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.
·
Emerging
research questions:
o
How
does the leader’s role change as a result of open space?
o
How
does the organizational culture change as a result of OS?
o
How
do you “dance” between chaos and order?
o
How
do you find fit/adaptation as a guide for action?
o
Does
it work? (We know it does, how do we
tell others?)
o
Are
the lessons of OST transferable, and if so to what?
o
Why
does it work?
o
How
does it work?
o
When
does it not work?
o
What
theory(ies) explain why it works?
o
What
does OST tell us about human systems dynamics?
o
Does
OS speed up organizational change?
o
How
can we speed up open space?
o
How
does OS support common organizational dilemmas (mergers/acquisitions, strategic
planning, marketing, logistics, etc.)?
·
To
answer these questions, we need to define indicators:
o
People
follow the OST rules
o
Things
get said that wouldn’t be said otherwise
o
People
feel good about the event.
o
Things
are different after than before (impact)
o
New
innovative ideas emerge.
o
New
innovative ideas are implemented.
o
The
organization is more aligned after than before.
o
Less
conflict after than before.
o
Expectations
are exceeded.
o
Capacity
for problem solving is improved (skills and will)
·
We
need to find ways to integrate the research with the service delivery. Perhaps our clients will pay for both at the
same time.
·
Methods
of research that are available to us. It
is important that we use multiple methods and approaches to enrich the learning
and get multiple perspectives. We will
also need to be testing and adapting the research methods as we go.
·
Case
studies
·
Before
and after performance (money, productivity, etc.)
·
Stories
·
Phenomenological
approaches
·
Action
learning—prospective inquiry
·
Results
reversal
·
OST
as a research method
Dialogue Report 7
Subject: Kinds of Evidence
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Michelle, Doug, Christopher, Agnes, Becky
Key Points:
For
Larry, “Evidence” refers to the way we articulate, describe measure what
happens.
Why
people came:
·
There
is evidence in the stories, what can you do to make the evidence more powerful
·
Evidence
is a tool that helps with clarity
·
Need
to draw on practical experience (evidence) and codify for particular audiences
Larry
proposed that we look at Open Space Events and what happens after the event
from the perspective of 4 integrated quadrants.
(This could be done before the event as well.)
Evidence
can be gathered in each of the quadrants or domains. Each quadrant likely requires a different set
of research methodologies, based in different disciplines – from spiritual
discernment (I) to complex adaptive systems theory (It plural).
Larry
then told a story of a current opportunistic “research” initiative.
_____________________________________________________________
Conclusions:
- It isn’t research
until you are clear on the question being researched.
- We need to get more
specific on the conditions for success
- A consultant is
working to the client’s definition of outcomes and attempting to exceed
them. That is different than the
perspective of a researcher.
- We want to develop
a common research methodology for aspects of OST which could be shared by
some practitioners and researchers, and that we commit to pursuing with
the permission of our clients.
Dialogue Report #8
Subject: Funding Open Space Technology Research
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Monica, J.Judy, Audrey, Meg, Kelvie, IrmaJean
Key Points:
·
Funding
for project will likely depend upon the question, purpose organization/ sector
for research
·
Benefit
to multi-faceted research in different sectors – like a web
|
Social Services Health Education |
•
Share and compare results among sectors •
Different funders have different
interests •
What is the “buzz word” – right now capacity building work •
We need to have a question – most foundations/ funders
are likely to be interested in the outcome of interests that we are studying
– capacity, healthy systems, effectiveness, etc. |
•
Strategic partnerships with
universities/ colleges an opportunity – many are looking to do applied research
– How do we discover that, who might be good targets? Ryerson as an example
sponsoring this workshop
•
Position the Open space
Institute of Canada to form partnerships with collaboration among practitioners
– that practitioners interested in research are part of something bigger – a
community of practitioners.
•
Some current funders in Ontario –
•
Trillium – currently funding a
three year capacity building project that Monica is involved in to help
organizations develop policy, procedures processes – OST and whole person
process facilitation is the process – Have also funded stakeholder consultation
meetings with OST as the process (Michelle)
•
Human Resources Development
Canada currently funding a project called participative voices – includes
academics, practitioners
•
Other possibilities:
•
Bill Gates Foundation
•
Canadian Centre for
Philanthropy can search funders with interest in
particular fields
•
Ontario Hospital Association
change Foundation
•
Check with Linda Lee O’Brien-Phassas re: health care human resources development funding
•
•
Put this out as a general
question to the OS
•
Accessing foundation funds is
time consuming for proposal development – preparation and then approval timing
•
Suggest a proposal template
that could be used
•
If we looked at several funder requirements, could probably build a good foundation
that could be tweaked for specific organisations
•
?Role for OSIC to host this
template
•
Project Idea:
•
Seek out organisations that are
either considered on cutting edge of innovation of perhaps on the precipice of
failure and see if they would like to be part of a “grand experiment” to become
highly effective, healthy organizations… they don’t need to know our labels of
self-organizing systems, but what would be their “WIN” for participating
•
Design a research/intervention
process and implement – follow over time – e.g. a three year commitment to see
what happens
•
Win for organisation would be
documentation as a leading edge organisation in book, become highly effective
workplace – the outcomes of interest that we are promoting – build internal
capacity to lead change
•
Hire a project leader; would
make a great PhD thesis and research team
•
Companies could provide some
funding t support outcomes – e.g. consultant time – search for a large project funder – something for this scale could be funded –
particularly if it was in international consortium of companies
•
Interest in evaluation of Ost itself may not generate interest – e.g. program
evaluation was not widely recognized in its early phases – now it is well
recognized and accepted
•
Kelvie
recommended setting up an international foundation with a primary purpose of
funding research on/ using OST. This was part of the initial idea of a Would
cover a wide range of possible topics and sources. Invite corporations who have
used OST with success to be part of the board and make the initial investment.
Once project get going, could be the vehicle for sourcing funding from other
foundations to include specific research. Need to define: what would attract
corporate money to the foundation. Set up the structure and leadership (added
note from Michelle – of course, we would want this foundation to operate as a
“conscious open space organization” or whatever label it is referred using the
principles that define OST as the operating system)
•
Find leadership to inspire this
Conclusions:
1. Start
with strategic partnerships – starting with small areas of interest – just do
it – Smaller funding sources – Perhaps OSIC can have a role as a flow through
agency for funds where funders require it in the
absence of partnerships – would need to know if the current str4ucture support
that and if it is desirable.
2. What
we learn from the smaller work could feed into bigger projects.
3. Place
for sharing, contenting this dialogue – Partner agency such as Ryerson could
add validity.
4. Look
at the bigger picture “Go Big or Go Home” (
5. Funding
linked to questions – once we know what we want to research, the funding
sources will be clearer.
Dialogue Report #9
Subject: What do participants in Open Space sessions discover
that is most effective in dealing with their interests? – some implications for
OS research and practice
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Frank McLean
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Miriam , Osho, Larry
Key Points:
1)
What is the nature and context
of the invitation to participants?
a)
What is the nature of OS as the
inherent state of an organization – a self-organizing and emerging system
b)
What are the explicit and
implicit influences operating on prospective participant to participate or not
participate
c)
Hewlett-Packard experience;
already existing, OS friendly policies and practices; voluntary participation,
implemented law of two feet, saw increase in quality of OS outcomes vs. an
organization with low tolerance for openness
d)
Content: that the internal
client (champion) has a mandate to address
e)
What will happen with the
participants’ OS results?
i)
Champion’s and others’ roles
for session and ripples flowing out of it
ii)
Types of management commitment,
e.g. to review recommendation vs. employee empowerment to move ahead from OS
session within certain parameters.
iii)
Is ii) addressed in contract
between OS practitioner and client?
f)
Under what conditions should an
OS engagement proceed/ not proceed?
2)
How is Space opened and
handling of results described?
a)
Sponsor’s description of
purpose, process, opportunities and accountabilities of all parties involved in
OS mandate
b)
Management/ employee
responsibility, resources, timetables for action etc.
c)
Potentials that exist for
ripple effects and their unpredictability
3)
What is a way to view
individual, group and organizational elements the OS session and landscape –
during and after an OS process (See “Kinds of Evidence”, dialogue report #7)
4)
What happens after OS process?
a)
Outcomes transferable to
day-to-day?
b)
Outcomes result/ not result in
change and/or transformation
c)
What are the organization’s reactions
to the outcomes of the OS?
5)
What are the participants’
reactions to the outcomes of the OS?
6)
What is the level of safety and
kinds of consequences for participants speak truth to power?
7)
What value does the organization’s
culture place on diversity, variety and novelty?
8)
What are the upside
opportunities and downside risks; how are they identified and managed?
9)
Under what circumstances would
it be useful to introduce small bites of OS-like processes as preparation for
OS?
10) What
are the opportunities and risks associated with:
a)
Pre-, during and post OS
session stages and
b)
How can these be assessed given
that this process is a moving target taking place against a background of
organizational emergence?
11)
What are the key process of
transformation, including those arising from OS?
12) Are
standards, practices of tradition of “objective” research – e.g.,
a)
Application to relatively
constrained or static subjects
b)
Inadmissibility of certain
types of evidence, e.g. anecdotal stories
c)
Focus on generalizing as
broadly as possible
Inconsistent with capturing the essence and studying the behaviour of self-organizing, emergent organisations?
13) How
can the visceral experience of emergent organizations, including the ripples
from OS processes be honoured in a context of inclusivity
of evidence rather than rejected by a context of exclusivity of evidence?
14) What
role could arts-informed research play in giving voice to the experience of
participants in emerging, self-organizing change?
15) What
is at stake for the participants, organisation and other stakeholders and how
does it affect self-organizing emergent behaviour?
Conclusions:
This discussion unfolded raising issues and
questions for further consideration.
Dialogue Report 10
Subject: Using Open Space Before and After the OST Event
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Christopher Comeau
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Sybil, Roger, Sharon, Judi, Jean Pierre, Dorothy, Doug
Key Points:
·
Extending
the OST Methods/Process beyond a meeting technique but still providing
infrastructures by which anyone can do this?
Moreover, what needs to happen 1) before the beginning and 2) after the
usual end [of the OST meeting].
·
There
are differences between the term ‘Open Space’, which is one of the 2 qualities
of space (open vs. closed), ‘opening space’, which is an activity undertaken by
people in their experience of space, and ‘OST’, which is a set of instructions
that anyone could follow to achieve an outcome
·
How
can the activity of opening space be used more broadly to achieve greater
benefit, especially 1) pre OST meeting, to get buy in of the key individual(s)
to sponsor the event, and to set the expectation of releasing control, and 2)
after the meeting to carry over commitment and clarity into the final stages of
planning and implementation, and to provide enablers to supplement the skills
of the participants in performing detailed planning, and even in making
reasonable and informed commitments to which those taking action can be held.
·
Pre-OST
meeting, have to define boundaries and clarify the intent of the overall
engagement, and to set the expectation of what OST does.
·
Cannot
presume to perform the follow-on work with traditional hierarchy, silos, and
command and control structures once a group has been through an OST
meeting. Often management can come back
in and kill the initiative.
·
OST
is one of a set of tools to meet certain needs.
·
Need
to be clear about defining terms, particularly if researchers are to become
involved. Language needs to be specific.
·
Some
discussion around differentiation between OST and other tools. Some felt speed and ownership (reducing
resistance through buy-in) made OST unique, others felt that other emergent
tools could be shown to be as effective in these 2 qualities.
·
Convergence
is not always a feature of an OST meeting.
It would only be used if the meeting generated actions, whereas a
learning discussion may have no convergence discussion.
·
We
also need to be aware of the tendency to automatically imply that the
‘traditional’ methods (e.g., strategic planning processes) are necessarily bad.
·
Is
OST an intervention only? Is it
realistic to extend it to be a research methodology?
·
Are
outcomes predictable or not? Depends on
what attributes of the outcome.
Dialogue Report 11
Subject: Creating Living OS/OST labs in the Corporate World
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Christopher
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: n/a
Key Points:
·
OST
practitioners may be willing to operate collaboratively with academic
researchers to provide access to corporate environments when their clients
agree to participate in a particular research initiative.
·
OST
practitioners would benefit from the guidance of academic researchers in
developing survey or evaluation instruments that could be used during OST
engagements on a regular basis. The
results of any standardized use of such instruments should be shared with
academics and other practitioners.
Perhaps the Open Space Institutes could play a role in facilitation the
sharing of such information.
·
Given
the different “bottom-line” focus of different types of organizations, OST
research should strive to look at the impact of open space in government,
non-profit and corporate organizations.
Of these, results in the corporate environment are most likely to have
the greatest benefit to the OST Community of Practitioners.
·
Any
collaborative research into OST should consider that both an academic and a
corporate audience will want to easily understand the results of such research
and the types of business decisions that are informed by it.
_____________________________________________________________
Conclusions:
BOTH
OST Practitioners and academic researchers should collaborate on future OST
research directed at informing decision makers in government, non-profit and
corporate organizations.
Standardized
evaluation instruments should be developed and consistently applied by OST
Practitioners perhaps under the guidance of Open Space Institutes.
Dialogue Report #12
Subject: Benchmarking / Evaluating Effects of OST in the organization
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
________________________________________________________________________
Participants:
Sheryel, Jean-Pierre, Glenda
and others
Key Points:
Most
important is a powerful question – here they are…
·
Discussed
benchmarking from inside the organization and outside and how that might look.
·
Analysis
– would it look different?
·
Would
the tool be different from other interventions?
·
Can
we measure the positive effect on the organization
·
Critical
reflection on the value of an intervention
·
Introduce
norms, embed with future work and positive impact
·
How
would we measure the ROI?
·
Discussed
levels of evidence – do we have evidence?
·
Necessity
of subjectivity, formalize the reflective tool, Deputy Prime Minister in UK –
kit online.
·
Develop
intervention against outcomes
·
OST accepted or respected
·
How
measure – like grocery shopping, buy food, use food – how measure it?
·
Define
success against stated outcomes? What happened?
·
Consider
after intervention and so may months out – longitudinal, academic,
practitioner, comparative, external connection and analysis
·
We
are searching for research language
·
Need
to build it into the organization
·
National
and global strategic research plans
·
Build
research into facilitation
·
For
example – research in health – clearly defined levels of evidence – what
research doing
·
Question
here – do we have evidence or stories – triangulate stories?
·
Research
looks for what is there
·
Are
we looking for research or promotion?
·
Here
is what we know – how do we look at it?
·
Are
the right people in the room – few researchers!!
·
What
are the terms of reference for an intervention?
·
We
experience structure around process vs. structure around content
·
A
ready fire aim approach
·
Some
see it as a different kind of consciousness, way of life
·
Does
OST always work?
·
As
a group process is it always a good way of making a decision?
·
How
do we feel with feelings of vulnerability?
·
Today
we have more practitioners than researchers – lack knowledge of how to do the
research and form the question.
·
Research
is often linear!
·
Process
research is very unique and we tend to polarize quantitative and qualitative
research
·
Are
we trying to drive an agenda called Open Space Technology?
·
Is
the cornerstone missing – evidence?
·
Action
Research was practitioner driven.
·
People
want word of how good OS is “out there”.
·
Want
people to know OST is a meaningful, relative and effective method
·
Is
it worthwhile to have a research component in projects?
·
Is
our research theory building and/or theory testing.
·
Most
research tools are set up to study systems that are closed
·
Research
is emerging to measure non-linear systems
·
What
levels would we measure?
·
Many
times mistaken assumption of linear transformation
·
OST
constrains and collapses the numbers of variables, while providing freedom for
transformation
·
OST
holds similarities and differences!
·
Provide
set of conditions and emergent patterns
Dialogue Report 13
Subject: Diversity and Using Open Space Philosophy to diagnose /understand recent examples of self-organization and its destruction in our organizations.
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Becky Peterson and Pat Sniderman
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Judy R, Osho, Miriam, Judy G.,
Dorothy, Sybil
Key Points:
Open
space allows us to speak with our own words, articulate our own perspectives
and not work totally within the “managers” paradigm. But it also allows us to walk away from
discussion. We are practicing
self-regulation in terms of our own goals in the event.
Open
space unfreezes the “we” in the organization.
When there are real power differences in the room, are we still able to
“unfreeze” the ideas.
Sometimes
the diversity isn’t heard, in that the recording isn’t a perfect replication of
the even. We can also discuss the
situations when “open space” didn’t work as well as we had hoped, i.e. maybe
the conditions weren’t right for the actual open space event to be as
successful as we had hoped.
Sometimes
the event may not work as well as hoped because the person opening the space
didn’t have the full respect or participation of those in the room, maybe
because they are internal to the group.
What
are the conditions for opening space that enables the diversity of ideas and
opinions to emerge? We need to feel
safe to open up in the situation.
An
example of a woman who had felt unheard in an all male situation was given as
an example of the diversity emerging in open space. It was noted that there are other processes
that allow this diversity to emerge, and open space is not the only approach that
allows this to happen.
What
are the ways that diversity can emerge in other processes? Through pre-interviews, etc.
It was
noted that “liberation of thought may be a better way to think about this than
using the concept of diversity.”
What
are the conditions that liberate diversity of views and how can we create more
of those situations?
Connections
could be made to the work of Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich in terms of liberating thought. We could link Freire’s
work on marginalized voices to OS principles.
Dialogue Report # 14
Subject: Impact of Using OS on Sustained Change
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Irmajean Bajnok
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Harrison, Jean-Pierre, Roger, Doug, Dorothy, Osho, Judy G.,
Monica
Key Points:
·
It
is not about sustaining one change, rather it is really about:
·
Creating
conditions for continuing ability to navigate change
·
Building
a sustained set of skills to deal with change
·
Changing
the ideas of what change is
·
Creating
chaos resilience
·
Two
different views were presented:
·
One view…support and follow-up
·
Important to have support from
the organization
·
Need to move OS and results into
the infrastructure
·
Follow-up necessary
·
Sponsorship of OS and results
necessary for change to occur and be sustained
·
Another view is that results
will occur in a variety of ways and you may never know. OS is meant to set the conditions for the
organization/people to become what they truly are. That something will occur is a given, we may
not know what it is. Sometimes only a
tiny thing always begins to change
·
Stories
before and after the event may be the best way to measure this
·
Other
ways are how much action has occurred
·
A
good way to find out is to ask “What weird things happened as a result of OS”
·
It
is hard to predict where system changes occur and when
·
Because
of the ownership of the group for the issues it is more likely there will be
buy in and action
·
Any
action as a result of OS may depend on the depth of cultural embededness to overcome
·
One
way of monitoring and documenting evolution in the organization is through
stories. What were the stories, what are
they now.
·
OS
can drive cultural change very rapidly
·
Approach
used by Harrison is to do a quick cultural scan through asking potential
participants:
o
Who
are you?
o
How
did you get here?
o
What
is this place to you? (tell it through a
story)
o
What
would you like it to be
A
research question may be:
“What
is the impact of use of OS in a setting on participants’ views of skills and
ability to navigate change”
“What
is the cultural evolution in this setting following OS as evidenced through
stories of participants over time before and after”
Dialogue Report #15
Subject: Collaboration/Institutes/Teams
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator:
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Kelvie, Roger, Becky, Monica, JJudy, Christopher
Key Points:
Our
Purposes for Research, Gathering Evidence or Documentation
(Each
of us may share some or all of these purposes.
The conversation did not start here but got here.)
- Increasing the
level of adoption
- Expansion of
Knowledge
- Expanding the
conversation
- Improve practice
- Expand
understanding of the impact on the wider society
- Deepen our
understanding
- Understand better
the change processes in organizations
- Understand self-organizing
processes
- Acknowledge what
cannot be understood
Researchable
Issues (a cycle not a lineal list)
·
Pre-OST
event
·
Post
OST event
·
OST
organizational change process
·
OS/T
organizational change theory
·
OS
Social Change Theory
·
OS
Consciousness Issues
Some Assumptions (where we began the conversation)
·
An
Education Funder became willing to change their
research protocol to allow for the addressing of emergent questions with
Monica’s help. The research and
practitioners can influence the nature of “academic research”
·
We
may need to develop our own funding as Kelvie and
others were exploring. (
·
CDN
institutions view authority differently that in the US? Less positive toward Emergence (especially in management of academic institutions)
and may be less of a source for funding
·
Feminist
Research Methodology has defined some research approaches differently -- more room for emergence?
·
There
are ethical issues around data gathering.
More freedom to use stuff that is already published in some form.
·
Need
to clarify who “owns” the research processes and the data. How do OSI practitioners also “own” what they
explore and learn?
·
Stakeholders in the research:
·
Sponsor:
Owns much of the data
·
Facilitator: Owns their behaviour
·
Participants:
Depends on the kind of meeting and issues addressed (What about the anonymity
of the participants?)
·
OSI
·
Harrison
·
Researchers
·
If
you know you are being researched, what is the “placebo effect”?
·
Need
to develop clarity as to how and when research tools are to be used, when you
need sponsor sign-off on methods, tools & timing
·
Two
kinds of Research
·
On
our own practice (easier to get permission)
·
Their
performance in relation to our practice or OST
·
Measurability/Evidence
·
Multiple
approaches
·
Not
all numeric
_____________________________________________________________
Conclusions:
OST
practitioners develop a research “protocol” for us to commit to each other to
use for a time:
--Tools
--Templates
--Methodology
--Standards
e.g. an
evaluation tool, for all stages of OS with instructions on the web
We
develop this with academic resource persons and testing to ensure we maximize
the credibility of the information gathered.
We
commit to each other to use the tool and share the results for a particular
time frame, given the willingness/sign-off of sponsors as stated above
We
share the data and analysis
NEXT
STEPS (Developed in Convergence)
Conference
Call to take further
- Decide on
components
- Volunteer to
develop draft
- Connect to the theoretical
frameworks group
- See research tools
on UK Deputy Minister’s Web Site
INTERESTED
(Now): Larry, Christopher, Glenda, Judy
G, JJudy, Judy R, Becky Jean-Pierre, Audrey,
Michelle, Monica, Meg
Sunday
Dialogue Report #16
Subject: Theoretical Frameworks for OST
Initiator: Sybil Wilson
______________________________________________________________________
Participants: Glenda, Pat, Miriam, Sheryel, Dorothy, Michelle, Doug, Audrey, Meg
1. Ken Wilbur – (Discipline-Philosophy)
2. Per Bak - Self organized criticality “avalanche” (Discipline mathematical)
3. Barabasi – (Discipline Network theory) – dynamism Linked
4. Eoyang, Glenda (Disciplines - Information systems, Philosophy, Physical Sciences, Math, Human Systems Dynamics.) CDE Model for self organizing
Container: In Open Space these are the rules, questions, physical space, participants, laws and principles of OS
Differences that make a difference: In OS these are what we write
Exchanges: In OS these are the conversations, notes, non-verbal communications
5. Ralph Stacey – (Disciplines -Management )
Shadow Systems and Complex responsive process)
6. Stuart Kauffman (Discipline- Computer Simulation Models, nk, landscapes)
7. Phenomenology – The narrative. How do you understand one’s lived experience?
8. Ecological models – What are some?
9. Northrop Frye-Anagnorisis. Recognition, Discovery.
10. Popper – (Discipline- sociology) Open society & its enemies,
11. Pragmatism – (Discipline- philosophy- Aristotle) “What – so what?
12. Economic Model –(Adam, marketplace, supply and demand)
13. Action Learning/Action Research
Other ideas that came up:
· When are we talking about evaluation and when are we talking about research? These are two different things. Resist the temptation to find evidence that OST works. Rather research it.
· What is the function of “control” in OST? Some voices do not get heard. Sometimes agreement is assumed when it has not been tested. OST ignores the importance of and need for process facilitators at times.
· What is a pattern? Convergence is weak in OST. Reports do not represent consensus.
· OST seems to have a strong “American “focus embedded in psychology, behaviourism and individual technology. The “Canadian” approach tends to be more sociological and adaptive
· When is OST the appropriate (process) strategy to be used? No one best way to intervene (i.e. OST.) Better to select the intervention and processes that best suit the situation.
Dialogue Report
#17
Subject: Sunday Morning Group
Survey Open Spacers around the Globe
________________________________________________________________________
Initiator: Glenda Eoyang
________________________________________________________________________
Participants: Becky, Audrey, Monica, Jjudy, Michelle, Judi, Kelvie, Meg, Larry, IrmaJean
Key Points:
Purpose: We will construct a survey to collect information about the people in the OST network and the work they do.
Suggestions:
· Experiment with document sharing on-line so that we can all review and revise the survey together. (.pdf, smartgroups.com, surveymonkey, WIKI, .ftp, and so on)
· Attend to concerns about ethical treatment of human subjects by writing an explanation/permission and having it reviewed by a committee at a university. Explain the purpose of the study and how the data will be used.
· Explore different perspectives in terms of “successful” OSTs, including customer, leader, participants
· Ask them what they consider to be their most satisfying OS and what criteria they use to assess them.
· Include parts:
o Demographics and info about them and their practices
o Information about what they consider their “best” OS in the past year
o Information about what they consider their “worst” OS in the past year
o What are your questions about OST?
o Would you be interested in being involved in further research?
Next Steps:
- G will draft the survey and distribute it for review.
- G will draft a permission and send it for review.
- All will review draft, permission, and provide lists of people
to receive the survey.
Convergence Topic : Set up another conversation to
continue
talking about theoretical models - research agenda.
Initiator: Pat Sniderman
People
Interested: Miriam, Doug, Becky, Meg, Larry, Judy
R, Michele, JJudy, Monica
Next steps:
We agreed to have a conference call the week of Dec 8th (date and time to
be decided) at which point we would discuss which authors we would focus our
reading
on. We would have a second conference call in January to discuss next
steps.