Corporate Social Responsibility
Einde inhoudsopgave
Corporate Social Responsibility (IVOR nr. 77) 2010/12.3.2.2:12.3.2.2 The agenda and the anticipated discussion technique
Corporate Social Responsibility (IVOR nr. 77) 2010/12.3.2.2
12.3.2.2 The agenda and the anticipated discussion technique
Documentgegevens:
Mr. T.E. Lambooy, datum 17-11-2010
- Datum
17-11-2010
- Auteur
Mr. T.E. Lambooy
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS369500:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Toon alle voetnoten
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
See: Eden (1996), p. 53. For a similar consideration in action research workshop design.
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
The workshop was designed in a certain way with the purpose of creating an open space which would allow the following processes to take place:
the participants were to have the opportunity to: (i) assess their own blueprint patterns of thinking; (ii) discover their own place in the system; (iii) detect their relation to the position of others. The meeting had to offer an 'open space' where they would not feel hampered by the presence of competitors. Therefore, each participant would be addressed as an individual and as a representative of a stakeholder group rather than as a representatives of his or her organisation. It was communicated that strong commitments at the end of the day were not necessarily expected;
in brainstorming sessions it should be explored in which ways the efforts of the individual parties could be mutually reinforcing for the development of the field in general, i.e. investigate possible forms of collaborative action; and
stakeholders were to have the possibility of establishing new links between themselves. Although the workshop was primarily aimed at providing new perspectives to all participants and identifying joint courses of action, it could also pave the way for concrete individual or bilateral action after the workshop. The workshop was therefore also set up as a network event.
On a practical level the research team was constrained to a one-day workshop. Ideally, the workshop would have covered a longer period, but that did not seem realistic. The main challenge was to direct the participants to investigate their own ideas and views, to establish a common perspective on the system as a whole, and to brainstorm on concrete follow-up activities. The programme design was inspired by the stages of the U-theory. In view of the limited time available and since the participants did not know each other, nor were they related apart from 'being part of the same system', it would have been impossible to go through the deepest stage of 'presencing'. Indeed, the workshop ambition was not to cover the whole U-process, however it was considered desirable to reach the second or third level.
In order to go deeper than the first level and thus to avoid 'instant responses' from the participants on the issues at hand, the agenda of the first part of the day focused on explaining the integral system of the interrelated barriers and the role of relevant actors in the system, as had been developed in the second stage of the research project. Furthermore, a presentation was given on concrete initiatives and developments in the field. The second agenda item was to challenge the participants to define - in sub-groups with a mix of stakeholders -which developments they expected to occur in the future that would influence the materiality and visibility of BES issues. This brainstorm-session was set up to stimulate an open mind approach.
To make the participants more aware of their position within the system, they were challenged to engage in 'role thinking'. Again in sub-groups, this time per stakeholder base, the participants were encouraged to define possible steps for other stakeholders to improve the BES-market. In this way, the theory depicted by Argyris and Schön could be employed,1 assuming that people more easily detect 'real' patterns in the behaviour of others than in their own behaviour. Also they were asked to brainstorm on collaborative action, together with the other stakeholder groups.
After each assignment, the outcomes were discussed in a plenary setting, to combine the specific insights and recommendations, and to formulate additional ideas. The last part of the workshop was meant to reflect on what steps the participants could take within their own organisation.