Part IV: Quick Summaries
The secret of Zen is just two words: not always so.
—Shunryu Suzuki Roshi
The Quick Summaries provide a one-page-per-method look at key information, including:
• An image of the process
• Purpose
• Outcomes
• When to Use
• When Not to Use
• Number of Participants
• Types of Participants
• Typical Duration
• Brief Example
• Historical Context
• For More Information
The Quick Summaries are organized alphabetically. We’ve indicated whether the chapter on the process is in-depth or a thumbnail, the overarching purpose of the method (i.e., Adaptable, Planning, Structuring, Improving, Supportive), the chapter number, and its page number.
Action Learning
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 48
Page 479
PURPOSE:
To develop the practices that advance organizational strategy in the midst of complexity by developing essential skills for thinking creatively, coaching through questioning, and finding leverage points for action.
OUTCOMES:
• Increased ability to accomplish strategic change
• Improved cross-functional teamwork
• More strategic and focused leadership
• Ability to address complex challenges
WHEN TO USE:
• Changes in strategy require new leadership behaviors
• Teams are undertaking long, complex projects
• Cross-functional teamwork needs strengthening
• Strategic thinking is needed throughout the organization
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• For refining established processes, roles, and structures
• When the right people are not on the team
• For doing basic problem solving
• Cannot commit to meet over the length of the cycle
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Peer Coaching group: 3–10 people
• Team Learning groups: 3–30 people
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Peers from different functional areas
• Leadership teams
• Professionals with similar work
• Intact teams responsible for strategic change
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Orientation: 4–16 hours
• Sessions: Over 6–12 months
• Follow-up: Optional custom design
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Canadian Tire, one of Canada’s most shopped retailers, used Action Learning to create culture change in its IT organization. Ninety-one percent of participants said it increased cross-functional teamwork and broke down silos. The IT organization became more performance oriented and aligned to business priorities.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The Quakers have used a similar method (Clearness Committee) for more than 400 years. Reginald Revans pioneered Action Learning groups with organizations beginning in the 1940s.
For More Information: Waterline Consulting, www.waterlineconsulting.com
Action Review Cycle/AAR
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 49
Page 484
PURPOSE:
To continually raise the bar on performance, build a culture of accountability, and sustain success in a changing environment.
OUTCOMES:
• Actionable knowledge against key performance measures
• Confident yet humble leaders, empowered teams
• Leadership, learning, and execution are integrated in the way work is done every day
• An agile organization that embraces change
WHEN TO USE:
• Where there are high stakes and/or complexity of interdependent actions and decision-making
• As a practical way to build or sustain a learning culture
• Built into existing operating cycles
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• As a one-time, backward-looking postmortem
• With a team or “panel” who will not be expected to take action—focusing After Action Reviews (AARs) on creating reports or recommendations for others not present undermines the ability to use it as a living practice
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–15 in a session (sessions can be cascaded to involve entire organization)
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Teams and leaders with direct responsibility for an action or mission. Interdependent teams can do Before Action Reviews (BARs) and AARs together.
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Collect performance data during action
• Depending on scope and skill: BAR: 15 minutes–2 hours; AAR: 15 minutes–3 hours
• Follow-up is continuous—this is a cycle
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
For Jeff Clanon of the Society of Organizational Learning, the ARC was a mechanism to get organizational members engaged in collectively taking responsibility for what happened in their quarterly meetings and acting on the implications of their discussions going forward. Using the BAR/AAR contributed to a step change in the way the groups coalesced in the last two years. Interactions became more grounded and disciplined, and embody what the organization preaches.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Originated in 1981 at the U.S. Army’s National Training Center, has evolved over 25 years. World’s Best Practitioners: NTC Opposing Force (11th ACR).
For More Information: Signet Research & Consulting, www.signetconsulting.com
Ancient Wisdom Council
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 13
Page 195
PURPOSE:
To awaken “whole” thinking using a holistic and collaborative process for deeper wisdom.
OUTCOMES:
• Enhances cohesion and energetic motivation
• Increases use of people resources
• Develops balanced and unbiased perspectives
• Clears blocked communication
• Builds trust and deepens relationships
WHEN TO USE:
• For complex issues that require innovation
• To slow down the cycle of act and react
• When dominant voices close out valuable contributions
• To make decisions that affect the collective’s longevity
• To bring a more holistic view when many biases are present
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Leadership is unwilling to cocreate
• Decisions have already been made
• The climate is one of mistrust and disrespect
• No trained facilitator is present
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 1–500
• 16 is ideal; one man and one woman in each of eight perspectives
• Can include a group in each perspective acting as a society or be used within oneself
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any team, community group, or board
• All those affected by decisions
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2–5 days
• Wisdom Council: 2–5 days
• Follow-up: 1–3 months
• Ongoing: 0.5 day monthly
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
World Business Academy called a meeting to bring together the diversity of issues among 80+ members. Over four days, using the Ancient Wisdom Council, the people worked through 60+ issues to become a cohesive group. The WBA adopted the Ancient Wisdom Council for their decision-making process, resulting in a sharp increase in morale, a deeper connection, and a renewed vision in the organization.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Deeply rooted in Native American and pre-Mayan tribal cultures and made relevant to our current culture by WindEagle and RainbowHawk Kinney-Linton in 1987.
For More Information: Ehama Institute, www.ehama.org
Appreciative Inquiry
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 5
Page 73
PURPOSE:
To enable full-voice appreciative participation that taps the organization’s positive change core and inspires collaborative action that serves the whole system.
OUTCOMES:
• Fundamental shift toward cooperation, equality of voice, and high participation
• A positive revolution, inquiry, and improvisational learning as daily practices
• Focus on life-giving forces—socially, financially, and ecologically
WHEN TO USE:
• To create a positive revolution
• To enhance strategic cooperation overcoming conflict, competition
• To catalyze whole system culture change
• To facilitate high-participation planning
• To mobilize global organization design and development
• To integrate multiple initiatives into a focused whole system effort
• To support large-scale mergers and acquisitions
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• If you are getting the results you desire
• When lacking commitment to a positive approach to change
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 20–2,000 involved in interviews, large-scale meetings, and collaborative actions
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Internal and external stakeholders who hold images and tell stories about the organization
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Work begins with the first question asked
• Process: 1 day–many months in nonconference format
• Appreciative Inquiry (AI) Summit: 4–6 days
• Total Transition: 3 months–1 year
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Nutrimental Brazil closed the food processing plant for five days and invited 700 people to an AI Summit resulting in full-voice commitment to a renewed strategic plan and a 300 percent increase in sales within three months. The company chose to meet as a large group twice a year to ensure progress on the strategic plan.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1987 by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, colleagues at Case Western Reserve University and the Taos Institute. Theory: Social Construction, Anticipatory Imagery Theory, and Narrative Theory.
For More Information: Appreciative Inquiry Commons, http://ai.cwru.edu
Appreciative Inquiry Summit
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 14
Page 201
PURPOSE:
To accelerate positive change in organizations and communities by involving a broad range of internal and external stakeholders in the change process in real time.
OUTCOMES:
• Energizes the organization by putting the focus on strengths and potentials (rather than deficits and deficiencies)
• Generates innovation by connecting people in new configurations around promising ideas
• Builds leadership at all levels by involving everyone in envisioning, designing, and implementing change
WHEN TO USE:
• When you want to engage people, capitalize on their best thinking, and mobilize the entire organization quickly around a strategic change agenda
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When leaders are not committed to full engagement, positive dialogue, and innovation throughout the organization
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 30–3,000 people, more using online technology
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Ideally, every member of the system (e.g., internal or external stakeholders, multifunction, entire value chain)
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Planning: 2–6 months
• Conducting: 3–5 days
• Follow-up: 2 months–1 year; strategies and organization designs are altered for years to come
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Since 2000, Roadway Express has held close to 40 summits across the organization to engage the workforce, improve margins, create service innovations, launch new strategies, and consolidate its merger with Yellow Corporation. The process has energized the workforce, produced millions of dollars of cost savings, and generated millions more in new revenues.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the early 1990s by Frank Barrett, John Carter, David Cooperrider, Ron Fry, Jim Ludema, Suresh Srivastva, Jane Watkins, Diana Whitney, and others at Case Western Reserve University; early roots in the work of Lewin, Homans, Bion, Von Bertalanffy, Emery and Trist, Berger and Luckmann, and Paulo Freire. More recent influences include Ken and Mary Gergen, Cooperrider and Srivastva, Weisbord, Owen, Dannemiller, and works from positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship.
For More Information: Appreciative Inquiry Commons, http://ai.cwru.edu
Balanced Scorecard
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 50
Page 490
PURPOSE:
To align everyone with financial and nonfinancial performance measures relevant to strategy implementation.
OUTCOMES:
• People think in terms of multiple types of organizational objectives that range from financial goals to people development goals
• Local behavior is driven by the overall strategy and relationships with other groups
• The strategic plan is shaped by feedback from all parts of the organization
WHEN TO USE:
• When you want people all working toward the same balanced objectives that include financial, customer, process, learning, and innovation perspectives.
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When the organization’s leadership desires a singular focus that is used to manage the organization, for example, managing only to financial goals.
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Up to 20 in the initial direction-setting session, followed by the entire organization as they (a) align local activities to the strategy and (b) contribute to the strategy based on customer and internal organizational feedback
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All people in the organization participate in local goal setting, measurement, continuous improvement, and providing feedback for the next iteration of strategic planning
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Prework: 2–6 weeks
• Planning sessions: 1–3 days
• Local goal setting and feedback on the previous strategy and goals: 5 days–2 months, depending on the size of the organization
• Follow-up: 2–4 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A biopharmaceutical company used the Balanced Scorecard to establish a portfolio of high-leverage goals to successfully move the company from a research and development mode to a commercial mode. Within 14 months, the company captured 63 percent of the market share.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the early 1990s by Robert Kaplan and David Norton.
For More Information: The Balanced Scorecard Institute, www.balancedscorecard.org
Civic Engagement
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 51
Page 496
PURPOSE:
To shift the language of civic debate to questions that build accountability and commitment for a restored and reconciled community.
OUTCOMES:
• Shifts perspective to accountability and commitment belonging to the individuals in the community
WHEN TO USE:
• When a group wants to create an alternative and intentional future through accountability and commitment
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When patriarchy is the dominant and preferred method for engagement
• When individuals can achieve the same outcomes as the group
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 15–200
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Internal and external stakeholders (all levels of an organization)—volunteers for the cause!
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1 week
• Process: 2 weeks
• Follow-up: 1 week–6 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Youth Dialogue: Adults (30+) and youth (under 25) were invited into conversations to establish an ongoing dialogue. Youth were required to attend (draftees). The questions, such as “What don’t adults get about you?” made the most difference between the two groups. Breakthrough listening occurred. The result: The context shifted how adults see, hear, and respond to youth. The youth stopped posturing defensively and got “real.” A diverse group made contact in a way they didn’t think possible. The outcome: the group made a commitment to continue the conversation.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1995, amended in 1999 and again in 2003 by Peter Block. This work is based on the works of Robert Putnam, John McKnight, and Peter Block.
For More Information: A Small Group, www.asmallgroup.net
Collaborative Loops
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 6
Page 89
PURPOSE:
To teach people how to create their own change methodology.
OUTCOMES:
• Collaborative organizational and community change through a series of well-designed, strategically placed events
• People learn how to create their own change methodology
• People move from thinking they have to do everything themselves to working cooperatively with others
WHEN TO USE:
• The issues require employee engagement for success
• You have many different change projects going on in your organization
• To build organizational capacity for change
• To create partnerships throughout your organization
• If you want people to take responsibility for a change
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• If the results are predetermined
• If there isn’t support for the people doing the work
• If you want complete control
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 6 teams of 10 people each is ideal, up to 20 teams possible
• 100–200 participants in events designed by teams
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• A broad range of internal and external stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Workshop planning: 4–6 weeks
• Length: 2–3 days (workshop), 0.5 day–2 days (events designed during workshop)
• Follow-up: 3–12 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Following the 1999 strike by Boeing engineers, Boeing Commercial Airplane engineering organization (20,000 people) and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), the union that represents Boeing’s engineers, addressed post-strike issues using engagement-based Collaborative Loops. Three years later, the same people who went on strike approved a new contract by 80 percent, and employee satisfaction in the engineering organization increased 40 percent.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1995 by Dick and Emily Axelrod. Influenced by Von Bertalanffy, Malcolm Knowles, Emery and Trist, Marvin Weisbord, and Sandra Janoff.
For More Information: The Axelrod Group, www.AxelrodGroup.com
Collaborative Work Systems Design
Thumbnail
Structuring Method
Chapter 44
Page 436
PURPOSE:
To create a framework for successfully changing the organization to support collaboration and improve business results.
OUTCOMES:
• A holistic framework that incorporates the perspectives of a cross-section of the organization
• A plan of concrete actions to be accomplished
• Opportunity to bridge work across traditional boundaries
WHEN TO USE:
• Planning or renewing organizational change
• Building collaboration into the organization
• Integrating multiple change efforts
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• No commitment by decision makers to participate or act on the results
• Insufficient infrastructure and resources
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–30 per design event
• Multiple sessions may accommodate the whole organization
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Change leaders
• Steering Committee members
• Design Team members
• Line managers
• Other internal stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Assessment: 2–6 weeks
• Workshop: 1–5 days
• Change Process: Several months to many years, depending on scope of change
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A glass plant recognized the need for broad organizational changes to achieve its desired business goals. The company used Collaborative Work Systems Design in conjunction with existing process, quality, and cultural initiatives. The result was a comprehensive, integrated design to take the organization to the next level.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2000 by Michael Beyerlein, Cheryl Harris, and Sarah Bodner.
For More Information: Center for Collaborative Organizations, University of North Texas, www.workteams.unt.edu
Community Summits
Thumbnail
Planning Method
Chapter 36
Page 365
PURPOSE:
To help communities and large organizations invested in a complex issue quickly find the common ground necessary to support action.
OUTCOMES:
• Alignment of the broad community around a specific course of action
• The mobilization of energy for implementation
• The enlistment of individuals and organizations in follow-up
WHEN TO USE:
• When community alignment and participation around a course of action is required for the success of a change initiative
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When all critical decisions have been made, and there is a desire to present the appearance of participation
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 64–2,048
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All stakeholders, internal and external, necessary to achieve action around the central issue
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Plan: 2–4 weeks
• Solicit participants: 10–12 weeks
• Summit meeting: 2–3 days
• Follow-up: 6 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
United Way of Rhode Island used summits involving a microcosm of the state to build support for change from a dispersed funding model to a concentrated impact project model.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2003 by Gil Steil and Mal Watlington. Emery’s Open Systems Theory and Search Conference, Weisbord and Janoff’s Future Search, Dannemiller’s Whole Scale Change, and Harrison Owen’s Open Space.
For More Information: Community Summits, www.gilsteil.com/communitysummits
Community Weaving
In-depth
Structuring Method
Chapter 42
Page 400
PURPOSE:
To weave the human and tangible resources of the grass roots with the knowledge and skills of formal systems using Web-based technology.
OUTCOMES:
• Builds and bridges social and human capital
• Maps and measures assets for community development
• Creates resilient, interdependent social networks
• Increases protective factors linked to community health and well-being
• Sparks initiative, innovation, ingenuity
• Creates microenterprises
WHEN TO USE:
• For establishing or strengthening social networks
• For collaborating among individuals, organizations, and systems
• For identifying assets and resources
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• There is no openness to outcomes
• There is no support for individual initiative
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Trainings: 25 maximum
• Events: Up to 2,500
• Formal Partners: Unlimited
• Participants: Infinite
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Community members, community leaders, organization members, group members, students and parents, employees and managers, staff and clients
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation:
• Grassroots: None
• Organizations: 2–4 weeks
• Community-wide: 4–6 weeks
• Training: 1–4 days
• Summit: 1 day
• Total transition: Ongoing
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
One Community Weaver recruited, trained, and mobilized more than 150 Family Advocates and 800 Good Neighbors and established the Family Support Network, a nonprofit based in Bothell, Washington, with 15 agency partners.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1993 by Cheryl Honey, C.P.P.
For More Information: Community Weaving, www.communityweaving.org
The Conference Model
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 15
Page 207
PURPOSE:
To involve internal and external stakeholders in the redesign of processes and organizations.
OUTCOMES:
• People think systemically
• People think about whom to include when addressing issues
• Information and decision making are shared
WHEN TO USE:
• When you want to involve a critical mass of employees in the redesign of a process or organization
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When the outcomes are known or you want the redesign done by a select few
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Up to 100 per conference
• Multiple conferences of 100 people can be run in parallel
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Internal and external stakeholders, multilevel, multifunction
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Prework: 1–3 months
• Sessions: Three 2-day conferences, held 6 weeks apart
• Follow-up: 6 months–1 year
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
At Detroit Edison, a stalled supply-chain improvement process was revitalized using the Conference Model. Two 250-person conferences were held, resulting in 26 active supply-chain improvement process projects, with millions of dollars in savings.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1991 by Dick and Emily Axelrod. Emery and Trist, Von Bertalanffy, Weisbord and Janoff.
For More Information: The Axelrod Group, www.AxelrodGroup.com
Consensus Decision Making
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 16
Page 212
PURPOSE:
To synthesize collective wisdom in order to generate decisions that best serve the needs of the whole.
OUTCOMES:
• High-quality decisions with strong support for follow-through and enhanced sense of connection among the participants.
WHEN TO USE:
• When the group participating has authority to make decisions
• When creative solutions are required to meet all the needs that are present
• When implementation will be ineffective unless everyone involved is really on board
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When there is no common purpose or willingness to cooperate
• When there is strictly limited time combined with low trust within the group
• When the decision would more appropriately be delegated to an individual or committee
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 2–1,000+
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All the members who are entrusted to make group decisions
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Typically 1 hour outside meeting for every hour in the meeting
• Events: One or more meetings of <1 hour to several days
• Follow-up: Implementation of whatever decisions are reached
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
The Federation of Egalitarian Communities runs programs to support its affiliated groups in areas such as recruitment, labor exchange, and health care. In 2001, two of its groups were seeking to move the organization in a more politically active direction, drawing concerns from the largest community that such a change would alienate its membership base. The solution that emerged was to become more politically engaged in ways that also supported existing goals, for example, by doing recruitment at political events.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Method of group decision making throughout human history. Contemporary secular tradition has roots in Quaker practices (1647), Free Speech Movement (1964), Movement for a New Society (1971).
For More Information: Seeds for Change, http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens
Conversation Café
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 17
Page 218
PURPOSE:
To build social trust and cohesion through safe, open, lively conversations in public places.
OUTCOMES:
• Conversation Café’s impact is the culture itself—it is hard to measure its impact on social trust, greater citizen capacity for critical thinking, friendliness, and so on.
WHEN TO USE:
• To increase social glue
• To meet thoughtful neighbors
• To engage in meaningful conversation
• To shift, as we say, from small talk to BIG talk
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Two traditions allow for the Conversation Café’s safety and openness: “No committees will be formed” and “No marketing”
• Do not use Conversation Cafés to organize or motivate people toward a specific end, to convince others, or to form a club
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 3–8, plus a host per table with as many tables as the location can hold
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Whoever comes; diverse members of the public
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: None
• Process: 60–90 minutes
• At conferences, “lite” Conversation Cafés of 30–60 minutes can be held
• Follow-up: None
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
The late Larry Gaffin hosted a Conversation Café for three years in several different cafés in Seattle, Washington. Participants ranged in age from their twenties to eighties, across the political spectrum, and while mostly white, had some cultural diversity. A core of a dozen people participated regularly, with newcomers at almost every meeting. A former minister, Larry easily generated topics each week ranging from ethical to philosophical to political to common personal issues and topics—people counted on this Conversation Café to make meaning of current events and said it felt a bit like church without the preaching. Ten to 20 other Conversation Cafés also met weekly, fostering civility—and community.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2001 by Vicki Robin with Susan Partnow. Roots in a communication ritual called Heart Sharing, using similar agreements to dialogue circles and indigenous talking circles.
For More Information: Conversation Café, www.conversationcafe.org
The Cycle of Resolution
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 52
Page 501
PURPOSE:
To generate a real, heartfelt, authentic dialogue that drives the creation of a joint vision and a detailed road map to desired results through conversational models and communication tools that get people unstuck.
OUTCOMES:
• Hierarchy flattened
• Individuals empowered to talk about anything; no fear sharing feelings and observations; feelings matter
WHEN TO USE:
• People not collaborating effectively
• Need for a clear unified vision
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• People won’t engage or consider their own behavior
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 2–25 per group with up to 4 groups
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All essential members of the system
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Interview key players
• Process: 1–3 days
• Follow-up: 4–6 weeks with sustainability tool in the form of an eLearning program.
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Total partnership breakdown between a private adoption agency and a county department of child welfare. The conflicts were resolved and an agreement was structured as the foundation for a healthy, productive working relationship with a new vision of collaborative partnership. In the following year, 109 “unadoptable” children destined for a life of foster care were placed in permanent families.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1991 by Stewart Levine. Influenced by Dr. Stephen Covey and Dr. Fernando Flores.
For More Information: Resolution Works, www.resolutionworks.org
Dialogue and Deliberation
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 7
Page 102
PURPOSE:
To build and strengthen relationships, bridge gaps, resolve conflicts, generate innovative solutions to problems, inspire collaborative action, give people a voice in governance, and strengthen decision making.
OUTCOMES:
• Convinces those in power that ordinary people can understand complex issues, grapple with multiple perspectives and choices, and find common ground
• Convinces participants that a diverse group of people can make better decisions on tough issues than interest groups and power holders
WHEN TO USE:
• To create clarity/provide group with direction on an issue or situation
• To address contentious issues that attract only argument and debate
• To resolve long-standing conflicts and poor relations
• To inspire people to change, expand, or take time to reflect and heal
• To influence policy
• To empower people to solve complex problems
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• If there is not an adequately representative group participating
• When the organizing group is wedded to a specific outcome
• When buy-in and accountability cannot be obtained from those implementing the results
• If policy decision needs to be made before deliberative process is complete
• If the initiative is viewed as advocating for a particular group or interest
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–5,000
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All major views/perspectives/roles on the issue at hand
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1–6 months
• Process: From a 90-minute forum to a multiyear sustained dialogue
• Follow-up: 1–3 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
The City of Waterloo Commission on Human Rights organized community-wide “study circles”—multiple small group dialogues held throughout the community culminating in collective action based on common ground.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
David Bohm’s present-day revival—1985. Dialogue was created in indigenous cultures and used for centuries. Deliberation was born when people first developed the ability to consider options rationally. Created by numerous human societies over time.
For More Information: National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, www.thataway.org
The Drum Café
Thumbnail
Supportive Method
Chapter 62
Page 588
PURPOSE:
To break down barriers; promote unity and team building; leave the group stimulated, relaxed, and more receptive; challenge assumptions of what can be achieved as a group; spark creativity; have fun and transform colleagues into friends; and relieve stress.
OUTCOMES:
• The whole is greater than the sum of its parts—the individual must start to see him/herself as a function of the collective
• Preconceived notions of what is achievable should be challenged and can be surpassed
• Everyone can make music
• Cultural diversity can benefit the company if harnessed appropriately
WHEN TO USE:
• Conferences and road shows
• Year-end functions
• Incentive breakaways
• Mergers and product launches
• Celebrations
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When people are not willing to participate
• When leadership is not willing to participate and model
• If there is trauma to the community or group that has happened too close to the event time and has not been properly processed or communicated
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–22,000 people
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Anyone
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1 day
• Process: 1 day–2 weeks
• Follow-up: Minimal
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A group of miners in South Africa came together in one room for the first time. They came in and tended to associate with others of the same color of skin. The drumming experience was part of the larger three-day planning event. By day three, blacks and whites together were drumming, laughing, and dancing together.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created by Warren Lieberman in 1995. Drumming is the most ancient form of music making, communication, and community building used in civilizations throughout the world.
For More Information: Drum Café, www.drumcafe.com
Dynamic Facilitation
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 18
Page 223
PURPOSE:
To achieve breakthroughs on real, pressing, or “impossible” issues; arrive at better consensus decisions faster; and empower people to new levels of capability, trust, and mutual respect.
OUTCOMES:
• Sparks “shifts” and breakthroughs on difficult issues
• Creates a “we,” where all work creatively together
• Awakens deeper understanding and a living-systems perspective
WHEN TO USE:
• To solve complex, difficult, conflicted, or impossible issues in small groups or with individuals
• To transform organizations through assuring creative, empowered teams
• To transform very large systems of unlimited size
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When the problem is easy or has low interest
• When a group is expected to “buy-in” to a decision that has already been made
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 2–40
• One-on-one in therapeutic settings
• Within large work groups or teams of any size
• In systems of unlimited size, with the Center for Wise Democracy’s Wisdom Council
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• People who care about the issue being solved
• People come as themselves, not representing their positions or organizations
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation is less important, but it is valuable to know the situation through interviews and visits
• Process: Best in an ongoing series of meetings or, for instance, in 4 half-day meetings
• Follow-up: Written conclusion
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Road crew workers met each week in dynamically facilitated meetings. They worked on what they considered to be an impossible-to-solve issue: getting full-time flaggers for directing traffic in construction zones. The county commissioners had already said “no” on this issue. The road crew became empowered to reassert themselves, getting the county commissioners to change their position. Not only did these workers get the policy changed, but they also ended the usual micromanaging from county commissioners that affected all departments.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the early 1980s by Jim Rough; public seminars held since 1990. Developed further through practitioners in different settings.
For More Information: Dynamic Faciliation, www.DynamicFacilitation.com
Dynamic Planning Charrettes
In-depth
Planning Method
Chapter 32
Page 300
PURPOSE:
To produce a feasible plan within an accelerated time frame that benefits from the support of all stakeholders throughout its implementation.
OUTCOMES:
• Master plan for reorganization, redevelopment, or new product design
• Multidisciplinary detailed studies (e.g., engineering, financial, market)
• Implementation mechanisms (e.g., policies, codes, standards)
• Action plans with roles, responsibilities, and timelines
WHEN TO USE:
• Company reorganization, product design, community planning, building design
• Projects that have multiple stakeholders with disparate agendas/needs
• Complex design and planning problems involving a number of different disciplines
• Projects with the potential to transform an organization (new policies)
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When primary stakeholders will not participate in good faith
• Simple problems with little political and/or design complexity
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–100s
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Primary—Company leadership, elected and appointed officials, agency staff, site property owners
• Secondary—Management, nongovernmental organizations, local nonprofits, businesses, and residences directly affected
• General—employees, community members
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Phase One—Research, Education, and Charrette Preparation: 6 weeks–4 months
• Phase Two—Charrette: 4–7 days.
• Phase Three—Implementation: 4–18 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A dynamic planning process forged an agreement between Contra Costa County, California, and the Walden Improvement Association (neighborhood group) to develop the Pleasant Hill Bay Area Rapid Transit station area. After 25 years and several failed attempts, the transformative six-day Charrette created a plan with the input of all stakeholders.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2001 by the National Charrette Institute. Historically rooted in collaborative design workshops by architectural and urban design firms.
For More Information: National Charrette Institute, www.charretteinstitute.org
Employee Engagement Process
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 53
Page 507
PURPOSE:
To transform a “traditional” management culture into one that is more collaborative and team driven.
OUTCOMES:
• A more engaged workplace with increased cross-functional, cross-level communication and broad ownership of culture and results
WHEN TO USE:
• When morale or productivity is low or the culture is ready for a new level of results
• When there is a shift in the business, for example, new strategy or change in environment
• When quantitative data is needed to guide decisions about employee engagement or when there is fear about change efforts being too “soft”
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When management is not ready for more employee engagement and involvement
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any total number in groups up to about 100
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Managers and frontline employees
TYPICAL DURATION:
• 1-year cycles; if possible, for the cycle, provide:
• Preparation: 1–3 months
• Process: 3–4 hours per session over 6–8 months
• Follow-up: Varies with action teams, generally 1–3 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Wyeth Distribution Centers began with survey process of broad and deep participation to identify the level of engagement across seven factors throughout the distribution centers. Resulted in employee-driven action plan to put systems and practices in place to increase meaningful employee engagement throughout the system. Communication across groups enriched learnings. More collaborative work groups ultimately drove change faster and had results that demonstrated improved productivity and morale.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1999 by Marie McCormick, MBA, Ph.D. Roots in survey methodologies and large group methods such as Future Search and Open Space Technology.
For More Information: InSyte Partners, www.insytepartners.com
Future Search
In-depth
Planning Method
Chapter 33
Page 316
PURPOSE:
To evolve a common ground future for an organization or community where stakeholders build high commitment to action and rapid implementation.
OUTCOMES:
• Discover and use common agendas and shared ideals
• The power of voluntary commitments made on common ground
• Experience shared leadership and self-management
• Experience the “whole elephant” before acting on any part of it
• Learn to accept polarities and differences
WHEN TO USE:
• A shared vision is desired and an action plan is needed
• Other efforts have stalled and time is growing short
• New leadership is taking over and a key transition is at hand
• Opposing parties need to meet and do not have a good forum
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Leadership is reluctant and nobody but you wants it
• The agenda is preconceived and conditions for success not met
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 40–100 people
• Hundreds in parallel or sequential conferences
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Broad cross-section of stakeholders
• Organizations: multilevel, multifunctional
• Communities: All sectors sponsors considered relevant
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 3–6 months
• Process: 2.5 days
• Total Transition: Variable
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Hopkinton, Massachusetts, a town of 9,000, more than doubled in size. A referendum left education level-funded. “Hopkinton 2002 AD” involved citizens; commissioners; police, fire, highway, and town department heads; business leaders; teachers; students; and school administrators. Their commitments included preserving the town’s rural character and improving schools. Residents raised the school budget 12 percent. Within a year, a local firm donated $350,000 in computers and training, and pledged $300,000 more for the next two years.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1982 by Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff. Commitment to democratic ideals and whole system thinking—Lewin, Lippitt, Schindler-Rainman, Trist and Emery.
For More Information: Future Search Network, www.futuresearch.net
Gemeinsinn-Werkstatt
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 54
Page 513
PURPOSE:
To address complex issues within the framework of a large group project involving different people in a structured, motivated, and self-organized way.
OUTCOMES:
• Generates open-minded initiators and participants
• Enhanced voluntary engagement and responsibility for each other
• Better cooperation and synergy among institutions
• Optimizes use of human and material resources
• Supports sustainable networking processes and method-knowledge as a basis for further projects
WHEN TO USE:
• When there is an urgent issue and many are willing to act
• When many individuals and organizations volunteer
• When existing conflicts can be dealt with in a constructive manner
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When dealing with a short-term issue, routine work, or well-defined projects
• When key participants are excluded
• When cooperation is impossible
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 27 to an open number
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Initiative circle: Key figures from diverse interest groups, responsible for the project framework
• Project circle: The coordinators who work as volunteers, honorary, or full-time supporting the framework
• Event circles: Participants of at least two large group events
• Action circles: Participants who develop their various self-responsible action groups
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Activation phase: 6 weeks–6 months
• Realization phase: 3 months–2 years
• Integration phase: 6 weeks–6 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A professor of the institute for educational sciences was interested in the new large-group procedure and saw a chance to improve cooperation within the university. With the support of the Gemeinsinn-Werkstatt, they not only succeeded in achieving midterm results, but also in developing an informal Gemeinsinn-Netzwerk (Community Spirit Network) that spans the university’s functions, enhancing cooperation.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in a project of the Bertelsmann Foundation with the Center for Applied Policy Research (2000–2004) by Wolfgang Faenderl in cooperation with the Support Network of consultants, researchers, and moderators.
For More Information: Gemeinsinn-Werkstatt, www.gemeinsinn-werkstatt.de
The Genuine Contact Program
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 19
Page 227
PURPOSE:
To sustain an organization at a higher, more holistic level of operating.
OUTCOMES:
• Understanding that the wisdom to do what needs to be done is in the organization
• Creates liberating structures and a participatory architecture and requires understanding and implementation of both
WHEN TO USE:
• To go from good to great
• In times of great challenge
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• If the senior leadership of the organization is not committed to leading and sustaining the change process and its results
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• No limit
• Events: 500 people
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All in the value chain
TYPICAL DURATION:
• 40 days over 9 months
• Preparation: 1–3 months
• Process: 4 events of 2–3 days over 8 months; 24 days of individual and group mentoring
• Follow-up: At request of leadership
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A systemwide leadership development program was created in a 10,000-person global organization. Completed transformation of the corporate university that is leading the organization-wide change, including developing leadership and organizational capacity.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1999 by Birgitt and Ward Williams. Rooted in the work of critical mass thinking and large group interventions, particularly in Harrison Owen’s work with Open Space Technology and its historical context.
For More Information: Genuine Contact, http://genuinecontact.net
Human Systems Dynamics
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 20
Page 234
PURPOSE:
To see and influence self-organizing patterns for individuals, teams, organizations, and communities.
OUTCOMES:
• Improved understanding of shared or different cultural assumptions
• Opportunities emerge for new identity and shared assumptions
WHEN TO USE:
• Issues are complex with high interdependencies
• Situations are unpredictable
• Differences or concerns have persisted over time
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Cause and effect are clear
• Systems are closed and predictable
• A single outcome is predicted or expected
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–200
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any
TYPICAL DURATION:
• 1–12 months
• Preparation: 4–12 hours
• Process: 2 hours–3 days
• Follow-up: 1 week–1 month
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Collaboration of state and county government, university, and foundations to establish framework for well-being of children. Group of 25 met for six two-hour sessions and defined a framework of “well-being” for children—a model, objectives, measures, roles and responsibilities, and activities. The core theme selected, “How are the children?” is used by all governmental agencies when they interact with clients or the community.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Human Systems Dynamics, as a field, was founded in 2002 by Glenda H. Eoyang, but the methods, tools, and techniques continue to be created by Associates of the Human Systems Dynamics Institute. Theoretical grounding of human systems dynamics is in complex adaptive systems theory and other areas of nonlinear dynamics. Some of the practical methods, tools, and techniques are based in complexity, while others are derived from a variety of social and organizational sciences including psychology, organization development management, and anthropology.
For More Information: Human Systems Dynamics Institute, www.hsdinstitute.org
Idealized Design
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 55
Page 519
PURPOSE:
To engage a large group of stakeholders in generating breakthrough solutions by first envisioning their ideal, then working backward to where they are.
OUTCOMES:
• Participants transform their assumptions about what is possible
WHEN TO USE:
• To design anything—for example, organization, product, service, system, process—whether there is a crisis or because an organization wants to become world-class
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• There is no chance to implement ideas
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 8–10 participants per facilitator
• Up to 50 participants per event. Wider involvement through asking others to improve the design
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Participants can be any stakeholder type that is directly or indirectly affected by what is being designed
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2 days
• Process: 0.5–5 days
• Follow-up: 2 days
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Idealized redesign of IKEA store. New Chicago store adopted designers’ idea for an easy-to-navigate octagonal building with an open center—with no walls but instead pillars and railings—from which shoppers could see departments and quickly access them via escalators.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1951 by Russell L. Ackoff at Bell Labs when its chief executive officer initiated a redesign of the telephone system from scratch. Ackoff recognized the potential and has applied it to many types of design over the past 50 years.
For More Information: Ackoff Center Web log, http://ackoffcenter.blogs.com/
Integrated Clarity
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 8
Page 118
PURPOSE:
To illuminate the authentic, collective Identity so people connect with it, operations become an extension of it, and a language model of empowerment supports it.
OUTCOMES:
• Fundamental shift from blame and finding fault to choice and personal responsibility
• Focus on core ideology before strategic action
• Capitalizing on the human element—namely, feelings and needs—rather than tolerating or “managing” it
• Values/principles-based vs. policy/procedure-based
• Aware of others and the whole system versus self-focus and isolated functions
WHEN TO USE:
• To invigorate or clarify a sense of collective identity and purpose
• To marshal resources into an organized and clear direction
• To shift communication from “blame” to personal responsibility
• To connect people to each other and the organization’s needs
• To enhance the group’s presence with stakeholders
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When formal leaders are not engaged in the process
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 1–500
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Executives, management/managers, team leaders, board of directors, midlevel to frontline workers
• Work teams or work groups
• Communities, associations, neighborhoods
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2 weeks–2 months
• Process: 1 day–many months
• Follow-up: Ongoing process and as needed
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
About 30 staff, faculty, and administration from all schools at the University of South Florida, College of Visual & Performing Arts, began conversations focused on the college’s universal organizational needs. Eventually 30 percent of all college and faculty were engaged in the dialogue. Dean Ron Jones reported, “There’s an exciting new energy in our College spreading like wildfire—a clarity about who we are … and where we’re going in the future.”
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Earliest form developed in 2001 by Marie Miyashiro. Inspired by and based on the “needs-focused” Nonviolent Communication process developed by Marshall Rosenberg. Also incorporates work by William Bridges, Kimball Fisher, Jim Collins, Jerry I. Porras, Judith Orloff Faulk, and Marshall Thurber.
For More Information: Integrated Clarity, www.integratedclarity.com
JazzLab
Thumbnail
Supportive Method
Chapter 63
Page 593
PURPOSE:
To give participants a powerful and positive experience of deep listening, teamwork, diversity, synergy, creativity, and dynamic improvisation in a musical context.
OUTCOMES:
• Discovery that individuals have hidden talents and abilities
• Diversity is crucial to success; improvisation does not create chaos, but rather creates its own dynamic structure
• Everyone can discover and generate his or her own creativity and self-expression
• Listening is the key to an effective and progressive organization
• Leadership is not about control, but about trust, listening, engagement, and the encouragement of interaction and flow
WHEN TO USE:
• When an organization wants to provide a hands-on, musical experience of whole systems in action that is fun, engaging, and energetic
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When participants are not attending voluntarily
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 20–2,000
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any and all levels of participants, as well as different personality and learning styles
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1 day
• Event: 60 minutes–1 day or in shorter modules over time
• Follow-up: Minimal
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A group of participants had previously taken teambuilding and creativity programs and had understood these concepts in principle. With JazzLab, however, they actually experienced the synergy of diverse groups aligning together through active listening, the group creativity generated by jointly composing a piece of music, and the practice of working with ambiguity and chaos through musical improvisation to allow new structures to spontaneously arise. They were able to take skills they discovered through music and apply them back to their organization.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created by Brian Tate in 1996. Comes from earlier workshops on creativity and change, and from his career as a musician and facilitator. The effectiveness of group percussion comes from village culture in Africa, where it is recognized that making music together creates a healthy, interactive, and holistic community.
For More Information: Brian Tate, www.briantatemusic.com
Large Group Scenario Planning
Thumbnail
Planning Method
Chapter 37
Page 370
PURPOSE:
To enhance large group interventions involving a whole system by enabling participants to envision multiple ways the external environment may change in the future and how these environmental changes could affect the organization.
OUTCOMES:
• Future plans that have been clarified by questioning participant assumptions about the future, which is frequently not an extrapolation of the past
WHEN TO USE:
• To enhance strategic planning
• When multiple possibilities need to be considered
• When the imagination of the planners needs encouragement
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When there are no critical uncertainties confronting the organization
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 32–512
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Plan: 2–6 weeks
• Invite Participants: 2–10 weeks
• Meeting: 2–3 days
• Follow-up: 6 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A dental school used Large Group Scenario Planning to plan for curricular change, admissions policy, and faculty development. The result was a restructured curriculum, some fresh approaches to admissions, and ideas for faculty development.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2003 by Gil Steil and Michele Gibbons-Carr. Based on traditional scenario planning strategies of P. Schwartz, J. Ogillvy, G. Ringland, P. Schoemaker, and K. van der Heijden, and integrated into a whole system large group process.
For More Information: Gil Steil Associates, www.gilsteil.com
Leadership Dojo
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 21
Page 239
PURPOSE:
To embody personal integrity, social dignity, and professional excellence in sustainable team and organizational change.
OUTCOMES:
• Transforms past behaviors into new actions
• Reveals importance of a leadership presence as a way to mobilize and motivate others
• Creates conversations for action
• Recognizes the importance of bringing the whole person to work
WHEN TO USE:
• To shift organizational culture connected to business results
• To build team alignment and cohesion
• To develop emerging leaders for succession planning
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Client is not committed
• Conditions of success are vague
• When mediation is called for instead of learning
• Client cannot rearrange priorities so participants can be fully engaged
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 8–1,000
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Broad cross-section, from senior executives to administrative assistants
• Multilevel, multifunctional
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2–3 days for client discovery
• Event: Two 4-day conferences over 6 months
• Follow-up: Coaching for individuals and teams
• Total Transition: Begins immediately through recurrent practices and covers a lifetime
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
The Board of Continuing Education Services of New York State (BOCES) contracted to work directly with their call centers. The call centers were consistently failing and drawing complaints from customers. During the discovery process, it was assessed that tech reps and support were quickly consumed by bad moods and lost effectiveness with customers. After a couple of 2-day conferences with follow-up coaching, BOCES reported that complaints fell 85 percent and that the improved cycle time with customers paid for their engagement and saved $250,000 over the year.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1985 by Richard Strozzi-Heckler, influenced by his study and research of the Somatic Philosophy of Learning and his implementation of the Trojan Warrior Project on Leadership Development for the Army Special Forces. Additional contribution from Fernando Flores’s Ontology of Language. Use of Aikido as a paradigm for conflict resolution and a leadership presence.
For More Information: Strozzi Institute, www.strozziinstitute.com
The Learning Map Approach
Thumbnail
Supportive Method
Chapter 64
Page 598
PURPOSE:
To create shared understanding, connection, and contribution to the future through dialogue and discovery.
OUTCOMES:
• Increased organizational alignment and employee engagement
• A line of sight from the marketplace to each individual
• Goals connected across the organization
• Skills and capabilities to deliver the strategy are developed
• Where cultural change has been measured, many employees offer statements such as “The company cares what I think,” “Now I understand why we have to do it this way” or “I can see how I make a difference”
WHEN TO USE:
• To create a line of sight for everyone in the organization to understand the “why” of change, such as big-picture issues affecting the business—marketplace, customer, competitive, and technology issues
• To connect people to the organization and team goals—“what” is changing, including the specifics of the change, process information, and key metrics and measures
• To identify the “how” of change—how they can contribute to the success of the organization
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• In a “command and control” environment where leaders are uncomfortable and unwilling to share information and engage employees
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 8–10 people per table
• Organizations of 125–500,000+
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Primarily internal stakeholders, multifunction and multilevel
• Has been used with external stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Development: 3 weeks–6 months; average, 2 months
• Implementation timelines vary greatly and are determined by business needs
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
An innovative fashion retailer was focused on transforming its sales and customer service strategy, shifting from a task-focused culture to a customer-service culture. The company used the Root Learning Map process to help managers, associates, and other key stakeholders to become truly engaged in the brand, to live the new customer service approach, and to develop a sense of ownership in the business.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1987 by James A. Haudan and Randall C. Root.
For More Information: Root Learning, www.rootlearning.com
Online Environments
In-depth
Supportive Method
Chapter 59
Page 542
PURPOSE:
To support and extend the impact of your change methodologies by using technology for both time-delimited and ongoing efforts.
OUTCOMES:
• Increases access by enabling distributed participation
• Creates a record of the interaction
• Increases transparency
• Changes the assumption that face-to-face is the only way to implement real change
WHEN TO USE:
• Networks and communities need to be nurtured over time/distance
• Events can be maximized through online support
• Cost or other factors prevent gathering face-to-face
• A process lasts a long time
• Records, ongoing conversation, and information sharing is useful
• Increased participation and more diverse voices are desired
• Complexity requires a variety of interaction and recording options
• To support greater transparency
• Special participant requirements lend themselves to online interactions
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• There is no leadership support
• There is no Internet access or participants are not skilled in the technology
• Insufficient motivation/attention to issues
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 2–10,000s
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Everyone who needs or chooses to be present
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Integrate into the change process
• Process: 1 hour–weeks or ongoing
• Follow-up: Integrate into the follow-up plan
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
In 2004, the Gender and Diversity Program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research convened an online consultation to gather the needs and priorities of its member organizations. The program gathered input from more constituents than was possible face-to-face, resulting in knowing the priorities that might not have been heard otherwise. This input guided the program toward serving the actual needs of constituents rather than assumed needs.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created by people who have nurtured online interaction since the 1950s when computers were first networked. The history of online environments for change sits in the evolution of online communities (Rheingold, www.rheingold.com/vc/book), computer-supported communication, and distributed group work (teams).
For More Information: Methods for Change, http://methodsforchange.com
Open Space Technology
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 9
Page 135
PURPOSE:
To enable groups to address complex, important issues as a high-performing system by inviting people to take responsibility for what they love for a few hours, a few days, or as an everyday practice.
OUTCOMES:
• Discover the capacity to operate as self-managed work teams with high levels of personal responsibility and leadership
WHEN TO USE:
• In critical situations requiring resolution characterized by high levels of complexity, diversity (of participants), and conflict (potential or actual), and with a decision time of yesterday
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Specific predetermined outcomes are desired
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–2,000 people; no limit, theoretically, by using computer-connected, multisite, simultaneous events
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Anybody who cares about the issue under consideration
• Diversity is a plus
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: The space opens with the first conversation
• Event: 1–3 days
• Total Transition: May last for the rest of the organization’s life
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
In Bogotá, Colombia, 2,100 people—1,800 street kids, aged 15–22, and 300 of their teachers—convened for two days to consider the future of their jobs program. The core idea from the conference was responsibility. The program was permanently altered, with the young people taking more responsibility for themselves and a much more responsible attitude toward their jobs. Lateness, laziness, and disrespect are almost gone. There were many structural changes in the schools. And finally, respect from the young peoples’ bosses increased as their quality of work improved. The experience profoundly impacted the kids’ approach to their lives.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1985 by Harrison Owen with collegial assistance from a global cast of thousands. Open Space came initially from the wisdom and experience of indigenous people from around the world. Insights into the function of Open Space are from cultural anthropology, chaos and complexity theory, and non-Western (rational scientific) traditions.
For More Information: The Open Space Institutes, www.openspaceworld.org
Open Systems Theory
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 22
Page 244
PURPOSE:
To address virtually any participative work, puzzle, or problem.
OUTCOMES:
• Greater cooperation, energy, and motivation for the task at hand
• A democratic team structure that supports sustainability and continuing motivation
• For unique designs, the selected application of Open Systems Theory principles and tools ensures productive participation and high levels of intrinsic motivation to perform the needed work
WHEN TO USE:
• When effective results are required in a complex environment of multiple perspectives, clashes of interests and values, and rapidly changing external and internal conditions
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Insufficient educative preparation
• Top leadership is averse to distributing responsibilities downward
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 4–100s
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• May or may not be members of the system
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2 weeks–6 months
• Event: 1 hour to a series of meetings over months or longer
• Follow-up: Sustainable, if uses participative democratic structure and process
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Since 2000, Roadway Express has held close to 40 summits across the organization to engage the workforce, improve margins, create service innovations, launch new strategies, and consolidate its merger with Yellow Corporation. The process has energized the workforce, produced millions of dollars of cost savings, and generated millions more in new revenues.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the early 1990s by Merrelyn Emery together with a cast of thousands. From a very good family—parents are Search Conference and Participative Design Workshop, grandmother was Social-Technical Systems. Lewin’s work on democracy, autocracy, and laissez-faire. Asch’s work on conditions for effective communication.
For More Information: Modern Times Workplace, www.moderntimesworkplace.com
OpenSpace-Online Real-Time Methodology
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 23
Page 250
PURPOSE:
To enable a (r)evolutionary global “do-it-yourself” dimension of collaborative excellence and sustainable development in economy, society, politics and education across distance.
OUTCOMES:
• High level of co-creative excellence among many
• New ideas and agreements for next steps
• Results reported quickly on topics that really matter
• High commitment which sustains continued work
• Savings in travel costs, time, and natural resources
• Increased competencies to initiate and facilitate change
• Complementary synergies between different methods and activities (on-line and face-to-face)
WHEN TO USE:
• When groups or organizations are facing important questions or urgent issues and people are separated by distance
• When highly productive, liberated and joyful real-time collaboration is desired
• When immediately reported results and sustainable further work is important
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Participants have no access to the Internet
• IT policies do not allow quick software installation
• The meeting agenda is already fixed and organizers want to play a dominant role during the event
• No trust that the right people will show up
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–125
• Parallel meetings are possible
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Decentralized learning, interest, project, citizen, research, customer, stakeholder, network, and community groups
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1 hour–ongoing
• Real-time conference: 2–8 hours
• Follow-up: 1 hour—ongoing
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
An international marketing and sales company uses OpenSpace-Online with trainers, seminar groups, sales managers, and project leaders for diverse activities (e.g., ongoing project and team development, pre-meetings, and follow-ups of face-to-face activities).
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created by Gabriela Ender (1999–2002) and supporting people after 30+ years of interdisciplinary work, the belief in the “do-it-yourself-power” of “passion and responsibility,” grounded in the principles of Open Space Technology (Harrison Owen), and made possible through the invention of the Internet.
For More Information: OpenSpace-Online GmbH—The Power of People, www.OpenSpace-Online.com
Organization Workshop
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 24
Page 256
PURPOSE:
To create the knowledge and skills of system sight that enable us to create partnerships up, down, and across organizational lines.
OUTCOMES:
• Causes organization members to rethink their behaviors when they are in top, middle, bottom, and customer interactions
• Creates shared language and concrete strategies for partnership behavior in those relationships
WHEN TO USE:
• In any setting in which the client wants to redirect member energy from unproductive “sideshows” onto the business of the system
• Rapid change is desired to increase individual power and overall organizational system power to achieve previously unattainable stretch goals
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• It is being imposed on people
• Tops are using it on Bottoms to “straighten them out”
• People have not been adequately informed about the workshop’s purposes and methods
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 24–50 people
• Variations for 50–100+ people
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Can be internal and external stakeholders
• Cross-level, multifunction, or same function
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2–3 hours by telephone
• Event: 1-, 2-, or 3-day variations
• Total Transition: Variable
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A Fortune 50 company has used the Organization Workshop on more than 25 separate occasions for various business leadership teams, multilevel cross-functional teams, top-to-bottom plants, and various functional groups (information systems, advertising, research and development, and several new product start-up ventures).
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1978 by Barry Oshry. Roots in experiential education with National Training Laboratories (now NTL Institute), experimental work at Boston University, but most directly from 30 years of work with the Power Lab.
For More Information: Power and Systems, www.powerandsystems.com
Participative Design Workshop
In-depth
Structuring Method
Chapter 43
Page 419
PURPOSE:
To produce a participative, democratic organizational system.
OUTCOMES:
• New behaviors evolve and assumptions change
• People cooperate rather than bicker and protect their turf
• Responsibility, motivation, care about overall business outcomes, and quality and productivity increase
WHEN TO USE:
• An organization wishes to increase productivity and innovation
• An agreement is in place
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When above conditions are not in place
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 15–200 people per workshop; can run many Participative Design Workshops in parallel
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Everyone who is part of the section of the structure being designed
• A deep-slice team covering these levels and as many functions and skills as possible
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2 weeks to many months
• Event: 1–3 days or session by session
• Ongoing: For the life of the agreement and usually longer
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
J. Robins & Sons Pty Ltd. increased output from 72 units per hour to 89 units per hour, up 25 percent; reduced shortages and thus stoppages in production; reduced absenteeism; reduced overall production time for a shoe from 6 to 8 weeks with 50 to 60 minutes actual processing time to less than 12 hours with 20 to 30 minutes processing; rejects have fallen from 4 percent to 0.5 percent.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1971 by Fred Emery, based on nearly 60 years of intensive research.
For More Information: Modern Times Workplace, www.moderntimesworkplace.com
PeerSpirit Circling
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 25
Page 261
PURPOSE:
To focus on the power of communication to release the full potential of working groups.
OUTCOMES:
• Wisdom is in the room
• Wise organizational decisions occur at all levels
WHEN TO USE:
• When you want to create a collaborative field
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When thought leaders are invested in hierarchy and are not willing to change to a collaborative culture
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–20 people/per circle: numerous circles may function simultaneously
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Anyone willing to work in a nonhierarchal, collaborative process
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 3–4 hours
• Process: 1–2 hours to increase quality of communication, and 1–2 days to set the framework for initiating change
• Follow-up: As requested
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A University Dean says: “We combined two departments and now everybody is playing lone ranger—protecting their own turf, or putting their friends forward for positions or funding. How do I get them to consider who’s best for the job or what’s best for the university?”
PeerSpirit response: “We worked with a combined faculty committee to reframe the situation from loss to gain. In a series of facilitated dialogues, the committee began to see the merging of departments as a chance to develop a new departmental culture with the potential to become a leading-edge model for the university. They included graduate students who documented and qualified their successful change.”
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1994 by Christina Baldwin and Ann Linnea. Grounded in historical archetype of circle emerging from indigenous cultures throughout the world. Many indigenous scholars have helped circle emerge into modern consciousness: Willie Ermine, Eber Hampton, Fyre Jean Graveline, and Malidoma Patrice Somé represent a few of the many who have opened the way for circle.
For More Information: PeerSpirit, www.peerspirit.com
Playback Theatre
In-depth
Supportive Method
Chapter 60
Page 561
PURPOSE:
To promote dialogue, build empathy, surface critical issues, and mark transitions.
OUTCOMES:
• Makes corporate culture visible; gives voice to all levels of hierarchy When to Use:
• To give a group a voice
• To build a sense of community
• To foster open discussion
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When mistrust is too high
• When alcohol is being consumed
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–150+
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Multifunction employees at all levels in an organization, grouped either heterogeneously or homogeneously. Could also include external clients and customers
• Audience format
• Workshop format
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Consultations: 0.5 day–2 days
• Process: 1- to 2-hour performance
• Follow-up: 0.5 day minimum
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Line workers, support staff, and managers gather for a kickoff to visioning as part of strategic planning. A Playback Theatre team dramatizes in vivid fashion their stories of success and meaning in the workplace, along with systemwide frustrations they would like to see resolved. Understanding and empathy increases.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1975 by Jonathan Fox, Jo Salas, and original Playback Theatre company. Influenced by Paolo Freire and J. L. Moreno.
For More Information: International Playback Theatre Network, www.playbacknet.org
Power of Imagination Studio
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 26
Page 267
PURPOSE:
To build self-esteem and expertise on key themes; anchor individual strategies in organizations; and overcome hierarchical limitations and mental blocks.
OUTCOMES:
• Conviction that the future is alterable, that several possibilities (“futures”) can be formed
• A stance of esteem and encouragement exists at all levels of the organization
WHEN TO USE:
• When participants are perceived to be the experts responsible for finding a solution and making changes
• In situations with negative changes
• When content is open
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• No chance of implementing/carrying out the conclusions
• No strength/financial resources/support
• Strategies/conclusions were decided long ago
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 12–120
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All hierarchical levels
• Different backgrounds
• Less adroit in speech (lack of courage/spunk to speak freely)
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1–6 months
• Process: 1–5 days
• Follow-up: 1–3 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Full-time and volunteer employees of the Red Cross from 20 different locations in northern Germany founded 13 statewide project teams after a three-day Imagination Studio. They published a handbook for members, devised a new concept for canvassing members, initiated an Internet information portal as a model project, organized an event to dissuade young people from drinking, inaugurated the annual meeting of all association members, issued guidelines for employees to improve their public image, and proposed teaching concepts in schools for strengthening volunteer involvement.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2004 by Petra Eickhoff, Annegret Franz, Stephan G. Geffers, Fritz Letsch, Annette Schlemm, and Axel Weige. Builds on the Future Workshop created in 1965 by Professor Robert Jungk, Dr. Norbert R. Muellert, and Ruediger Lutz.
For More Information: Vernetzung von Zukunftswerkstätten, www.zwnetz.de
The Practice of Empowerment
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 56
Page 524
PURPOSE:
To change behavior and develop talent in organizations. An alternative use is for community-based behavior change by public sector agencies and nonprofits.
OUTCOMES:
• An empowered organizational culture
WHEN TO USE:
• To change behavior and develop talent in organizations
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When there is not a trained practitioner
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 15–40 per group
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any level
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 30–90 days to plan and design with input of project champion and key leaders
• Process: 3-day training
• Follow-up: 12 months of coaching and master classes
• Project duration: 1–3 years
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Senior industry leaders at Deloitte Consulting delivered a mentorship program to empower hightalent women and minorities to develop their full potential. The program was designed to retain and advance these people and build the capacity of senior leaders in talent development.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1981 by David Gershon.
For More Information: Empowerment Institute, www.empowermentinstitute.net
Rapid Results
In-depth
Improving Method
Chapter 46
Page 450
PURPOSE:
To build capacity for large-scale change through the vehicle of short-term projects.
OUTCOMES:
• Change becomes an inherent part of the job
• Joint responsibility for shared objectives
• Parallel work flow
• Experimental, “let’s try it” attitude
• Focused accountability
• “Better results with what we have”
WHEN TO USE:
• The most powerful driver of better performance is better performance itself. If you want to help an organization develop its ability to perform better, nothing is more effective than helping it to experience a tangible success on some of the dimensions it is trying to strengthen.
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Guiding principles are not present
• Senior management wishes to hand teams solutions to implement versus challenging teams to both set and implement their own goals
• Senior management/sponsors are not prepared to be involved beyond the launch of the projects
• The organization does not exhibit “readiness” to move forward
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 7–10 people per team
• 100+ teams in successive waves
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any team composition where all members are committed to achieving results and learning
• Senior management sponsors prepared to be involved during the entire cycle
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Shape: 2 weeks
• Launch: 1 day
• Implement: 30–100 days
• Scale-up: 30+ days
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
In Nicaragua, farmers using Rapid Results witnessed measurable improvement in their productivity and income in 100–120 days. Daily milk production almost tripled among 60 producers; 30 farmers increased pig weight by 30 percent; and 30 chicken farmers’ productivity increased by 20 percent.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the 1960s by Robert H. Schaffer and colleagues.
For More Information: Robert H. Schaffer & Associates, www.rhsa.com
Real Time Strategic Change
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 27
Page 273
PURPOSE:
To enable people to create their future—faster than they ever believed possible.
OUTCOMES:
• Better ways of doing business that lead to major improvements to key financial, quality, cost, timing, and other performance measures
• More flexible, resilient, and responsive organizations to meet emerging market demands
• Improved “changeability” that makes change a core competence
• Unleashing of organizational energy and commitment
WHEN TO USE:
• When you need to make big things happen—fast
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When you don’t have full commitment of leadership to support the development and implementation of better ways of doing business—for themselves and their organization
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 1–10,000 or more
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Broad base of internal/external stakeholders who can help you create your future, faster
TYPICAL DURATION:
• With Real-Time Strategic Change (RTSC), “before, during, and after” don’t exist. It’s an approach to everyday work and major transformation efforts.
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
City of New York Out of School Time program involving several hundred providers, multiple funding streams, city agencies, and oversight bodies. Through applying RTSC, these diverse stakeholders with competing needs reached consensus on a common vision, goals, and operating principles. These agreements have ensured funding goes to programs that meet specifications and improved the overall care given to children before and after school and during holidays and weekends in New York City.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1994 by Robert “Jake” Jacobs and Frank McKeown, RTSC is based on work by Kathleen Dannemiller, Chuck Tyson, Bruce Gibb, Al Davenport, and Nancy Badore. The method has undergone three generations of evolution.
For More Information: Robert W. Jacobs Consulting, www.rwjacobs.com
Scenario Thinking
In-depth
Planning Method
Chapter 34
Page 331
PURPOSE:
To arrive at a deeper understanding of the world in which your organization operates, and use that understanding to inform your strategy and improve your ability to make better decisions today and in the future.
OUTCOMES:
• Set strategic direction
• Catalyze bold action
• Accelerate collaborative learning
• Alignment and visioning
WHEN TO USE:
• When the solution to a strategic issue is unclear
• You are working in a highly uncertain environment
• There is leadership support for scenario thinking
• Your organization is open to change and dialogue
• You have the resources for a successful initiative
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• The problem you are dealing with is not central to your organizational strategy and/or your problem and solution are clear
• The outcome will largely be shaped by internal or external forces
• There is not enough urgency for change
• There is too much urgency to step back for a reflective and creative conversation
• Desired outcomes are poorly aligned with your dedicated resources
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–20 interviewees
• 15–500 workshop participants
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Decision makers
• Internal and external stakeholders representing a range of functions and perspectives
• Outsiders introducing provocative perspectives
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Orient phase: 1–2 months
• Explore, synthesize, and act phases: 2–4 months
• Monitor phase: Indefinite
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A financial services company needs to better understand potential impact of emerging technologies and consumer behavior on the market for investment services during the dot-com bubble—and beyond. It engages in a scenario thinking process that involves the company’s key decision makers. As a result, the company makes a decision that prevents overinvestment in growth during the peak of dot-com speculative bubble, and new product development is initiated.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Scenario pioneers include Herman Kahn, Pierre Wack, Peter Schwartz, Kees van der Heijden, Ted Newland, and Napier Collyns. Roots in military planning and Wack’s work at Shell in the 1970s.
For More Information: Global Business Network, www.gbn.com
Search Conference
In-depth
Planning Method
Chapter 35
Page 347
PURPOSE:
To create a well-articulated, desirable, achievable future with action plans for implementation within a definite timetable by a community of people who want to and know how to do it.
OUTCOMES:
• A well-articulated set of goals.
• Coordinated action plans for achieving the goals.
• A community of people who have learned how to actively and adaptively plan.
• A shared commitment to, and energy for, implementing a plan to achieve the desired future.
WHEN TO USE:
• Strategic planning and the basis of policy making
• Creation of new systems to manage emergent or neglected issues
• Rationalization of major conflicts within a strategic context
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When guarantees are not present to abide by the conditions governing the effective use of the method
• When the task is only about means to a preordained conclusion
• When there is not at least one trained and experienced Search Conference manager who knows their theory
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 20–35 people for a single Search Conference event. To involve more people, conduct a series and integrate the results.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Members of the system
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1–18 months recorded so far
• Event: 2 days and 2 nights consecutively
• Follow-up: Self-sustaining
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Two national industrial relations Search Conferences held in 1972 and 1977 set the ground for the first national accord governing new directions for the democratization of work and revitalization of industry and business in Australia through “award restructuring” and other national processes.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The method was conceptualized and designed by Fred Emery and Eric Trist in 1959. Fred and Merrelyn Emery and others have continued its development.
For More Information: www.moderntimesworkplace.com
SimuReal
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 28
Page 278
PURPOSE:
To bring together key members of an organization or a community in a way that allows them to (a) experience/learn more about their interactions with one another, (b) work on real issues, (c) make decisions within a compressed time frame, and (d) gain skills and understandings they can use to deal more effectively with future challenges in their “back home” setting.
OUTCOMES:
• SimuReal holds a “mirror” to the organization about how it actually works (or does not work). It can be a powerful change agent, because everyone sees the impact of the system and can self-organize to improve it.
WHEN TO USE:
• To shorten the time it takes to make or implement decisions
• To “test drive” a restructuring plan before it is implemented
• To address a complex problem or decision
• To uncover the structural/procedural blocks to solving a problem effectively
• The organization is prepared to engage in self-examination
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• To focus on creating a common vision
• To align the organization around a given vision/strategy
• To do team building
• The organization is in crisis
• To redesign an entire business process
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 35–125
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Flexible—can accommodate both internal and external stakeholders, as well as same-function or multifunction participants
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1-day design team meeting, 2 days in additional preparation
• Process: 1 day
• Follow-up: Typically ranges from immediate to a year, depending on initial contract with clients, SimuReal outcomes, and leadership needs in implementing those outcomes.
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
“Test drive” of a restructuring plan, involving all who would be affected. The “test drive” showed the design gaps and resulted in a 50 percent change in overall design in the days that followed the SimuReal, with support for implementation 3 months later.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the 1970s by Donald C. Klein.
For More Information: Klein Consulting, www.kleinconsulting.com
The Six Sigma Approach
In-depth
Improving Method
Chapter 47
Page 465
PURPOSE:
To improve process performance and eliminate causes of mistakes in manufacturing and business processes by focusing on process outputs that are critically important to customers.
OUTCOMES:
• Process improvements resulting from completed improvement projects
• Human elements like leadership, teamwork, and customer focus integrated with the process aspects of improvement
• An infrastructure of management systems and permanent change agents is created to lead, deploy, and implement improvement projects
• Leaders are provided with the strategy, methods, and tools for changing their organizations
• Benefits produce culture change, rather than trying to change the culture to produce benefits
WHEN TO USE:
• To solve the problem by improving processes, whether they are manufacturing, financial, supply chain, or customer service
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When the solution to a problem is already known—for example, installing a new piece of equipment, bringing information technology into line with new corporate guidelines, building a plant, most capital projects
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 4–6 team members per improvement project
• From 1 to more than 100 parallel teams
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Leadership, Champions, Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts, functional support members
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2 days–1 months
• Process: 4–6 months per project
• Follow-up: Weekly management reviews; monthly for improvement projects, quarterly for the overall deployment, and annually to plan for the coming year
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A major pharmaceutical manufacturer that anticipated being unable to meet demand for a blockbuster new product used Six Sigma’s sequenced problem-solving methodology to improve the process and address underlying organizational issues.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Early 1980s, stimulated by Japanese companies’ use of statistical methods in manufacturing. Mid-1980s, created by Motorola and named Six Sigma. Mid-1990s, extended by G.E. to include all processes.
For More Information: American Society for Quality, www.asq.org
SOAR
Thumbnail
Planning Method
Chapter 38
Page 375
PURPOSE:
To accelerate the strategic planning process by allowing creativity and innovation while inspiring the organization’s people to SOAR.
OUTCOMES:
• Develops a whole system perspective
• Uncovers the strengths and opportunities of the organization
• Cocreates the values, vision, and mission of stakeholders
• Develops a strategic and tactical plan
• Identifies the structures, systems, and processes
• Engenders continuous informed appreciative reflection and action
WHEN TO USE:
• For environmental scanning
• To accelerate existing strategic planning processes
• To create strategic and tactical plans
• To embrace a whole systems approach to strategic planning
• To heighten awareness of organizational relationships and how to best use these relationships
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Leadership is not supportive (top-down approach)
• Participants are not empowered to act on their aspirations and plans
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–400
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Internal and external organizational stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 0.5 day to 1.5 days
• Process: 0.5 day to 4 days (average is 2–3 days)
• Follow-up: Continuous
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A health-care facility was in a shutdown state and needed a “last-ditch effort.” The administrator gathered 76 stakeholders to discuss creating constructive accountability and strategic initiatives so corporate would not close the facility. The results were a 20 percent increase in census within six weeks, improved employee morale and resident satisfaction, and the facility broke even for the first time in three years.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2000 by Jackie Stavros, David Cooperrider, and Lynn Kelley. Theory Base: Appreciative Inquiry, Dialogue, Whole Systems Approach to Change, Lippit’s Preferred Futures, Strengths-Based Theory by Don Clifton, Social Construction, and Positive Organizational Scholarship.
For More Information: Dynamic Relationships, www.dynamic-relationships.com
Strategic Forum
Thumbnail
Planning Method
Chapter 39
Page 381
PURPOSE:
To help the organization and/or policy makers explore future scenarios when issues are complex, and multiple stakeholders see things differently.
OUTCOMES:
• Shared understanding of different futures
• Collective mental model for testing the efficacy of strategic choices
• Experiential (visceral) understanding of how a strategy should unfold
• Measure progress and/or to prepare for major shifts
• A dynamic and balanced scorecard
WHEN TO USE:
• There’s a need to develop a balanced/holistic picture
• Groups are rushing down the solution path
• Discussion of a strategy has not resulted in a consensus
• There is a need to look at nonphysical variables
• It’s important to see the impact of a strategy
• Wanting to understand potential unintended consequences
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• You can’t find a competent modeler
• There is little time for exploration of assumptions
• It is considered a one-time event
• Organization is unwilling to embrace an ongoing systems thinking
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 2–50
• Ideally, 5 teams of 3–5 participants
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• At a minimum, should include participants from across multiple functions, silos, and levels
• Ideally, some participants will come from clients and suppliers to the organization
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1–6 months
• Process: 1–2 days
• Follow-up: 6 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
In the 1980s, a rapidly growing high-tech firm experienced “growing pains” and internal dissension as the service organization demanded a greater percentage of the organizaion’s overall resource base. A Strategic Forum was developed to allow participants to understand the physics and to lay out several strategic choices they could pursue. As a result, the strategy team continued using the system dynamics approach to understanding issues, holding subsequent forums.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in the 1980s by Barry Richmond.
For More Information: Pontifex Consulting, www.pontifexconsulting.com
Strategic Visioning
Thumbnail
Planning Method
Chapter 40
Page 386
PURPOSE:
To help leadership teams in organizations and communities combine historical hindsight with future-oriented foresight to support insight in present action.
OUTCOMES:
• Catalyzes real engagement
• Deepens relationships
• Shifts perspectives
• Develops appreciation of new factors and forces creation of a “perceptivity” to new ideas before they actually become viable in action
WHEN TO USE:
• Task force action planning, 2-day board retreats, 3–6 month Strategic Visioning processes, and special, large-scale change processes
• Planning processes needing involvement and breakthrough thinking
• Making leadership assumptions visible, shareable, and as a result, open to challenge and push-back
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When leadership teams are locked into a top-down plan
• When leadership doesn’t want to test their ideas and hear from people
• For situations in such crisis that no one has any room for reflection and big-picture thinking
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Leadership teams of 5–12 plus larger numbers of stakeholders
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Leadership teams
• Other stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 6 weeks
• Process: 1–2 days
• Follow-up: 3–6 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A national architectural firm engaged its 50 partners in appreciating systemwide opportunities and developed an aligned set of priorities. They reviewed their history, current environment, internal strengths and weaknesses, and then developed a vision, set of strategies, and fleshed out game plans over two 2-day meetings with some action teamwork in between.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1995 by David Sibbet, Ed Claassen, and associate consultants who have contributed additional templates: Strategic Planning (Porter, Minzberg); Visioning (Fritz, Senge, Halprin); Large-Scale Change (Dannemiller Tyson, Weisbord), and Graphic Facilitation (Sibbet).
For More Information: Strategic Visioning, www.grove.com/learning_center/method_pm_svm.html
Study Circles
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 29
Page 283
PURPOSE:
To help communities develop their ability to solve problems by exploring ways for all kinds of people to think, talk, and create change together.
OUTCOMES:
• Helps communities develop a more democratic public culture
• Demonstrates the whole community is needed
• Embraces diversity
• Shares knowledge, resources, power, and decision making
• Combines dialogue and deliberation; builds understanding and explores a range of solutions
• Connects deliberative dialogue to social, political, and policy change
WHEN TO USE:
• An issue concerns the daily lives of many different types of people
• An issue captures widespread public attention
• An issue is best addressed through multiple forms of social, political, and policy change
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• On issues of personal transformation that do not include public and problem-solving dimensions
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 100 to 1,000s
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Reflects the diversity of the community—in organizing, facilitation, and participation
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2–4 months
• Process: 4–6 weeks
• Follow-up: Ongoing
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
KCK Study Circles addressed neighborhood issues, as part of a public school reform initiative in Kansas City, Kansas. Since 1999, this United Way project has involved 1,800+ residents on neighborhood issues, education, and diversity. Study circles have led to: public housing residents starting a tenants’ association, setting up a youth sports camp, and getting rid of about ten drug houses; 100+ young people conducting a downtown cleanup; Spanish-speaking parents forming a parents’ association; young people doing minor home repairs and beautifying houses in their neighborhood to attract businesses where they can get jobs; a local church opening a food pantry.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1989 by Paul J. Aicher, who founded the Study Circles Resource Center. Based in the deliberative traditions of town hall meetings, “study circles” were part of the Chautauqua movement in the U.S. Progressive Era (1870s–1920s). Swedish temperance and union movements brought them to Sweden where thousands are now government supported. They returned to the U.S. in the 1980s through National Issues Forums, unions, and the Study Circle Resource Center.
For More Information: Study Circles Resource Center, www.studycircles.org
Technology of Participation
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 10
Page 149
PURPOSE:
To elicit participation of a group, organization, or community in creating a thoughtful discussion, consensus formation, or the collaborative creation of short-term or strategic plans.
OUTCOMES:
• Create solutions that represent a group’s best thinking and which it will own
• Deeper understanding of and commitment to decisions and directions
WHEN TO USE:
• A group, organization, or community has a question or concern related to change and future action
• New strategies and focused directions are needed
• People need in-depth dialogue to allow them to operate with a common understanding and focus
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Severe and unyielding group conflict is present
• The outcome is predetermined
• Key stakeholders will not be present
• No leadership support for decisions the group might make
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 5–1,000
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Those directly involved in the issues or who will be affected by any solutions
• Those expected to support or implement any plans developed
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1–3 days
• Process: Typically 1–3 days
• Transition: Variable
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A 40-person state government department used ToP methods to restore communications and trust and to develop a vision and new direction. Some outcomes: new in-house facilitators helped sections develop goals and mission statements; assessment of staff needs resulted in computer and quality training; and the office restructured, folding many functions into other departments.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs in the 1960s and 1970s for change initiatives in different countries, especially community development and corporate strategic planning.
For More Information: The Institute of Cultural Affairs, www.ica-usa.org
Think Like a Genius
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 30
Page 288
PURPOSE:
To express and represent people’s ideas, feelings, knowledge, views, insights, experiences, and the like in new ways using multidimensional symbolic models that help improve human communication and foster understanding.
OUTCOMES:
• Uncovers “cultural assumptions” that are sinking an organization so that they can be changed, and the organization not only survives but flourishes
• Willingness to examine assumptions about using “unusual” methods to collaborate and to share personal knowledge and expertise while leveraging the organization’s resources
• More openness to far-reaching, exploratory, and experimental approaches to innovation and “borderless thinking”
WHEN TO USE:
• To represent individual explicit and tacit knowledge or personal life experiences in memorable ways
• To collaboratively create new ideas
• To establish a sense of trust and true community
• To create and share new knowledge that can spark innovations
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When you don’t care what other people think about your ideas, your mission, your plans, your sense of success or purpose
• If you don’t care to hear, see, or know what your coworkers have to say
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 12–1,200 or more
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Internal and external stakeholders
• Experts in the field or profession
• Intact teams, cross-functional groups, consumers, clients, and the like
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 3 hours–1 day
• Process: 3 hours–1 day
• Follow-up: Within 1 week
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Immediately following a strategic planning and implementation workshop at NTT/Verio, the Verio CEO in America presented a detailed “Distillation Drawing” that translated the workshop’s accomplishments to the NTT CEO in Japan. The drawing helped the NTT visionary quickly understand what needed to build on the recommendations offered by the senior executives of NTT who had participated in this hands-on workshop.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created by Todd Siler in 1978 with organizations and in 1993 with individuals. The Magdalenian cave painters of the Ice Age in Altimira, northern Spain, and Lascaux, France, were the first in recorded history to use symbolic objects as visual stories to express human experiences of the world.
For More Information: Think Like a Genius, www.ThinkLikeAGenius.com
21st Century Town Meeting
Thumbnail
Planning Method
Chapter 41
Page 393
PURPOSE:
To engage large numbers of citizens in government decision making on public policy issues by supporting deliberation that is well informed, synthesized, and directly connected to real opportunities for action.
OUTCOMES:
• Playing field leveled between citizens and special interests
• Decision makers incorporate citizen priorities in public policy development
• Increased expectations for transparent, accountable governance
WHEN TO USE:
• There is a direct link to the key decision makers and governance processes that can ensure results
• The nature of the issue requires people to deeply wrestle with strategies and choices
• Polling data indicate that citizens believe they can reach consensus even if partisan positioning means the politicians cannot
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• There is no commitment by decision makers to participate and/or act on the results
• The issue is in the early stages of development and action opportunities have not crystallized
• Insufficient availability of infrastructure and resources
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 100–5,000
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Citizens or residents affected by the issue
• Stakeholders (advocates, community-based organizations, or representatives from affected businesses or industries)
• Community leaders, decision makers
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Development and Preparation: 6–12 months
• Meeting: 1 day (or partial day)
• Follow-up: Generally 3–12 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
In 2002, the Hamilton County, Ohio, Regional Planning Commission engaged the community in developing a comprehensive plan for issues including employment, housing, transportation, and education. In addition to a 1,300-person 21st Century Town Meeting, the effort included 11 community forums, one youth forum, and a weeklong online forum. Afterward, action teams produced 160 specific strategies for helping the county reach its goals. The county commissioners endorsed the citizens’ vision statement, and in November 2004, the commission began implementing the citizen-driven priority initiatives.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1995 by Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer and the AmericaSpeaks staff. Founding tenets of American Democracy: “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” “consent of the governed.”
For More Information: AmericaSpeaks, www.americaspeaks.org
Values Into Action
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 57
Page 530
PURPOSE:
To explore an issue through questions focused on its external (global and local) complexity and internal relationship to deeply held values, convictions, and perspectives, leading to individual commitments to act.
OUTCOMES:
• People of different views and values, stature and status understand and support each other
• People learn from the convictions of others without having to give up their own positions
• People make commitments and discover that individual acts unfolding over time can make a difference
WHEN TO USE:
• Positive change around an issue (e.g., AIDS, elimination of hunger, affordable housing, accessing clean water) is desired, and consensus vision and collaborative planning are not necessary or practical
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• A shared vision and collaborative planning and action are desired or there’s not a compelling issue
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 30–1,000+
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Within an organization: internal and external stakeholders
• Within a community: stakeholders from different segments of the community
• Across diverse geographies (regional or global gatherings): multisector teams from the same area
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Up to 3 months
• Process: 1–3 days
• Follow-up: Optional tracking support
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Carry the Vision: Building Cultures of Peace in Our Families, Our Communities and Our World was a one-day community-based conference with 400 participants from diverse segments of the regional community focused on how people can work for peace. Workshops and panels highlighted stories of what is working in the world. An afternoon reflecting on the Values Into Action questions moved from stories of connection to the issue, through reflection on values and convictions, culminating in commitment to individual simple and profound acts for peace. The conference collected 250 commitments.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 2003 by Susan Dupre, Ray Gordezky, Helen Spector, Billie Alban, Emily Axelrod, Jorge Estrada, Thava Govender, Sam Magill, Rita Schweitz, and Nan Voss in partnership with Dirk Ficca, executive director of the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions. Principle-based processes including Future Search, Open Space, and Appreciative Inquiry.
For More Information: Values into Action, www.valuesintoaction.net
Visual Explorer
Thumbnail
Supportive Method
Chapter 65
Page 603
PURPOSE:
To explore a complex issue using a visually mediated dialogue that fully engages each point of view in a fun, safe, relatively quick, and yet deep way.
OUTCOMES:
• Rapid depth of dialogue and shared understanding among differing perspectives
• Produces memorable metaphors and stories
• Produces a creative relationship to the ideas, emotions, and intuitions of self and others
• Produces a visual record of the dialogue for group memory and future reuse
WHEN TO USE:
• When a deep, creative, fun, and productive dialogue is in order among a variety of differing perspectives
• Best used at the front end of a creative, exploratory process as a group needs to make sense of a complex challenge
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When a group is driving toward closure, or when analysis of data can produce a definitive answer to a group’s issues
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 2–100s
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Any; works well across vast differences in perspective, background, language, and culture.
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 20 minutes
• Process: 1–4 hours
• Follow-up: Selected images are used to engage ideas and restart dialogue with subsequent audiences
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A corporate e-commerce team opened their two-day planning retreat with a Visual Explorer (VE) session. Each member chose two images from the standard VE set of 224 images: One about “what its been like this year to work on the team,” and another image about “what our work should look like in the next year.” The resultant dialogue set a standard of candor and listening for the rest of the retreat. The team leader was pleased that this normally buttoned-down group was energized by the process of talking imaginatively about their recent history and their desired future.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1997 by Charles J. Palus and David Magellan Horth with colleagues at the Center for Creative Leadership as a result of the work of Targeted Innovation, LeaderLab, and the Leading Creatively Project (see The Leader’s Edge). VE has roots in the work of David Perkins at Harvard Project Zero (see The Intelligent Eye); in the field of dialogue; in the group dream-work process of Montague Ullman; and in the understanding of leadership as relational meaning making in the work of Bill Drath.
For More Information: Center for Creative Leadership Visual Explorer, www.ccl.org/visualexplorer
Visual Recording and Graphic Facilitation
In-depth
Supportive Method
Chapter 61
Page 573
PURPOSE:
To record ideas and facilitate conversation using images, symbols, words, and phrases, thereby supporting participants in a group process SEEing their ideas, noticing relationships and patterns, and reviewing and sharing the content of the event.
OUTCOMES:
• Open up individual and group creativity.
• Engage and connect people by supporting both linear and intuitive ways of working with information
• Challenge the notion that groups have to be clumsy, with unproductive means of getting things done
WHEN TO USE:
• At the inspiration and learning phases of process when imagery can be used in evocative ways to open up deeper understanding
• For planning and implementation, when clear thinking is critical
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When a speaker has a slide or video presentation
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Groups of any size
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Whatever mix is appropriate to the situation
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Short process design meeting
• Process: The length of time of whatever process is being supported
• Follow-up: Digital and hardcopy reproductions available in 2–3 days
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
In 2005, 50 graphic recorders and facilitators gathered to assess the development of this field. The conference centered on 21st Century Literacy, opening with a session graphically facilitated on 16 running feet of paper. A former Apple multimedia leader posed key questions. Group dialogue was recorded, creating a huge map. Themes swirled and clustered in the visual space. Simple illustrations and diagrams complemented large headlines, building spontaneously. The mural became a springboard and backdrop for the rest of the conference.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Visual recording and graphic facilitation adapted from architecture, design, and teaching in the early 1970s. David Sibbet and Nancy Margulies are among its modern pioneers. It’s reflected in the design and visualization work of all creative people, and recently accelerated in acceptance with the integration of word and image in new digital tools.
For More Information: The International Forum of Visual Practitioners, www.visualpractitioner.org
Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogues
Thumbnail
Adaptable Method
Chapter 31
Page 294
PURPOSE:
To create an online “space” that fosters positive, transformative “dialogues across differences” on public, social, political, organizational development, and personal issues. Participants expressing divergent and sometimes conflicting perspectives work toward finding common ground and possible solutions.
OUTCOMES:
• Engages participants
• Fosters collaboration and builds trust
• Improves intergroup understanding
• Informs decision makers
• Transforms conflicts
WHEN TO USE:
• To enable a culture focused on information and constructive debate, allowing people with widely varied perspectives to learn from one another, and setting the stage for better decision making
• When disagreements are highly contentious
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Where participants are compelled to join in or do not have a personal stake in the outcomes
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 200–10,000s
• Simultaneous small groups of 40–100 people
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Internal or external stakeholders, same function, multifunction, and public stakeholders
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 1–3 months
• Online Dialogue: 2–4 weeks
• Follow-up: 2 weeks–1 month
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Fly into the Future Dialogues (FITF) was a two-week online dialogue addressing the San Diego region’s longterm air transportation needs. FITF was organized with Viewpoint Learning, founded by public opinion researcher Daniel Yankelovich to foster “learning through dialogue.” Participants’ ideas, suggestions, and questions were reflected in subsequent official planning. See http://future.signonsandiego.com.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1998 by Marc Weiss, Barry Joseph, and Brian Clark. Eric Trist: Social Technical Systems. Kurt Lewin: Experiential learning and action research. David Bohm: Theory of Dialogue. W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen: Coordinated Management of Meaning.
For More Information: Web Lab, www.weblab.org/sgd
Whole-Scale Change
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 11
Page 162
PURPOSE:
To help organizations remain successful through fast, deep, and sustainable total system change.
OUTCOMES:
• Strategic alignment as one brain (all seeing the same things) and one heart (all committed to achieving the same preferred future)
• Intentionally designed and fully owned processes, skills, information, and guiding principles
• A new culture with the behaviors everyone desires to achieve common purpose
WHEN TO USE:
• With a particularly challenging, changing environment
• For quick, sustainable results
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Sharing information, engaging and empowering people are not consistent with leaders’ values
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 10–10,000 people (or more using Web-based tools)
• Critical mass (10 percent to 100 percent) to shift the paradigm
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Microcosms of “the whole” system that’s changing
• Cross-section of key stakeholders needed (physically and/or virtually) in order to achieve the purpose and outcomes
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: 2–4 days per event
• Events: Several 2- to 3-day events with 4–6 weeks of interim task team work
• Follow-up: 1 month–1 year
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Best Friends Animal Society, a national humane organization, completely redesigned its organization structure and processes. It launched a new strategic vision, using four Whole-Scale events over 6 months, involving the entire 300 member staff. The results: an expanded mission; reorganized workgroups with people focused around the critical work to support the expanded mission; clarity of roles, work, and coordination across work groups; creation of a rapid response team that led the rescue of thousands of animals after hurricane Katrina; streamlined administration and board governance structures; and a succession strategy to free founders of day-to-day responsibilities and move them into public advocacy roles.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Created in 1981, based on theory, principles and methods combined by Dannemiller, Tyson, Gibb, Davenport, and Badore for Ford Motor Company. In 1990, Paul Tolchinsky combined his sociotechnical systems expertise with Kathie Dannemiller’s large-scale strategic change processes to develop Real-Time Work Design. The integrated approaches becameWhole-Scale in 1997.
For More Information: Dannemiller Tyson Associates, www.dannemillertyson.com
Whole Systems Approach
Thumbnail
Structuring Method
Chapter 45
Page 441
PURPOSE:
To effectively weave multiple organizational initiatives into a well-designed, highly effective organization-wide change effort that creates employee engagement, buy-in, and results.
OUTCOMES:
• Create a world of work where people and organizations thrive by streamlining work processes, creating shared meaning around work, and accelerating and substantially increasing results
WHEN TO USE:
• A need to fundamentally change or transform is evident
• A new organizational focus is required
• Existing efforts require integration into a comprehensive whole
• Large-scale engagement/commitment of stakeholders is desired
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• No top-level commitment, leadership, and full involvement
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• All organizational members and stakeholder constituency representatives
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Representatives from every stakeholder constituency and all employees
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Set the Stage: 3–12 months
• Change the Business: 12–18 months
• Transition: 6–12 months
• Run the Business: 6+ months
• Entire effort: 30–48 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
Carlson Companies, Inc., a privately-owned, family enterprise, has more than 190,000 employees in 50+ countries providing services in travel, hospitality (hotels and cruises), marketing, and the restaurant industry. For more than 50 years, Carlson operated as a holding company with six distinct business units managing more than 16 brands. In 2003, Carlson leaders strategically chose to move from a holding company to an integrated operating company focused on the customer. The changes have been massive, far-reaching, and impact every area and system of the organization. Carlson has realized substantial business results.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Developed in 1985 by Bill Adams and Cindy Adams, encompassing years of research and “day in and day out” work partnering with leaders and organizations to successfully realize their change goals.
For More Information: Whole Systems, www.maxcomminc.com
WorkOut
Thumbnail
Improving Method
Chapter 58
Page 535
PURPOSE:
To reduce bureaucracy, solve business problems, and streamline processes through fast and concentrated decision making and empowerment.
OUTCOMES:
• Drives business results through the resolution of complex business challenges across hierarchical, functional, and other boundaries
• Simultaneously facilitates cultural change—particularly speed, simplicity, empowered self-confidence, and rapid decision making
WHEN TO USE:
• Ambitious business challenge requires resolution of several issues
• Multiple functions, groups, and/or layers need to be involved in crafting an aligned solution
• Business processes need to be simplified—while improving quality and cycle time
• Fast, clear management decisions will stimulate action and focus people’s energy and attention on an urgent issue
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• When the aim is to get buy-in for preconceived solutions
• When the obvious aim is to reduce head count
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 20–100
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• People across functions and levels who are able to contribute to the desired result
• Senior manager as a “sponsor” and decision maker
• Lead consultant and subgroup facilitators
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Design: 2–4 weeks
• Conduct Event: 1–3 days
• Implementation of Recommendations: 3–4 months
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
A UK insurance unit of Zurich Financial Services used WorkOut to transform its financial performance and corporate culture. In one year, more than 30 WorkOuts produced measurable savings in excess of $10 million.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Conceived in 1988 by GE chairman Jack Welch with support from James Baughman, head of the company’s Crotonville Leadership Center. Developed by an academic/consultant team led by Dave Ulrich, Len Schlesinger, and Todd Jick, and including Steve Kerr, Ron Ashkenas, and others.
For More Information: Robert H. Schaffer & Associates, www.rhsa.com
The World Café
In-depth
Adaptable Method
Chapter 12
Page 179
PURPOSE:
To foster the conditions for the emergence of collective intelligence by engaging people in dynamic strategic conversations around questions that matter to their lives and work.
OUTCOMES:
• Surfaces unquestioned assumptions
• Redefines the relationship between talk and action and reveals conversation as core process for creating business/social value
• Clarifies the relationship of strategic questions, catalytic conversations, and networks of relationships in change efforts
• Fosters “coherence without control” among diverse stakeholders, even in very large groups
WHEN TO USE:
• Generate input, share knowledge, stimulate innovative thinking, and explore action possibilities around real-life issues and questions
• Engage people who are meeting for the first time in authentic conversation
• Conduct an in-depth exploration of key strategic challenges and opportunities
• Deepen relationships and mutual ownership of outcomes in an existing group
• Create meaningful interaction between a speaker and the audience
• Invite all voices into the conversation
WHEN NOT TO USE:
• Driving toward an already determined outcome, solution, or answer
• To convey only one-way information or to do implementation plans
• Have less than 90 minutes or fewer than 12 people
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
• 12–1,000s with no upper limit in theory
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
• Diverse voices and perspectives on key issues
TYPICAL DURATION:
• Preparation: Less than 1 day to several months
• Process: 2 hours to several days. Regular ongoing Cafés may unfold over months or years
• Follow-up: As determined by designers, host, and participants
BRIEF EXAMPLE:
When faced with a budget shortfall, the Museum of Science and Industry used café dialogues to discover innovative revenue-producing programs enabling them to end fiscal year 2003 with a $267,000 surplus.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Discovered in 1995 by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs with colleagues. Grounded in patterns of community organizing and the spread of social movements. Underpinnings include research by David Bohm, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Christopher Alexanderl, Fritjof Capra, Meg Wheatley, and other approaches to dialogue and collective consciousness. Deep commitment to democratic ideals.
For More Information: The World Café, www.theworldcafe.com