Safety Leadership

Michael M Pannwitz mmpanne at snafu.de
Tue Feb 8 11:49:59 PST 2000


Dear Terry,
I second Birgitt in that open space works in the situation you
describe.
Here are my thoughts on reading through your request:
1) Explore the possibility with the client to have a number of intact
teams participate in the open space (several subsystems)
2) Since it is a multi-national company explore the possibility of
having teams from different countries (cultural diversity)
3) Point out to the client that open space always works in the sense
that there is a strong possibility that people will really take
personal responsibility and perhaps not only in the context of safety
and what that could mean in a climate of "directives from above"
4) My hunch is that people will raise issues more readily if they are
not in their specific teams but in a more synergizing mode if several
teams meet
5) If participation is voluntary (which also means to me that people
should  be invited in a way that they find hard to resist) passion
and responsibility are more probable than if the come on directive
from above
6) Make sure to the client that open space is highly structured. It
is not a structure imposed from above or from somewhere else but a
structure created by the participants themselves. So it has structure
that arises out of the selforganizing forces of the group. I have
experienced this so often that I make sure to talk about this
experience with the client in the planning session.
7) My experience is that there is loads of support for actions people
identify and commit themselves to as long as the "givens", as Birgitt
pointed out, are clear. People usually know quite well what the
givens are. In fact people at the "lower end" of a hierarchy often
conceive many more givens than there actually are present (Birgitt
has a wonderful story on that from an organisation she once worked
in). Still, it would be good to have the givens spelled out clearly.
8) Convergence is crucial in this kind of setting (I think it is a
natural and necessary step after a phase of divergence) as a basis
for action planning. I always make a big point about convergence not
being a "vote". This is also nicely demonstrated in that phase of
convergence where the "associated" issues are connected to those
issues that received high priority. In the dozen or so convergence
experiences I have facilitated, all issues worked on surfaced again
as "associated" issues, showing the systemic interdependence simply
and graphically on a sheet of paper.
9) If convergence and action planning is part of the game, which I
would highly recommend in the type of setting you describe, than
there also needs to be a follow up meeting 2 or 3 months after the
event to check what was planned back then, what happened in the
meantime and what the next steps are if any. This would demonstrate
to the client that open space is not just an unstructured experience
to voice whatever but that it has a planning phase, divergence,
convergence, action and follow through.

I would love to hear how it went!!!
Take care and make sure to come to the  worldwide open space on open
space in October 2000 in Berlin
from where I send warm greetings
michael


--Original Message Text---
From: Terry Gibson
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:31:39 -0000

May I call on your collective experience to help me explore that
possibility of using OS in a tough, male dominated, engineering
environment. We have a situation where a multi-national industry is
engaged in trying to get every member their workforce to
develop personal responsibility in the context of safety. Currently a
three day programme exists based around fairly traditional, but
effective, value-based activities in the areas of building more
honest, effective communications and understanding the
processes within group interaction. It has been very much a "here's
the take, now feel the experience" approach.

Residential workshops have been limited to 12 men from different
teams but now the client is asking whether it would be possible to
achieve the same objectives using intact teams of between 8 and 150
men. (Probably the average is 20). This is an industry with employees
used to directives from above, and procedures learned through
traditional sheep dip courses.

I can see a role for OS in raising the important issues around
safety, communication, leadership, responsibilities etc existing
within a specific team. But I do not have the confidence to
believe people will come willingly 'with passion', or that the
apparent unstructured approach of OS would appeal to the client. I am
also not certain how much support people would receive to follow
through any identified actions - which would only end in frustration
etc.

Does anyone have experience of any successes in this area they could
share?

With anticipated thanks

Terry Gibson





Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1
12209 Berlin, Germany
FON: +49 - 30-772 8000   FAX: +49 - 30-773 92 464
www.michaelMpannwitz.de
www.we-open-spaces.de

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000208/89ad4a5c/attachment-0017.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list