Scenario: Pre-existing condition
Tags: Action Learning Coach
Trackback from your site.
Comments (18)
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tags: Action Learning Coach
Trackback from your site.
Dave Troupe
| #
I might introduce the opening to the session in this way:
“As we have learned, our action learning process is intentionally designed to enhance our team as a whole system. That means that we not only focus on tangible business issues, but also those intangible ones. Issues such as conflicts and misunderstandings can often present significant challenges. As an action learning coach, I find that exploring such issues can offer huge rewards for a team and substantial growth can result. But identifying such opportunities for learning are sometimes difficult to discover.
Brian and Kahli, I wonder if you would mind if we used your current situation as an example for us as we explore the subject of disagreement or conflict. Just before our session started, you were having a disagreement about something. Would you be willing to share that with us? Since it is a real-world issue, we all might be able to benefit from it as we step through the process of resolution. Can we do that?”
Assuming that they would willing, it would be a superb opportunity for a “fishbowl” type of exercise. Depending on the maturity of the team, a round-robin approach might be used, with various members taking turns in coaching and steps of mediation.
If Brian and Kahli are not amenable to exposing their details, a generalized conversation and learning can continue with the coach asking questions, such as: “What kinds of conflict do we see at work? How do they interrupt productivity? What other ways does conflict impact our organization, our team, and us personally? Who would like to share a real-world example of a recent conflict and how you dealt with it?”
This approach could easily take the set’s entire time (and then some!). Depending on the state of the team, this could be very worthwhile.
Dave
Reply
Phil Cohen
| #
I see two approaches.
1’st make a mental note of what you heard/saw and only address the issue if friction occurs between the two parties during the AL session. If friction does present itself during the AL session, then at that point (depending on the type of negative interaction occurring) you could ask”I notice friction occurring within our group. Is this affecting our ability to ask great questions? How does the group want to address this issue?”
If the group decides not to discuss the issue saying it is OK; bringing it out in the open should help to settle the two combatants down. Then ask for the next question.
If the friction should continue I would intervene and ask the group “we are here to help solve xxxxx’s problem. We cannot allow this friction to continue disrupting our effort. How do you want to address this?”
a 2’nd approach would be to speak to both individuals separately before the session begins and state you noticed the friction which seemed serious between the two and you wanted to know (for the sake of the group) if this might spill over to the group and make the AL session difficult to achieve good results or hopefully is this something that will not spill over into the AL session. When approached in this manner most people would submit to the needs of the group. If the response is “I do not care” then at the introduction to the session I would raise the issue with the group and ask them how they wanted to proceed.
It is difficult to know which approach to take (I would prefer #1) but would use #2 depending on the degree and intensity of the noted interaction.
Reply
Phil Cohen
| #
I was reflecting on my original response to this scenario and am thinking that I would note what had occurred prior to the meeting but would not bring up the issue unless I noticed that the friction between the two was continuing in our session and was having a negative impact on the group. That being the case I would intervene and say “I note that members of our team are (attacking, criticizing or verbally abusing) each other. What is the impact on our group when this occurs?” Allow the discussion to flow and then ask ..”How should we handle dysfunctional behavior of this type?”
Once this next discussion has occurred ask “Who has the next question?”
Reply
ronney
| #
I think any conflict will be surfaced by the standard questions ‘how well are we doing?’, ‘what are we doing well?’, ‘what can we do better?’. When the group collaboration or respect was identified as something that can be done better, I may probe the group further ‘how should we change this?’. The conversation might evolve to solving this interpersonal conflict issue, and that’s ok as long as the group agrees that this is of higher priority than the original problem.
If this is not identified as something that needs to change, I may ask the group ‘How well do we respect each other?’ If it’s identified as a problem, I’d probe further about how to change this and again the conversation might evolve to solving a different problem. If not, I’ll simply move on by asking ‘Who has the next question?’
Reply
Christina Reis
| #
As a coach, focusing on improving the performance of the group is my role. I would monitor the situation first and intervene with the standard question, How do you feel we are doing as a group thus far? What are we doing well? What can we do better? I have been in group discussions where there was obvious tension between 2 individuals yet the group continued on as the focus did not stray from the group’s intended goal. I would watch the group’s performance and through the questions such as above, and if the situation persist, will see if they would like to make it discussable.
Reply
Martha Lappin
| #
I see this behavior as a violation of the psychological safety the coach has a responsibility to maintain and would want to nip it in the bud. Therefore at the first instance of eye rolling and muttering I’d intervene with the observation “I’m noticing some negative non-verbal communication. Anyone else seeing this?” If anyone said yes, I’d continue with, “What’s the impact of this kind of communication on the group?” If negative consequences were mentioned, I’d ask “What can we do as a group to maintain a more positive, respectful climate?” I expect that some good, simple ideas would come up. If the eye roller apologized or was contributing to the positive suggestions I’d then just ask the group if they were ready to move on. If the eye roller appeared resistant I’d ask the group if they could commit to the behaviors suggested and ask for a for a head nod from each person. If the eye roller failed to agree or shortly thereafter violated the new norm, I’d ask the group what some of their options were for dealing with a situation like this.
Reply
Philipp Werenfels
| #
I agree with Ronney’s response. It is likely that the 3 most powerful questions to address a conflict are (1) How are we doing as a team? (2) What are we doing well as a team? and (3) What can we do better as a team? These questions may increase the awareness of a possible conflict.
In order to reduce conformity I would have the participants write down their answer to the 1st question and would use a scale. Thus, my 1st question would be: “On a scale from 1 very bad to 10 very good, how well are we doing as a team? Please write down your answer on a piece of paper.”
After everyone have shared there responses I follow up by asking: “Do we have agreement?”
If the group does not address the conflict and the conflict continues I might ask at a later time “How do you deal with conflict?” The purpose of the direct question is to learn about how the team deals with conflict in general. I would learn about the unspoken team-rules.
Reply
Sharon Swinburn
| #
Upon observing these behaviors in the hallway, I may start the meeting by reminding the team of their ground rules and if we need to make any additions or changes to them. As the session continues, I would monitor the team for disrepectful behaviors and lack of engagement in the process. I would intervene as needed and ask “How is the team doing?, Are we honoring our ground rules? What is going well or not so well? What can the team do to improve?” If I feel the team is hesitate to state their feelings openly in the room, I may ask them to write it down, collect them, and read them to the team. Then, ask “Who has the next question for the team?”
Reply
Donna Christophersen
| #
I agree that the behaviors of eye rolling and mumbling present a learning opportunity which the coach needs to address immediately rather than waiting for a routine “How are we doing?” intervention. I would name the behaviors I observed, without mentioning the names of those involved. Martha has already provided an excellent follow-up for when the team acknowledges the behavior, “What is the impact of non-verbal communication for the team?”
However, sometimes the team is not yet ready to address the inappropriate behavior, or even to acknowledge it. I had a similar situation where I tested my assumption about some non-verbal behaviors and the team said no one else noticed it. At that point, I found it difficult to trust the team and return to working on the problem; however, the power of questioning continued to work during the session. During the learning reflection at the end of the session, one team member expressed how non-verbal cues had made her feel others were disinterested with her answers. Other team members confirmed similar feelings and the group as a whole was able to learn from one another (rather than from the coach) how their behaviors adversely affect the group.
Reply
charles jones
| #
I see no ground rule in Action Learning that restricts arguments, eye-rolling, muttering, or any other behavior in the hallway prior to an Action Learning team meeting. In fact I’ve done all three (and more) in hallways over the years.
There is tremendous room for misinterpretation here. We don’t know the context, the seriousness of the issue (if any), the relationship between the two, etc. For all we know this moment could have been completely innocuous, unrelated to work, etc.
Unless the behavior surfaces during the meeting, in which case many of the interventions noted above would be perfectly appropriate, I would file it away and take no immediate action.
Reply
Gail Finger
| #
I’m not 100% clear from the description if the two people were rolling their eyes in the hallway only, or rolling their eyes during the AL session. If it was just an observation of an interaction in the hallway, I wouldn’t do anything unless the tension seemed to be coming into the room.
If the behavior was happening during the session, I would start with the basic three questions of “how are we doing as a team,” “what are we doing well,” and “what could we be doing better.”
If the behavior continued after that, during the next check-in, I would ask the team “What are you noticing about the team dynamics today?” and then ask “How is this impacting the team?”
Reply
Larry Voeller
| #
I like Martha’s approach but I wouldn’t jump in at the first sign of the behavior. Since my goal is to enhance the learning of the group, I would allow it to happen a couple times in the hope that someone in the group would ask a relevant question, e.g. “Are others noticing some negative non-verbals in the group?” etc. (I see it as a potential opportunity to learn that they can raise this with their group.)
If the situation continued and no member surfaced it with a question, I would try to use the direction suggested by Martha.
In this case, the general questions (how are we doing as a group, etc.) seem too general. When the behavior is being exhibited by one individual, it feels more genuine to at least acknowledge the behavior and check with the group on its impact and implications for their continued work together.
Reply
DrBea
| #
From Tom
If possible, I would talk with the two individuals having issues before the meeting begins and ask them if their differences are going to interfere with the team’s work. If the answer is yes, I might suggest the meeting get rescheduled (depends on severity of conflict, how many are involved with the meeting, complexity of having to reschedule, etc.). If we proceed with the meeting, I would monitor closely for individuals who might be “shut-down” or shutting down due this conflict. If I sense it is getting in the way, I might ask the team a few questions like: How is the team doing with it’s leadership competencies? What are some things the team might want do to ensure everyone is engaged?
Reply
DrBea
| #
Great responses! I particularly liked Donna’s note that she felt like her checkin had gone flat, but based on the learnings discussed at the end the seed had been planted and the intended learning had taken root.
I would start with the 3 standard questions: How are we doing? What are we doing well? What can we do better? Most likely someone from the team will bring up the situation. If not, my most likely question would be – How respectful are we being of the views of others? What impact does this have on the team? How do we want to handle it? Why is it important that we maintain a respectful atmosphere?
Reply
Valerie Lingeman
| #
Well, I’m coming late to this thread and I think the group has provided a lot of wisdom on this situation. I would not have a side bar with anyone; I would let the behavior emerge in the team session. I agree with Charles that we just don’t know enough about the context of what we observed to be able to make assumptions about what is happening. In my coaching, I would stick with the basic questions and see if the team notices and/or has the courage to call out the negative non-verbals, hostility, shutting down, etc. I have been impressed by the ability of teams who are in the grip of conflict to deny that anything negative at all is happening. I like the “seed-planting” approach and would go for that first. If the conflict continues to lock down the group, it will eventually affect the quality of their work, and they will know it. The basic questions: How are we doing? What are we doing well? What could we do better? ought to eventually compel someone to speak up about what they are noticing.
Reply
Anne Teresa
| #
I’m assuming neither of these people is the problem presenter. If one of them is the problem presenter it might be appropriate to discuss this subtext with them at a break, although that is risky. Perhaps this behavior would be mitigated by spending adequate time in the beginning on the leadership skills identification discussion and especially ‘how will we see it’. If after asking “how are we doing”, etc. no one mentions this non-verbal behavior, another question might be something like “how are we doing with listening to each other”?
Reply
Catherine Breathnach
| #
Apologies, I am coming to this thread late also. I agree that the three standard questions provide a good opening in focusing on this situation – and in particular asking on a scale of one to ten “How are we doing as a team?”. This provides a very clear opportunity for other team members to be quite specific when responding to “What can we do better?”, and allowing useful additional questions regarding “How to value and respect all members contributions?”. I think it is important for the team itself to surface the issue that is impacting on the work of the group.
Reply
jacinta Bailey-Sobers
| #
As the action learning coach I would want to ensure that the session results in the best outcome for the team and since the session is about developing leadership qualities in the participants I would seek at the outset to ensure that persons leave their differences outside of the room as this could impact the session. I would remind the team that one of the objectives of action learning sessions is to build powerful, high performance teams and remind members that in order to do this every one and their contributions must be valued. I would then proceed to ask the team if they wish to set any ground rules for their engagement.
Reply