<HTML>
<FONT SIZE="2" POINTSIZE="10" DEFAULT="SIZE"><FONT FACE="Arial" DEFAULT="FACE">Dear Terry,<BR>
I second Birgitt in that open space works in the situation you describe.<BR>
Here are my thoughts on reading through your request:<BR>
1) Explore the possibility with the client to have a number of intact teams participate in the open space (several subsystems)<BR>
2) Since it is a multi-national company explore the possibility of having teams from different countries (cultural diversity)<BR>
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"<BR>
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<BR>
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<BR>
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.<BR>
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.<BR>
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.<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
I would love to hear how it went!!!<BR>
Take care and make sure to come to the worldwide open space on open space in October 2000 in Berlin<BR>
from where I send warm greetings<BR>
michael<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--Original Message Text---<BR>
<B>From:</B> Terry Gibson<BR>
<B>Date:</B> Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:31:39 -0000<BR>
<BR>
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 developresponsibility 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 processesgroup interaction. It has been very much a "here's the take, now feel the experience" approach.<BR>
<BR>
Residential workshops have been limited to 12from 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.<BR>
<BR>
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 believewill 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.<BR>
<BR>
Does anyone have experience of any successes in this area they could share?<BR>
<BR>
With anticipated thanks<BR>
<BR>
Terry Gibson<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
<HTML>
<LEFT>
<FONT FACE="Arial" COLOR="#000001" SIZE="2" POINTSIZE="10" DEFAULT="ALL">
<br>
<br>
<br>
Michael M Pannwitz<br>
Draisweg 1<br>
12209 Berlin, Germany<br>
FON: +49 - 30-772 8000 FAX: +49 - 30-773 92 464<br>
www.michaelMpannwitz.de<br>
www.we-open-spaces.de</HTML>