Can AoH serve as an organizational governance structure? - The Art of Hosting2024-03-28T19:06:57Zhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/forum/topics/can-aoh-serve-as-an-organizational-governance-structure?commentId=4134568%3AComment%3A80327&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI'm afraid I'm not really fol…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2013-06-17:4134568:Comment:803272013-06-17T03:08:44.692ZJohn Baxterhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/JohnBaxter
<p>I'm afraid I'm not really following who is posting what here and what is going on, but I like it!</p>
<p></p>
<p>On present dysfunctional organisations vs creating new ones - I think permaculture / ecological / AofH principles are so different from those that underpin current organisations. Yes, the real value lies in reforming them, but I think that is still too tall an ask for us. The 'low hanging fruit' of organisation is the new organisations being created, new businesses, new…</p>
<p>I'm afraid I'm not really following who is posting what here and what is going on, but I like it!</p>
<p></p>
<p>On present dysfunctional organisations vs creating new ones - I think permaculture / ecological / AofH principles are so different from those that underpin current organisations. Yes, the real value lies in reforming them, but I think that is still too tall an ask for us. The 'low hanging fruit' of organisation is the new organisations being created, new businesses, new community organisations... there is very ripe potential for supporting these to excel. And then we develop our knowledge of how to better organise with these principles - and have ammunition and case studies to boot.</p>
<p>And if worse comes to worse, then at least we have examples of the alternative that we'll need to replace the current methods with when those institutions collapse. : )</p>
<p>That's my philosophy for change - not universal wisdom...</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Ria Baeck said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://artofhosting.ning.com/forum/topics/can-aoh-serve-as-an-organizational-governance-structure?commentId=4134568%3AComment%3A52250#4134568Comment52351"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><em>on the difference of starting a new organisation and changing an existing one...</em></p>
<p>Delicious, all this!<br/> All you (all) say feels right - when creating an 'organisation' from scratch.<br/><br/>My inquiry is somewhat different - the world is full of pre-existing organisations, many of which have enormous power in the world, for good or ill. As far as I can tell, many start off being for the good, and then end up so trapped in their structures, procedures and 'world views' that they end up doing ill. That's how I feel about much that is coming out of the institutions of the European Union at this time. What is being 'done' to the Greeks is the most poignant example. Our governments, our economic and financial institutions, all are crippled by out-dated governance structures and processes that cannot move fast enough or re-purpose themselves appropriately, leaving well-intentioned, capable men and women doing meaningless, even soul-destroying work, despite their initial idealism on joining these organisations to make the world a better place. That's certainly very strongly the case with the European Commission.<br/><br/>So, my inquiry and my working practices are around: can we liberate these existing organisations into lighter, more agile structures? If so, how? We have been working with AoH patterns for over 3 years, and are having some impact on individuals and in some pockets in some departments that are starting to operate very differently, using AoH principles. But of course they run up against the rigid, crusty old structures and procedures, and are often stymied by the traditional ways of thinking that hang out higher up in the hierarchy. So progress is limited and for me, the jury really is still out on whether it's possible to transform an organisation of this size.<br/><br/>Interestingly, in my very own department, there's an organisational revamp going on with, I suspect, the intention of loosening the rigid structures and introducing something more flexible and able to handle complexity. And yet I fear it will end up with two conflicting/competing organisational paradigms vying to occupy the same cultural space. And I don't see how a top-down, command-and-control hierarchical bureaucracy can co-exist in the same people that have to operate in a flexible, networked matrix organisation. The two are based on different assumptions... The same holds true as we seek to introduce more participatory, collaborative ways of working together. Two such different paradigms cannot co-exist in the same head space and the dominant paradigm crushes and distorts much of the fruit of our good work.<br/><br/>It might sound discouraging, but that's where the challenge lies, for me. Who else out there on this list is experiencing the challenge of working in existing organisations, rather than trying to create something new?<br/><br/>warmly<br/>helen</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> and the conversation continue…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-03-09:4134568:Comment:528792012-03-09T10:52:19.451ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>and the conversation continued...</em></p>
<div><p>Hi All,</p>
</div>
<div><p>I have been following this string with a great deal of interest and a slight sense of discomfort. I have resisted being a voice of dissent as I agree with so much that has been written. </p>
</div>
<div><p>I agree that principles are more appropriate than rules. I agree that a living systems model has a lot to offer when considering governance. </p>
</div>
<div><p>I am reminded of an insight, which I believe…</p>
</div>
<p><em>and the conversation continued...</em></p>
<div><p>Hi All,</p>
</div>
<div><p>I have been following this string with a great deal of interest and a slight sense of discomfort. I have resisted being a voice of dissent as I agree with so much that has been written. </p>
</div>
<div><p>I agree that principles are more appropriate than rules. I agree that a living systems model has a lot to offer when considering governance. </p>
</div>
<div><p>I am reminded of an insight, which I believe comes from Mark Twain, that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. This is the core of my discomfort. I have a niggling question about whether AoH is being used as a hammer in this context? I am completely aware that AoH is more than a tool, and maybe that adds to our temptation to be seduced into simplistic solutions?</p>
</div>
<div><p>I go back to my original question about why do we need AoH to be a governance system/approach? Are we at risk of seeking an excessively simplistic view of the world, with AoH as a silver bullet? AoH has so much to offer there might be a temptation to see it as the answer to all questions. </p>
</div>
<div><p>My final thought, ironically enough, is that the Chaordic Path might have something offer to considerations of governance, with the right balance of the creativity and flexibility of principles along side the structure of policy and systems. It is not that one is good and the other bad, but the right balance allows them to dance together gracefully. </p>
</div>
<div><p>Yours in genuine curiosity,</p>
</div>
<div><p>Stephen</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<div>Thank you Stephen - to my mind, you've raised a shared concern and have expressed it in a far more apt and eloquent form than I could have managed. </div>
<div>Jennifer Stone</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Stephen, I am hearing your concern about whether AoH might be being seen, <br/>as the "answer to all questions"... <br/><br/>and also, your sense that "the Chaordic Path might have something offer to considerati<span style="color: #1f497d;">o</span>ns of governance, with the right balance of the creativity and flexibility of principles along side the structure of policy and systems."<br/><br/>It seems to me that this conversation may have come around full circle an earlier starting point, where Michelle had written: <br/><br/>"Leaders are hosts or stewards, creating the fertile conditions for life to thrive within a system, including the infrastructure, process and patterns of interactions. So at this point, my answer to my own question would be: yes, AoH principles can be used to guide the design of an effective governance system and organizational infrastructure."<br/><br/>From a meta-perspective, I'd like to add that this conversation reminds me a bit of similar ones in other communities... for example, the Open Space community, where people have often delved into what it might look like to run an organization, in a way that is fully informed by Open Space principles. (If I am not mistaken, the Genuine Contact community has grown out of just such an inquiry...) As I understand it, this would not mean that OS would be the only policy, form or structure existing within an organization... more that the "spirit" or "philosophy" of OS, would function as an underlying "prime directive". <br/><br/>So, this kind of inquiry is intriguing to me, as a "larger pattern" that seems to occur within various communities... <br/><br/>yet I'm not sure it fits completely as a "everything looking like a nail" phenomenon, as I don't think it has so much to do with a particular method, as with an underlying philosophical inquiry...<br/><br/>something along the lines of, "what are the few basic irreducible principles which give rise to the vast display of phenomena?" and, "what might it mean, to live our lives fully in accordance with those principles?"<br/><br/>Still, the diversity question remains quite relevant... as it seems to me that there are multiple sets of "basic irreducible principles" that might fit the bill, and that reality itself, is not reducible to our cognitive representations of it, as understandable (and as fruitful in many ways) as our search for "basic principles" might be... <br/><br/>anyway, those are my late-night musings here...<br/>I have found this thread quite thought-provoking, and am very grateful to all of the contributors to it.<br/><br/>with all best wishes,<br/><br/>Rosa</div>
</div> More information is drippling…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-03-06:4134568:Comment:525932012-03-06T13:28:34.824ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>More information is drippling in:</em></p>
<p>Dear Michelle and friends, <br></br>When I read your last question inquiring about examples of organizations that use this kind of approach, a company came to mind that I had the opportunity to learn about through an interview I conducted as part of the <a href="http://worldinquiry.case.edu/about.cfm">Business as an Agent of World Benefit</a> project. The company is <a href="http://www.namastesolar.com/">Namaste Solar</a> out of Colorado. They…</p>
<p><em>More information is drippling in:</em></p>
<p>Dear Michelle and friends, <br/>When I read your last question inquiring about examples of organizations that use this kind of approach, a company came to mind that I had the opportunity to learn about through an interview I conducted as part of the <a href="http://worldinquiry.case.edu/about.cfm">Business as an Agent of World Benefit</a> project. The company is <a href="http://www.namastesolar.com/">Namaste Solar</a> out of Colorado. They have a storybook available on their website, which you can access <a href="http://www.namastesolar.com/files/pdf/storybook.pdf">here</a>. In particular, I love their definition of holistic wealth, and the way in which they have captured their own story is lovely to see. As part of the BAWB project, stories are being collected in an <a href="http://worldinquiry.case.edu/default.cfm">Innovation Bank</a> from organizations across the globe that create societal and business benefit; this may be another place to find examples of different approaches to organizing and governing. <br/> Best, <br/>Jenny</p> and this tread didn't stop...…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-03-05:4134568:Comment:528112012-03-05T19:53:45.717ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>and this tread didn't stop...</em></p>
<p>Thank you for stirring something really important here. I can feel it churning in me.</p>
<div>A few thoughts are <a href="http://web.me.com/tennesonwoolf/Tenneson_Woolf/Blog/Entries/2012/2/28_Governance_vs_Stewardship.html" target="_blank">here on my blog</a> if you want to peruse. Mostly about a network's need for stewarding that feels different that an organization's need for governance. However, even more important seems to be the…</div>
<p><em>and this tread didn't stop...</em></p>
<p>Thank you for stirring something really important here. I can feel it churning in me.</p>
<div>A few thoughts are <a href="http://web.me.com/tennesonwoolf/Tenneson_Woolf/Blog/Entries/2012/2/28_Governance_vs_Stewardship.html" target="_blank">here on my blog</a> if you want to peruse. Mostly about a network's need for stewarding that feels different that an organization's need for governance. However, even more important seems to be the consciousness that goes with these and the shifts of consciousness in relation to individuals, offerings, accountabilities in this time.</div>
<div>Tenneson</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<p>Tenneson, I love your blog post. Really good. </p>
<div>My first thought in reading it is that over-reliance on traditional governance methods - rigidly defining roles and responsibilities within org charts, for example - may truly be detrimental to the life of the system. Rather than enabling everyone to see themselves as responsible stewards, actively evolving the system together, such methods invite people to sit back and lean against the structure, which they then perceive as separate from themselves. <div>My second thought was that I can hear one client saying, "But we're <u>not</u> a network, and people <u>are</u> salaried, so this doesn't apply to us." And I can hear Helen saying, "How on Earth would the European Commission work as a network??"<br/> <br/>But then, <a href="http://www.shiftvillage.com/2012/02/13/successful-practices-of-mindful-organizations/">I just read about the example of Google</a>, with 20,000 employees and $23 billion in sales - it seems that they operate with a network and stewardship model. They talk about it as "hacker culture" but I think it's the same basic principles. <br/><ul style="margin: 1.7em 0px 1.7em 1.7em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline-width: 0px; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: #f7f6de; font-family: Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif; line-height: 24px;">
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline-width: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Google has a healthy disrespect for authority and meetings; we create an environment where engineers (hacker culture) can get into the creative flow</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline-width: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Successful companies can create an environment, setting and culture that allows the flow to happen, “not by managing, but tending to garden”</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline-width: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;">Focus on results produced versus effort and time; allow people to manage their own schedules</li>
<li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline-width: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">Non-negotiable commitments with self</span></li>
</ul>
<div>I don't know about the European Commission, but I think my doubting client might actually come to see that they are more network than they think and that it would be better to build engagement and stewardship on that foundation rather than stifle it with too much prescribed structure.</div>
<div>Thoughts? </div>
<div>Michelle</div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div>Nice.<div>Underneath all, I believe, is the need to shift to principles of living systems. That feels hopeful to me in all of these contexts. Whether in structure or practice.</div>
<div>Thanks again Michelle for stirring much.</div>
<div>Tenneson</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Ok, since you have named the shift to principles of living systems, let me share an article I wrote for Kosmos Journal which is about just that: <a href="http://iyeshe.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/evolutionary-entrepreneurship-engaging-the-collective-will/">Evolutionary Entrepreneurship - Engaging the Collective Will</a> - it seems ever more topical these days<div>Absolutely, Michelle, there are many, many networks inside the Commission - without them nothing world work. There are even starting to be some real communities of practice that transcend the many silos. Richard Hames talks about 'the cathedral and the café' - the cathedral being the organisation chart and official procedures and meetings, etc; the café is exactly the networks and informal conversations that go on in the basement, so to speak, where the work really gets done.<div>:-)</div>
</div>
<div>in a hurry...</div>
<div>Helen</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>To expand on the point that Helen brings up about organizations and networks:<div>Organizations, communities, networks, and crowds are overlapping and interacting forms of collective behavior.</div>
<div><div>Sometimes people get really excited about one or the other, and want to look at everything as if it is, say, a network. That's a great lens, which offers some real insights and suggests some useful tools. The downside is that this sometimes leads to an "out with the old, in with the new" mindset which motivates a dismissal of, say, organizations in favor of networks, rather than a widening of perspective to see how they fit together.</div>
<div>For me, at least, the places where these forms of collective behavior come together is where all the action is!</div>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Karl</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div><div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western" xml:lang="x-western"><div>Hi all,</div>
<div>In regard to Tenneson's blog post, there's a distinction I would draw about networks and organizations:</div>
<div>A network is not an organizational form, because a network is not organ-ized: it doesn't have distinct organs that fulfill different but related purposes as an integrated, overall whole.</div>
<div>Of course, that's not a knock on networks! Their ad-hoc and decentralized nature is often a source of strength and usefulness. A network may have many generative hubs that create space for new conversations. (Those hubs might also be places where communities and organizations are seeded and grow.)</div>
<div>To me, something networked suggests connecting, something organized suggests governing, something communal suggests sharing. Each mode has its benefits, and creates something distinct from the others. I would suggest that each of these activities is a form of stewardship in a slightly different way. </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Karl</div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Nice Karl. I like your reference to varied forms of stewarding. And there is a vibrancy in networks isn't there. I'm really intrigued by the principles that support a network getting things done as offerings rather than assignments.<div>Yup, keep cracking.</div>
<div>Tenneson</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> What is needed in networks, w…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-02-28:4134568:Comment:526042012-02-28T22:14:24.919ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>What is needed in networks, what is needed in organisations? by Tenneson</em></p>
<p>Thank you for stirring something really important here. I can feel it churning in me.</p>
<div>A few thoughts are <a href="http://web.me.com/tennesonwoolf/Tenneson_Woolf/Blog/Entries/2012/2/28_Governance_vs_Stewardship.html">here on my blog</a> if you want to peruse. Mostly about a network's need for stewarding that feels different that an organization's need for governance.</div>
<div>However, even more…</div>
<p><em>What is needed in networks, what is needed in organisations? by Tenneson</em></p>
<p>Thank you for stirring something really important here. I can feel it churning in me.</p>
<div>A few thoughts are <a href="http://web.me.com/tennesonwoolf/Tenneson_Woolf/Blog/Entries/2012/2/28_Governance_vs_Stewardship.html">here on my blog</a> if you want to peruse. Mostly about a network's need for stewarding that feels different that an organization's need for governance.</div>
<div>However, even more important seems to be the consciousness that goes with these and the shifts of consciousness in relation to individuals, offerings, accountabilities in this time.</div>
<div>Tenneson</div> Again a contribution from exp…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-02-27:4134568:Comment:522822012-02-27T10:12:59.591ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>Again a contribution from experience:</em></p>
<p>A cross-over point related to self-organization and self-direction:</p>
<div>An organization I'm working with is using both Holocracy and hosting practices. They'll be hosting a World Cafe later this month to surface collective wisdom around the purpose of the organization. The board intends to use the harvest to help them articulate the organization's purpose, which will become the purpose of the broadest circle in their Holacratic…</div>
<p><em>Again a contribution from experience:</em></p>
<p>A cross-over point related to self-organization and self-direction:</p>
<div>An organization I'm working with is using both Holocracy and hosting practices. They'll be hosting a World Cafe later this month to surface collective wisdom around the purpose of the organization. The board intends to use the harvest to help them articulate the organization's purpose, which will become the purpose of the broadest circle in their Holacratic structure.</div>
<div>In my experience, hosting practices are great for exploring big questions and sparking new ideas, but don't seem to provide enough structure to coordinate an organization's day to day work, and Holocracy provides wonderful structure for getting the work done, without saying much about how to figure out which work to do. It seems like a perfect marriage to me, so I'm often left somewhat mystified by the responses I get from people who are interested in one or the other but not both.</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Karl</div> From Helen - on the differenc…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-02-27:4134568:Comment:525112012-02-27T10:07:02.407ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>From Helen - on the difference between self-directing and self-governing:</em></p>
<p>What a wonderful response, Steve! What you say makes total sense.</p>
<div>Interestingly enough - since we were talking about Holacracy on this list not long ago - the interesting thing about Holacracy is that it allows <i>self-governing</i> at every level of hierarchy, but NOT <i>self-directing.</i> The organisation itself has its own purpose in the world, that the people are in service of. And part of…</div>
<p><em>From Helen - on the difference between self-directing and self-governing:</em></p>
<p>What a wonderful response, Steve! What you say makes total sense.</p>
<div>Interestingly enough - since we were talking about Holacracy on this list not long ago - the interesting thing about Holacracy is that it allows <i>self-governing</i> at every level of hierarchy, but NOT <i>self-directing.</i> The organisation itself has its own purpose in the world, that the people are in service of. And part of the job of the 'senior circle' is to give the direction to its 'junior circles'. That avoids the problem of teams becoming too self-directed.</div>
<div>For the rest, I'm right there with you that we just need to show up wherever we are and try to do what makes sense.</div>
<div>sending hugs</div>
<div>helen</div> From Steve, from his experien…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-02-27:4134568:Comment:525102012-02-27T10:04:56.765ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>From Steve, from his experiences within an organisation:</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000099;">Thank you Michelle for stimulating this conversation and for your perspectives, Helen. You have articulated the challenges that we face these days as we work from a new paradigm within systems that are stuck in the old command and control world view.</span><br style="color: #000099;"></br><br style="color: #000099;"></br><span style="color: #000099;">I worked for over twenty years within an…</span></p>
<p><em>From Steve, from his experiences within an organisation:</em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000099;">Thank you Michelle for stimulating this conversation and for your perspectives, Helen. You have articulated the challenges that we face these days as we work from a new paradigm within systems that are stuck in the old command and control world view.</span><br style="color: #000099;"/><br style="color: #000099;"/><span style="color: #000099;">I worked for over twenty years within an organization that was committed to the principles that we later discovered to be core to the Art of Hosting. We worked to be inclusive and transparent, to empower individuals and teams to make decisions and to be self organizing and we continually challenged the temptations to revert to systems of control. </span><br style="color: #000099;"/><br style="color: #000099;"/><span style="color: #000099;">It felt like a constant challenge to live into our intention and to avoid being pulled back into the dominant paradigm. There were two primary sources of resistance from my perspective - fractals, actually. At the individual level, it was hard work and very demanding to take individual responsibility and collective responsibility without looking to a boss to solve problems. Individuals and teams also had the tendency to become too self-directed and to forget that they are part of a larger organization and that their actions and decisions need to be in support of the larger mission and vision. Over time, I came to appreciate just how important it is that individuals have practices which support their individual development and that this work take on a spiritual component (even though such language was not allowed in the workplace).</span><br style="color: #000099;"/><br style="color: #000099;"/><span style="color: #000099;">On a macro level, we were continually challenged by systems based on the old paradigms from the legal system which required an individual to be identified as being in control to governmental rules requiring traditional personnel systems to collaborative organizations that demanded to know who was in charge. My experience was that dealing with these systems took an amazing amount of energy, which in time exhausted everyone. As with the individual level, there was a need for practices that would allow the organization to sustain the energy for change.</span><br style="color: #000099;"/><br style="color: #000099;"/><span style="color: #000099;">It really feels like we are in a time of transition with old dying systems reacting and push back as new systems are striving to be born. In such turbulent times, it is hard not to get attached to outcomes and to the illusion that there is a destination. The real work often seems to be just showing up in service of the new paradigm, celebrating the moments of success along the way and being gentle with all of the stumbles along the way.</span><br style="color: #000099;"/><br style="color: #000099;"/><span style="color: #000099;">Steve</span></p> how to combine the old and ne…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-02-24:4134568:Comment:520992012-02-24T16:37:33.246ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>how to combine the old and new paradigm in organisations...</em></p>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<div><div>I am really happy to hear about all your experiences. It gives me hope that we can work something out, which really is new and good. Because what does it mean, this new good way of working together, in a healthy world? What does it look like? It is great to hear your examples and reflections around it, thank you so much.</div>
<div>The emails of yours arrive to me in a time of 2 new…</div>
</div>
<p><em>how to combine the old and new paradigm in organisations...</em></p>
<p>Dear all,</p>
<div><div>I am really happy to hear about all your experiences. It gives me hope that we can work something out, which really is new and good. Because what does it mean, this new good way of working together, in a healthy world? What does it look like? It is great to hear your examples and reflections around it, thank you so much.</div>
<div>The emails of yours arrive to me in a time of 2 new beginnings: </div>
<div>one is that I am starting up my own company, with the intention of slowly developing an organizational culture that allows for the flourishing of every person involved, plus where we develop structures that help us hold on to that culture. I imagine this to be a timely process that involves a lot of community building. This culture can only emerge if we live it from the beginning, and at the same time that we live it, we develop it and find out what it is.</div>
<div>The second is that I am working for a rather traditional company whose service is to "innovate business models". They are themselves in the process of finding out what it means to integrate people, planet and profit in their ways of working. So they are moving towards something new, without knowing what it is exactly. This involves change in organizational structures as well.</div>
<div>I am living with this question: how can I bridge these 2 things in me? How can they inspire each other, or is it two different and separate realities? How can I make sure that knowledge from one field transfers into the other equally? I don´t want the start-up scene to provide innovative ideas which the already established organization can use without giving anything back. Nor should the only thing that they provide be money.</div>
<div>How to consolidate 2 different worlds, while looking at people with whatever worldview with a loving eye?</div>
<div>Best greetings,</div>
<div>Ursel</div>
</div> on the difference of starting…tag:artofhosting.ning.com,2012-02-24:4134568:Comment:523512012-02-24T15:58:14.099ZRia Baeckhttps://artofhosting.ning.com/profile/RiaBaeck
<p><em>on the difference of starting a new organisation and changing an existing one...</em></p>
<p>Delicious, all this!<br></br> All you (all) say feels right - when creating an 'organisation' from scratch.<br></br><br></br>My inquiry is somewhat different - the world is full of pre-existing organisations, many of which have enormous power in the world, for good or ill. As far as I can tell, many start off being for the good, and then end up so trapped in their structures, procedures and 'world views'…</p>
<p><em>on the difference of starting a new organisation and changing an existing one...</em></p>
<p>Delicious, all this!<br/> All you (all) say feels right - when creating an 'organisation' from scratch.<br/><br/>My inquiry is somewhat different - the world is full of pre-existing organisations, many of which have enormous power in the world, for good or ill. As far as I can tell, many start off being for the good, and then end up so trapped in their structures, procedures and 'world views' that they end up doing ill. That's how I feel about much that is coming out of the institutions of the European Union at this time. What is being 'done' to the Greeks is the most poignant example. Our governments, our economic and financial institutions, all are crippled by out-dated governance structures and processes that cannot move fast enough or re-purpose themselves appropriately, leaving well-intentioned, capable men and women doing meaningless, even soul-destroying work, despite their initial idealism on joining these organisations to make the world a better place. That's certainly very strongly the case with the European Commission.<br/><br/>So, my inquiry and my working practices are around: can we liberate these existing organisations into lighter, more agile structures? If so, how? We have been working with AoH patterns for over 3 years, and are having some impact on individuals and in some pockets in some departments that are starting to operate very differently, using AoH principles. But of course they run up against the rigid, crusty old structures and procedures, and are often stymied by the traditional ways of thinking that hang out higher up in the hierarchy. So progress is limited and for me, the jury really is still out on whether it's possible to transform an organisation of this size.<br/><br/>Interestingly, in my very own department, there's an organisational revamp going on with, I suspect, the intention of loosening the rigid structures and introducing something more flexible and able to handle complexity. And yet I fear it will end up with two conflicting/competing organisational paradigms vying to occupy the same cultural space. And I don't see how a top-down, command-and-control hierarchical bureaucracy can co-exist in the same people that have to operate in a flexible, networked matrix organisation. The two are based on different assumptions... The same holds true as we seek to introduce more participatory, collaborative ways of working together. Two such different paradigms cannot co-exist in the same head space and the dominant paradigm crushes and distorts much of the fruit of our good work.<br/><br/>It might sound discouraging, but that's where the challenge lies, for me. Who else out there on this list is experiencing the challenge of working in existing organisations, rather than trying to create something new?<br/><br/>warmly<br/>helen</p>