Fwd: Re: [OSLIST] Givens (was: Already-thereness, Empowerment and Such)

[Artur Ferreira da Silva]

Dear Chris:

>----- Mensagem Reenviada de Chris Corrigan <chris at chriscorrigan.com>
>
>
>So I think that givens are useful as long as they are well understood
>and true.  And what empowerment is all about is including them and
>transcending them and evolving to a higher form of being.


I know that you and other collegues do a superb job of preparation for an
OST event, and that many of you use the concept of "givens". I also know
that many colleagues take great care with the follow on, like Birgitt and
Michael remembered us. And those between us that think about themselves,
not only as "event facilitators" but also as "Organization transformation
consultants" are also concerned about how to create "Open Organizations"
(the expression I am using in this days to replace "Open Space
Organizations" - I can explain why if you are curious about).

Reading your post, I agree with most of the content - apart for one small
remark below and a major comment here...

As I have already said, my point is about using or not the word "givens"
both in our meetings with the sponsors and the group, or even in our own
minds. I definitively don't like the word "givens" because of the reasons I
have already stated. But I know very well that words have the importance
that they have - and not more. If you want to continue using the g-word,
but you are referring to something that I refer by a different name, that's
ok for me.

Some time ago, when this discussion has occurred in the list, I though
about some words to replace the g-word. And I have decided to borrow from
Physics the words "Constraints" and "Border conditions" - but applying them
to the "organizational system" and not to the physical one.

But I now like more the formulation Joelle proposed "what we know about
this". Every time I think about it I found another reason for liking it.
Please note that implicitly this formulation can also read, "what we NOW
know about this", meaning that our understanding can be (hopefully will be)
changed during the process... This clearly opens some space.

Naisbitt, in "Reinventing the Corporation" and Hamel and Prahalad in
"Competing for the Future", not to refer the "cahordic" concepts, make a
strong case about why we must think anew about our organizations - without
many of the "givens" from the past.

Now about my minor point: you referred gravity as an example. But gravity
is a law of nature. In organizational settings the givens are normally
human made and can be changed - even if they are external, but more clearly
if they are internal. And as you have referred, we often think as
being  external some constraints and limitation that have been created by
the (internal) mental models we use to see the external world. When you
refer to gravity as a type of "given" similar to the others, I wonder if
the client will not think that the other "givens" are so difficult to
bypass as gravity. But this is really a minor point, and I am in agreement
with you in all your other comments.

With care

Artur

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html