Scenario: Random Ratings

As an action learning coach, how would you handle the following situation:

Most of the members rate the team at a 5 or 6 for how they are doing as a team. One member rates a 2 another a 9 on a scale of 1 – 10.

 

Tags: Action Learning Coach

Trackback from your site.

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    yeelaifong

    |

    As a coach, I should remain neutral and not react to members’ rating – for example, don’t applaud or give remarks like “that’s great” if someone rated 9.

    Given this scenario, I will follow up with the question – “So, what do we notice in terms of the spread of the ratings?” Someone in the team will probably notice the two extreme ratings. Then I will follow up and ask “As a team, what are we doing well?” This will allow everyone to comment, in particular, the person who gave the rating of 9 to speak up on what he or she observed to be doing well.

    Similarly, the next question “As a team, what could we do better?” This will allow everyone to comment, in particular, the person who gave the rating of 2 to speak up on what he or she observed to be not working so well and suggest ways to do better.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    hawaiibreeze

    |

    These are their answers. You’ve given us no other information, so these are of no particular concern to me. There are no standards for numbers, after all. The process takes care of whatever might be up for these folks. I see myself simply moving on with the process. “What did you do well?” “What might you like to do differently ahead?” Everyone has a chance to voice their opinion and be heard. My role as coach is to care for the process and be prepared to intervene when there is a learning moment.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    CeesOBI

    |

    Here, a large discrepantie in appriciation is shown. An option is to ask the participants to write down the motivation for their team rating. After each participant has reported to the group, a limited discussion has to follow. If no consensus has been reached., possibly the ground Rules are not understand, accepted or not internalized.If this is an in-company group, possibly there are hidden frictions or -agenda’s An option is to postpone the session for some days and as an
    ALC, in the mean time to research the possible underlying differences.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Cristina Alafriz

    |

    I will proceed without judgment on the ratings. Go through the standard questions of “what are we doing well?” and “what can we do better?”. Hopefully this surfaces both the highs and the lows of the discrepancy, and customised questions can be used to followup on these. If nothing significant comes up and/or if it seems there are hidden issues that need to be addresses, another question to ask is “what did you notice about the ratings?” and follow up with customised questions based on the answers.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John.Tattersall

    |

    Assuming that it is not the problem presenter that has rated as either a 2 or a 9 I would ask the group how they wish to proceed given that there is a wide range within the ratings. If they decide to continue then I would keep a close eye on the team members with the low and high rating to ensure that they were participating. I would perhaps consider intervening after another 5-7 minutes and ask for the ratings again to establish whether the two people had closed the gap. The size of the group may also make a difference possibly with the difference in ratings having less of an impact on the dynamics of a larger group than it would in a smaller one?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Elizabeth Tsai

    |

    Similar to what other people here have already replied, I would proceed with the standard questions of “What are we doing well?” followed by “What can we do better?”. If the PP is the one who rated 2 or 9, then I would ask him/her follow up questions to get more specific observable facts to see what were good and what could be better. Later on I would make sure that the group demonstrates the things they mentioned they could do better including what PP just said.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    DrBea

    |

    As a few mentioned – it is not for us to put judgment to these numbers it’s simply for each of the team members to hear how the others are doing.

    The next 2 of the standard questions should surface the what’s going well and what can be better.

    By questioning someone on their number, they will be less likely to be honest in the future and simply choose a number that matches the others.

    Happy Coaching
    Bea

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Conference Schedule Update

Please Note

The above WIAL Global Conference 2017 Schedule is subject to change.

Planning Your Conference

Please refer to the conference schedule on the WIAL China website for any last minute changes.

Click Here