Responding to various postings in this thread, and follow on from many of
Tobin Quereau's thoughts in LO4367...
Firstly, I was surprised by the information contained in the following
articles in ReVision, Spring 1995, Vol. 17, no. 4. "Through the Lens of
Play" by Stuart Brown, and "Chimpanzees and Others at Play" by Jane
Goodall..., and further supported by anecdotal evidence such as Marion
Brady's in LO4408.
I think that Dave Birred's comments about apparent animal play being
"instincts expressed in an non-survival setting" are instructive. For me,
such settings are play. I was originally suggesting that if we could find
a good way to get senior management and board level people to "play" as
such, that barriers to dropping pre-conceptions would occur enabling such
people to eventually make more creative decisions, and to be more
inclusive of others perspectives. Both of these, in my view have great
survival value.
Hence, I am somewhat mystified by John Zavicki's remarks in LO4371,
apparently disparaging play and demanding a focus on real survival. Did I
get that right, John?
In the virtual network organization for which I work, it is my experience
that if we could not play with various perspectives in an inclusive
setting, we would not be succeeding as well as we are. For me, rigidly
adhering to some archaic business attitudes is what ensures failure in
today's global settings.
Is it not the case that the openness and broad spectrum relatedness which
results from the effective use of play, indeed increases team survival?
-- Doug Seeley: CompuServe 100433.133 and Fax (Geneva) +41 22 756 3957 "What is the formless background to our individuality?"Doug Seeley <100433.133@compuserve.com>