All Conversations Tagged 'complexity' - The Art of Hosting2024-03-28T10:53:56Zhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=complexity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noSelf-management & public administration -> AoH practitioners as artiststag:artofhosting.ning.com,2017-08-02:4134568:Topic:1097122017-08-02T09:44:43.167ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<div>A thread on the AoH emaillist that is worth keeping - many great topics were raised!!!!</div>
<div>July 2017: Tatiana Glad <<a href="mailto:tdglad@gmail.com" target="_blank">tdglad@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote><div><div dir="ltr">perhaps some of you working with the European Commission and/or those of you following <a href="http://medium.com/" target="_blank">Medium.com</a> already saw this - but thought useful testimony to put through on this list especially for those…</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>A thread on the AoH emaillist that is worth keeping - many great topics were raised!!!!</div>
<div>July 2017: Tatiana Glad <<a href="mailto:tdglad@gmail.com" target="_blank">tdglad@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote><div><div dir="ltr">perhaps some of you working with the European Commission and/or those of you following <a href="http://medium.com/" target="_blank">Medium.com</a> already saw this - but thought useful testimony to put through on this list especially for those working with public administrations <div><a href="https://medium.com/percolab-droplets/self-management-and-public-administrations-are-not-a-match-you-say-f0272df5446e" target="_blank">https://medium.com/percolab-droplets/self-management-and-public-administrations-are-not-a-match-you-say-f0272df5446e</a><br/></div>
<div><i>credit to Samantha Slade @Sam5</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>-------------------</p>
<div>Chris Corrigan <<a href="mailto:chris.corrigan@gmail.com" target="_blank">chris.corrigan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<p></p>
<div><div dir="auto"><div>One thing I have never understood about Laloux's work is the insistence on transformation being top down. Culture and evolution don't work like that. Can someone tell me about the basis for his theory? Evolutionary purpose is emergent yet is seems constructed in these examples. Also notable is how many organizations change away from Teal if the CEO or the owners change. If teal is actually a new way if being than surely it's root in organizational culture would transcend any leadership changes at the top. This article is interesting:</div>
<div><a href="https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00344?gko=10921" target="_blank">https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00344?gko=10921</a></div>
<div>Also I'd like to point out that the developmental timeline used by Laloux and Wilber is PAINFULLY Eurocentric. Human cultures have developed and evolved in a myriad of different ways around the world. Is anyone in India, Thailand, Mali or Tuvalu or elsewhere finding this work relevant and applicable?</div>
<div>Asking with genuine curiosity. </div>
<div>Chris.</div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div>Helen Titchen Beeth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:helen.titchen.beeth@mac.com" target="_blank">helen.titchen.beeth@mac.com</a>></span>:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;"><div style="-ms-word-wrap: break-word;">Hi Chris,<div>I love your question - I also challenged this insistence that there has to be ‘teal thinking’ at the top of an organisation in order for these practices to stick. And yet… Embedded as I am in a hierarchical bureaucracy, I see all around me the deep conditioning which allows people to tolerate being subject to a paternalistic culture. And so, yes, I am still seeing many, many people who need permission before they can start to be free. Like battery hens let out of their cages, to begin with they flop all over the place and just want to go back inside where it’s safe. It takes months, even years, to build up the muscles of independence and purpose-led self-organising co-action. </div>
<div>I guess that as human beings, succumbing to conditioning into the dominant collective we are born into is part of of how we survive. I think this is true of all cultures. People respond to their conditioning in different ways - and some cultures are more lenient with rebels than others - but getting to a place where we can start to deconstruct that conditioning is quite a journey. Based on the developmental research of Robert Kegan and Co rather than Clare Graves and Co (Spiral Dynamics), this deconstructing behaviour belongs to ‘stage 5’ on the spectrum of adult development. A place that (if I recall correctly) fewer than 5% of the population gets to. This means deconstructing one’s social conditioning and one’s own developed value system - regardless of the content and culture that conditioning comes from.</div>
<div>I think that European civilisation (including modern North American countries in that) have undergone more transformations (complexifications due to evolving life conditions) than most other cultures in the world. The danger lies in classifying these more complex cultures as superior. We’re certainly cooking ourselves up a lovely cauldron full of challenges!</div>
<div>Sending you my love, Chris - keep on critiquing!</div>
<div><3</div>
<div>helen</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
-------------------</div>
<div>Ágota Éva Ruzsa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ruzsa.agota@dialogos.hu" target="_blank">ruzsa.agota@dialogos.hu</a>></span>:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Dear Helen and Chris, </div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">What a great start for a major and very relevant theme. </div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Both the question on wondering about the Western European development as a "model" for societal evolution and the reflection on change in organizations and society is exciting.</div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Long time ago I always wondered why it seemed so important for some to adapt any new methodology and thinking exported from the "West" to our Hungarian setting and had a judgemental approach that it is the typical Hungarian attitude to believe that we ARE different and just cannot be like the others. Yet the truth is that none of the so called foreign approaches seem to have taken roots in an organic way in our social and organizational practices. They might have been taken on board without much change and were a bit of a sensation and fad and trend for a while, yet have not really swept through the collective consciousness of the people in the country. Then later I thought that it is due to the lack of dialogic, emergent processes that do impact the collective intelligence of the people, so i did commit myself to them. by now I am hesitant and a lot more aware and have slowed down in assuming that all fits everywhere. </div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">it seems that the long emphasized value of diversity has its role in social contexts of our emergent global society and many assumed values need be held at bay when it comes to other societies with a different history and social and cultural psyche. </div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Thus now I have turned my attention towards deep dialogues to enhance understanding of where we are at, what we hold precious and learn to appreciate them ALL without any desire to wanting to change and influence.... be it hierarchical, teal, or authocratic, etc.... <br/> Generating dialogue spaces without any, I mean any underlying assumptions and hopes - just to hold AN AWARE and appreciative SPACE seems to be the possible next step, where the word change becomes a self generative process without any particular goal and desire. </div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></div>
<div style="color: #073763; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Agota</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
--------------------- Rainer v. Leoprechting wrote: > Dear all, > > I love that thread! We have the theme on the agenda of our Art of Hosting gathering/training in Obenaus this 11-13 August. > One of the elements to consider is how the four-fold practice can be seen as a developmental practice, spiraling up our individual and collective hosting consciousnesses. > > <a href="http://www.obenauscommunity.org/hosting-next-stage/">http://www.obenauscommunity.org/hosting-next-stage/</a> > > Warmly from Obenaus, Austria, > > Rainer ------------------------ Ria Baeck <ria.baeck@vitis-tct.be>: Hello Rainer, wondering if you - or anyone else - has been writing about 'the four-fold practice as developmental practice' - because I am not sure what you mean by it. I have always seen it as an iterative process, but that might not be what you have in mind. Whenever you write about it, let us know! with love, Ria ------------------------ Rainer v. Leoprechting <rainer@pro-action.eu> wrote: Hi Ria, It is an hypothesis to be explored this AoH inquiry/training in Obenaus. My hunch is that the four-fold practice can be read in the light of spiral development and then produce insights in levels of consciousness of the practitioner, their requisite alignment with the tasks at hand. And in general make AoH more compatible with next stage organizing. I'm sure there will be a little article coming out of this :-) <a href="http://www.obenauscommunity.org/hosting-next-stage/">http://www.obenauscommunity.org/hosting-next-stage/</a> Warmly, Rainer ---------------------- Chris Corrigan <chris.corrigan@gmail.com> wrote: I understand your inquiry. For me I’ve been looking at the development of AoH practitioners as artists. There has been a great deal of work done over the last 50-60 years on artisanal learning, and I have compiled a little set of links of research on this topic which I have found interesting. I’m musing on this a little bit as we are trying to work with AoH learners to help them see that their job is to develop an artisanal mindset and approach to work rather than seeing facilitation as a technical practice. At any rate, here are some links. Between them perhaps you will see some basic principles of artisanal learning that also show up in our AoH community: development of skills in practice, mentorship and the concept of the guild and mastery. <a href="https://www.one-tab.com/page/MOY1wO4oQxKZqLkRB_Nc0Q">https://www.one-tab.com/page/MOY1wO4oQxKZqLkRB_Nc0Q</a> Chris ------------------------ Linda <linda@lindajoymitchell.org.uk> wrote: > YES YES YES to the ART, it is an art …..not painting by numbers but creating beauty and form > > Fabulous thanks for sharing Chris xx ------------------------ Chris and I did a video blog together talking about the artistry of Hosting work (not a technical skill you can get a certificate for!) ... you can see it here : <a href="http://www.timmerry.com/blog/engagement-hosting-as-an-art-not-a-profession">http://www.timmerry.com/blog/engagement-hosting-as-an-art-not-a-profession</a> Tim ------------------------ Thomas Perret <thomas@dooning.fi> Hi Chris, For me the top down "requirement" is clear. It's a stick in the ground to provide the space for another kind of "being inside a being". It's due to the ownership structure, because the CEO represents the legal ownership and consequential hierarchy. Were it a cooperative, the morphogenetic field would be different from the start. If the thing is owned by someone also than the staff equally, this power needs to be in support of equality, which needs a stand. Without this blessing to consciously clear way for another morphogenetic field, it gets "sucked back in". A metamorphosis needs a cocooning. Thomas ------------------------ From Rainer: Hi Chris, It is because the Artisans of Hostings are indeed that: artisans, their development cannot be dissociated from their very personal development of Self. It is in that area that developmental psychology has brought in useful advances in knowledge. We now know how humans evolve as individuals. The form of this can be described as a spiral movement between Me and We, like in the model of Robert Kegan. Now the understanding where an artisan of hosting is in their practice is at the same time an understanding of where that person is in their life journey. That makes our work so juicy, we're in it for ourselves as much as for our clients and social challenges we engage with. So how is the four-fold practice manyfold in its various levels? How do we measure the requisite level of practice towards a task at hand? How do we measure the level of practice needed, in the first place? As "TEAL" is a level of consciousness (in principle an individual-focused statement), it's hard to say an organization is at a consciousness level (a collective-focused statement). What one can aspire towards is to explore how a system of human interactions (an organization) looks and feels like if lead and influenced from a "Teal" level of consciousness. In other words, what is an organization likely to receive from an artisan with a young adult level of consciousness compared to a Chris Corrigan level? And what does the organization in question require for the current task, and what does it require for the more complex task in the shadow of the current task and so on. Notice I just take Teal as a shorthand for a somewhat more developed level of consciousness. I just notice this thread has gone far beyond the issue of public sector, yet its deep link with the prevalent organizational system of bureaucracy makes it still relevant. Some say there are ways to organize where the control and boss functions are replaced by self-management and alignment processes. That's the for us artisans. What are the processes many people have already done some design on. At what level of practice to do them? has been a more hidden question so far as I can see. Good vibes from over the Atlantic, Rainer ------------------ from Chris Corrigan: Cultures change (or don’t) because the interactions between actors in a system change, and that is down the physical context in which people operate. Human brains are very good at pattern entrainment. Ever notice how a conversation is different in a board room than it is in a park? One reason we work with things like circles for conflict resolution is that the very shape itself helps disrupt the cognitive patterns that people get in when they are seated around a board room table. Never try to resolve a conflict in the very place in which it happens. A leader can create a new physical container for people or change the rule structure of constraints and so on. But culture is emergent and it will emerge in a non-directed and unpredictable way. To change culture, make small changes, learn what works and support that. And be sure to stop doing things that aren’t serving you. Which means you have to look for things that are working and things that are not. My issue is not that people at the top don;t have power, it’s that they don't have power to decide that the culture of an organization will be one thing or another. You cannot decide that the culture will be “teal” (or any other pre0determined ideology) and then pull a few levers and make it so. Spiral dynamics is an interesting theory of cultural evolution (interesting, but not accurate, in my mind) but it makes the fatal mistake of predicting future events from patterns of the past. Tier two consciousness simply cannot be predicted from the sum total of tier one layers, regardless of whether they are actually true depictions of stages and levels. Chris ----------------------- From David Cooper Thanks Chris for referring to developmental psychology and spiral imagery. Long ago, I read the book by Robert Kegan, the Evolving Self, and was intrigued by the spiral imagery of development used in his book. I recommend the book and the imagery therein. <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674272316">http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674272316</a> Lever-pulling thinking and planning may work for some things; however, in human development linear, production orientation simply does not yield what might be expected. Best, Dave ---------------------- John Mortimer <john.mortimer@uwclub.net> wrote: To Helen, Chris, and others… I wanted to reply to the top down discussion about culture and change and permission to change. I find it really fascinating... From my view, the way I see organisations work today, is that employees need to have a common direction and guide to work towards. Imagine an organisation where people could do as they see fit. That might work in teal organisations, but they have to be created to work. In more traditional organisations the employee quickly learns what and how they have to behave. The senior managers seem to impart their direction and expectations on everyone else - whether they like it or not. I once helped a chief executive of a housing repairs organisation fthat provided social housing in the UK. She was a quaker, and passionately believed that her ideals of openness, honestly, talking, and letting people work as they see fit was the way to go. The organisation was a mess, with little direction of guidance. The cutlure was created by managers who recognised their chance to influence, and became bullies. They also reacted with hostility at the lack of guidance. The result was that she had to leave her post. I have never seen an organisation whose culture and way of working was not in some major way defined by the top. When I help leaders create teal structures and ways of operating, the result is local empowerment and devolved decision-making. But I cannot see how this can happen without the active work and leadership of the top. The senior leaders have a very important part to play to remove barriers to this way of working. The front line staff also need a framework to help them understand their boundaries, and how to react that is in sync with the rest of the public sector. Too often, I have designed this at the front end of the organisation, and it works well. After a year I go back and it has fizzled out because of opposing pressures from the top management imposing another way of working. As an example a project I have recently completed was where a part of the council that focus on enforcement - fining people who fly-tip, or drop litter, or have a messy front garden, or who create too much niose. They now operate very differently - they first talk to the person and look at the cause of why they are behaving that way they then help them with whatever is the root cause of the problem. The money received in fines has dropped drastically, but the resolution and the help people who are in need get, is very well received. However this can only happen because the leaders want it to, and they change their managing style and measures to ensure it happens. They also hacve to remove lots of barriers. There are a few middle managers who do not like this way of working - it gives front line people the freedom to decide on the course of action. If those managers do not change, then the leaders have to replace them. It would be interesting to hear other points on leaders and the culture they impose, John Mortimer ------------------------- My own sense of why it is that people need direction from top down is that we are still all so strongly conditioned from birth into the paternalistic thought habits of the paradigm of patriarchy that has ruled for so many thousands of years. This is very slowly starting to change, but it will take a few more generations, I think, before it finally gives way to something else. In the mean time we do what we can, and what will work… hence the need for liberated thinking at the top, a lot of patience and some really good practices. I see teal organisations as practice-based - you can practice a practice without having ‘teal-level consciousness’. Andpart of the work to be done in any organisation, I think, is an intentional conversation around the assumptions that the culture is grounded in. When an assumption is revealed and tested for adequacy and revealed to be an inaccurate representation of reality, another assumption can be introduced in its place - to be tested for veracity itself… Since practices are based on assumptions, it is good to practice making the implicit explicit wherever possible. :-) helen --------------------------- marco valente <eccemarco@gmail.com> Dear mates, thank you all Listening with deep curiosity to this conversation RE: AoH and Teal practices; top down vs bottom up and what roles do they have in creating this emergent pattern of culture. A few threads to harvest, and a few ideas to chip in: Cultures cannot be mandated because indeed there is no such thing as a certainty of a pre-determined outcome in a complex adaptive system. It can be nudged but never really instructed -I very much agree with Chris on this point. But then the question comes: what's the role of hierarchy, power, advocacy in all this? Teal, Spiral Dynamics, and... are they useful, accurate frameworks to map out our reality? If I understood the inquiry from Rainer (please correct me) it seems like his inquiry sounds like: is the 4-fold practice path inherently developmental? That is: if and when AoH is practiced for long enough and held as a conversational DNA, does it lead to vertical development? (or, given all that has been said before about no certainty of outcomes, better say: is it 'conducive to vert dev'?) I find this question really fascinating because myself I do not use anymore neither Spiral Dynamics nor Integral Theory to inform my ideas of development (long story short: I don't find them theoretically and methodologically sound, theory and its staunchest followers have built logical tricks make it seem unfalsifiable, etc.) But I do believe that Kegan's approach to vertical development is more academically robust. Essentially Kegan argues that vertical development happens along a line of increasing capacity to hold complexity and "make sense" of things; along with it goes a deeper capacity to be aware of one's assumptions and hold them as objects of observation. What I really like about Kegan, and especially some of his scholars like Jennifer Berger (her book Changing on the Job is great by the way) is that she talks about developmental practices which can help a person develop because they are inherently pushing a person towards questioning assumptions, taking increasing responsibility for their own thoughts and emotions, etc. Kegan calls it moving things from subject (we are own by our filters of reality, assumptions, etc) to object (we can see them in front of us and choose what to do with them. I am simplifying a lot) Practices such as deep listening, the iterative and reflective loops of harvesting, maybe can be (are?) inherently developmental in that they are geared towards moving things from subject to object, which may be in line with what Helen pointed to "making the implicit explicit whenever possible". This is in fact one thing I do not understand yet about Teal organizations: if we build a community of practice that is well-versed into conversations that matter, and hold practices that are inherently developmental (or: have the potential to be) then it is more about what we consistently do (e.g. practice listening and being aware of our assumptions and judgements during every meeting) than organizational structures, specific forms of hierarchy. PS: Which to me comes as the question: are we doing this already in the AoH community? PPS: I believe there is nothing wrong with vertical development (on the contrary it can be great) as long as is never mandated on anyone as a form of cultural colonialism (e.g.: who gets to decide which people need to change? and in which direction? and have these people that need to 'be changed' been asked their opinion on this matter?) A bow, m.</div>
</div>
</div> Working with CEO's - boardstag:artofhosting.ning.com,2016-02-20:4134568:Topic:1016382016-02-20T21:01:40.309ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">copied from the emaillist, early '16:</span></font></em></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hello Hosts,<br></br> <br></br> I am going to host a 2 day retreat of 4 CEOs (all guys) of 2 companies (1<br></br> is holding, 1 is subsidiary company). They basically had the question:<br></br> ³What strategy are we going to adopt?²<br></br> <br></br> I said that we cannot answer this question in the two days,…</span></font></p>
<p><em><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">copied from the emaillist, early '16:</span></font></em></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hello Hosts,<br/> <br/> I am going to host a 2 day retreat of 4 CEOs (all guys) of 2 companies (1<br/> is holding, 1 is subsidiary company). They basically had the question:<br/> ³What strategy are we going to adopt?²<br/> <br/> I said that we cannot answer this question in the two days, so we agreed<br/> on the following: The goals are to align the CEOs on how they will<br/> proceed in finding a (new?) strategy for the subsidiary company: How will<br/> the company be organised? What kind of products should they strengthen?<br/> Where do they see innovation potential? Also, there are some personal<br/> issues between the guys that they would like to bring to the table.<br/> <br/> I have hosted such retreats before, but 4 (alpha) men whom I don¹t know<br/> is new to me :) Also, I feel that I cannot prepare so much and that there<br/> is more need for opening and holding space for them to (re)learn how to<br/> talk to each other. And this is what makes my 'Monkish Me' nervous.<br/> <br/> I designed a framework with different options on how the retreat could<br/> go, which is okay for me at the moment.<br/> <br/> But I would really appreciate any kind of feedback, suggestions,<br/> questions to ask or experience with that to give me more security in<br/> stepping into this circle.<br/> <br/> Thanks a lot and have a wonderful day,<br/> Carina</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">---------------------------------------</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Dear Carina,<br/> <br/> That sounds scary, not the cause and the purpose, but the way to proceed.<br/> As preparation is all, I would INSIST to have a one-to one interview, can<br/> be a phone call, with each of them, beforehand. That will create the trust<br/> between you and each of them individually and show you what they really<br/> want and what their needs are.<br/> Once trust is there, the skeleton strategy could even emerge in the time,<br/> two days is a lot. The strategy could then be filled and aligned by the<br/> rest of the company or middle management for ownership and accuracy.<br/> That¹s what I would do.<br/> And for the formats: of course circle probably the most part, but also<br/> dyads and solo time. You will have to sense what the group needs.<br/> And a question: Why did they book/invite you? What do you have you can<br/> offer they need? Once that is clear, the rest is clearer.<br/> And: do you have someone else who can hold this with you?<br/> <br/> Wishing you success and self confidence!<br/> <br/> Ursula Hillbrand</span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">----------------------------------</span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hey Ursula,<br/> <br/> Thank you for your quick and really helpful response. I had an extensive prep call with all of them and also will meet two of the guys in advance. So that is fine I guess. Also I know they booked me because they are fed up with "classical consultants" and feel they cannot proceed in the "usual way". So they are open for stuff. <br/> The only thing I am concerned about is that none of my company peers will be there -<br/> So, yes I will have to hold space on my own and I think that this is what scares me... And may be part of the reason I posted this mail to get virtual support upfront to get enough strength to do it...</span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Carina</span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">----------------------------------</span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I think it would be very interesting to challenge them about their dreams and their leadership before opening up to the strategy. The strategy is the HOW of something, but what’s the WHO and WHY?<br/> <br/> By the time they reach the top, so many leaders are isolated and feel themselves very alone. They think about what they have to do, but not who they need to be in order to work in the organisations that would also give them life and energy. Here are some questions that come to mind:<br/> <br/></span></font></span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What time is it for our businesses? Our industry? Ourselves as leaders?</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What is the current health of our businesses?</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What is our biggest dream for the businesses we lead? What is the most generative future for our organisations? What might be possible that we are not yet achieving?</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What is great/amazing/irresistible (whatever works here) leadership to me? (ask them to tell about a time when they experienced such leadership and have the rest harvest)</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What kind of leader am I? (ask them to tell stories that demonstrate their unique quality of leadership and have the rest harvest)</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What kind of leaders do we need to be in order to manifest the kind of organisation we dream of leading?</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What will this demand of us?</span></font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">So therefore, what is our vision statement of us as a leadership team? (meaning who they need to <i>be</i> to create their vision, not what they need to do)<br/></span></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br/> And from there<br/></span></font></span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<ul>
<li><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">What is the flavour or focus of strategy that can lead us to the preferred future? How are we prepared to invite our teams into creating it? What invitation are we currently making? How do we know?<br/></span></font></li>
</ul>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br/> It would be so fun to host a Flow Game for this circle!<br/> <br/> And if it were me, I’d be inviting someone like Phil Cass to come in by Skype and have a very intimate conversations about the struggles of senior leadership and how he saw that he needed to work in a different way. This kind of plain speak from someone who has been there is very important, and gives you more support in your backbone too.<br/> <br/> Maybe you also need an eagle team?<br/> <br/> Good winds!<br/> <br/> Mary Alice</span></font></span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">--------------------------</span></font></span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I agree with much of what others have shared so far.</span></font></span></font></span></font></span></font></p>
<p></p>
<div>Another aspect to consider: The context of complexity in which these executives are living and working. How does this matter to</div>
<p></p>
<div>what they are aiming to develop in terms of strategy? </div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div>These folks and their companies are functioning in a complex environment.</div>
<p></p>
<div>So, traditional ways of thinking about strategy and goals don't really apply well in this space. (Vision, mission, strategy, goals thought of in a linear kind of way.)</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div>An important questions: What way of leading and what way of approaching strategy is useful in a world of complexity where control and certainty is impossible.</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div>Do you know of Dave Snowden's work? He is quite compelling in this domain of complexity, I think.</div>
<p></p>
<div>I am attaching his HBR article (which he is revising, since he wrote it in 2007). And his consultancy's Cognitive Edge has a great website with a good number of resources.</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div>Simon Sinek's TedTalk, might facilitate their moving into some individual and group reflection: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sioZd3AxmnE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sioZd3AxmnE</a></div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div>And, as Mary-Alice suggests - there's the question of "who do they need to be" in leading their organizations in this kind of environment.</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<div>Take care,</div>
<p></p>
<div>Julie Engel</div>
<p></p>
<p></p> harvesting from one event to the next...tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2015-06-04:4134568:Topic:977662015-06-04T07:52:05.842ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>from the emaillist, June 2015:</em></p>
<p>Friends,</p>
<div>I am hosting a short series of World Cafe sessions where the topics/questions between the sessions do not change, but the attendees do. This was a choice made by the hosting/design team to engage a broader sector of community members than a single date/time would allow.</div>
<div>My question for you is this: Based on your experience, how would you handle the harvest of the first iteration? Use it to seed the second iteration?…</div>
<p><em>from the emaillist, June 2015:</em></p>
<p>Friends,</p>
<div>I am hosting a short series of World Cafe sessions where the topics/questions between the sessions do not change, but the attendees do. This was a choice made by the hosting/design team to engage a broader sector of community members than a single date/time would allow.</div>
<div>My question for you is this: Based on your experience, how would you handle the harvest of the first iteration? Use it to seed the second iteration? Allow the second group to start from the same 'blank slate' the first group had? I suspect in our AoH community of practitioners we have even more creative ways of finding a middle ground between those two.</div>
<div>Your thoughts and experience will be gratefully received!<br clear="all"/><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Amy</div>
<div>--------------------------</div>
<div>You have hit on the most difficult problem for World Cafe's or any time we want what has been learned by one group/person to be taken up by another group/person. I have a suggestion that has worked very well for me. Compile a large number of significant quotes or ideas from the first session, not bullet points or summarizations, but original words of participants in complete sentences. They can be quotes from ideas offered at individual tables or from the ending discussion. The important thing is to use participant's actual words - the raw data, so to speak. Put each quote/item on different piece of paper and post them on the walls around the room. Depending on the size of the group you need from 30-100 items. Before the first round of the second Cafe starts, instruct participants that they are to act as researchers and their task is to make sense of what the first group found by reading the quotes on the wall. Provide each a pad and pencil for this task. Allow at least 20 min for this research. Then hold the first round of the second World Cafe, doubling the length of the first round. In the first half of the first round have participants tell each other their findings and hold a discussion about those findings. In the second half of the first round ask participants now to speak from their own point of view on the issue. Then proceed with rounds as usual. Give it a try and see what you think.<div>Nancy</div>
<div>------------------------</div>
<div>Well it is actually the biggest problem with any strategic conversation which is is why I have the principle that “I’m not planning a meeting, I’m planning a harvest.” Once I know what our outputs will be and how the tangible and intangible results of the meeting will be used I can plan a process, with harvesting and hosting working together within the conversation and extended beyond the conversation. <div>It is essential that this be the centre of design. Even an informal conversation between a few people - if it has any strategic importance at all - requires a prior consideration of the purpose and methods of harvesting that are specific to the needs of the client, community or organization, and specific to the particular moment in time that the conversation is serving. </div>
<div>For practitioners, I have learned that this requires us to create all kinds of harvesting and hosting strategies with our clients. There is really no one best practice that fits all requirements. </div>
<div>Nancy’s process here, similar to the ones that I have been designing, are excellent when you are needing to work with a large number of ideas and when it is important for the group itself to be sensemaking (Jen Mein posted a lovely process on Facebook yesterday along these lines). These processes are critical in situations of pure complexity, where diversity and collective sensing is required. This is a very energetic and participatory form of harvesting and trusts the group completely with the meaning making, which I think is fantastic. </div>
<div>And of course, other needs and other contexts will require their own hosting/harvesting strategies. For the practitioner, your most important role is helping a planning group discern the need for the hosted/harvested process and to help them make informed choices about what will be most helpful.</div>
<div>I love seeing these conversations about discerning much more subtle strategic choices. It is a key part to developing one’s depth of practice. </div>
<div>Chris</div>
<div>--------------------------</div>
<div>And I would say you need to take it a step further still. What we're really working towards are consciously creating systems which lead to systemic change. AoH started with an emphasis on hosting conversations and that fairly quickly expanded to harvesting as well. That's great and perhaps sufficient if what we're looking for is to catalyze more individual action. It's still pretty week if we are looking for collective action and systemic shifts.<br/> <br/> My own work is making it several other important dimensions visible. I think of:<br/><ul>
<li>much more careful attention to invitation</li>
<li>emphasis on curated knowledge that needs to be brought into the room</li>
<li>meaning making and story making from harvests</li>
<li>strategic sharing of those stories</li>
<li>strategy which loops back to invitation</li>
<li>creating and sustaining wide fields of action and learning (commonly called communities of practice)</li>
</ul>
It's time for us to step up from hosting events to hosting systems of change.<br/> <br/> Cheers,<br/> <br/> Bob</div>
<div>-----------------------</div>
<div><div>All of this is harvesting practice to me. I don't use the noun "harvest" any more, opting instead for much more precise language to describe the outputs and outcomes if processes. Sometimes what we are harvesting us consciousness and systemic change. If so we need to create an infrastructure for that to happen. The inquiry about going beyond the basics is what prompted Tim Merry, Tuesday Ryan-Hart, Caitlin Frost and I to launch our Beyond the Basics inquiry to dive into the theory and practice of exactly this imperative. </div>
<div>Awesome.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> Complexity and the Cynefin Framework - learnings for AoH - AoPLtag:artofhosting.ning.com,2015-03-26:4134568:Topic:969092015-03-26T09:40:00.775ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>Copied over from the Facebook group, March 2015:</em></p>
<p>Really interesting keynote by Dave Snowden on Complexity and the Cynfin Framework - Definitely challenges some of the methodological frames that often show up in AoH practice around innovation. I am curious to hear people's reflections and how it informs your praxis?…<br></br></p>
<p><em>Copied over from the Facebook group, March 2015:</em></p>
<p>Really interesting keynote by Dave Snowden on Complexity and the Cynfin Framework - Definitely challenges some of the methodological frames that often show up in AoH practice around innovation. I am curious to hear people's reflections and how it informs your praxis?<br/> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y6RfqmTZejU?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p>-----------------------------</p>
<p><span><a id="js_4" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/michael.donnelly.9277?fref=ufi" name="js_4"><span>Michael Donnelly</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>The Cynefin Framework is simple and powerful - like the best models always are. He is quite scathing about some of the approaches and I think this is as much about the motivation of those buying or practising as the methodologies themselves. In the rig</span></span><span><span><span>ht place they are great but they are not panacea. the right tool for the right job and sometimes 100% emergence is not the right tool when system boundaries are present and known or intuited.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>------------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><a id="js_7" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161?fref=ufi" name="js_7"><span>Alexander Craig</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>I agree with you</span> <a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/michael.donnelly.9277" target="_blank">Michael</a><span>. I think he makes some important points around being careful about layering the language of complexity over the top of process design that is actually linear as you move towards taking action in a system - I notice that pattern</span></span> <span><span><span>show up quite a bit. I also appreciate his reflection that the real value being in creating process that are about movement between the different states.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>My experience is that its easy to fall into subtle biased worldview that moving towards complicated and simple states and approaches that are more on the order and control side of the chaordic path model is 'bad'.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>I also think there is lots of very interesting stuff in there around prototyping a set of different actions based on an assessment of their coherence and then the quantitative dimensions of the sensing/harvesting process for how we gather and make sense of data from prototyping actions to inform the next iteration of a process. I haven't really experienced much of that understanding being woven into the convergence phases in AoH practice and I am really curious about if and how that informs peoples design and practice in the field?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>---------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><a id="js_e" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/ria.baeck?fref=ufi" name="js_e"><span>Ria Baeck</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161" target="_blank">Alexander Craig</a> <span>- how would you describe that kind of understanding - for the rest of us??? (maybe this is your gift to the global network?)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>---------------------------</p>
<p><span><a id="js_h" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/kathy.jourdain?fref=ufi" name="js_h"><span>Kathy Jourdain</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>This is a pretty definitive statement and it is usually good to take care with definitive statements. Does conflict always need to be present for innovation? Is OS always about driving consensus and agreement? Are there not other ways to bring in diversity?</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span>----------------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a id="js_i" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161?fref=ufi" name="js_i"><span>Alexander Craig</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/ria.baeck" target="_blank">Ria Baeck</a> <span>- In this case the approach Snowden advocates for acting in complexity is, because complexity is inherently evolutionary and emergent and you can't know the right approach to take to address a challenge based simply on whats worked before, to 'probe - sense - respond'.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>In his practice, <strong>Probe</strong> is to conduct 3 to 7 parallel 'safe to fail' experiments that have coherence, rather than designing 1 or 2 'fail safe' actions to address a challenge. There are some interesting heuristics he offers that guide selecting the portfolio of experiments you work with. <strong>Sensing</strong> then is for each of those experiments to establish feedback mechanisms that allow you to sense the patterns emerging around each experiment as they impact in the system. <strong>Responding</strong> is then amplifying or dampening experiments based on the patterns they create. That's the gist, but there is way more detail in the talk that is important.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>In relation to AoH'esk practice this approach is much more akin to the the prototyping paradigm used in the on-going 'lab' based process models being utilized by folk like</span> <a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/zaid.hassan.16121" target="_blank">Zaid</a> <span>and SocialLabs etc. Where as in my experience at AoH trainings, both as a participant and hosting team member, when moving towards action we tend to use processes like 'design for wiser action' which in essence take 1 idea for addressing a challenge and direct the energy of the design group towards developing that one action into a plan. This idea development in itself isn't a bad, I like the DfWA process and think it has a lot of value. But in the lens of Snowden's work, this approach is used to develop a singular action plan that seems much more akin to 'designing a fail safe action' rather than multiple safe to fail experiments. Pro Action Cafe can easily follow the same pattern. Which, coming back to the process challenge of working with complexity, assumes you know what action will work in the system before you do it.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I haven't been in a AoH space where we intentionally encourage people to develop different parallel actions to run alongside each other, watch what works and then amplify it. I am curious if other people are doing that? I suspect its not to hard to still use DfWA and Proaction intentionally to develop multiple prototype experiments. Personally, <strong>I don't know in detail how to support people to identify and establish appropriate feedback mechanisms on actions/experiments in complex environments that give good decision making data for whether you should amplify or dampen - I am very curious to learn more about this</strong>.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>The deeper inquiry I am in is that we, including myself, often use the framing of 'complexity' and 'emergence' to advocate using 'aoh'esk approaches and participatory methods - so I am trying to learn and deepen my own understanding around the thinking and practice that sits behind where that language comes from. Cynefin is one of the models I have used and have seen used many times to make the case around complexity (the chaordic path is another), so I wanted to learn more. I have found it really stimulating listening to Snowden's lectures, especially because some of what he offers critiques some of the 'aoh'esk approach - he is pretty scathing of Applicative inquiry. This doesn't mean he is right, or I fully agree, but I think dissent is valuable to stimulate reflection and learning because it challenges me to review my assumptions - hence also wanting to offer that into this group and see what kind of conversation that invited.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Growing up in Northern Ireland and being involved for many years in working to try and reweave community in different forms amidst the conflict there, I have been in lots of spaces of beautiful and transformational conversation and relational reconnection in isolated containers that have been nothing short of profound. I have also many times seen those new relational bridges, that held space open for new possibilities to arise for how we be together, crushed by moving back into the dominant system with no pathways to change the broader system (in the language of power and love - sentimental and anemic love) or ripped apart again by the new all too human conflict and power dynamics that arises from people moving into converging processes towards a few untested actions. Given this, I am very interested in approaches that support communities and organizations to take wiser action together in complex systems - I know that work really matters.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/kathy.jourdain" target="_blank">Kathy Jourdain</a> <span>- I hear you, it is very important to be careful with definitive statements and so to in quoting them and taking them out of their broader context - as I did with this quote. Snowden is being intentionally provocative with that statement, he frames that he will do that at the beginning of the talk. And I guess, in some ways, so was I in pulling out that quote - I figured it might create a response, and so I offered it because I really am curious about peoples unfolding understanding and practice in these areas. What are your thoughts and experience on the questions you offered above? I am also curious if you watched the talk and if so what your reflections are?</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>-------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><a id="js_k" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/michael.donnelly.9277?fref=ufi" name="js_k"><span>Michael Donnelly</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161" target="_blank">Alexander Craig</a> <span>thanks for more great opinions on this. There is a simple insight to Snowden's valuing prototyping (a la Scrum or agile) and it is that it allows participants to understand that there is not a breakthrough moment of convergence, after w</span></span><span><span><span>hich everything falls into place as it always should have been. But rather, there is an evolution to be undertaken. The safe to fail allows for that evolution to take place - its like a merging of action planning and implementation. That transition has always seemed the most difficult with groups I worked with - having a great collective experience and then back to porridge and day to day reality that quickly dissipates the enthusiasm generated in the group. There are different ways that people have tried to describe this transition and the split has been between those arguing for big bang transformation, and those saying there's no point - you have to create the new and let the old die (such as creative destruction).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>---------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><a id="js_l" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161?fref=ufi" name="js_l"><span>Alexander Craig</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>If you are interested here is another talk and panel discussion at a USAID conference in 2014. There's an interesting conversation about system thinking approaches and complexity approaches:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4bz85Wn1r4?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>------------------------------</p>
<p><span><a id="js_n" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161?fref=ufi" name="js_n"><span>Alexander Craig</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>And heres Peter Senge at the same conference:</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OqMAi4h9zVQ?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</span></p>
<p><span>------------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a id="js_5" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/jaitken?fref=ufi" name="js_5"><span>Jeff Aitken</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>I know this is largely about the process after an open space for example. The 'now what.' But there is a common misconception in here. The law is not conflict avoidance. But it supports people to negotiate their own rhythm around conflict engagement. I</span></span><span><span><span>f you are not learning or contributing you might move. But when you are attracted by your passionate concerns you will likely stay even in a confrontational exchange. We're not locking the doors in any process I assume. Curious about that one piece.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span>------------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a id="js_a" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/chris.corrigan2?fref=ufi" name="js_a"><span>Chris Corrigan</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>at our workshop in London Dave did his rant about Open Space and claimed it was invented by two Canadians. i corrected him. and it made me realize that perhaps his experiences in Open Space have been poor ones, and perhaps he wasn't aware of how much t</span></span><span><span><span>heory Harrison Owen has actually connected to the process. (In fact he didn't even know who Harrison was when I corrected him, but that's fine...not everybody knows everything). Harrison can be a folksy kind of grandfather figure from time to time, but he has studied complexity and self-organization for a long time, and can hold his own just fine. I think Dave has experienced Open Space in Agile software circles mostly, and I don't know how it is used there. I have only ever heard Dave Snowden call Open Space a "consensus building" method. That is simply not my experience at all. But having listened to him, I can see how he might hold the views he holds, but even he will say, as he does above, that - like everything - it has it's applications. Of course it is a contextual method. All methods are.</span> <br/> <span>i have used open space several times within organizational settings to create sets of parallel safe to fail probes, explicitly as part of using Cynefin. Lots of amazing stuff has emerged out of those probes, including an entirely indigenous school in Prince George, BC. So I know a little about deploying this method in complex systems. Open Space is not the enemy of innovation. Bad practice is the enemy of innovation.</span><br/> <br/> <span>I find Dave's work immensely valuable. He doesn't like what he has experienced of Open Space. That doesnt bother me. And I've learned a lot by taking up his challenge to understand from a theory basis, why what I do works, in line with complexity and cognitive theory. He calls for us to develop good praxis and I agree. We should not be afraid of theory, and we should never rest on our laurels as practitioners</span><br/> <br/> <span>I'll probably write up a post on this topic and invite him into a debate. but how about i leave us all with a challenge?</span><br/> <br/> <span>if it bothers you that Dave Snowden says that Open Space is the enemy of innovation i challenge us to see where he might be right. and i also challenge us to provide good theory about why he might be wrong. It's an excellent exercise to respond well to provocation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span>----------------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a id="js_d" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/caitlin.m.frost.7?fref=ufi" name="js_d"><span>Caitlin M Frost</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Great conversation and lots to think about. To add to the mix I have been part of many a well hosted open space where people stay in heated conversations and don't use the law of two feet to avoid. I have actually seen people use the law of two feet to move toward a heated and juicy conversation they have passion for....</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span>-----------------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a id="js_e" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/chris.corrigan2?fref=ufi" name="js_e"><span>Chris Corrigan</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Jeff, I agree with you around conflict engagement. the Law of Two Feet actually provides a mechanisms for people to stay engaged rather than fleeing. Of course you always have the ability to leave a conflict in any process, unless you're locked in the room.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span>-------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/alexander.craig.7161?fref=ufi"><span>Alexander Craig</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Great to hear your thoughts</span> <a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/caitlin.m.frost.7" target="_blank">Caitlin</a> <span>and</span> <a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/chris.corrigan2" target="_blank">Chris</a><span>. Love your challenge Chris, thanks for that, and its somehow unsurprising to hear that Daves perspective on Open Space may have arisen from a poor experience and not knowing its roots. As you say, this is a</span></span> <span><span><span>nice invitation to sharpen our praxis on both ends. I did a six day training in Open Space Technology back in 2008 in Belfast with a crew from Germany called BOSCOP a few years before I bumped into the AoH community. It blew my mind at the time. You could say the training was by the book based on a 3 day model (2 days conversation, 1 days action planning), the team had worked with Harrison closely, and a lot of the underlying teaching was on complexity and self organization. Whats interesting is that I think a lot of what Dave Snowden is offering matches very well with that form of Open Space. Relating to Daves conflict avoidance critique, even though I ran a bunch of 3 day Open Spaces in Northern Ireland on a variety of themes relating to conflict I am not sure I have enough of a case to claim otherwise in regard to the efficacy of the actions produced. The Open Space were one off events rather that on going labs and so its virtually impossible to track the impact of the actions that came out of it after people left. The teaching there for me is about the importance of ongoing practice and reflection in the same system to really have a sense of whats happening. What I do know is that in his books 'Wave Rider' and particularly in 'Practice of Peace' Harrison Owen talks pretty extensively his use of Open Space on issues of conflict. If I remember right one of his reflections was that if the Open Space is over enough time the Law of Two Feet allows the group to 'breath' by being able to walk away from excessive tension when its to 'hot' and that if the issue really matters people will have the courage to either rejoin the conversation or bring it up again in another session - there is a good story about working with an Israeli and Palestinian group in this form in the book. This 'breathing' also makes sense biologically in terms of hot emotive conversation as part of what happens physiologically when people get angry is that the amygdala in the brain swells with blood and your rational function becomes impaired - this literally makes it hard to listen to any other point of view - the only thing really you can do to calm the amygdala is slow your breathing and reduce your heart rate, which normally means stepping away from the situation that makes you angry. All that being said, I think the point Snowdon is trying to make is about the role of conflict and criticism in the process of developing robust actions/experiments. They use a practice called 'Ritual Dissent' for this purpose which seeks to depersonalizes the criticism/conflict around the action and uses it to sharpen the coherence of the action. All interesting stuff. Heres an video of Harrison Owen talking about complex systems that maybe Dave Snowden would enjoy...</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/APD7oQ3xrSA?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p>---------------------</p>
<p><span><a id="js_4" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/chris.corrigan2?fref=ufi" name="js_4"><span>Chris Corrigan</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Alexander: Awesome. I'm also a long time Open Space facilitator and am close to Harrison and Michael Pannwitz, who stewards the BOSCOP community. So yes, for alomost 20 years I've done almost everyone one can imagine with Open Space and I'm hard to su</span></span><span><span><span>rprise.</span>
<br />
<span>What is interesting to me about conflict in OS is that the conflict happens in nested containers. Think of a meeting held in one big room. Altogether in that room you have a co-ceated agenda, you have small groups happening in different parts of the room and you have food. When a conflict arises in a small group, you can stay in it or leave, but you are still contained in the larger room, in the space which I as facilitator am holding. You can get a coffee, go look at the wall, have a butterfly conversation, but YOU ARE STILL IN THE ROOM. If you find some emotional resources, you can go back, or you might find yourself working on another topic in another place with the person you were previously in conflict with. It's an interesting dynamic.</span><br />
<br />
<span>I think for really conflicted situations Open Space works well when you have the time. It allows people to dive in deeply with each other and really feel the tension, but alos allows for community to develop. 2.5 day Open Space events (ending in a safe-to-fail prototyping design) are amazing events. Using OST in too short a time frame means that people never get into that dynamic, and if that comes from a place of conflict avoidance, that's not good. In fact Dave's own process, Ritual Dissent, can be a way to accelerate the necessary "safe to fail" conflict that makes ideas more resilient.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span>------------------------</span></p>
<p><span><span><a id="js_7" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/choconancy?fref=ufi" name="js_7"><span>Nancy White</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I REALLY wish this conversation was in a container that Dave has visibility/access to. We've had small conversations around this a few times, but never the time/space to really get into it. And it is an important conversation.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>-----------------------------</p>
<p><span><a id="js_a" class=" UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/ursula.hillbrand?fref=ufi" name="js_a"><span>Ursula Hillbrand</span></a></span> <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>WHAT a beautiful synchronicity. So interesting, I came across and posted the video two days ago on my own timeline. Although Dave Snowden formulates his observation as a rather absolute statement, and I take it, after the introduction in his keynote, t</span></span><span><span><span>hat this is how he chooses to operate in order to provoke and to make people really think in order to shift things. That's why I started to do exactly that, along with you mates. And yes, sometimes Ritual Dissent is perhaps the better option! It all depends what the aim is. We once had a <span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>Ritual Dissent</span></span></span></span></span></span> built into an Open Space as a session, and it was exactly to offer to those people, who we knew might need it, an area of confrontation. Remember</span> <a class="profileLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/rainer162" target="_blank">Rainer V. Leoprechting</a><span>? The integral politics Congress some three years ago...It turned out very nicely, and elegant solution I can highly recommend.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>-----------------------------</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p> When to apply participatory leadership and when not?tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2014-11-06:4134568:Topic:946002014-11-06T22:40:56.634ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>From the emaillist, autumn 2014:</em></p>
<p>Hi All,</p>
<div>A recurring conversation with many of leaders in organisations I have been working with recently has been when to apply participatory leadership and when not to. I realised I don't have clear way to teach this or explain it! I had a bash on my recent blog - check it out: …</div>
<p><em>From the emaillist, autumn 2014:</em></p>
<p>Hi All,</p>
<div>A recurring conversation with many of leaders in organisations I have been working with recently has been when to apply participatory leadership and when not to. I realised I don't have clear way to teach this or explain it! I had a bash on my recent blog - check it out: <a href="http://www.timmerry.com/blog/participation-when-and-when-not-to-go-for-it">http://www.timmerry.com/blog/participation-when-and-when-not-to-go-for-it</a></div>
<div>I would love to hear what models, lists, way you use to explain and teach this - either on the blog comments or on this list.</div>
<div>Thanks and all the best,</div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div>---------------------------</div>
<div>Great blog Tim! <div>I use Cynefin too, and sometimes a decision making model that shows a scale of authority and consensus with consultative and democratic in the middle. </div>
<div>In your story, I wonder if person that inspired your blog post is missing the authority of their position when they express that participatory leadership is taking over. Just a thought on the cultural vestiges of hierarchies, privilege and power. </div>
<div>Rachel Lyn</div>
<div>---------------------------</div>
<div>Yes, thanks for the list Tim.<div>An overview of <a href="http://tennesonwoolf.com/resources/core-models-frameworks/#cynefin">how I've used Cynefin is on my site</a>. There is <a href="http://tennesonwoolf.com/wp_2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Cynefin.pdf">further description in a piece I've been using with faith communities here</a>.</div>
<div>I relate to Chris' reference to participation be useful in the complex environment.</div>
<div>Tenn</div>
<div>----------------------------</div>
<div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">Thanks Tim - I agree it's a good list to work on.<br/><br/></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">My edge, I think, in this kind of space is in how to integrate 'experts' in participatory approaches. We all know experts can disempower others, but I think there is some tendency to throw out the expert when we start a participatory approach, as if they no longer have anything to offer once we have gone to the participatory realm.<br/><br/></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">So if we are working with a system on when to be more participatory and when not, one of my questions is how can we continue to value the 'experts' in such a way that doesn't undermine the participation ? The notion of 'expert' and 'non-expert' is another type of hierarchy for us to be considering as well as the power / organisational chart hierarchy - I think it is very easy to create false dichotomies that we either work through hierarchy or we don't or that we either use experts or we don't and if we take any kind of step back we know that's not true .... but we do seem to like dichotomies.<br/><br/></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">I haven't got a model for all contexts at all. I guess I am saying that I think we need a bit more nuance than simply a choice between "participatory or not".</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;"></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">Very interested to hear other thoughts.<br/><br/></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">Best regards<br/><br/></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">Chris</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;">-------------------------</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: small;"><p>Hi Chris,</p>
<p>I often differentiate between expert and expertise. Bringing in knowledge, information, experience, etc. that adds to our understanding of an issue can be valuable and can help us find our own wisdom to move forward vs. the expert telling us what they think we should do. Talking about the value of bringing in expertise also seems to lower the discomfort of clients that fall into the we need an expert trap.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>jerry</p>
<p>---------------------------</p>
<p>That’s a good distinction Jerry. There have been several processes where we want as much expertise in the room as possible. And diverse expertise as well. People can be experts in various disciplines and knowledge bases all of which are important for an inquiry in which none of know how to move forward, but together we can figure something out. </p>
<div>As for experts… when the pipes burst, I definitely want a plumber!</div>
<div>Chris</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> When are we in complexity?tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2014-07-02:4134568:Topic:934992014-07-02T11:04:55.674ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p>Copied over from the email list, July 2014:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Recently a client said to me "We know we are facing increasing complexity. That's not our problem. What we really need to know is how to deal with it." I asked him how he knew he was facing increasing complexity. He couldn't answer the question.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I've been giving some thought to helping people know if their situation is complex. How do we know if we are in complexity, or is it just…</p>
<p>Copied over from the email list, July 2014:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Recently a client said to me "We know we are facing increasing complexity. That's not our problem. What we really need to know is how to deal with it." I asked him how he knew he was facing increasing complexity. He couldn't answer the question.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I've been giving some thought to helping people know if their situation is complex. How do we know if we are in complexity, or is it just complicated or even simple or chaotic? Can we apply a technical solution or do we need to be adaptive?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are there just a few questions we can ask that will let us know? Here are some that I think are helpful:</p>
<ul>
<li>Do you have a problem that you have tried old, tried and tested solutions on, and still it isn't fixed?</li>
<li>Are there many divergent world views in the system or do people have to change something in their beliefs, values, or behaviours in order for something to work?</li>
<li>Does this require us to work in new and unfamiliar ways?</li>
<li>Are we overwhelmed by information, some of which seems contradictory?</li>
<li>Have we achieved a new scale, that leads to a qualitative change?</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>Are these enough? What do you think of them? What others would you offer?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I look forward to hearing from you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Many thanks</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Stephen</p>
<p>---------------------------------------</p>
<div>Hi Stephen,</div>
<div>Good to see these thoughts and questions shared here. I have been reflecting on the questions you offer an on complexity and one additional question that is in my own awareness, having happened upon Polarity Management in recent months is: is what you are dealing with a problem that can be solved or is it a polarity that needs to be managed? Understanding that polarities exist and that they do not have either/or solutions can be helpful to surfacing what are sometimes hidden dynamics in a situation. Examples are cost containment and revenue development, sacred purpose and economic model, individual and collective decision making, as a start. I'm not sure if it would help unearth whether a situation is complex or not but it has me curious. Kathy</div>
<div>Kathy Jourdain</div>
<div>---------------------------------------</div>
<div>Hi Stephen, <br/> <br/> Good question. Kathy - I appreciated your point about polarity. <br/> <br/> Here are a few others - <br/> - Is there a gap between cause and effect, e.g., in time, we make a change and may not see the impact for years? <br/> <br/> - Are there feedback loops involved? (amplifying or negative) - this is from systems thinking terminology<br/> <br/> - Are there multiple scales involved, e.g., local, regional, national? The blog I wrote here explores this point:<br/> <br/> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ndcollaborative.com/blog/item/aligning-work-at-various-scales">http://www.ndcollaborative.com/blog/item/aligning-work-at-various-scales</a><br/> In working for change within complex systems, we similarly need to be able to work at multiple levels and see how these fit together, e.g., from an individual project to an organization to a network to a large scale system. We are used to thinking about work in teams and in organizations, yet, when we get to the level of cross-sector collaborations or large scale systems it gets harder to conceptualize and understand how all the levels fit together.<br/> <br/> ***<br/> Best,<br/> <br/> Beth</div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div><div>One of the reasons I like using the Cynefin framework is that it can help point out the different kinds of situations we are in. In all situations there are complicated and simple and complex things happening. It’s helpful to have a scehem to understand how they differ. </div>
<div>Essentially, the basic situation is that if you can clearly understand the causes and effects of your situation, it probably requires a technical solution, like fixing a pipe. If you are surprised by something, or there is an emergent situation that seems to have “come out of nowhere” with multiple causes all influencing one another, you are in a complex situation and require an adaptive solution, like confronting poverty. The danger of not knowing which is which is that you will just make a choice based on what you know how to do. That can lead to a catastrophic failure as we try to apply technical solutions to complex issues or adaptive solutions to technical problems. </div>
<div>Chris</div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div><div>Dear all,</div>
<div>Today at the 'engaging for Transformation' training Marco Valente introduced the Cybefin framework and the circle asked the exact same question. </div>
<div>Here we found the obvious one:</div>
<div>Human actors and reactions are important.</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Rainer</div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div><p>Hi Stephen and all,</p>
<p>A very good question indeed. One way to look at it might be that as soon as conversation and dialogue (in the broadest sense) is part of it, then we are in a complexity zone. Conversation is an emergent phenomenon, and so anything involving people talking (or even reading) is complex. </p>
<div><p>Cheers</p>
<p>Mark</p>
<p>------------------------------</p>
<div>Mark, your response here made me smile because I've been doing some writing on complexity and put in there that you could almost say as soon as people enter the picture, complexity comes with it. The human dynamics of life gives us lots of practice ground. The way we are thinking about complexity though is a bit different than that and includes that. K</div>
<div>Kathy Jourdain</div>
<div>-----------------------------</div>
<div>I am inclined to start from a position of accepting complexity as a given and work to distinguish complexity from complication - it is the latter that, I find, is really the issue. Nothing is so certain as the complexity of life in and out of organisations. But complexity can be simply perceived—complications never are.<div>Does this view resonate?</div>
<div>Kind regards,</div>
<div>John James</div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div>Hi, <br/> I'm not sure I completely agree that people necessarily create complexity. If everyone is comfortable with a process and it flows well than there is not necessarily anything complex about it. Indeed, as Chris mentioned, if we apply an adaptive solution to a technical problem we can make things worse. An example for me would be putting out a fire. I would not want a group of firemen sitting around sorting out an adaptive solution when my house is on fire. A technical solution would work just fine - indeed better. Of course the firemen are people and still a technical solution works best. The complexity might come later when I deal with the insurance company! I thought your first point was a little more nuanced as it included the idea of conversation as emergent. <br/> Is it possible that it becomes complex when we ask people to change their world view? And/or if there are multiple world views that don't align? <br/> Thanks for your contribution. <br/> Stephen<br/> -----------------------------<br/> Hello, I am new to this list and to this thread, so I may be a bit off base. <br/> I am wondering if we, as humans, always have a choice as to whether we make our situation simple or complex. Stephen, I would agree that if people are comfortable with a process (such as the firefighters) and it flows, then there is not necessarily too much complexity. <br/> However, if even one firefighter decided to do things his own way, it might lead to much complexity in the process. <br/> Would I be naïve to say that most technical fixes come from experience? I wonder if most adaptive changes need some brainstorming and trials based on experience in order to offer some change that moves in a different direction. <br/> Maybe in our situations, we have the choice as to whether we make it complex or simpler, and then that raises the questions about how each of us enters a situation and how we choose to deal with others in the situation. <br/> Just a wondering - I will be playing with this one for a while. <br/> Thanks for the conversation, <br/> Ellen Bruckner<br/> -------------------------------<br/> Hi all :) !<br/><div>Thank you for the thread... </div>
<div>I wanted to take the risk to share the Cynefin model as i use it (i learnt it during an Art of Hosting training); as it helps me a lot to ;assess if there is a 'complex situation' :</div>
<div><strong>- simple situation :</strong> <strong>the chocolate cake</strong> i can do it on my own today: the recipe exists and i can find it (on the internet or elsewhere), i can go to the supermarket and buy the ingredients, cook the cake and put it in the oven, all this all by myself ; happy birthday :) !</div>
<div>Few and obvious cause and effect schemes. Independent action.</div>
<div><i>Nota bene : for me, the assessment of the simplicity, complicatedness and complexity of a situation also depends of the perspective/skills of the person who's asking the question ; for a child, cooking a chocolate cake may be complicated :)</i></div>
<div><b>- complicated situation : building an airplane</b></div>
<div>i am not able to do the job by myself today, i need others as multiple skills and expertises are required, but together we know how to do and can do it: a prototype (or even polished solution) exists and we still 'just' need to follow the recipe, each of the contributor does her/his job, contribute a specific role ; as a chocolate cake we can build an airplane together if we want to</div>
<div>-> here, we could try not to reinvent the wheel, look for the solutions that exist and adapt them to our situation / parameters (i watched a video where it was said that 90% of the solutions we are looking for already exist...)</div>
<div>Numerous and non obvious; cause and effect schemes. Expertise and collective action needed.</div>
<div><b>- complex situation : the 'education' of a child or the long-term vision for a company</b></div>
<div>multistakeholders (with interests seen as potentially divergent), solution not found before or rapidly evolving situation, non predictable results: we (children, parents, teachers, friends, ... or employees, executives, shareholders, consumers, nature's representatives...) need to gather together to explore/find the question that will bring our interests/hearts/souls/skills/happiness together toward a common direction, knowing there could be maybe not a unique recipe, but individual and collective practices toward a common good/goal</div>
<div>-> here, i look for innovation through collaboration and use participatory processes (multistakeholders contemplation of current state, conversation and action); until we reach a replicable solution those situations remain classified as 'complex', can then become classified as;'complicated' (or maybe even simple in some future ?!) Numerous and unpredictable cause and effect schemes. Collective awareness and common will needed.</div>
<div>When dealing with complex situations, what i personally like is pushing the perspective as high as I can during the art of designing phase (looking for the highest potential of the people present and of the present situation (using dream/retrospective projection and provocation), to explore and discover the question /direction that will include and overlook individual interests to gather the strengths of all, toward a win-win-win situation :) - while doing this I remain aware that what i/we see as the highest potential would be different with other people :)</div>
<div><b>- what else : what I myself find the most complex, chaotic and challenging situations are my most intimate relationships</b><br/><div>The one <em>with myself</em> (between hosting myself/accepting myself and choosing to evolve, between searching for life meaning and living the present as it is...), the one <em>with my family</em> (when i know that one way/decision or the other it's not going to be fun for me...), <em>with friends</em> (when sometimes even with the best intentions i can't succeed to have a learning dialogue that would help me and my friends overstep current misunderstandings and go back to the essence/love).</div>
-> as a practice to respond to that, i am definitely trying to go toward simplicity and authenticity (outspeaking/sharing 'my' reality/feelings and giving myself the right to be me)</div>
<div><br/><div>I dont't know if i bring interesting data here or if i am just sharing my life</div>
<div>so i'll just 'trust the process' ;)</div>
<div>Bises,</div>
<div>Héloïse</div>
<div>----------------------------</div>
<div>Fun and helpful conversation -- thank you.<div>My two cents:</div>
<div>Simple -- the chocolate cake. It is a recipe (thanks Heloise).</div>
<div>Complicated -- cakes for a large wedding or festival. Still a recipe, but has a lot more scale to it, and the beginning of variety.</div>
<div>Complex -- growing the food sources that go into cakes. Requires a conversation and the agreement to experiment together.</div>
<div>Chaotic -- drought so that there isn't food sources, or loss of transportation systems. Requires presence. Requires simple offerings from within the randomness.</div>
<div>I quite love the Cynefin model and have been using it a lot lately. To help people see the differences in perception. To map the work they are doing or want to do. To note the differences.</div>
<div>Greetings.</div>
<div>Tenneson</div>
<div>----------------------------</div>
<div>Love this thread.<br/> <br/> Especially all of these different ways of describing terms. I will use some of them.<br/> <br/> My little addition to this stone soup is a small writing <span>about Cynefin</span> I did as part of my new book -- just a way of introducing it. Attached.<br/> <br/> Cheers,<br/> <br/> Bob</div>
<div>---------------------------</div>
<div>Love it Bob.<div>"Begin by being in our confusion." </div>
<div>Or, begin by adopting a fundamental disposition that imposing truth doesn't make it truth.</div>
<div>I like the way this speaks to the need to be in plurality of perspective, whatever the space on the map.</div>
<div>Greetings.</div>
<div>Tenneson</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> AoH - core and democracy?tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-07-23:4134568:Topic:571982012-07-23T15:48:38.916ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p>Friends,</p>
<div>I recently hosted an <a href="http://artofhosting.ning.com/profiles/blogs/art-of-developing-meaningful-conversations-at-1st-uu-columbus">event </a>where members of the core host team were introduced to hosting practices and principles for the first time in our core host team meetings. Now that we have finished the event that we were aiming for, we are closing the project by reflecting on what went well and what lessons we need to learn.</div>
<div>One of the topics I am…</div>
<p>Friends,</p>
<div>I recently hosted an <a href="http://artofhosting.ning.com/profiles/blogs/art-of-developing-meaningful-conversations-at-1st-uu-columbus">event </a>where members of the core host team were introduced to hosting practices and principles for the first time in our core host team meetings. Now that we have finished the event that we were aiming for, we are closing the project by reflecting on what went well and what lessons we need to learn.</div>
<div>One of the topics I am reflecting on has to do with a set of assessments of AoH made by one of our CHT members who has not been to a 3-day training and has only been exposed to AoH through our prep meetings. So, in essence, she held up a mirror for me to help me see how I was portraying AoH, and in that 'mirror' AoH appeared as being "about empowering people, using democratic processes." In this description, too, she said that AoH isn't good for everything because sometimes someone has to make a decision, there has to be leadership, and sometimes you have to get work done instead of just talking.</div>
<div>Certainly some of what she reflected to me had also been filtered through her own experience and expectations, and we had a total of six hours of training, which is barely a dip in the pool. But I wanted to open up a conversation in the community about this assessment and hear from you about your experiences of using AoH as an operating system, the space in AoH for hierarchy and occasional expert leadership, the value of expertise and traditional leadership, and the validity of describing AoH as a 'democratic process.'</div>
<div>That's the first question--how valid is this kind of assessment?.<br clear="all"/><div>My second question has more to do with the spiritual core of AoH. My perception is that AoH grew out of the Shambhala tradition and, therefore, has some significant roots in spiritual practice. However, I also believe that it is compatible with a wide variety of spiritual practices and systems, and am interested in hearing about how this is realized in various contexts.</div>
-- <br/>
<div><font color="#1F497D" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="border-collapse: collapse;"><b> </b></span></font></div>
-- <br/>Amy K. Watson</div>
<div>---------------------</div>
<div><div>Dear Amy,</div>
<div>You are asking a couple of big questions here and I'm not exactly sure where to begin in response. AoH is about conversation that matters and good conversation leads to wiser action. Sometimes conversation is action. In a world that often values doing and action above all else we sometimes forget that not all action is helpful, valuable or useful. This view shows up often – sure it's nice to be in conversation but what about results? Does AoH get to results? Can it be an operating system? There are more and more examples of how it is showing up as operating systems in short and long term projects. It requires a different kind of leadership and we are not very practiced at it. In my experience, many leaders either lean too far in or too far out. Finding the balance of leadership that gives good guidance while allowing flexibility is the skill that many leaders I work with are developing. With strong engagement processes, leadership emerges. This is one story where AoH was used as an operating system with a lot of success: <a href="http://shapeshiftstrategies.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/a-1500-day-collaborative-journey/">http://shapeshiftstrategies.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/a-1500-day-collaborative-journey/</a> - about growing collaborative care in NS. There are many other stories. </div>
<div>It occurs to me that one of the reasons it seems to take some time to build the ground for action is because many work environments or projects have lost sight of one of the key success factors in work which is in the relationship. One area I've done a lot of work in is with dysfunctional teams. By the time I get called in to work with some of these teams, so much mistrust exists in the space we need to invest considerable time in rebuilding relationship. While we do that, not much "work" gets done – or not much task focus because the need is so great to rebuild relationship. Once relationship is in place, the work goes smoother and faster. But it is a balance. Which is why I like the Community of Practice model we work with: <a href="http://shapeshiftstrategies.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/community-of-practice/">http://shapeshiftstrategies.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/community-of-practice/</a> - it shows the interrelationship and value of work, relationship and co-learning. I wonder if it is the same when we first introduce AoH to many places – there is so much need to build and rebuild relationship in order to have stronger platforms to do the work we want to do that it feels like the only thing that is happening is conversation. Let's not undervalue or misunderstand the importance of this and also not lose sight of the results we need to achieve. Like any change process, if we stop in the middle or stop short, of course we don't see the results we are aiming for. I'm sure there is more to be said here but I'll stop on this part for now.</div>
<div>On the spiritual core, interesting thought that AoH grew out of the Shambhala tradition. This would be the first time I've heard that particular thought and it's not actually true, but I can understand the confusion. AoH grew out of open space conversations between practitioners of dialogic processes, curious about what they were doing that generated different results from more traditional consulting and meeting processes. You can find some of that story here: <a href="http://www.artofhosting.org/home/thestory/">http://www.artofhosting.org/home/thestory/</a>. Some certainly describe what happens in Art of Hosting trainings as a spiritual experience and given the larger question of what are we hosting really, it is not surprising. We are not just hosting process, we are hosting energy, dynamics, consciousness and much more. Because AoH practices are used in many places, and AoH practitioners show up in many places, including <a href="http://aliainstitute.org/">ALIA</a> (which used to be the Shambhala Institute) and <a href="http://berkana.org/">Berkana</a> there is often confusion about the organizations and the intersection points. </div>
<div>Hope this is helpful as a starting point in this conversation. </div>
<div>A bow to the centre,</div>
<div>Kathy Jourdain</div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Hi Amy:<div>First to the question of spiritual practice. The Art of Hosting, based on the four fold practice, is not a spiritual practice, although I think a practitioner benefits from having a practice. When we especially think about practices of "hosting self" this invites into a meditation practice, a reflection practice or any number of spiritual practices that help us work with our own thinking and self. The second and third practices - participating and contributing - can also be well influenced by spiritual practices. Many of the churches I work with align themselves with this particular aspect of the Art of Hosting. And finally co-creation has a space for spiritual practice as well, as I have heard people talk about this practice as being a part of something bigger than themselves.</div>
<div>So it can be that, but it is at it's heart, the art of hosting strategic conversation in complex environments.</div>
<div>I do spend time talking about appropriate organizational paradigms - and part of the art is knowing what is good for what. Hierarchy has a role, when the decision is clear and the accountabilities are strong. Circle has a role too when we are not clear and clarity is required. When people make the false distinction between "talking" and "decisions" I see that as an invitation to talk about what they think decision making is. Making rash, authority based decisions in the complex domain can be fatal to the success of an initiative. Decision reached without clarity are unwise. Clarity in complex situations comes from being open to the margins, creating space for many voices and ideas to illuminate the choices ahead and making a collective decision to go forward. This takes time, but far less time than retroactively correcting the results of a poor, rash decision that has no ownership from others.</div>
<div>Peter Block has written beautifully on this distinction and the inversion needed in our thinking is his book <em>Community: The Structure of Belonging</em>.</div>
<div>This is a very important topic, but my basic reflection is that in any situation: hierarchical, complex, circular, confused or clear, applying the four fold practice can help bring better quality to any of those. If your organizational form and decision making structures are aligned with your purpose and what you are trying to do, no problem, the four fold practice will probably increase your quality. If they are not aligned, the four fold practice may help you discover that alignment and help you realize that this is not the place for a collective decision, or this is not the place for one person alone to make a call.</div>
<div>Context matters. Getting stuck in absolute declarations is not useful. Also I would caution you on evaluating the Art of Hosting based on one application. It will be a very different artistic practice in a very different context. Better to evaluate a group on what it is learning by working together using these practices, rather than by saying "So how did the Art of Hosting work here?" This is especially true when you are working with people who don't know what you are talking about. Evaluators I have worked with, have always been a full part of the training and deployment of the AoH if they are being asked to evaluate the application of the practices. The Art of Hosting is an art, and so it does not lend itself to summative evaluation very well. A hosting artist changes her practice in response to the conditions, so how can you assess it? It's like writing one poem - a sonnet perhaps - and then asking a group of people, "what does art of poetry do well?" You just can't know from doing it once, and results from one context and form might not be applicable in another. And if you ask "what might we have done differently?" you open up a not always useful conversation that has, by definition, an infinite number of responses. Retroactive coherence is a very dangerous way to learn about acting in a complex space, because past results have no bearing on future ones. </div>
<div>Hope this helps,</div>
<div>Chris</div>
</div>
<div><div style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="rgb(0, 0, 0)"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri"> </font></font></div>
</div>
</div> Living systems, complexity - as worldviewtag:artofhosting.ning.com,2011-04-19:4134568:Topic:156912011-04-19T08:48:01.120ZRia Baeckhttp://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><strong>Filiz wrote on the AoH emaillist:</strong> (April 15, 2011)<strong><br></br></strong></p>
<p>I would like to share with you an inspiring TED talk by Michelle Holiday, on organizations as living systems. (It is also uploaded here; Media -> Videos)<br></br><br></br>What stroke me was that she uses a complete AoH language, so much that I bet she's been part of an AoH training or she is a host herself. :)<br></br> <br></br>At the end of the talks she asks these questions:<br></br><span>how can we reinvent…</span></p>
<p><strong>Filiz wrote on the AoH emaillist:</strong> (April 15, 2011)<strong><br/></strong></p>
<p>I would like to share with you an inspiring TED talk by Michelle Holiday, on organizations as living systems. (It is also uploaded here; Media -> Videos)<br/><br/>What stroke me was that she uses a complete AoH language, so much that I bet she's been part of an AoH training or she is a host herself. :)<br/> <br/>At the end of the talks she asks these questions:<br/><span>how can we reinvent our organizations so they nourish the life within us and around us as much as possible? <br/>how can we reimagine ourselves, not as consumers, not as human capital, but as vibrant, thriving contributors to the whole life? <br/>how can we recraft the artifacts and architecture of our organizations and our societies so they support wiser, more life sustaining ways of being?</span><br/><br/>which are of course very familiar to this tribe of people...<br/><br/>a good watch, and even a good visual to share for the purposes of AoH...<br/><br/>blessings,<br/> Filiz</p>
<p>(In the meantime Michelle Holiday opened a Ning site herself <a href="http://humanity4point0.ning.com/" target="_blank">Humanity 4.0</a>, with the slide show and conversations)</p>