Scenario: Prioritized Problems(2025)
Tags: Action Learning, ActionLearning Coach, Team Coach, WIAL, WIAL Action Learning, WIAL Talk
Trackback from your site.
Comments (13)
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tags: Action Learning, ActionLearning Coach, Team Coach, WIAL, WIAL Action Learning, WIAL Talk
Trackback from your site.
Rachel Wang
| #
My focus would be on using the action learning process to facilitate the teams’ resolution of their conflict over priorities. I may ask the teams reflective questions like:
What would be the impact if we focused on only one problem at a time?
How might we break down the top priority problem so that each team can contribute effectively?
What is the potential overlap between our work on different problems, and how can we share resources?
What are the mutual benefits if we share our approaches to solving different parts of the priority problem?
How can we leverage our combined expertise to achieve a solution more effectively?
Reply
ET
| #
Thank you for sharing. I really like your questions.
Reply
Anna Solak
| #
I would invite representatives of all teams to an Action Learning session where they would solve the problem on how to agree on which team should work on what problem.
Reply
ET
| #
I agree with Ms. Anna Solak to propose an Action Learning session with representatives of all teams and also invite the sponsor/s of the project to join in.
Or simply ask the sponsor/s and the representatives: how would they like to approach this situation? There are many project management tools to sort out this kind of situation, but what is the real problem that the teams are arguing?
I would ask the team questions like:
What are the ultimate goals for them as a whole in solving all the identified multiple problems? or what are the overall success look like for each team and for the entire organization?
What are the strengths and resources of each team?
What are the constraints of each team?
What are the impacts to the organization if all of them work on the top priority problem?
How can we leverage our resources to achieve our images of success?
What are our next steps?
Reply
Niwat Theeraviwatwong
| #
As Action Learning Coach,
1. I would ask the organization / the team to select the most important aspect into “top one priority need” which important to raise the team.
2. Respect to have PP – Problem Presenter to summarize “1 problem statement” which can be run into the process of action learning session.
3. Reflect learning on this situation that how can we decide and do it better, what’s next we can do to improve?
Reply
Valentino Baguios
| #
When I observe that multiple Action Learning teams are insisting on working on the same top-priority problem, I would recognize that this is both a challenge and a valuable leadership learning opportunity. Rather than immediately deciding for the teams, I would facilitate a structured dialogue with all team representatives or sponsors.
I would ask reflective questions such as:
“What might be the benefits and risks of having multiple teams work on the same problem?”
“How might each team’s unique lens or composition contribute to solving this problem differently?”
“What leadership competencies could be developed by navigating this shared priority?”
After this collective reflection, I would then propose a multiple-SPAL design, where several teams focus on the same problem, but approach it independently and collaboratively at key points—perhaps with shared checkpoints for cross-pollination of insights without forcing alignment.
Reply
Eric Kamst
| #
It’s not clear to me if the organisation intended each team to work on a different problem.
If not, I’d simply follow the teams wishes to all address the top priority problem. And afterwards organise a joint reflection to learn about the consequences (both positive and negative) of this approach. The result would be that these teams and the overall organization will have learned something about their approach when teams are formed to solve problems.
if the organisation DID indicate that each team should investigate a different problem, I would organise meeting with representatives of the organisation and from each team to investigate the ‘problem’ that the organisation wants something different than the teams. The situation may be very simple and an agreement on the approach will then be reached quickly. If it turns out to be more complex than simply “not having thought of this”, than an Action Learning session is suitable to find a way foreward.
Reply
SIYI YAO
| #
As the Action Learning Coach, my approach would focus on aligning organizational objectives with team ownership while fostering constructive dialogue. I would:
1. Clarify the Gap (Sponsor + Team Inquiry)
– Engage the Sponsor: “Could you help us understand how the priority problems were assigned? What outcomes are most critical for the organization at this stage?” (Goal: Uncover the rationale behind the current prioritization and identify flexibility in the constraints.)
– Ask the Team: “What makes you believe Problem is the top priority? How does it connect to the broader organizational goals?” (Goal: Surface their perspective and create shared clarity on priorities.)
2. Facilitate Alignment: “It sounds like everyone agrees solving the ‘right’ problem is key—how might we test whether the team’s priority aligns with the sponsor’s urgency?”
3. Bridge the Divide: “The team has identified why Problem may deliver faster/or broader impact. Could we pilot their approach for setting timeframe and reassess?” (Goal: Advocate for the team while respecting organizational boundaries.)
4. Team Agreement: “If we proceed with your priority, how will you ensure it meets the sponsor’s success metrics?” (This shifts the focus from arguing to accountability.)
Reply
Emmanuel Ossom
| #
Since all the problems have already been prioritized, they are considered equally important for ensuring the organization’s continuity and performance, particularly from a systems thinking perspective. Achieving this depends critically on the quality of the solutions applied to each problem.
However, different teams may vary in their capacity to address specific problems effectively. Therefore, each team will be asked to rank its capability to address each problem on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents the highest capability and 1 the lowest.
If two or more teams have the same capability rating for a given problem, a ballot will be held among them to ensure a fair and equal opportunity to solve the problem most aligned with their strengths. This balloting will be conducted for all problems where a tie occurs and will be repeated if necessary until every problem is assigned to a team.
In this way, each prioritized problem will be matched with the team that has the highest capability and interest to solve it.
Reply
Trista Wang
| #
If all the teams want to tackle the top priority problem, I’d first pause and acknowledge it as a learning moment. Then I’d ask reflective questions like: “What might be the impact if every team works on the same issue?”, or, “How could dividing the problems actually help the organization as a whole?”…
This shifts the energy from arguing to exploring options together.
If needed, I will involve the sponsor, so the teams can align their passion with the organization’s bigger goals. Ultimately let the team decide how to balance ownership with the bigger picture.
Reply
Sonia Loureiro
| #
As an Action Learning Coach, I would intervene clearly and neutrally:
“Let’s pause. What I’m hearing is alignment on importance, but disagreement on focus.”
Then I would bring the discipline of Action Learning back into the room:
“In Action Learning, learning comes from working the problem you are assigned, not from choosing the most urgent one.”
I would redirect the conversation with process questions:
• “What authority do we have in this room to change problem assignments?”
• “If we stay with the current assignments, what learning might the organization gain from multiple problems being worked at once?”
Then I would turn it into organizational learning:
“What does this tension tell us about how priorities are communicated and trusted in this organization?”
Reply
taweepong pawachalotorn
| #
First, I would surface and acknowledge the concern without taking sides: “I hear that each team feels the top priority problem is the most important to work on.” This validates their commitment while creating space for dialogue rather than debate.
Second, I would shift the conversation from advocacy to inquiry by asking reflective questions such as:
“What criteria did the organization use to prioritize these problems?”
“What risk is created if all teams focus on one issue and others are left unattended?”
“What learning opportunity might be lost if we ignore the full set of priorities?”
Third, I would re-anchor the discussion in the sponsor’s intent. If needed, I would involve the sponsor or review the original mandate to clarify why different teams were assigned different problems and how those efforts collectively serve the organization’s strategy.
Fourth, I would help teams see this as a leadership and systems-thinking challenge rather than a competition. I might ask: “How can working on different problems in parallel create greater value for the organization as a whole?” This reframes success from “winning the top problem” to contributing to enterprise-wide impact.
Finally, I would guide the teams to agree on a disciplined way forward—whether that means reaffirming the current problem assignments, refining scopes, or establishing coordination mechanisms across teams. The goal is not to force compliance, but to help participants practice mature leadership: aligning with strategy, managing ambiguity, and balancing local interest with organizational good.
Reply
Rosie Dao Hanh Giang
| #
Step 1: Setting the Stage & Ground Rules
Begin by reinstating the two ground rules: Statements only in response to questions, and the Coach can intervene to promote learning. This immediately cools down heated arguments and shifts the focus to inquiry.
Step 2: Inquiry into the Nature of “Priority”
Ask questions for self-reflection: “What leads us to believe that only the top priority is worth solving?” or “If the top priority is solved but the others are neglected, where will the organization be by 2026?”.
Step 3: Systemic Reframing
Guide the teams to find connections: “Is the top priority truly independent, or does it depend on the outcomes of priorities 2 and 3?”. This step helps them see that working on other issues is, in fact, supporting the main goal.
Step 4: Aligning Competencies & Resources
Leverage your expertise in Competency Frameworks by asking: “Based on each team’s unique technical strengths, where can we generate the most value?”. This leads teams to identify where they can shine most effectively.
Step 5: Facilitating Consensus on Action
The Coach facilitates a unified decision: “How can we allocate resources to ensure progress on the top priority without missing other critical links?”.
Step 6: Reflection on the Learning Process
End the session by reflecting on the process: “What have we learned about resolving interest conflicts through the power of inquiry?”.
Reply