As an Action Learning Team Coach how would you handle the following situation:
Every time the team seems close to getting to consensus a question is asked that takes them someplace else. You realize there are two levels that are being looked at – some participants are focused at a single group level (How do I address this with my group?), others at a corporate level (How do I address this with all groups?).
Dear Bea,
It would be useful to make an observation as the coach about the feeling you have that two levels of thinking about the problem appear to be present and to ask the team to reflect on whether there are two levels to the problem.
If the team comes to the conclusion that there is are two levels to the problem then an additional question would be ‘what do the levels that apear to be present mean for your problem and what would you want to do to account for them as you take the process forward?’
Kind regards,
John.
I would intervene and ask how we are doing as a group, what are we doing well and what could we do better. I would then ask if there is agreement on the problem, and ask everyone to write down what each of them feel is the problem and then to share it with the group. I would then ask who has the next question.
I would also be clear to give notice (i.e. in how many minutes) when I will be asking the problem presenter to say what actions they are going to take.
Like Catherine I want to find out how the group is doing and ask “How are we doing as a group?” “What are we doing well?” “What could we do better?”
I hope that participants will address their struggle about what strategic level they want to solve the problem. If they don’t, I would ask the following question: “What is our level of authority to propose and implement our solution (e.g., group, corporate, etc.).” Then I would continue the process by “Who has the next question?”
I would intervene and ask if they have consensus to whom they are addressing for. If they got different pespectives, it would be great for claryfing why a question takes them to someplace else. If they got the same perspective, I would say Great and ask who has the next question. That is something that they have to realize. And I believe that it would come about anyway.
It is sounding like the problem definition changed as a result of the conversation.
I agree with previous comments that making the traditional interventions (“How are we doing as a group?” “What are we doing well?” “What could we do better?”) is a great first choice. However, I would assume that this was being done already, so if the group seems to have two different kinds of thinking about the problem, I would want to help them clarify the problem definition.
I might intervene and ask “Based on our discussions, does the team feel we are still in agreement on the problem definition? Let’s have everyone write down their current view of the problem and then we’ll read them out loud.” I am guessing that the two levels of thinking would come out here. But, if the problem definition stays the same, I would say “Who has the next question?” and see what emerges. If the same pattern continues, I might intervene with an observation about the questions that are coming up regarding the specific group vs. corporate and ask the team if the problem definition has changed, and/or if they feel they need to consider these two different levels in their questioning.
I agree this situation would best be handled during an intervention checking for agreement on the problem definition, after identifying what we are doing well and would like to do better. Assuming the team does not have agreement, I would frame a question around an identified improvement area, asking one of the following:
“What is the quality of our problem framing?”
“What is keeping us from reaching agreement on the problem definition?”
“What is our orientation toward the organizational value of this Action Learning group?”
“What questions haven’t we asked yet?”
or Philipp’s question, “What level of authority does this group have to take action on the problem?”
Another possible approach would be to test my assumption (“It sounds to me that the problem descriptions are at two different levels. What do others think?” followed by “How would the group like to proceed?”) Although, I am not certain this approach aligns with the premise that the coach will only ask questions. What do others think?
As usual – great responses. In this situation I actually had both levels of authority present – hence why the getting close to consensus but not quite.
As I always I would start with the standard 3 questions. Definitely have them write it down. Ask if we are at consensus. (assume the answer is no). Ask how we could get to consensus? If they are still struggling. I’d say – it sounds like we are looking at this problem from 2 levels, is anyone else observing that? (assume the response is yes). Given that we have xx minutes left – How do we want to decide where to focus our energies for the rest of today?
John Thompson
| #
Dear Bea,
It would be useful to make an observation as the coach about the feeling you have that two levels of thinking about the problem appear to be present and to ask the team to reflect on whether there are two levels to the problem.
If the team comes to the conclusion that there is are two levels to the problem then an additional question would be ‘what do the levels that apear to be present mean for your problem and what would you want to do to account for them as you take the process forward?’
Kind regards,
John.
Reply
Catherine Breathnach
| #
I would intervene and ask how we are doing as a group, what are we doing well and what could we do better. I would then ask if there is agreement on the problem, and ask everyone to write down what each of them feel is the problem and then to share it with the group. I would then ask who has the next question.
I would also be clear to give notice (i.e. in how many minutes) when I will be asking the problem presenter to say what actions they are going to take.
Reply
Philipp Werenfels
| #
Like Catherine I want to find out how the group is doing and ask “How are we doing as a group?” “What are we doing well?” “What could we do better?”
I hope that participants will address their struggle about what strategic level they want to solve the problem. If they don’t, I would ask the following question: “What is our level of authority to propose and implement our solution (e.g., group, corporate, etc.).” Then I would continue the process by “Who has the next question?”
Reply
Cleo Wolff
| #
I would intervene and ask if they have consensus to whom they are addressing for. If they got different pespectives, it would be great for claryfing why a question takes them to someplace else. If they got the same perspective, I would say Great and ask who has the next question. That is something that they have to realize. And I believe that it would come about anyway.
Cleo
Reply
Gail Finger
| #
It is sounding like the problem definition changed as a result of the conversation.
I agree with previous comments that making the traditional interventions (“How are we doing as a group?” “What are we doing well?” “What could we do better?”) is a great first choice. However, I would assume that this was being done already, so if the group seems to have two different kinds of thinking about the problem, I would want to help them clarify the problem definition.
I might intervene and ask “Based on our discussions, does the team feel we are still in agreement on the problem definition? Let’s have everyone write down their current view of the problem and then we’ll read them out loud.” I am guessing that the two levels of thinking would come out here. But, if the problem definition stays the same, I would say “Who has the next question?” and see what emerges. If the same pattern continues, I might intervene with an observation about the questions that are coming up regarding the specific group vs. corporate and ask the team if the problem definition has changed, and/or if they feel they need to consider these two different levels in their questioning.
Reply
Donna Christophersen
| #
I agree this situation would best be handled during an intervention checking for agreement on the problem definition, after identifying what we are doing well and would like to do better. Assuming the team does not have agreement, I would frame a question around an identified improvement area, asking one of the following:
“What is the quality of our problem framing?”
“What is keeping us from reaching agreement on the problem definition?”
“What is our orientation toward the organizational value of this Action Learning group?”
“What questions haven’t we asked yet?”
or Philipp’s question, “What level of authority does this group have to take action on the problem?”
Another possible approach would be to test my assumption (“It sounds to me that the problem descriptions are at two different levels. What do others think?” followed by “How would the group like to proceed?”) Although, I am not certain this approach aligns with the premise that the coach will only ask questions. What do others think?
Reply
DrBea
| #
As usual – great responses. In this situation I actually had both levels of authority present – hence why the getting close to consensus but not quite.
As I always I would start with the standard 3 questions. Definitely have them write it down. Ask if we are at consensus. (assume the answer is no). Ask how we could get to consensus? If they are still struggling. I’d say – it sounds like we are looking at this problem from 2 levels, is anyone else observing that? (assume the response is yes). Given that we have xx minutes left – How do we want to decide where to focus our energies for the rest of today?
Reply