Scenario: The Race is On
As an action learning coach, how would you handle the following situation:
The team races to consensus on the problem. They are saying the same words but have not really talked about what the words mean.
Tags: Action Leaning, Action Learning Coach, WIAL, WIAL Action Learning, WIAL Talk
Trackback from your site.
Comments (8)
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Arlene McComie
| #
As the AL Coach I will take a poll by asking each participant if we have agreement on the problem. I will then ask each member of the team to write down in their own words what they believe is the ‘real problem’ that we need to help the problem presenter with. I will then ask each person to read what they wrote. Once the sharing is completed I will again ask the team if they are in agreement that the real problem was captured – ‘yes’; ‘no’ or close.
If there is no agreement I will ask the question – ” What will help us to get to consensus?’
If there is close agreement I will ask – “How would we like to capture what we have agreed the problem is”
If there is consensus on the problem I will advise the team that they have an additional 10 minutes within which to ask questions at the end of which the Problem Presenter will have an opportunity to share what actions she/he is going to take as a result of the session.
Reply
Sitthimet Solthong
| #
As an AL coach, I would ask them to pause and write down once again those words in one short sentence about the problem. This way it will help the team to slow down, reflect more about the problem. Then, they will be requested to read what they write. I will now ask them whether do they have a concensus on the problem on a percentage scale. If it is less than 100%, I would ask the team how would they work together to get it 100%. What would be their strategy? Then I will let them ask each other once again before reaching a final round of consensus which by now would open new learnings for the team.
Reply
Michal Weyna
| #
I would ask the author of the scenario for more context, aiming to understand the problem better before jumping to solutions 🙂
Assuming that this is observed after individual problem definitions are read out loud, I would let the conversation continue to validate my observation. If observation is confirmed, I would later intervene by asking: how are we ensuring that we are on the same page understanding the problem, and the meaning of the words we used to describe it?
Reply
Nidlawan Saisakha
| #
As an Action Learning Coach, I would ask the team member to write down the problem and also let them know that after all finish, I would ask them to read the problem per the problem statement they writing.
Reply
MARCIA REGINA 06522600803
| #
I would ask the group to say from 1 to 10 if they understood that they actually got into a coonsense. If confirmed, I would ask the submitter of the problem to bring new information and return to the group with the questioning about the consensus. If I kept my observation of not deepening, I would question the group if there was an anxiety in giving answers to the problem. There are attempts to get the group to reflect on its dynamics.
Reply
Calixto Salud Jr
| #
As their AL coach, I will do the following learning intervention:
– remind them that this is not a race against time
– ask them to write their understanding of the problem
– read their written response on what the problem is
– ask them if the problem they have written down is ROOT problem or SYMPTOM problem, thus they say either ROOT or SYMPTOM
– lastly I will ask them to Rate the team’s understanding of the problem from 1 to 10, 10 being the highest
– having heard everyone, I will ask them how they want to proceed and what effect this will have on the overall team performance
Doing so, the team would have done two things: (1) assess themselves on an individual basis on the understanding of the problem; (2) assess the entire team versus their understanding of the problem and how they want to proceed
Reply
Michelle Gagui
| #
I would insist to ask the team on team’s performance (rating) and ask to write down how they understood the problem (word) stated by the problem presenter. And definitely, the interpretation of the PP will emerge – intervene the learning opportunity by asking the team about how they would do next.
Reply
Risky Harisa Haslan
| #
If the team had not write down the problem statement, I would ask them to do so. If they had, I would ask them to do it again. Each of the team member would have to read what they had written (including problem presenter). I would ask each team member if they had an agreement on what the problem statement, they would have the option to answer with either “yes”, “no”, or “quite close”. If there seemed to be an agreement with the problem presenter’s definition of the problem, then I would continue the session. If there was discrepancy, I would highlight the situation and asked them how it would impact the team/problem presenter/the problem itself. I would then asked the team what they would like to do (next) with the situation then proceed with the session. In a mature team, they would be more likely able to identify the discrepancy and would work on it before proceeding to the solution. If the team decided to proceed without working on the discrepancy, then I would observe the problem presenter and wait for a few more minutes before intervening. I would then ask the team what was happening, how it would impact the problem presenter/problem, then ask them again how they would like to proceed.
Reply