Author: Michael

Recent consulting conversations have me thinking about meeting design, group dynamics and productive work. Research meets practice in a short article I’ve just adapted from the writing of Bob Rehm and Merrelyn Emery:

The self-organizing workplace and Open Space approach run on the group dynamics researched by Wilfred Bion over fifty years ago. Bion discovered that when people come together they establish a group quickly. We see this all time in Open Space when a diverse group with sparse existing connections quickly comes to know itself as a “team” or “community.”

A group or community is not just a collection of individuals. A group is a separate entity with its own dynamics and behaviors, and it operates on certain assumptions. Bion observed that, at any given time, a group operates out of only one of two possible modes. The group is EITHER in a productive work mode OR a basic assumption mode.

Fred and Merrelyn Emery applied Bion’s insights to workplace design, in their search conference and participative design processes. This adaptation of their writing extends these insights to the design and practice of OpenSpaceTech meetings and events.

As soon as the facilitator or leader “steps into” or otherwise “takes control” of the process, even for the most well-meaning interventions, everyone starts deciding, moment-to-moment if they will submit to being “in control” or dare to step “out of control.” In that moment, the momentum of productive work and felt sense of active, personal responsibility are in danger, as everyone has to choose between what they personally understand as productive work on the task and the structure that is being imposed by the leader or facilitator.

Why force that choice? Why intervene in productive work?

Read More…

According to a study by Career Innovation, four out of every ten talented employees have an issue they want to discuss with their manager, but feel unable to do so. Their survey research shows that these employees — talented folk but significanly less engaged — are three times more likely to leave as a result of this ‘conversation gap.’

The free report describes the issues they want to discuss and the why they don’t. The $120 report explains what to do about it. Reading only the free report, I do see that they suggest that the ‘gap’ can be bridged in many ways, but they’re all one-on-one interactions. That said, most of the conversations that people want to have are “future” conversations and I can’t help but notice that the theme or purpose of almost every open space event I facilitate is some form of “Issues and Opportunities for the Future of…”

Many many of these ‘future’ conversations that are missing in organizations come up easily, naturally and automatically in the course of working in open space on the future of various parts of the organization. When managers invite conversation on the future of the organization, employees have a better shot at working out their own future questions, and asking them in the context of larger, shared futures. No wonder engagement is so high in Open Space!

via Management Craft

Two weeks ago I facilitated the first-ever Omidyar Network members conference in Open Space. After the conference, we started a discussion thread called “What I loved about this conference.” Anne Marie Bellavance posted this comment, which is a perfect example of how “action” happens after an Open Space meeting.

I loved meeting Dennis and Tony from Kaboom, so much so i returned home knowing i wanted to participate in a Kaboom build [community-built playspace] asap. I was reading the local paper last Friday, and discovered this article profiling the groundbreaking of a new recreation park in the town next door. The head of the committee happens to be the Athletic Director at the college I used to work for. I emailed him this morning asking if they would be interested in a Kaboom build ~ he responded immediately with a enthusiastic YES.

My first Kaboom project has begun

So often we seem to operate under the impression that the facilitator, the leader(s), or more mysteriously “the organization” does something to make action happen. Mostly I find that organizations don’t take action. People do.

The best any leader can do is invite and support it. That is exactly what Open Space Tech does, invite and support. Then, as Anne Marie is demonstrating, the action is easy.

A while back, I posted here the four things that people tend to say when I work with them or their organization. I can’t resist posting this bit of yesterday’s thank you note from a recent client, as it lines up so well with those earlier claims.

…thanks again for your elegant facilitation and gentle nudgins into self-organize…it was a very enjoyable experience and it exceded all of our expectations for success…in fact, one of senior members of our community said to me on the street later that eve, (in his french accented english):

“at first i thought if i saw another flip-chart, i would throw up!…but really, that was the best meeting i have ever attended in our community in the last 20 years”

I love this last part… open space as the antidote for flipchart sickness!

Almost everybody who calls about working in Open Space these days wants it to lead to some sort of “action.” Sometimes they want to design it in and “make it happen,” but here’s a good example of how real action often happens…

A couple of months ago I facilitated a one-day meeting with a middle-to-senior sort of group of about 20 people. The focus could be described loosely as “get all of these great ideas to market.” They’d been working in “product” teams for a year and a half. I challenged that structure in the invitation and design process, but they assured me that they wanted to keep these teams into the future, beyond this meeting.

We set up the day as a big chunk of Open Space followed by one round of breakout sessions for their “product” teams to turn the day’s ideas in the direction of “action.” When that session happened, the energy dropped off quite a bit. Conversations wandered. Almost no notes were taken. Some wondered if the whole day had been wasted. The “lull” in energy lasted for some weeks after the meeting. The proceedings didn’t get sent out as had been promised. Teams treaded water or failed to meet altogether.

Then somebody determined to send out the proceedings. I helped draft a few questions that invited engagement on various levels. The conversation started to churn a bit. The original Space had given the old structures every chance to succeed, but everyone could see that something more was needed. Then that something happened.

With widespread agreement, the old “product” teams were dissolved and new “product development” functions created in their place, without sacrificing people or progress. What could have been called a failure for “no action” at several points, suddenly opened into a whole new way of doing business.

The new structure more directly supports current needs and actions. It builds directly on all their past work. As it turns out, it also looks a lot more like Open Space than did the old one, adopting such concepts as “temporary teams” and “open invitations.” Energy is rising, conversation is flowing, and new actions are being taken.