Dealing with Assertions and “Facts”

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 

• We presume that when someone makes an assertion then they have a reason to do

so, and that it is intended to suggest an implied action is required

o Thus, if someone states that “Glasgow has a population of over 500,000

people” then we ask why this assertion is being made — what is its meaning

in action terms? For example, they might know that it was 600,000 last year

and so the statement “obviously” implies that the “Council will be short of

taxes next year,” which also is stated as a “fact” with implied consequences

• Thus, assertions tend to be at “the bottom” of a map, with consequences following

from them.

Goals, Negative-Goals, and Constraints

• Goals are desired outcomes that are “good in their own right” (so much so that they

are hardly seen as optional by the interviewee)

• Negative goals are undesired outcomes that are bad in their own right

o For example, “become bitter”

• Constraints are often stated as if they were goals, but will be subordinate and have

consequences that constrain actions, goals, issues, etc.

o For example: “attaining minimum levels of shareholder return” may act as a

constraint on management behaviour, rather than act as a goal (even though

shareholders would wish to see it expressed as a goal)