);

When a Group is not a Team

January 30, 2016

by

In contracting for applied action learning coaching, we often assume that when we employ the term, team, we all understand it’s meaning the same way. However, I had an experience that illuminated at least one alternative conceptualization that, had I understood it at the time, would have led me and my colleagues to carefully define what we mean by “team.” When understood and agreed by our client system representative, this can become the basis for a clear, non-ambiguous agreement using common terms.

Several years ago, a representative of a non-profit organization with which I was affiliated, entered into a contract with a representative of a government agency to conduct a series of applied action learning sessions. There were to be several action learning teams, each with a different purpose. I was assigned to coach a cross-sectional team of eight persons. The goal was to create a uniform policy for the use of personal and government issued electronic devices – e.g., laptops and smart cell phones. The policy was to be offered to all government agencies as a means of eliminating conflicting local policies.

At the first meeting, I opened the meeting in our traditional manner, going over the two ground rules, having team members identify one leadership behavior they wanted to develop, etc. They agreed on the task and its intended purpose. Then, the team asked for one person to volunteer to be the coordinator-integrator. One person agreed with no dissention. At the time I had no idea what this role entailed. They identified several government agencies from which they wanted to obtain information about their existing policies. They divided these agencies among themselves and made commitments to seek out and interview key persons in each agency (i.e., people who ostensibly knew their agency’s policy and their advantages and disadvantages. I intervened several times during the first 20 minutes to focus attention on the quality of members’ questions and to reiterate the first ground rule. Members said these interventions had no value and were eating into their available time. I also attempted to intervene about 15 minutes into the session to raise our traditional mid-session questions. The group rejected this effort as well. Clearly, we were operating from vastly different mental models of effective teamwork.

As they got ready to conclude, 20 minutes short of our scheduled ending time, I felt rushed to close the session before they left or signed off. Since each member knew what actions they were responsible for, there was no need to inquire about that. I did introduce our other traditional closing questions: what the team did well, what it could do better, what team members learned about themselves, the team, and their organization, whether the process helped, and what did team members observe about the individual members’ efforts to develop their leadership competencies. They seemed reluctant, but they followed along.

Two weeks later, at the team’s second meeting, only three people showed up in person, two were on the speaker phone, three were “busy.” The four team members reported what they had discovered in their interviews. They addressed only the coordinator-integrator; not each other. The coordinator-integrator collected their information. They rejected invitations to discuss the similarities or differences among agencies interviewed thus far; the implications of this information; or what individuals learned from the actions they took between action learning sessions. They expressed the strong belief that my coaching interventions were disruptive and a waste of their time.

The third session consisted of the coordinator-integrator and me, in person, with two team members on the speaker phone. The experience was similar to the second session.

I called the agency’s project champion to express my concerns. It was not far into this conversation that he said that I was not to communicate directly with him – now or in the future. I was to follow the chain of command. So, I called the colleague that was serving as our project leader. I expressed my frustration – under these conditions, I could not function as an action learning coach should – and said this was a waste of my time and the agency’s money. I said I had no ethical choice but to fire my clients. This was accepted, the project leader took over the team with which I had been working. I have not received any feedback about what happened after that, in spite of my requests. I was told that the client champion made up an excuse for my absence – something about being needed on another project.

Coacting groups. I thought that this was an odd, unique experience – until I read Richard Hackman’s book, Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems (2011, San Francisco: Berrett-Khoeler). He described four types of teams, differentiated by (a) whether or not the group has a whole was responsible for the work and (b) whether or not members need to interact synchronously in real time. This resulted in three types of teams and one group (a non-team). The teams were: surgical teams, face-to-face teams, and distributed teams. The non-team was a “coacting group.” This non-team was characterized by individual members were responsible for outcomes, operate independently and in parallel on subparts of the task. One person constructed the collective product by aggregating and organizing the team members’ individual contributions. There was little work-related interactions among members.

“Coacting groups cannot generate synergistic collective products because they do not have a common task. … The presence of coactors can impair performance when the work requires responses that are not already well practiced … coacting groups perform less well than well-designed teams whose members share responsibility and accountability for the group product. In general, coacting groups are indicated when there is minimal need for coordinated, interdependent work by group members who can, in the main, work independently (Hackman, 2011, p. 31-32, italics added).”

In conclusion:

  • It may be that the coacting group model was appropriate for the task that was set before the group. If so, would this be an appropriate application of action learning?
  • What is your understanding of a team?
  • What is your client system’s (or its representative’s) understanding of a team? How could you know?
  • What would you do if your understanding and that of your client system are significantly different?

Arthur Freedman, MBA, PhD
Master Action Learning Coach

arthurFreedman_thumb

7 Ways that Action Learning Develops Judgment

January 30, 2016

by

A number of researchers and authors have discussed how Action Learning develops a variety of leadership skills (these results are summarizes in one of my articles, “The Evidence for the Effectiveness of Action Learning,” that can be downloaded from Our Library).  in summary, the results reported in this article indicate that Action Learning

  • develops broad executive and managerial leadership skills;
  • is particularly effective in developing collaborative/ shared leadership skills;
  • improves the ability of managers to develop integrative, win/win solutions in conflict situations; and
  • improves manager coaching skills.

Readers will note that these are the sort of “soft” leadership skills that you would expect to be developed in a highly socially interactive team process. These are also the sort of skills that are in great demand and short supply within large corporations and organizations. The ability of Action Learning to develop collaboration, innovation, and a learning culture accounts for much of the support and interest in Action Learning throughout the world.

Little attention, however, has been focused on how Action Learning develops another critical leadership skill – judgment. What is good judgment and how is it different from good thinking? Good judgment is more than just good critical thinking – applying sound logic to a problem. If that were the case, we would see a much stronger relationship between intellectual capabilities and judgment than research and our experience indicates.  When we describe someone as having good judgment, we generally mean that the individual has been able to make a decision that creates more benefits or “up-sides” than problems or “down-sides” despite imperfect, ambiguous,  and incomplete data; confusing and counteracting dynamics; and contradictory opinions or predictions. Furthermore, individuals who display good judgment are able to make good decisions while resisting the often corrosive emotional forces of greed, fear, revenge, hubris, etc. Recent research (see Daniel Goleman’s research on emotional intelligence) indicates that emotional and social intelligence contribute as much, and sometimes more, to success in organizations than cognitive abilities.

Although emotional and social skills are critical to success in organizations, they are much more difficult to develop than cognitive abilities. Intellectual problems typically have a “correct” answer and people, therefore, get immediate corrective feedback. That is why cognitive abilities can be developed by solving puzzles and problems  provided by a computer program. When working on complex organizational problems, however, we seldom get immediate and direct feedback about whether we are taking the correct action or even whether we are going in the right direction.

This characteristic of organizational life is what makes Action Learning such a powerful method for developing judgment – especially the emotional and social intelligence aspects of judgment. Typically, the sort of urgent and critical problems that are the focus of Action Learning are complex, confusing, and filled with emotional land mines. That’s why no currently acceptable solutions exist for these problems and what makes them so difficult to solve. Here are 7 reasons why Action Learning is so effective in developing judgment when the process is led by experienced and properly trained Action Learning coaches.

  1. Action Learning includes frequent  opportunities to assess how things are going – what’s working well, what can be improved, and what we can do differently. These processes provide the missing direct feedback necessary for developing complex leadership skills like judgment.
  2. By leading with questions rather than opinions, team members learn how others view a problem and the related situation before articulating their opinions. This ground rule not only increases understanding of the views of others but also increases empathy for their positions because feelings are frequently shared in the process.
  3. Action Learning coaches encourage team members to reflect on the impact of their behavior on the team’s ability to solve the problem. In this way, team members begin to understand how social and emotional as well as intellectual factors are contributing or interfering with team performance.
  4. Action Learning coaches can ask questions about factors that are critical for success (i.e., Who are the important stakeholders, and how will the team get their support? What are the barriers to successful implementation?) These factors are seldom considered when searching for the right answer or strategy. Typical problem solving focuses more upon what to do rather than how it is going to get done.
  5. Action Learning coaches can encourage team members to reflect on the emotional/non-verbal as well as intellectual factors related to the urgent and complex problem they are working on.
  6. Action Learning coaches can focus on smaller unnoticed incidents or events that impact success but are unlikely to be considered in grand and strategic plans.
  7. Action Learning coaches insist on taking action at the conclusion of every element of Action Learning. By taking action, team members see actual rather than theoretical results. This action generally leads to greater understanding of the social and emotional aspects of organizational, team, and individual change.

I hope that this blog will stimulate further discussion about the many ways that Action Learning develops essential leadership skills in the process of solving critical and urgent problems.

Skip Leonard
Master Action Learning Coach

skipLeonard_thumb

Older posts «

» Newer posts