Givens -- Again : some comments

[chris weaver]

Artur wrote,

> This compares with the big discussions in the previous
> times the question was raised. Of course, I am happy
> that now everyone seems to be in accordance with me.
> But my question is: what happened to explain that?

What happened to explain that?...maybe that I was sleeping ;-)

Truly Artur, Harrison et al, I've enjoyed hearing people's perspective that
articulating givens isn't needed and has a dampening effect on the
proceedings.  The "track record" of people like Kerry holding space for
successful events of all kinds speaks for itself.

I still like the givens and value the process of arriving at them, though it
is true for me that the outcome is sometimes that there are no givens, and
everything works great.

Let me offer an example of the usefulness of the givens.  First, in the
planning meeting with the sponsor, when I ask the question, Are there, from
your perspective, any non-negotiables related to the theme and circumstance
of this event?...the reflection on this question has inherent value.  I
don't see asking this question as an invitation to the sponsor to assert
control or protect their perceived power.  It's an invitation to put
themselves in the shoes of the participants, and to reflect on:  What do I
know from my vantagepoint that everyone at the event doesn't know?

But it's what happens next that is so rich...if the sponsor generates some
items deemed non-negotiable, then we discuss each one, with the explicit
intent of eliminating them from the list if at all possible.  When I'm the
facilitator of this conversation, I ask a lot of questions, often iterating
and reiterating some version of "trust the people, trust the process."

So let's say we're talking about a non-profit organization funded by a
four-year federal grant, and the sponsor is responsible for ensuring that
the deliverables are fulfilled.  At the end of the "givens" discussion in
the pre-meeting, the sponsor says, "You know, I've been working with these
deliverables for months, and I have it in focus, but I've never shared the
whole timeline with the staff - they only have pieces.  So I really want to
present the timeline of deliverables as givens.  These are the things that
we have to fulfill, and they're crystal clear...but I need all the creative
resources of the whole group to do it in the best, most powerful way."

At this point I would say, by all means, email the timeline to everybody
prior to the OST, and call this list of deliverables "a given."  I'd advise
the sponsor to be as human as possible in the interchange, and of course in
the opening...to say, "This is what I am up against as the project manager,
and I need you to see it.  I honor all your work and wisdom and creativity,
but please keep in mind that my next quarterly report is due in 30 days and
it is a duty I take seriously to honor our agreement with the people who are
funding our work."

So, Artur, Harrison, et al:  Does this hurt the event?  Does this disrespect
the people?  My experience is that such sharing of givens brings a deepening
of understanding, and sometimes a palpable sigh of appreciation.  It is an
important thing for me not to lose sight of the reality that sponsors,
administrators, organizational leaders, face pressures as the
interface-point between the organization and powers-that-be that many
members of the organization don't understand.  The givens are one way to
honor the sponsor, to invite deeper understanding, and to facilitate a
smooth and powerful integration of the OST event into the realities of the
ongoing work.

My two cents!  Thanks, Artur, for flushing me out ;-)

Chris

As OST facilitators,

> From: Artur Silva <arturfsilva at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:32:09 -0800
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: [OSLIST] Givens   --  Again  : some comments
>
> Hi all:
>
> What I find interesting is that everyone that spoke
> this time seems to be in accordance that "givens" are
> useless (with some minor observations of caution, in
> some cases).
>
> This compares with the big discussions in the previous
> times the question was raised. Of course, I am happy
> that now everyone seems to be in accordance with me.
> But my question is: what happened to explain that?
>
> Regards
>
> Artur
>
> PS: there is a second discussion about "(much) less is
> more" that is continuing without modification of the
> subject, which I find confusing... May I ask that when
> someone changes the direction of the discussion also
> change the subject?

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

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist