means of collecting data, defining the questions, and monitoring and
analyzing the data over time
Three
models were identified
Dialogue Report #6
Subject: Power and Open Space
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Glenda Eoyang
________________________________________________________________________
Participants:
Harrison
Sybil
Kelvie
Frank
Doug
Rodger
Sharon
And
others. We didn’t take the list.
Key Points:
- The ones you think will have it don’t.
- Patterns of power change over the time of the event.
- The story we tell ourselves about the power structures are
different from the reality.
- Power in a self-organizing system is in the connections and in
the information and each feeds the other.
- Power (structure and function) emerges from people, task, and
environment.
- Do non-positional power people simply set the agenda, OR does a
new power structure emerge?
- Can the transition be managed?
Should it be? The transition
includes:
- How we talk and what we talk about
- What we do (accountability, management, aligned action)
In
the talk we explore options and practice the act of effective inquiry
shared. Through passion and
responsibility, the talk informs the action.
·
Steps
of learning appear to be consolidated and speeded up in open space (data
collection, exploring options, executing change). So, open space becomes a simulation of
reality.
·
We
are always in self-organizing (Open Space).
The asymmetry of power may be problematic here.