Thank you Harold. I think you raise a key point
regarding the respective roles of "stakeholders" (my word) and
"spaceholders" (my take on your word).
Sometimes, we participate in a space or system at the
invitation of the "stakeholders" wearing only our
"spaceholder" hat. In those instances, I perceive the lines
between roles are relatively clear.
Sometimes, we participate in a space or system in which we
are "stakeholders" AND "spaceholders." In those instances, I
perceive the lines between roles are less clear... and they
must be navigated carefully to maintain objectivity and the
trust of the other participants.
I understand the argument that we can and/or should avoid
playing the "spaceholder" role in spaces/systems where we are
"stakeholders."
But my personal worldview is that we are better served to
acknowledge our "stakeholdership" and practice/learn the art
of serving both roles while maintaining our objectivity and
the trust of others.
Depending on the circumstances, this MAY NOT involve
introducing our own ideas of where and how the system SHOULD
proceed, but it MAY WELL involve introducing our unique
ideas/insights about where and how the system COULD proceed.
I believe this is consistent with the perspective you
shared... but I welcome feedback from you and/or others.
Thank you,
JohnW
