Cathy and Harrison:
I agree that the fewer givens "dictated" the better. And I wonder if this doesn't highlight the need for clarity in the crafting of the invitation. I believe it important in that people do need to know whether they are being asked to come to make decisions or recommendations. This probably applies more to corporations than it does to community building where I would expect that one of the goals is to build ongoing engagement and participation across many stakeholders. It is not always a "given" that management in a corporation is willing to share decision-making but then that is part of the preparation that we undertake with them in the pre-OS planning - making them aware of the opportunities available to them in OS and in being more of an OS organization. As a long time "lurker" on the OSList, I've found that there have been very few times when my interest and passion kicks in to the degree that I feel inclined to respond. This is the one! Harrison, while we haven't yet met, (but if you come to Halifax next year, we will) I have to say with all sincerity that your contributions to the list serve, and those of a few others are the only reason that keep me interested and reading. I shall also go out on the limb and say that Chris Corrigan is another one whose contributions inspire me greatly. While over the past 4 years I have faciliated and co-faciliated approx. 30 open space gatherings in this part of the world, I have found that the pondering over givens has rarely made a difference.......... Your missile this morning was so great that I just had to acknowledge your thoughts. I say hurray.......no more givens! The less intervention the better...........and I totally agree that we do not give participants the credit they deserve when given the opportunity to trust themselves. While the majority of my current life work happens to be in the realm of coaching individuals in accelerating their consciousness - when it comes time for group process, Open Space Technology is the only way to ensure an effective process.........and I make no apologies for my belief! Keep the thoughts coming Harrison.......it takes no stretch in my imagination to understand why you were the one who developed the concept! You are a true inspiration and the "keeper" of this listserve. Sincerely, Cathy Carmody Halifax, N.S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harrison Owen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:45 AM Subject: 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 [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist Esther Ewing The Change Alliance 330 East 38th St., Suite 53K New York, NY 10016, USA Telephone: 212-661-6024, Fax: 866-296-6712 Assisting organizations to build capability _www.changealliance.com_ (http://www.changealliance.com/) Certified Panoramic Feedback Distributor (360 instrument) _www.panoramicfeedback.com_ (http://www.panoramicfeedback.com/) Certified Kolbe Distributor: _www.kolbe.com_ (http://www.kolbe.com/) * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
