Opening Space for Nichtwissen
(The Question)
The German word, Nichtwissen,
has – so far as I am aware – no direct cognate in English. Wissen, of course comes across easily as “knowledge,” but Nichtwissen is radically different and
much deeper than the dictionary supplied translation – Ignorance. Even worse is the secondary translation of nescience, a word that I personally have
never previously encountered. So what English word might communicate the
essence of Nichtwissen, (which means literally “no knowledge) but without the
pejorative flavor of ignorance?
Something positive and useful – the condition precedent to knowledge? I think the word might be question.
In ordinary speech we normally juxtapose knowledge with ignorance
with never a thought for The Question. Perhaps this explains why, at least in
American circles, we are infatuated with knowledge, but remain almost oblivious
to the power and impact of the precursor of knowledge – The Question. Ignorance
is something to be eliminated. The Question, however, is to be cherished and
cultivated, for knowledge without the question is shorn from its roots. In
worst case scenarios, such knowledge becomes trivia; incidental facts and
figures with no way to understand the place and purpose. Given the current interest in the generation
of knowledge, now elevated to the status of field or discipline, as in
Knowledge Management, it is very much as if we were playing a most important
game with one hand tied behind our back. Or some might say we play with half a
deck of cards.
******************
Knowledge and the management of knowledge have become
critical issues for all those engaged in the progress of civilized life. For
businesses the effective treatment of this issue marks the difference between
profit and going out of business. The
issue is no less critical for governmental organizations and NGOs, albeit the
nice measure of profit and loss (the bottom line) may be less obvious. Indeed
this issue has become sufficiently compelling that Knowledge Management is now
capitalized and whole departments, associations, and professions have been
established to carry out the task.
The definition of knowledge is an elusive undertaking, but it
may suffice to understand this critical element of our human enterprise as the sum
total of our collective experience. Some of this experience is readily
available for our daily use, and a much larger part has been forgotten. The
accessible elements of our human experience are put to work everyday, and the
hidden parts become the special passion of those dedicated to unearthing our
past. Historians of all sorts plow the fields of the past, hoping to turn up
critical snippets and profound insights that may be of use today. Knowledge
Management and knowledge managers assume the daunting task of bringing all of
this together for the enrichment of our common lives.
As important as knowledge and Knowledge Management may be, it
seems to me that our fixation on all this has effectively blindsided us to an
equal, or perhaps more important concern: The Question.
In the early 60’s I found myself at
Some 20 years later (1977), Rosalyn Yalow won the coveted
Nobel Prize for her work on nuclear magnetic resonance, which has become the
foundation for much of the science and practice in non-invasive medical imaging
(MRI). Roz, as she was known to her friends and colleagues, did all of her work
at the US Department of Veterans Affairs, where I was also employed. When she
won the Nobel, we decided to make a movie about her life and work. It was a
good movie, I think, but the best part was a small snippet of an on-camera
interview. The interviewer asked the provocative question, “Roz, why do you do
what you do?” to which Roz replied, “I do what I do because each morning when I
come into my laboratory I know that I have the opportunity to ask a question
that nobody has ever asked before.”
A passion for the question, or a reverence for the
“unknowing,” is not a recent phenomenon. Sometime around 500 ce a Christian
mystic, known to the world only as Dionysius the Areopagite wrote at length on
what he called the “Great Cloud Of Unknowing.”
Never to be confused with ignorance, and vastly deeper than knowledge,
either as fact or theory, The Great Cloud of Unknowing was in truth the deep
source of all knowledge – the primal question. Or perhaps we might better say –
the primal quest.
It may be argued that early Christian Mysticism has little
relevance to the current fad of Knowledge Management, and I would find it
difficult to disagree. I suspect, however, this lack of perceived relevance
reveals a profound weakness in the current Knowledge Management enterprise. The
fundamental concern has been with knowledge. What is missing is a deep
appreciation of the fundament of knowledge: The Question. A more robust
enterprise would include both, knowledge and its source, the answer and the
question. And this robust enterprise, by whatever name, must concern itself not
only with harvesting the fruits of knowledge (fact, figures, theories,
procedures) but also the preparation and maintenance of the field from which
all knowledge grows.
Opening Space for The Question:
Preparation of the field of Knowledge
For the past 20 years I have been involved in a marvelous
natural experiment with Open Space Technology which can, I believe, shed some
useful light on the issue of the “preparation and maintenance of the field in
which all knowledge grows.”
Open Space Technology is a very simple method which enables
groups of people, large and small, to constructively deal with complex and
conflicted issues in a surprisingly short period of time. Along the way it
inevitably occurs that new knowledge and approaches to old and emergent
problems are developed – in addition to multiple other positive results. But it
is the knowledge generation aspect which makes Open Space relevant to this
present discussion.
Briefly described[1],
in Open Space the people concerned with some significant issue are invited to
sit in a circle, create a bulletin board on which they post the critical sub
issues that each person wishes to address with their colleagues – after which a
market place is opened where the details of time and place of meeting are
negotiated. And then it is off to work. It is significant that all Open Space
events start with nothing but a question. There are no presentations, no preset
agendas, no conference management committees, no resource people, and no
intervening facilitators – only a question.
The precise nature of the question of course varies with the situation,
and so if the people are gathered to enhance the water supply for their
village, the question might be something like, “What are the issues and
opportunities for enhancing the quality of the water supply for our village.”
The question is broad enough to allow for the exploration of an infinite number
of answers. But it is sufficiently focused to insure that the people who come
know why they are present. And if they are not interested in that question,
they probably should not attend.
In the 20 year period since 1985 when I created Open Space,
it has been used in excess of 60,000 times in 108 countries with groups ranging
in size from 5 – 2000. Typical
applications have included such things as strategic and tactical planning for
Rockport Shoes Inc – in which some 400 employees established goals and
directions for their company in addition to developing a totally new product
and redesigning their inventory system. All of this was accomplished in 2 days,
and except for the opening and closing of the event there was absolutely no
intervention by the facilitator (me) at any time. The people did it all by
themselves. In another case, some 2008 German Psychiatrists gathered for a
single day’s event intended to synthesize their collective learning at the
conclusion of their biannual conference and further build the common body of
knowledge. In all they created 236 working groups in about half an hour,
self-managed the entire process and produced a book of proceedings as a record
of their effort. In the
In a radically different application,
50 Palestinians and Israelis met in Open Space. These 50 souls were not your
standard “peaceniks” – but rather an extreme representation of the conflicting
passions and positions in that troubled part of the world. They came together
in
There is no such thing as a complete
record of the various ways in which Open Space has been applied or the results
achieved. However, fuller descriptions of these and other applications may be
found in the books cited above in addition to the
The specific applications and results of Open Space are as
various as humanity itself, ranging from the development of micro-economic
policy at The World Bank to the solution of water distribution problems in
small underdeveloped villages. Having said that, it is also true that every Open
Space in which I have participated, or heard about, achieved a common set of
results, or behavioral characteristics, which I would characterize as follows:
1) High Learning 2) High Play 3) Appropriate control and structure 4) Genuine
community. Of the four, it would seem that High Learning had the most to do
with our present concern, but in fact all four are interconnected and
supportive of the generation of knowledge, not by specifying that knowledge,
but rather by creating the rich environment in which powerful knowledge may
develop and grow.
High Learning is an adaptation of Thomas Kuhn’s
phrase “High Science” which refers to those paradigm breaking moments when new
insights radically alter the way the world is viewed.[4] I
could have used the phrase in its original form, but chose to change “science”
to ‘learning” simply to make the point that we are not talking about the
special feats of world class scientists, but rather the deep learning
experience of all sorts of people as they come to view their world in new and
more effective ways. Out of the diversity of opinions and life experiences,
which were often in conflict (sometimes violent conflict) come novel approaches
and insights – knowledge in the most practical form.
High Play High Play
denotes the manner in which the people involved approach their task –
playfully. Quite often play is understood to be a trivial incidental compared
to the real business of living. I think this is a profound error. Play for me
may be the most serious (important) of our many undertakings. The importance of
play derives from the fact that when we experience reality in different and
unexpected ways, we seek to understand (develop knowledge about) our new
experience by telling likely stories, or in more formal terms, creating
theories. We take the available evidence, combined with our prior experience
and try to construct reasonable explanations for the newly observed phenomenon.
Almost inevitably our first attempts are flawed, and it is often the case that
there are as many theories (stories) as people telling them. If everybody
treats their version as the “gospel truth” it is not long before the dead hand
of dogma descends, and the search for understanding degenerates into a fight
amongst ideologues. On the other hand,
when people treat their new adventure in a playful fashion, there may well be
serious competition, but there is also deep respect for the “opponents,” and a
real joy in the game. In Open Space it is very common to see the game of
knowledge building played with real skill and enjoyment – even by people who
have never done anything like that before.
Appropriate Control and Structure It is often assumed that when people
are invited to do only what they would like to do there would be little
structure and less control. Indeed it would seem likely that the whole thing
would quickly go totally out of control. In Open Space, quite the opposite
occurs – to the surprise of many. When 2000 individuals (the German
Psychiatrists described above) create 236 working groups, all of which meet,
conduct their business, and conclude with written reports, there is obviously a
level of structure and control that no conference planning committee would ever
even dream of. But there is a difference from the more usual situation – all of
the structure and control is emergent, created by the people themselves as
needed and virtually instantaneously. Far from being an arbitrary imposition,
such structure and control is completely appropriate to the people involved,
the task they are performing, and the environment in which they are working. One
major effect is that the structure and controls do not create barriers to
knowledge creation, but rather are totally supportive of the effort. This might
be contrasted with the situation in many organizations where departmental walls
often create insurmountable barriers to the generation and transmission of
knowledge. Communication is supposed to go up and down, but rarely across the
organization chart, thus creating an obstacle course that defeats even the best
of ideas. And when knowledge is guarded with fierce proprietary zeal under the
assumption that knowledge is power, and power is rarely to be shared, it could
be argued that contemporary organization design represents the ultimate
repressive mechanism for the generation of new knowledge.
Genuine Community Without question one of the most
surprising aspects of the Open Space experience is what I can only call genuine
community. This is to be distinguished from what might be called pseudo community
– the sort that occurs each holiday season when people gather for the annual
office party, and the president/director stands before the group to proclaim,
“We are all one big family.” In Open
Space it almost inevitably occurs that the participants treat each other with
respect from which grows trust and hope. Even in hugely conflicted situations
genuine community can make an appearance, as witness the situation with the 50
Palestinians and Israelis described by
Knowledge Generation and the Four
Behavioral Characteristics
Clearly High Learning is the critical factor in terms of
knowledge generation in Open Space, however the other three characteristics are
very important. High Play insures that the discussion remains free from
dogmatic pronouncement and ideological gridlock. Appropriate Structure and
Control insure that the mechanics of organization serve and support the process
of knowledge generation as opposed to being impediments created by artificial
barriers. And lastly, the presence of Genuine Community allows for the
participation of the full diversity of talents, experiences and opinions
present in the group. Diversity, in short, becomes a resource to be cherished
as opposed to a problem to be solved.
Were one able to mandate the presence of these
characteristics, or possibly train groups in their manifestation and use, it
would seem that almost any group could achieve effective levels of knowledge
generation without reference to Open Space Technology. No need to start with
the question, sit in a circle, create a bulletin board and open a market place
– just get on with the business. Yet my 20 years’ experience in Open Space
tells me that the behaviors and interactions reach a level of complexity and
speed of manifestation as to render rational analysis almost impossible. In a
word, I find it impossible to think at that level of complexity, let alone
prescribe the detailed steps necessary to create, manage, and control such a
situation. More to the point, I find little need to do so, if only because
everything seems to happen all by itself – with minimal to no assistance. The
obvious question: What is going on?
Opening Space for Self-Organization
Open Space Technology is simplicity itself. With something
less than 20 minutes’ introduction by the facilitator, groups of all sizes are
enabled to create their agenda and engage their enterprise. By the end of an
hour and a half, working groups have assembled to probe and discuss the
critical issues they identified. Over the course of the Open Space (usually one
to two days) groups continue to meet at the self selected times and places, and
as each group concludes its discussion reports are generated and distributed to
the entire body. The facilitator, who began the event, is practically
invisible, offering neither direction nor intervention during the process. Some
facilitators (myself) have even been known to take a nap. In a word, the people
involved do it all by themselves without benefit of a management committee or
external intervention.
Seen from the viewpoint of the conventional wisdom and
practice of group process and meeting management, the experience in Open Space
is an enigma. In fact it probably could not, or should not happen. “Everybody
knows” that you can not take 2000 people, leave them to their own devices
without benefit of agenda or direction, and expect that anything other than
mass confusion will result. Yet in thousands of instances over the past 20
years, groups ranging is size from 5- 2000 have done the impossible. Once again
– the question: What is going on?
The only plausible explanation that I have discovered is that
Open Space works because self-organization works. The precise nature and
definition of self-organization is an evolving discussion, the end of which is
hardly in sight. However, the reality of self-organization has assumed a firm
position in the minds of many in the scientific community.
My favorite guide to the emerging thought world of
self-organizing systems is Stuart Kauffman and his colleagues at the Santa Fe
Institute. Kauffman is a biologist whose
life work has centered on the interesting problem of how it happened that life
emerged from the primal ooze. I am not sure that he would agree with my way of
phrasing this, but it all comes down to the incredible fact that out of the
boiling caldron of odd chemicals found on the surface of the early Earth, we
showed up. And how did that happen?
Kauffman’s answer, shortly stated, is that it pretty much
happened all by itself.[5] Or
as he says with mantra-like regularity, “Order for free.” Given certain very simple pre-conditions, the
dis-organized gets itself together. The essential pre-conditions are: 1) A
relatively safe, nutrient environment. 2) High levels of diversity. 3) High
levels of complexity 4) Sparse prior connections 5) The search for fitness 6)
Being at the edge of chaos.
A Relatively safe nutrient
Environment Even a self-organizing system requires a
little peace and quiet to get its act together. In the early days here on Earth
that might mean being in the shadow of a friendly protecting rock, temporarily
blocking the violent radiation from the Sun. High Levels of Diversity means that the stew out of which the new
organism (organization) will emerge must contain a lot of different elements.
If everything is the same, not much will happen. High levels of complexity might better be rendered “High levels of potential complexity. The point is that
the soon to be organized elements must have the capacity of fitting together in
a variety of complex interrelationships. If it only goes together in one way,
it is possible that organization might emerge, but the chances go way down. Sparse prior connections is probably a more
obscure statement than it needs to be, for the idea is quite simple. The point
is that the elements to be organized should not already be organized – hence
they are not connected in a prior (previous) organizational form. The Search for Fitness is, of course,
the touchstone of Darwinian evolutionary theory, although it is more usually
rendered (incorrectly, I think) as the survival
of the fittest. The central point is
that there is present a “desire” to function at a higher level, and therefore a
search for a better way to fit in with the surrounding world. Those who fit
better, survive better.
Since Kauffman is largely talking about atoms and molecules coming
together in new and better ways, the ascription of “desire” to these inanimate
objects may be rather a stretch, and would certainly imply some level of
consciousness at the atomic level. Who knows whether that is true or not, but
my intent is only to indicate that there is a search for a better way to be
(conscious or not). Thus if you are an atom and I am an atom, getting together
to form a molecule may present some positive advantages in terms of our ability
to get along in the world. Likewise, if two simple molecules get together
(organize) they would constitute a complex molecule, which could have its own
advantages.
The last pre-condition, Edge
of Chaos, is (if you will) the kicker. Simply put, if the whole atomic stew
is sitting there as an inert blob, not very much is going to happen. It is only
when the stew is a churning mess (chaos) that the possibility of
self-organization raises.
According to Kauffman, when these essential preconditions are
manifest, order happens. Nobody needs to do a thing, plan a thing, manage a
thing – organization just happens. When it all works, the net result is what Kauffman
and his colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute call a Complex Adaptive System. It
is complex in the sense that it is composed of multiple elements linked in a
variety of ways. It is adaptive in the sense that the process of
self-organization is ongoing as the entity searches for new and better ways to
be in the world. This search may also
be understood as learning, which
would seem to have something to do with the process of knowledge generation.
And it is a system in the sense that it all works together.
I am by no means competent to judge the quality of Kauffman’s
science, a judgment which must be left to his scientific colleagues. However, I
can say that at this point, the reviews of his work appear to have been largely
positive, and if Kauffman has not managed to get everything precisely right,
his peers seem to feel that he is heading in the right direction. While the
wheels of science are turning in their own inimitable fashion, I have found
myself drawn to what may be a radically pre-mature conclusion, but it is a
conclusion nonetheless. What Kaufman has described in general and in detail is
the key to an understanding of Open Space, and why the seemingly impossible
happens with predictable regularity. Open Space works because self-organization
works.
I was led to this conclusion by the possibly serendipitous
correlation between Kauffman’s preconditions and my own formulation of the
conditions of use for Open Space.[6] A
number of years ago when asked about the best conditions for the use of Open
Space, I replied, Open Space works well
when the following are true: 1) You have a real business issue of genuine
concern. 2) Characterized by high levels of complexity such that no single
person or small group can begin to get their minds around it. 3) High levels of
diversity in terms of the people/disciplines/parties involved. 4) The presence
of actual or potential conflict. 5) There is a decision time of yesterday. In
short this is a matter of immediate concern. Given these circumstances, Open
Space not only seems to work – it always works.
Obviously there is a large leap required in the move from
self-organization at the molecular level to self-organization at the level of
human systems. What happens in one place need not happen in the other, but it
certainly could happen. Indeed, if self-organization is a fundamental force in
the cosmos from the very beginning (all 14,000,000,000 years) as many would
argue, would it not be strange if that small, recent part of the cosmos, human
systems, be somehow exempt? One might equally expect the exemption of human
systems from the force of gravity. Further more, as I read Kauffman’s material, I was struck not only with the
verbal similarities between his preconditions for self-organization and my own
conditions of use for Open Space, I also believe I could point to specific ways
in which the Open Space process itself created the conditions for self-organization
a la Kauffman. Over time, suspicion moved to intrigue until at this present
moment I find myself convicted by the conclusion that Open Space is
self-organization at the level of human systems.
Time will judge the validity of this conclusion, but in the interim I ask that
you accept it, at least for the sake of the argument, or perhaps as a testable
hypothesis.
Possibility Space and the Search for
Fitness
Having made the jump (at least for the sake of the argument)
from Open Space viewed as a curious meeting management procedure to Open Space
as an exemplar of Self-organization at work, we may now press on with our
central concern of the role of The Question in the generation of knowledge. Or
perhaps, the necessity for unknowing as a prerequisite for knowing; Nichtwissen as the precursor
(foundation) of Wissen. The key, I
believe, lies in the Search for Fitness, and of equal importance, the place
(space) where that search is carried out – which I would call Possibility Space.
The researchers at the Santa Fe Institute have denominated
self-organizing systems Complex Adaptive Systems. The key word is adaptive, which indicates that the
system, be that molecular or human, is constantly adapting to its internal and
external environment seeking a better fit, a better way of getting along in the
world. This might also be called learning,
for the system is not only finding better ways to be, it is also remembering
them for future use. In short a body of knowledge is being built which will
enable higher levels of survival. Obviously in the case of atoms and molecules
we do not have neuronal pathways created in nonexistent brains, but the
“memory” (and learning) is real nonetheless, captured in the novel structures
created: new molecular confections which are able to do what no molecule had
ever done before.
The adaptive process is also visible in higher level systems,
for example ant colonies.[7]
These tiny creatures, without benefit of anything that we might call a brain,
construct architectural wonders, engage in hugely complex social behaviors, and
manage to sustain themselves in a constantly changing world. And they learn
with great rapidity and quickly apply the fruits of their learning.
Each day as the dawn breaks (metaphorically, for it seems the
ants discovered 24X7 long before their human neighbors) the ants emerge from
their home. Although they march forth in a single column (ant hills usually
have but a single entrance), the column quickly breaks ranks and the individual
ants disperse across the landscape in a seemingly random and chaotic fashion –
but there is a purpose, a quest, a question – and it is called FOOD! And there
is an abundance of Nichtwissen. If
the goal is food, the location and nature of that food is unknown, lost we
might say in a great cloud of unknowing.
And how do you get there from here? Judging from the ants’
behavior a straight line approach is not part of the strategy. Each individual
ant picks its own way. No tightly controlled “matrix search” for these creatures.
Each ant is on its own, does its own thing – back and forth across the
landscape.
What seems random for the individual is in fact a concerted
effort for the collective. However, to achieve the hoped for results (food)
certain basics are required: Lots of space. Lots of ants. Lots of redundancy.
The space is what I have called Possibility Space. To the
casual (or uninformed) observer it would appear that there was nothing there. This
is a profound error, for the space is literally full – of possibility. While
nothing may be visible at the moment lots of things could be there. And the more space, the more possibility. Of
course, there are no guarantees, save one. If you limit the space, you will
limit the possibilities. Under ideal circumstances, the Possibility Space would
be absolutely unlimited. This of course, would mean that the possibilities (of
finding food) are unlimited.
Unlimited possibility is a wonderful ideal, but realizing
that ideal can be a problem, unless you have available an infinite number of
“space explorers.” Mother Nature doesn’t quite do “infinite,” but the numbers
are definitely impressive, as every picnicker realizes to their discomfort when
the ants invade their picnic. From
nowhere and everywhere the thousands invade, and just as you manage to choke
off one point of entry, the persistent hordes find another. At that point it
will dawn upon you that what appears as random (pointless?) behavior is
extraordinarily effective. For the ants, the infinite Possibility Space in now
full of substance. The end of their quest is in view: FOOD.
Beneath all of the activity, there is a secret weapon in
operation. And like many good secrets, it is hidden in plain sight. The secret
is redundancy. Individual ants repeat, and repeat, and repeat the basic actions
of their fellows. There are minor variations for sure, caused by the peculiar
characteristics of each ant (yes, ants are different) and the terrain being
negotiated, but the fundamental action is the same in every case. But
differences, even very small differences, do make a difference.[8]
The small variations in apparently identical behavior effectively expand the
area of search, and so by seemingly doing the same thing over and over again,
new territory is explored, new Possibility Space is encountered. Redundancy is
powerful.
To many people in the modern world, particularly managers and
executives, redundancy seems to be the ultimate waste of time, the epitome of inefficiency.
For apparently good reasons major efforts are devoted to the elimination of
redundancy. And indeed, when you actually know what you are doing, redundant
behavior is wasteful. However, when the objective is the pursuit of knowledge,
the exploration of Possibility Space – redundancy is not only useful, it is a
marvel of efficiency, as we are rediscovering with the advent of massively
redundant computer systems. Parallel processing beats serial processing every
time. And massively parallel (redundant) processing is unquestionably the king
of the heap.
When redundancy and numbers triumph Possibility Space reveals
its treasure. For the ants this means FOOD, and for you it means keeping a
special watch on that sticky tart you were saving for desert. It could be gone.
In an instant, the apparently random behavior of the ants transforms into a single
column of industrious ants demolishing the tart piece by piece and carrying the
prize home. The secret is simple, accurate, and quick communication. According
to the people who study such things, the ants use a potent combination of little dances and trace chemicals to inform
their fellows not only that the search is successful, but also the most direct
route to the food and back to the hill. Random behavior becomes concerted
action. Your tart is history.
What we learn about learning from the ants may be summarized
as follows. Given large numbers and redundant action, all combined with simple,
accurate and quick communication, Possibility Space will yield its treasure.
For the ants the fruits of knowledge are quite concrete: dinner. It is also
worth while noting that this marvelously complex, albeit elegantly simple,
exercise in learning and knowledge generation happens all by itself. There is
not a professor in sight, nor a curriculum management committee. A Complex
Adaptive System is a Learning Organization, which might suggest that special
efforts to create Learning
Organizations are rather a wasted effort. If the science is correct, Learning
Organizations have been in existence from the beginning – all 14 billion years.
Open Space as Possibility Space
Every Open Space event starts with nothing but a question,
and a question unlike statements, creates space. The space created is not
nothing. In the first place it is a defined space having broad limits, but making
it clear that we are talking about “this” space as opposed to all others. “What
are the issues and opportunities for enhancing the quality of water supply for
our village?” This question creates the conceptual space where the focus is the
water supply for our village. Certain things are excluded, as for example
the water supply on Mars. It is also evocative space for those who care about
“our village” and “the water supply.” Only those who care will be drawn to this
question. The magnetism of the question charges the space with the electric
sense of possibility. But please note -- there isn’t an answer in sight. For
this is a real question as opposed to a rhetorical question.
When the question is asked and the people assemble, they sit
in a circle – with nothing in the middle. There are no tables, no podiums; only
the people facing each other, with nothing in the way. And if there are 2000
people it is a very big circle, a very big space. But even with smaller groups,
the intervening space feels strange to most participants, awesome to some. It
is worthwhile noting the behavior of the group as the people take their seats.
Some appear confused as to where they should sit, for no places are marked, and
in a circle there is neither front nor back, head nor foot. Like small children
approaching a cold swimming pool, they are keenly aware of the edge and when
they cross that edge (stick a toe in the water), they will quickly retreat. If
they find it necessary to go to the other side, they will walk all the way
around the circle rather than cutting across.
The physical space and the conceptual space complement each
other. The magnetism of the question draws people in and the awesomeness of the
open space keeps them at a distance. The atmosphere can be fairly described as
charged, as an electrical field is charged. The empty open space is negative –
which is not to say bad or nasty, but negative in the sense that an electrical
field has a negative pole as well as a positive one. Metaphorically (and
perhaps in reality) the open space is the grounding point, a huge void
summoning the positive flash of energy and insight from the people on the
perimeter. This, I believe, is the power of The Question. It is Nichtwissen
made manifest. And except for The Question in everybody’s mind, not a word has
been spoken. But the field in which knowledge may grow has been prepared.
What happens next in a typical Open Space is a major surprise
for many first time participants, and quite unbelievable to most people who
have never witnessed such an event. The facilitator very briefly outlines the
approach and then invites the participants to come to the center of the circle
with all the issues they wish to pursue. From start to finish, the
facilitator’s introduction usually takes about 15-20 minutes. When the words end,
there is a moment of total silence – which may seem like an eternity to the
sponsor of the event, but rarely last more that 10-15 seconds before the first
participant arrives in the center of the circle to write his or her issue on a
piece of paper and announce it to the total group. The rush to the center is often
almost overwhelming, and it is not uncommon to see a queue of 50-60 people
standing patiently waiting to announce their issues. As each issue is announced
the participant posts the issue paper on a large blank wall and the
announcements continue until there are no further issues to be raised. The
number of posted issues can be staggering; 236 in the case of the 2000 German
Psychiatrists. When the last issue is announced, the entire group is invited to
go to the wall and sign up for issue sessions they wish to attend, and if there
are problems in terms of meeting times or duplication of subject matter the
participants themselves make the necessary changes. In short order the group
has dissolved into multiple small groups, and once again the open space is
empty. All of this occurs in an hour to an hour and a half, or less.
To a casual passer by, the happenings in Open Space appear
chaotic, confusing and random. Several thousand people moving to a wall without
any direction or facilitation appears as nothing short of a mob scene. And
while it may become quieter over the next day or two in Open Space, the actual
situation is, if anything, worse. Although it may seem that the participants
have nicely organized themselves into smaller groups around particular issues,
it quickly becomes apparent as the groups begin their discussions that in many
instances the posted topic is only a starting point with little predictive
power in terms of the final result. Discussions begun in one place will end in
another – or even multiple places. Physically, the groups may appear stable for
a short slice of time, but over time (even a short time) it becomes apparent
that there is constant movement as participants come and go. In fact this
movement is encouraged by the one Law in Open Space which is proclaimed by the
facilitator in the opening comments. This is known as the Law of Two Feet.
Briefly stated the law says: “If at any time you find yourself in any situation
where you are neither learning nor contributing, use your two feet. Move to
some other place where you may learn or contribute.”
In a word, Open Space is characterized by constant movement –
intellectual, physical and (often) emotional. To the outside observer this
moment appears chaotic and random, having all the characteristics of a real
mess. However, for a majority of the participants the constant motion seems
natural, even purposeful, and while they may not know exactly where they are
going, they seem to enjoy the journey (mostly).
Over the course of one or two days, which is the normal
duration of an Open Space, a strange phenomenon puts in an appearance.
Disparate themes and issues coalesce and transform to become common stands
weaving through the discussion. Without a vote or any other formal action being
taken a consensus appears. Conflicting ideas complement each other to produce
more robust understandings and approaches. In a word, answers are created for
issues raised. New knowledge is manifest out of the initial unknowing. Wissen
emerges from Nichtwissen.
The specificity of the answers, knowledge or approaches
varies with the starting point of the overall conversation. If the starting
point is global (something like Peace on Earth) the ending may seem rather
diffuse. However, if the starting point is more concrete and focused it is
quite common to conclude with action plans ready for implementation, or in some
cases, already implemented. And how did all that happen?
The Search for Fitness in Open Space
With due respect for my fellow humanoids, I make bold to
suggest that the operative mechanism is one well known to the ants – to the
extent that ants can know. It is the age old quest, the search for fitness. As
with the ants a few basic requirements for a successful conclusion exist:
plenty of space, lots of randomness, large numbers. If all of this is added to
a means of communication which is simple, accurate, and quick, a positive
outcome, while never guaranteed, is highly probable.
I have already described the nature of the space. It is very
big, although bounded sufficiently to make clear the focus and intent of the
gathering. As for the random behavior, there would seem to be more than a great
abundance to the point that casual observers are often overwhelmed by the mess.
When it comes to numbers, there is virtually no limit. It is common in
Organization Development circles to advocate getting the “whole system in the
room.” Observing this admonition usual means gathering a small, representative
sample of stakeholders. With Open Space, the sky is quite literally the limit. Groups
in excess of 2000 have worked well, and there is no reason to think that number
could not be increased. Eventually, of course, physical space may become a
problem, but not an insoluble one. Given the power of Internet communication,
it is quite possible to hold simultaneous, multi-site Open Spaces on a single
theme for a single, very large group in several places. More people? Just add
spaces.
Mention of the Internet brings us to a consideration of
communication in Open Space. In a typical situation, computers are provided for
the participants’ use. As each group completes its discussion, the convener of
that group will make a short report on the computer. That report is then
instantly distributed online and in hard copy to all participants. By the
conclusion of the gathering there will be a full written report of the effort
available for participants to take home or view online.
Wiring Open Space produces communication for the group which
is fairly accurate, quite simple and usually fast, provided people read what
they have been given – which most people seem to do. After all this is a report
on the discussion of a question that the participants cared sufficiently about
to come to the gathering. Normal curiosity insures that they will read in order
to find out what happened. That said, the computers and reports are but the tip
of the communication iceberg.
The most powerful communication happens through the oldest of
mechanisms. You may call it office gossip, back channel communication, hallway
whispers – but the experience has been that well before some newsworthy item
showed up on the written reports or on the computer screens, it has already
been flashed across the Open Space landscape. There are also times when the
speed of communication across the group appears to outdistance even the
capacity of office gossip and the rumor mill – which after all requires that
one person talk to another. I cannot explain it, but only report that on
multiple occasions it appeared that communication was virtually instantaneous,
and the content of that communication was much more complex than a single word
or fact. It appeared that something like a “collective consciousness” was in operation.
Collective consciousness in this case is not to be confused with deep shared
consciousness manifest in the Jungian archetypes, but rather a functional
intelligence that appeared capable of observing a situation, consider the
options, and then take concerted action – all without a word spoken and in an
incredibly short period of time (minutes)[9].
How this works, I don’t have a clue, but in the situations where the collective
consciousness became manifest I found myself reminded of the behavioral shift
of the ant colony when they moved from random search to well ordered columns,
bringing home the tart, all of which seemed to happen with the snap of a
finger. I suppose if ants can do it, humans might be capable as well.
Learnings about Learning – The Gift
of Nichtwissen
So what have we learned about learning? What have we learned
about the pursuit, acquisition, and maintenance of knowledge? How would we
practice a truly robust Knowledge Management? A simple answer to all these
questions might be: Open Space!
I do not believe such an answer would be wrong, but it is
certainly less than satisfying. In fact there are probably a number of
situations in the business of Knowledge Management where the elegant simplicity
of Open Space Technology could be truly useful. Given a burning question
requiring immediate solution (knowledge), invite everybody who cares to sit in
a circle, create a bulletin board, open a market place – and get to work. While
there are no guarantees in life, it is highly probable that after a day or two,
pertinent answers will make an appearance, or at the very least the question
itself will be better understood.
However, for the majority of situations where the use of Open
Space Technology may be neither possible nor practical, but the need for
knowledge no less compelling, I believe there are at least two fundamental
imperatives. First, honor the gift of Nichtwissen. And second, respect the
power of redundancy. Doubtless there are many more considerations, but these
two fly in the face of much of the conventional wisdom and practice when it
comes to the generation of knowledge. It is therefore likely that they will be
forgotten or avoided in the enterprise.
Honoring the gift of Nichtwissen (un-knowing) is the point of
departure. Here in the United States, and I suspect in most other parts of the
Western world, the drive towards the acquisition of knowledge is so strong that
the critical point of departure is often (usually) overlooked. In all too many
cases, the question is carelessly tended to and so the answers, when they come,
look nice on paper, but have little relevance. This rush to judgment has buried
us in an ocean of answers for questions we never asked, or only dimly perceive.
Is it any wonder then that we find ourselves overwhelmed by a flood of
information? Sorting the good from the
bad, the useful from the irrelevant is a critical task made all but impossible
without reference to the question.
There is a phrase, perhaps even a practice, that comes I
believe from the Quaker Tradition. It is “sitting the question.” The notion is
a simple one, however hard it may be to implement for impatient knowledge
seekers. When deep questions arise, Stop! Don’t move a muscle; keep your
fingers off the keyboard and away from Google. Don’t talk to a soul and avoid
the library. Just wallow in the question, savor it, and consider it from all
angles. Go under it, around it, inside. And for goodness sake, don’t even think
about an answer, for surely as the sun rises, any answer you think of will be
premature. And a premature answer will not only be irrelevant, but it will also
prevent you from experiencing the bitter-sweet moments that arise when sitting
the question. And who knows, as you sit it may happen that the question
evaporates into thin air, in which case you are spared the thankless task of
finding an answer to a meaningless question. Then again, the question may
become deeper and you will be consumed with the possibilities of not-knowing,
and your Possibility Space will have expanded almost without limit. Nichtwissen
will have given its gift.
It should be noted that not all questions are deep, and
therefore worth “sitting.” Unworthy
questions would include such things as trivial questions – questions asked
simply to annoy, tease, or test. For example, a parent’s questions to small
child, “Have you picked up your toys?”(annoy). “Did you kiss that boy?” (tease)
– or “How much is 2+2?” (test). Such questions should be answered quickly or
avoided. There are also Loaded Questions, where any answer is wrong. Example:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Since you can’t win with a loaded question, the best thing to do is
ignore it. Lastly, there are rhetorical questions where the answer is already
known and/or implied. Example: “Do capitalists love money?” Unfortunately our
lives are filled with such unworthy questions, which may be one of the reasons
questions are not taken seriously.
However, even an unworthy question is worth a moment’s
reflection, for it may turn out that the questioner simply did not realize the
jewel he or she was offering. A marvelous example is the so called “dumb
question.” These are also known as “childish questions” – the sort that any
moderately informed person would immediately know the answer. Simply to ask such
a question immediately shows the lack of sophistication and education of the
questioner, for the question has long since been settled. But has it? When a child asks, “Why is the sky blue?” an
impatient parent may pass quickly by. Or, with a little reflection (sitting), a
marvelous journey could begin up into the stratosphere of our incredible blue
planet. Dumb questions often turn out to be the Achilles heal of the
conventional wisdom, revealing forgotten or unknown passage ways to unexplored
stretches of possibility space. Personally, I have never met a dumb question.
When Possibility Space has expanded, it is time to begin the
search. But remember the ants! Their random approach will appear to many modern
managers and executives (not to mention Knowledge Managers) as the epitome of
inefficiency. Much better, they suggest, narrow the field of inquiry, restrict
the number of inquirers, and conduct the whole affair in a tightly controlled,
rational fashion. Above everything else, you have to have a plan, and then
rigidly follow it. The ideal approach is to have a small group of intelligent,
highly informed experts consider the question, analyze the data, and move to
speedy resolution. Best of all, have a single individual do all of the above.
In fact this tightly disciplined approach will work quite
well, but usually only in situations where the answer to the question is
already known to the experts. Speaking personally, I find this an exceptionally
boring sort of question. My eldest son, Cam, remarked one day that he would
quit his job should his supervisor assign him tasks he already knew how to do.
I agree. Be that as it may, the approach described dominates the field, and on
occasion is elevated to the status of formal program.
The Dupont Company made such a jump when they created what
they called “Programmed Research.” They proposed to treat the process of
innovation, knowledge generation, and the development of new products in the
same way they might treat any other asset, potential or real. Areas of
potential new business would be defined, cost/benefit analysis performed, and
research conducted all according to a rigidly defined protocol. I suppose the
approach worked reasonably well for them, or at least they seemed to think so,
buttressed by the fact that they are still in business and doing very well,
thank you.
However, on the single occasion when I was privileged to work
with elements of Dupont, I encountered a rather different reality. I had been
retained by the group of research scientists who developed and supported the
product Dacron, a fabric used in everything from rugs to sails. The issue was
that the product had become old and increasingly unprofitable, and senior
management determined that unless new and more effective ways could be found
both to manufacture and use this product, it was to be withdrawn. For the
researchers involved, this also meant that their jobs would be at withdrawn. There
was, therefore, a high level of motivation to do something new, or as the
researchers phrased it, “achieve breakthrough research.” My job was to help
them do just that.
In preparation for my assignment I spent some time with the
senior laboratory directors, and asked them at one point if they had ever had a
“breakthrough” – on the grounds that we might use that as a benchmark for our
undertaking. They indicated that there had been 6 fundamental breakthroughs in
the life history of Dacron. I did not ask them what those breakthroughs were,
knowing that my ignorance of the mysteries of polymer chemistry would prevent
any useful understanding. I did ask, however, whether any of these
breakthroughs had been achieved in accordance with The Plan (as in The Plan for
Programmed Research). There was an embarrassing period of silence until the
youngest of the Directors said that none had followed the plan. I then asked a
seemingly irrelevant and possibly outrageous question. “Did any of these
breakthroughs almost fail to come to fruition for reasons other than
technical?” Once again the youngest director replied, “One of them.” I suppose
the devil made me do it, but I pressed on with a follow-up question, “Could you
tell me the circumstances of this almost failure?” Again a moment of silence,
and the answer was, “It almost failed when we tried to manage it.”
Interesting fact. Of six major breakthroughs, none occurred
according to The Plan (in short serendipity or randomness ruled), and the one
near failure occurred when those involved tried to control (manage) the
situation after the fact. So much for rigorous Programmed Research! But Dupont
clearly tried, and it was apparent that they truly believed in their process.
But the reality, at least in this particular instance, was quite different. In
fact the random search of Possibility Space occurred despite DuPont’s best
efforts to the contrary. All of which suggests that they could have done better
had they intentionally followed the practice of the ants. They would have ended
up in the same (or better?) place without the wasted effort of following a plan
(observing structures and controls) that was inappropriate to their
undertaking.
The essence of the ant’s practice, as you will remember, was
to employ lots of ants behaving randomly. In more colloquial terms, the swarm
was sent forth to do its thing. Over the millennia, swarm behavior has been
demonstrably effective, witness the fact that the ants are still very much here
to upset your picnic. It has been often argued, however, that while such
behavior may be appropriate to lower orders of life, human beings have risen
beyond. Yet when we look closely at particular situations, such as DuPont, it
appears that the proclamation of such a rise may have been premature. Further,
if we are to believe the experience in Open Space, swarm behavior is not only
alive and well in the human domain, but quite effective. It may well be yet
another example of attempting to fix something that was not broken.
Swarm behavior has also received no small amount of bad press
because it apparently demotes the individual from the preeminent position
assigned in most Western Societies. It is common to speak of the inventor, the innovator, the leader
as if there were one person who did it all. And the brilliant insights of the
individual are contrasted negatively with the muddled mess that supposedly
emanates from the swarm, the mob – as a product of group-think. Common sense
should question this understanding if only because we are all, to some large
extent, a product of our cultures and communities, and while one person may
have said the words, written the equation, expressed the thoughts, none of
those words, equations, or thoughts could have seen the light of day had it not
been for the embedding culture and community.
Common sense, however, does not seem to having much of an
impact on our infatuation with the individual. And the fear is often expressed
that should the swarm or the mob have free reign, the individual would surely
be sacrificed. Perhaps there are some circumstances where such fear may be
justified, but one of the most curious facts of the Open Space experience,
where the collective group (nicer words for swarm or mob) is very much in
evidence, is that individual participants will often report that never before
have they felt so accepted and respected for who and what they are, nor have
they experienced their own individual power so acutely. It would seem that the
stronger the communal sense (what I called Genuine Community) the greater the
sense of individuality.
In sum – what have we learned about learning, knowledge and innovation
in terms of practical application? Simply put: Sit the Question and thereby
receive the gift of Nichtwissen. And then, in the power of that gift, head for
the hinterlands of Possibility Space in the company of all who care to come.
Forget The Plan. Do your own thing, but keep the question firmly in mind as
your guiding star. If enough of you do this often enough, possibility will
often become reality. It is called the
search for fitness, and it has been going on for 14,000,000,000 years.
[1] For a
complete description please consult my book, Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Berrett-Koehler, 1997. A
German translation is also available with the title, Open Space Technology: Ein Leitfaden fur die Praxis, Klett-Cotta,
2001. See also Expanding Our Now: The Story of Open Space
(Berrett-Koehler, 1997) or the German translation, Erweiterung des Moglichen: Die Entdunkeng von Open Space
(Klett-Cotta, 2001)
[2] To join
the
[3] For more on Open Space as a natural experiment, please see my book, The Power of Spirit, (Berrett-Koehler, 2000, page 3 and following).
[4] Kuhn, Thomas, Structures of Scientific Revolution,
[5]
Kauffman, Stuart, At Home in the Universe,
[6] In the interest of the reader’s time, I have limited my explanation to the briefest of terms. However, a fuller description of the relationship between self-organization and Open Space will be found in my book, The Power of Spirit, Chapter III, “Chaos, Order, and The Creative Process.”
[7] See Johnson, Steven, Emergence, Scribner, 2001
[8] With
thanks to Gregory Bateson for this profound insight. See Bateson, Gregory, Mind and Nature, E.P. Dutton, 1979
[9] For a
description of such a moment see my book, Open
Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Berrett-Koehler, 1997. Page 120. This is
the story of The Naked Lady.