Menu

107955580271234087

March 17, 2004 By Uncategorized

We’re really humming now. Harrison Owen replied to my stories post on the OSLIST with these comments, among others:

This is interesting soup indeed. I think the real positive here is the emphasis on Story Telling. For 40 odd years, ever since the days when I presumed to be an academic delving into the mysteries of myth, ritual and culture in the ancient near east — I have felt that we (all of us humanoids) are essentially story-tellers, it is the way we make meaning and communicate meaning (as in the natural first question of a new person — “What’s the story?”). For the last 20 years, after having fallen into the world of Open Space, I have observed that a (maybe “the”) central activity in an Open Space is storytelling, and it is certainly “fuzified” storytelling, for initially there is no single story, nor story teller. It is what I have called Collective Storytelling. Meaning emerges, and action follows (usually) as the collective tale comes into being, having been woven from the myriad narrative strands brought forward by the participants. Frank Smits is definitely riding a train I have been on for quite a while, and although that certainly doesn’t make all of this “true” — it is certainly in line with my fundamental prejudices. The fact that he casts the discussion in the new language of complexity theory is an added gift, for it gives me (gives us) a new set of spectacles with which to view our experience. (If anybody cares for the details of my random thoughts, check out Chapters 11 and 12 in my book, “The Power of Spirit” (Berrett-Koehler,
2000) For an earlier and more arcane version of all of this read the opening chapter of my first book, “Spirit: Transformation and Development in Organizations” — now out of print)

But I am not sure that Smits appreciates the full depth of Storytelling as meaning making. First of all, although it is true that stories can be told with words, this in my experience is just the tip of the iceberg. Powerful stories which shape and form cultures (otherwise known as myths) appear in the rich garments of ALL modes of human communication — the total dance of a peoples’ life. This may seem just an academic quibble, but I think it has some real implications concerning our ability to fully understand what is taking place. In a word, we are faced with a level of complexity (even with a small group of humanoids) that simply boggles the mind. And when it comes to the role of the facilitator, the boggled mind is not helpful, particularly if the facilitator’s role is as Smits describes it —

“But, in order for Facilitators to participate, as a listener, a ‘neutral’ narrator or focaliser, they need to be able to understand the language, power relationships, semiotics, etc. in the group of people. In other words, they need to be ‘external insiders’. As the name suggests this is a very paradoxical role (see Figure 6). By somehow becoming an ‘insider’ there is potentially an element of ‘risk’ for the Facilitator with the outcome (emergent action). A delicate balance.”

A “delicate balance” indeed — and one which I suspect is neither possible nor necessary. Does that mean then that as facilitators in Open Space there is nothing we can do? If “doing something” means acting as the “focalizer,” then I believe the answer is, Yes. Bluntly stated, we simply do not have the horsepower to do that — to say nothing of the mental capacity. But there are realms where we can and do “do something.” Specifically, we can create the space for storytelling. We can even shape that space when we work with the client around the theme. And lastly, we can also create a space for reflection. But when it comes to telling the story, interpreting the story, and acting on the story — I think the people do it all by themselves. Which, after all is what self organization is all about.

As the man says, interesting soup. There is a piece of Smits’ paper that I haven’t addressed yet, and that is the way stories are contextualized in power relationships. Here’s the idea:

  1. We gather knowledge about the world through observing and interpretation.
  2. Observed “facts” don�t give us the whole picture, so we need interpretive stories to make meaning out of what we observe.
  3. Stories represent part of the truth, and as such, non-linear stories dwell in a power space within the organization. Telling the story can be powerful; having the story believed can be even more powerful.
  4. Here’s the money shot from Smits: “Stacey (2001a, 183) argues that when there is diversity of participation in the conversations that happen in organisation, there is the potential for the organisational identity to be �threatened�. In the language of Gover (1996) �our identities are being constitutes and reconstituted with their physical, cultural and historical contexts�. The roots of narratives and identity, he claims, �merge, inextricably embedded and nurtured in the soil of human action�. But this is complicity! Stories and identity are being formed by human action (�experience� in Stacey�s words) and at the same time form human action.”

This is amazing, because it gets at some of the writing and thinking I have been doing about “living in truth.” I don�t see the term “threatened” as being a bad thing. I see it as inviting a decentering of organizations away from command and control models where the stories are churned out of a high level communications suite and the drones are expected to buy the stories. These stories can be about anything: the organization’s mandate, the way it is in the world, the kind of people we are, the kinds of things we make and do, where we have come from and where we are going…all the ripe fields of human mythmaking and meaning making.

Complexity and diversity in participation threatens the organization’s identity because it pokes holes in the large assumptions that the powerful pieces of an organization can sometimes hold over everyone else. These power stories could be societal and cultural myths or beliefs as well, and they could inhibit a huge set of opportunities and potentials. By inviting a large diversity of people into the shared meaning-making storyspace, we invite challenge to the myths and a much more dynamic process of social and organizational truth telling that makes organizations or societies very robust. And I think that is a very good thing. It’s good for democracy, it’s good for productivity, it’s good for engagement. People recover their agency, groupthink becomes a thing s of the past, minds are opened and passion AND responsibility is engaged.

The story of the OST meeting I did last weekend illustrates this writ small, but I think we cannot underestimate the power of letting go of that power of control over the stories and the myths. People might ask “but where do we then find stability for our organization or society?”

And in a changing world I would have to reply “thank me later…”