Subject: From Preston Sullivan: Re: The next question (fwd)

From: Victor Guest <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:35:09 WST

>Reply-to: [email-masked]
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)s
>
>Nancy and Lisa - I'm delighted to here of your interest in
>holistic management serving the people part
>of Natural Resource Planning.  It for sure
>does this, as you point out.
>
>I was noticing in the paragraphs below that during interest-based
>negotiation sessions people presented their issues from
>their own perspective and a "problem statement" was created.
>My question to you is why form a problem statement?
>Instead, why not form a goal that describes the future
>beyond the problem?  Why not have the people describe
>the quality of life they want, and the forms of production
>that it will take to maintain the quality of life, and the
>future resource base necessary to sustain the production?
>>From there, tools and actions can be tested toward the
>goal to see if they will actually make it happen or not,
>and if so, are they a threat to the community or environment.
>The seven testing questions used to test a decision are the
>testing guidelines used in holistic management.
>
>Solving problems only gets one back to where they were
>before the problem happened.  Additionally if problem
>solving is the goal, much time will be spent solving problems.
>Solving problems can be considered "reactive" because
>we react to what's wrong.  Why not proceed to develop a
>holistic goal and move toward what you want (proactive).
>The problems will take care of themselves and be much
>fewer in number once the paradigm is adjusted to a
>proactive stance.

(prior message cut)

Preston Sullivan

***************************
Nancy Grudens Schuck
Doctoral Candidate

Department of Education
119 Kennedy Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
U.S.A.

E-mail: [email-masked]
FAX: (607) 255-7905

***************************