At 10:41 28-11-2000 -0500, Meg Salter wrote:
I find this fascinating - and agree that (mostly) real change will come when a "behaviour rule change" comes from outside the group. This is exactly the definition of 2nd order change or transformational change "changes to the body of rules governing their structure or internal order". [For you scholarly types - this last quote is from an older work "CHANGE - Principles of Problem Formation and Resolution, by Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch.
If I recall well (a memory of more that 10 years ago, in the Spanish version...), Watzlawick doesn't say "from outside the group" but "from outside the system", and he was not referring to the "organisational system" but to the "conceptual system". So, level 2 of change implies a shift of mind, or a paradigm shift to use Khun's words - a "metanoia" some would say. This shift does not come necessarily from "outside the group". Indeed it comes always, imho, from inside the group. That' s way it is called "self-organisation". And that is way the so called "facilitators" normally "facilitate too much", then contributing even more to maintain the unempoewrment of the group. So what is the role of OS law and principles? It is to bypass previous rules, imbedded in occidental culture and organisations, that "normally" inhibit self-organisation to work. The rule and principles "open" space to self organisation, from within the group, to manifest and evolve. So, it is right, I think, as Joelle stated, that the OS rules, in its simplicity, make a fantastic job, and must not be changed to introduce MORE facilitation. This also means that someone that comes from other facilitation methodologies, have more difficulties to understand OS principles that someone (like myself ;-) that come from virginity in what concerns OD methods. And they will think that they must HELP MORE (the participants), to have them "discussing the principles" or "allowing everybody to speak", etc. Those people, I am afraid to say so, and maybe I am wrong, don't have enough confidence in people, in human nature, in self-organisation, and they "want to help" MORE that the help others need. On the contrary, a facilitator must, as Harrison taught us, to always question "what other thing (help) can I stop doing?" and still obtain the major objectives. What one can question is not what one can add, but what one can still suppress. The rule of two feet is essential, I think. But can we obtain the some results if we suppress all or some of the "principles"? Have any one tried that? What do you think? Regards Artur PS: can't those of you who speak english do something to "normalise" the language? Why do americans write "organization" and UKs write "organisation"? It's confusing for the others... * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html =========================================================== osl...@egroups.com To subscribe, 1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist 2. Sign up -- provide an email address, and choose a login ID and password 3. Click on "Subscribe" and follow the instructions To unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@egroups.com: 1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist 2. Sign in and Proceed
