Givens -- Again

Fri Nov 19 15:56:16 PST 2004

It took a long time to respond here (reading is much easier than writing in
English), but my contribution is: 

I saw a lot coming along about givens. I wonder what is the issue.

Maybe the thing is about the responsibility of a facilitator.
If you sense that the givens are too much, you just have to say: "I wouldn't
do an Open Space here now; but there are a lot of alternative intervention
methods."

And when you sense: "O.k. The sponsor has an issue with energy and the
question is open enough" Then let's go for it!!
So that's one of the facilitator's main choices: take the decision in
respect for what open Space is and in respect for the community that has an
issue they have to take good care of. 
Then it's ready and clear and no more talking about givens or not I would
say.

And afterward take again a look at what has happened when an Open Space did
occur: Was it a "real" Open Space? Or was it somehow a "half Open Space".
Just take a real good look and LEARN. Does the perfect Open Space exist??

Maybe this is a male - female thing. 
As a man I would say: "You do it or not"
Could it be?

Greetings to whom I had to miss in OSONOS in India.

Autumn here in Holland: cold and wet outside and warm and family inside.

________________________
Michaël Molenaar
Systemisch Consult
Tilburg - Holland
michael at syst.nl 
Website: www.syst.nl
Tel: +31 (0)13 5770070
GSM +31 (0)6 51561095
________________________

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] Namens Harrison Owen
Verzonden: donderdag 18 november 2004 15:46
Aan: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Onderwerp: [OSLIST] Givens -- Again

I am not quite sure why the specification and definition of "Givens" should
have butted its way into my consciousness - but it did and frankly I was
rather surprised at the intensity of the feelings (thoughts) evoked. Anyhow,
I let my fingers do the walking and the following appeared on my screen. I
share it with the thought that others may have had similar thoughts (or
different) - and that we all might learn from kicking the old stand-by
around one more time...

        Givens refer to those immovable issues, conditions, or situations
which must be taken into account prior departure on any planning or
executive activity in our organizations. To do otherwise would seem the
ultimate folly, inviting disaster before the first step is taken.
Identifying the Givens is also very much in line with the dominant paradigm
when it comes to improving our organizations. That paradigm is the age old
problem/solution model which has seemingly served us so well. After all,
logic would tell you that you must identify all the problems before you can
find the solutions. Of course, it often turns out that we identify so many
problems that solution of any sort is impossible. And if that doesn't occur
it is quite likely that the vast majority of the problems identified impinge
only marginally, if at all, on our capacity to move in the direction we were
intending. However, we feel better for having done our "due diligence" by
minutely surveying the treacherous terrain before us.  Identifying Givens is
a subset of problem identification, if only because most of the Givens seem
like problems, albeit insoluble ones. Givens must be accepted and we go from
there.
        In the narrower world of Open Space practitioners and practice, some
considerable amount of time and effort has been devoted to contemplating
Givens. At the general level, it has been argued that the identification of
Givens is the essential first step in any Open Space engagement. Supposedly
this will make the management in the situation feel better knowing that the
untouchables will remain untouched. Given the normal anxiety levels that
precede an Open space event it seems wise to assure the establishment that
the crazy horde of participants will not do violence to the organizational
sacred cows. Base budget, structure and policy are all carefully fenced, or
totally removed from the table. The procedure of identifying Givens also
seems to make sense in terms of protecting participants from possible
frustration and anger should they disturb a sacred cow - and then get their
hands slapped or even worse, be ignored.
        Despite the obvious logic in the fastidious identification of
Givens, I have always found myself uneasy, even impatient with the approach.
This may say much more about me (illogical and rash) than the approach, but
my reasons, as nearly as I can state them, are as follows. First, most of
the Givens I have encountered were not that immutable. Secondly, truly
immutable Givens were so well known and accepted as not to require mention.
        Thirdly, specifying Givens limits the space of possibility. The net
result is almost inevitably the sub-optimization of group performance.
Simply put, when some areas/elements are placed outside the arena of
discussion, powerful and valid approaches to the job at hand can never even
be considered. I am reminded of the comments of Dale Robertson, who at the
time was the Chief of The US Forrest Service, when some of his staff
proposed placing existing legislation and regulations in The Givens category
as we approached a major Open Space on the future of the Forest Service. He
reminded his staff that while the Service could not operate in defiance of
the law or standing regulations, both law and regulations could be changed.
Further, if the Forest Service was to fulfill its mission, such change was
inevitable.
        Fourth and finally, I find the whole "Givens Business" grossly
insulting to the participants (as opposed to The Management) in the Open
Space. The implication is that those participants are so ill mannered,
incompetent, and untutored as to need careful instruction regarding what
they may and may not think and talk about. Personally, I would take all this
as a gold plated invitation to think and talk about precisely what is
forbidden. But then again, I am rash and illogical. Of course it may also be
that the participants are truly unruly, irresponsible, idiots, but if so
this does not speak well for the hiring practices of The Management. 
        I find it to be preferable to assume that those assembled have the
best interests of the organization at heart, even if the perceptions of
those interests does not coincide with those of Management. With some very
minor modification I would say the same thing for groups of all sorts. And
in all cases I find the compulsion to specify Givens to be prejudicial,
pejorative and demeaning - all productive of an atmosphere diametrically
opposite to sort I would hope for at the onset of Open Space. 

Harrison 

Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, Maryland   20845
Phone 301-365-2093

Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com/>

Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives Visit:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

*
*
==========================================================
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

*
*
==========================================================
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