Dialogue mapping is an extremely powerful tool for facilitation. By using shared display on a projection screen, facilitators can gain powerful insight and consensus when working with a group. The most powerful tool that I have seen in this area is Compendium software. Compendium is essentially a program that allows facilitators to paraphrase what participants say and, in real time, create a “map” of the discussion. Compendium software is coupled with a knowledge in a “language” known as Ibis—a technique for finding the question behind the question.

Jeff Conklin is, to my knowledge, one of the premiere minds and experts in this area. I had the opportunity to spend two full days attending a training seminar, run by Jeff, on dialogue mapping and Compendium software. He also has a book that goes into greater detail. AMAZING stuff… Using Dialogue Mapping to solve Wicked Problems: world hunger, global warming, poverty, etc.

Jeff’s organization, The CogNexus Institute has information about dialogue mapping, Compendium software, and his book. Click HERE to see it… I highly recommend it…

-Casey Gomes

This week in my intro leadership class I decided to take a risk. This is not unusual, although this one was a bit out of my comfort zone. My friend Nick Barker, Leadership Education Coordinator for the East-West Center’s Asia Pacific Leadership Program talked about an activity he often executes with new groups to illustrate principles of Adaptive Leadership. Adaptive Leadership (trademarked, believe it or not!) comes out of the Cambridge Leadership Associates group (Heifetz and Linsky) and essentially asserts (according to their website) specific practices conducive to facilitating change, individual and organizational, based on conceptions of leadership as emergent, non-positional, and learned, specifically through challenging mental models (beliefs, world views, etc.).

((Sidebar: I find Adaptive Leadership both valuable and interesting – and as a program it is well-packaged and sorely needed in organizations. Many of the ideas are practical applications of older ideas from cognitive science, education, philosophy, and organizational behavior. And, I am still trying to find the “unique” in the (again, trademarked) delivery model called Case-in-Point — to me it looks like really good teaching.))

Ok, back to the main story. So, Nick tells me about The Silence Activity he does and here is how I execute it (again, much credit to Nick Barker, adaptations to undergrads by me): We start the class like any other – me at the front of the room, students in small groups at tables. The students are used to my non-lecture style of experiences, discussion, reflection, interaction, etc., so at this point in the semester they are a bit ready for the unexpected. As this is one of the final classes of the term, I am trying to really embed some key lessons – and in this case there are two that I want them to take with them for a loooong time: (a) that the world is more of an adaptive challenge than a technical challenge – messy, ambiguous, dynamic, and (b) that THE most important thing they can do to learn leadership is to be mindful and reflective of their experiences – yes, like, learn from what you do –not too tricky in theory, too often overlooked in practice.

I begin by telling them today we will learn the most important lesson in leadership. Then I explain that there are three ways to acquire leadership capability – the first is to acquire some magic leadership spell or drink a potion (yes, just for laughs), the second is the way we have been learning about leadership all semester – go to a workshop, take a class, learn some skills, etc. The third way is this…and then I promptly sit down and say nothing…for an hour!

Well, you can imagine how this goes – and, amusingly, Nick has laid out the common stages that groups go through beginning with silent nervousness, then humor to break the tension, then questioning the authority figure, then initial thoughts on the purpose of the activity, through appeals to the authority, emerging leaders and facilitators, and on through many more. Amazingly, this group followed the stages noted right on cue – silent staring and chuckling and a few wise cracks, and then attempts to come up and read my notes or computer or pass me notes, and then some discussions venturing within and between groups. Here are some things I noticed:

1. It took folks a great deal of time…and I am still not sure they got there completely…to shift their mental model of what that setting and culture required. Not a single student left the class the whole time.

2. The shifts I did notice were from seeking a clear problem (“What are we supposed to do?”) to comfort with the ambiguous nature of the problem (“We can share our experiences to guide us through this unknown situation.”)

3. Another shift from (“We can’t lead if we don’t know what direction – what are leading toward – what is the goal?”) to comfort with the dynamic nature of the solution (“Well, maybe there are lots of things we can learn from this experience.”)

4. And importantly, a shift from positional authority (many appeals to me and the comment, “Is there a help line on the back of the Northouse book – what to do if your teacher stops talking?” and other efforts focused on my not talking, “We may have said the answer, he’s not talking.”) to dispersed, emergent leadership (many students beginning to take the initiative asking the group what lessons are being illustrated and the comment, “The teaching assistant is not here today because he is another authority figure.” – and indeed I did ask my TA to not attend for just that reason.

So, after the fascinating and initially painful experience of disengaging and observing the students wrestle with the disequilibrium of a learning model that did not fit into the one they came to class with, I finally spoke and we discussed many of their feelings and observations about the experience. I also asked them to consider a question that Nick posed to me years ago: If as Skinner notes, education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten, then what do you think you will remember from this class 10 years from now? And, as a future leader, how will you create conditions such that those in your organization are reflective learners – you need do more than tell them to be so.

Learn from your experiences. Reflect on them. I told the students that if I had simply said that at the outset of class, they would have all nodded in agreement and forgotten it within an hour, tops. They certainly would not regularly apply it to their practice. The following quote by Warren Bennis (On Becoming A Leader, 1989), sums up the big lesson very well:

Experiences aren’t truly yours until you think about them, analyze them, examine them, question them, reflect on them, and finally understand them. The point, once again, is to use your experiences rather than being used by them, to be the designer, not the design, so that experiences empower rather than imprison.

- Tony Middlebrooks

In working with leaders over the last year, I noticed an increase in the amount of requests for “Teambuilding” as their proposed solution to staff issues. Upon further probing into the data that supports their feelings, the leader typically sites low morale, bickering or in-fighting amongst the team, resistance to authority, and lack of internal motivation to accomplish goals. Most often, through continued collaboration, I find that the root of many of the issues mentioned is very simple: poor employees that have not been appropriately performance managed.

Whether it’s showing up late consistently, making inappropriate comments to other employees about organizational issues, missing team meetings, lackluster work ethic, or just a generally poor attitude, these employees can disrupt an entire department if not held in check. Their direct supervisors often feel a need to “give them a chance” or let everyone “have a clean slate” in order to build a sense of team. While this is generally a healthy practice as a leader, particularly of one that is new in a role, it can be a hindrance if not balanced with upholding expectations on a consistent basis.

Bringing the entire team together for a teambuilding exercise, when the problem really lies with a handful of poor employees, will frustrate the high performing team members and allow the negative behavior to continue without acknowledgment. The advice that I give to leaders in this situation usually is: (1) performance manage the employees that are not meeting expectations, (2) document the situation thoroughly (involve the HR Support person), (3) provide them feedback on what needs to change, and (4) be prepared to take action if they do not respond.

As a professional dedicated to Leadership and Organizational Development, it can be challenging to convince a new leader in an organization that they need to hold employees accountable. We tend to want to “fix” employees and feel that we as leaders can help them to “see the light.” However, this is often a trap that can greatly impact time balance. Poor performers, despite our best efforts, may never change-particularly if they simply do not want to be in the organization or lack motivation. Leaders can spend the majority of their time trying to improve poor performers rather than challenging and rewarding the high performers for attaining excellence.

This is not usually the most exciting element of Leadership Development, but one that is extremely important. I attached below an excerpt from article on “What Teambuilding Won’t Cure.” It’s a bit older, but I came across it recently and thought it was thought provoking. Enjoy!

-Casey Gomes

What ‘Team-building’ Won’t Cure

Training; Minneapolis; Mar 1996; Penson, Peta G;

Team-building is a legitimate and effective training investment-but only when the diagnosis points clearly in that direction. The purpose of true teambuilding is to help a group identify the factors that are interfering with its effectiveness and productivity and to develop a plan of action to correct or circumvent these trouble points. The list of team woes that really do cry out for teambuilding is actually quite short:

* Lack of clarity about the team’s objectives.
* Increased complaining, conflict or hostility among team members.
* Confusion about assignments; unclear roles.
* Decisions not understood.
* Apathy in the team.
* Ineffective meetings; low participation.
* Start-up of a new group that needs to begin rapidly.
* High dependency on the manager.

Too often, team-building is thought of as a “warm fuzzy” way to pasteurize interpersonal relationships rather than as a tool to improve the productivity and effectiveness of a work group. Learning to solve problems in a group setting will, of necessity, force the team to work on its dynamics, but team-building needs to focus primarily on the task, not on interpersonal issues. It should achieve a whole lot more than
just showing people how to make nice with one another. True team-building maps out issues affecting the group and its purpose. It is a way to start everyone on the same page so that members can develop a team vision based on an essential business goal, understand the tasks required to achieve that goal, and determine how to structure themselves. The only touchy-feely aspect of real teambuilding lies in the up-front work that members must do to decide what kind of team “culture” they’ll need to create to best support the team’s challenges.

If a team is ineffective because of a technical problem with the product or service the company offers, or because of an administrative foul-up, or because of a systems issue-for instance, members are being punished by the organization in some way, instead of being rewarded, for pursuing the team’s stated goals-then training in how to get along better is not going to help. If there is a problem between two individuals, but the team is not significantly affected, team-building is a waste of time. Nor can you count on team-building for salvation if the problem is a shy employee’s inability to confront or a creative person’s insubordination. These situations need interventions such as third-party coaching or conflict resolution, not team-building. And never should a manager hide a private agenda behind the team-building umbrella: Don’t use “team-building” as an excuse to engineer peer pressure against a problem employee or to force acceptance of some decision that no one supports.

No empirical research in this post - just a sharing of feedback from 2 different pieces of feedback with new clients in one week. It may sound like I am “blowing my own trumpet” (does that translate into US speak?). That is not my intention. Most material about coaching is about our clients’ development – this is about the coach’s.

My business partner makes sure she obtains independent feedback on my performance from any organization where I am working. This from a new Executive client: “Much more probing than my last coach, but I am still feeling comfortable (not resistant) …. My previous coach was really nice – I liked him a lot, but I really didn’t find anything changed. I hadn’t noticed that before.”

And from an old organisational client seeking a coach for a middle manager who has his share of interpersonal problems. “We need someone with a bit of edge; a willingness to really help Fred challenge some of his long held ideas about managing people. Just nice to have chats are not what he needs.”

This was certainly eye opening feedback for me. I hadn’t seen myself in this light before – although I am strongly committed to catalysing change.

Coaching questions for Leadership Coaches

How aware of your own needs to be loved and liked are you? 

How are you challenging and stretching your clients and managing the inner tension involved with that?

How do you obtain objective feedback on your own performance?

These are questions I am engaging with and I would love to hear your answers. With enough combined feedback we could write a book together

Josie

A couple days ago my class visited the Center for Leadership Studies- home of the Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey and Blanchard).  I think that the Situational Leadership Theory is one of the most misunderstood (or under-understood) leadership theories.  I had always understood it as regarding task-orientation and relationship- orientation (which it is) and that leaders (or managers) should adjust their leadership style to the situation. There is much more complexity (and science) to the theory. After learning about the theory from the President of the center for 2 hours this evening I definitely have a better grasp on what the theory is and how it is very applicable for management in organizations.  I think in some ways it might be a bit too simple for certain circumstances, but it certainly has its merit- the fact that over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies use the  situational leadership model and keep coming back for more says something.  Check out the website for the Center for Leadership Studies! – Paige Haber