As an Action Learning Team Coach how would you handle the following situation:
You have two problem owners for your project. You assume that the problem owners have coordinated the presentation of the problem for the kickoff session. As soon as one starts to present the problem the other interrupts with a very different view of the problem.
I would intervene and ask “As the problem presenters seem to have differing understandings of the problem, would it be helpful for each to present his/her understanding of the problem without interruption so that the group can get a full understanding of the varying perspectives in the first instance?”.
First, this issue of two different problems being presented is probably the result of the coach not clarifying and establishing with the two problem owner(s) that they have consensus as to the nature of the problem that the group would be dealing with. It is the role of the coach to do this prior to the AL session.
However, in this situation after hearing the second viewpoint of the problem I would intervene and would say ” I notice that there are two different viewpoints as to the nature of the problem. Perhaps there is more than one problem that the group should be addressing. As a group how do you want to proceed?”
Rather than getting into a confrontation between the two people with different points of view, let the group handle this.
One concern that I could have as this plays out, is the position held in the organization by the person who interrupted the first problem presenter. If he/she is at a more senior position the group may lean in the direction of his/her concept of the problem. That’s ok … because I would have made note of the original viewpoint. During the session if I observed that the group was having difficulty coming to a consensus as to the real root of the problem I could then intervene and ask “are there other viewpoints we might consider as to the nature of the problem?”
I do not expect that two people think and/or express their thoughts and feelings alike (e.g., is the glass of water half full or half empty?). If the differences of the two problem presenters are minor we can proceed and start solving the problem/opportunity. I would ask the problem presenters if they agree that the problems are similar. If they agree I ask one presenter to restate the problem in one sentence. Then we start with “Who has the first question?”
If the problems diverge more widely I would ask the problem presenters, to decide which problem/opportunity they want to solve first and offer to schedule another meeting to solve the second problem at the later date. At the end of the first meeting I would ask presenter 2 if the today’s work on the first problem has altered the second problem or if both problems were more similar than we thought first.
Upon both problem presenters presenting what he/she thinks may be the problem, I would intervene and ask the group “Who has the first question to help gain an understanding of the problem/opportunity/challenge? Coaches have to trust the group to ask clarifying questions and determine the problem statement. The group may discover more than one problem and can decide to only tackle one at at time.
As a procedural point, I would make sure that the two problem presenters are not interrupting each other.
The only intervention I would then make is, “Who has the first question?”
It is up to the team to decide whether/how/to what extent the problem presenters agree or disagree with each other’s presentation of the problem(s). The whole purpose of the presentation of the problem and the subsequent efforts to achieve a consensus on the problem is to figure out what the problem actually is. If the presenters can’t agree on what it is, well, we simply have vivid confirmation that the time spent on achieving consensus on the problem statement is time well spent.
I agreee with both Charles and Sharon to have the group decide how to proceed with both presenters. “Who has the first question?’ allows for the group to start the process of clarifying amongst themselves how they want to tackle the problem at hand.
I would make an intervention as soon as the interruption occurred and say: It can be helpful to a team to hear the problem presented from two different perspectives. Let’s have each of you present your perception of the problem and then the team can decide how to proceed from there.
After both have presented their view of the problem, I would go with “who has the first question?” If
The key to this one is that ‘assume’ thing going on. The best way to avoid this problem is to work with your problem presenters ahead of time.
If we have gotten in to the situation – then what. I’d go for a very early intervention here. I’d skip the standard 3 questions since the team hadn’t been drawn into the conversation yet.
I’d start with an observe question – I’ve noticed a difference of opinion being expressed. What’s the impact on the team when contradicting views are brought up during the problem presentation? How do we want to handle bringing in the additional views? Why is it important that the differing views are presented in …
This would be based off the response from the previous questions.
might be
– a respectful way
– a clearly presented way
– a supportive way
etc
Thanks for posting this scenario as it expanded my view of Action Learning. I had previously “assumed” there should be only one problem presenter, even if multiple people “own” the problem. Have others coached teams with more than one presenter in a group? With what results? Working with the problem presenter(s) prior to the session is also helpful to ensure the initial problem is stated succinctly.
I’m too late to offer an original response on this one. I think there is a great opportunity for the coach, during the reflection on learning, to draw on the initial diverging presentations of the problem to underscore the value of time spent clarifying a problem before an organization/individual plunges ahead to solve it. Questions like “What is the impact on obtaining broad support for organizational change initiatives when senior team members may not agree on the need for or direction of the change in the first place?”
Catherine Breathnach
| #
I would intervene and ask “As the problem presenters seem to have differing understandings of the problem, would it be helpful for each to present his/her understanding of the problem without interruption so that the group can get a full understanding of the varying perspectives in the first instance?”.
Reply
Phil Cohen
| #
First, this issue of two different problems being presented is probably the result of the coach not clarifying and establishing with the two problem owner(s) that they have consensus as to the nature of the problem that the group would be dealing with. It is the role of the coach to do this prior to the AL session.
However, in this situation after hearing the second viewpoint of the problem I would intervene and would say ” I notice that there are two different viewpoints as to the nature of the problem. Perhaps there is more than one problem that the group should be addressing. As a group how do you want to proceed?”
Rather than getting into a confrontation between the two people with different points of view, let the group handle this.
One concern that I could have as this plays out, is the position held in the organization by the person who interrupted the first problem presenter. If he/she is at a more senior position the group may lean in the direction of his/her concept of the problem. That’s ok … because I would have made note of the original viewpoint. During the session if I observed that the group was having difficulty coming to a consensus as to the real root of the problem I could then intervene and ask “are there other viewpoints we might consider as to the nature of the problem?”
Reply
Philipp Werenfels
| #
I do not expect that two people think and/or express their thoughts and feelings alike (e.g., is the glass of water half full or half empty?). If the differences of the two problem presenters are minor we can proceed and start solving the problem/opportunity. I would ask the problem presenters if they agree that the problems are similar. If they agree I ask one presenter to restate the problem in one sentence. Then we start with “Who has the first question?”
If the problems diverge more widely I would ask the problem presenters, to decide which problem/opportunity they want to solve first and offer to schedule another meeting to solve the second problem at the later date. At the end of the first meeting I would ask presenter 2 if the today’s work on the first problem has altered the second problem or if both problems were more similar than we thought first.
Reply
Sharon Swinburn
| #
Upon both problem presenters presenting what he/she thinks may be the problem, I would intervene and ask the group “Who has the first question to help gain an understanding of the problem/opportunity/challenge? Coaches have to trust the group to ask clarifying questions and determine the problem statement. The group may discover more than one problem and can decide to only tackle one at at time.
Reply
charles jones
| #
As a procedural point, I would make sure that the two problem presenters are not interrupting each other.
The only intervention I would then make is, “Who has the first question?”
It is up to the team to decide whether/how/to what extent the problem presenters agree or disagree with each other’s presentation of the problem(s). The whole purpose of the presentation of the problem and the subsequent efforts to achieve a consensus on the problem is to figure out what the problem actually is. If the presenters can’t agree on what it is, well, we simply have vivid confirmation that the time spent on achieving consensus on the problem statement is time well spent.
Reply
Christina Reis
| #
I agreee with both Charles and Sharon to have the group decide how to proceed with both presenters. “Who has the first question?’ allows for the group to start the process of clarifying amongst themselves how they want to tackle the problem at hand.
Reply
Gail Finger
| #
I would make an intervention as soon as the interruption occurred and say: It can be helpful to a team to hear the problem presented from two different perspectives. Let’s have each of you present your perception of the problem and then the team can decide how to proceed from there.
After both have presented their view of the problem, I would go with “who has the first question?” If
Reply
Dr Bea
| #
Once again – some really outstanding responses.
The key to this one is that ‘assume’ thing going on. The best way to avoid this problem is to work with your problem presenters ahead of time.
If we have gotten in to the situation – then what. I’d go for a very early intervention here. I’d skip the standard 3 questions since the team hadn’t been drawn into the conversation yet.
I’d start with an observe question – I’ve noticed a difference of opinion being expressed. What’s the impact on the team when contradicting views are brought up during the problem presentation? How do we want to handle bringing in the additional views? Why is it important that the differing views are presented in …
This would be based off the response from the previous questions.
might be
– a respectful way
– a clearly presented way
– a supportive way
etc
Happy Coaching
Bea
Reply
Donna Christophersen
| #
Thanks for posting this scenario as it expanded my view of Action Learning. I had previously “assumed” there should be only one problem presenter, even if multiple people “own” the problem. Have others coached teams with more than one presenter in a group? With what results? Working with the problem presenter(s) prior to the session is also helpful to ensure the initial problem is stated succinctly.
Reply
Valerie Lingeman
| #
I’m too late to offer an original response on this one. I think there is a great opportunity for the coach, during the reflection on learning, to draw on the initial diverging presentations of the problem to underscore the value of time spent clarifying a problem before an organization/individual plunges ahead to solve it. Questions like “What is the impact on obtaining broad support for organizational change initiatives when senior team members may not agree on the need for or direction of the change in the first place?”
Reply