Does absence of criticism stimulate or hinder creativity?

Wednesday August 29, 2012 Alex Osborn, a partner in the famed advertising agency BBDO published a book in in 1948 called Your Creative Power. In a chapter on "How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas," he wrote: "Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom while discouragement often nips it in the bud," We all know the rules: no criticism or negative feedback. Brainstorming seems like an ideal technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is a problem. Brainstorming doesn't work. In a test at Yale University in 1958 solo students competing against a brainstorming group came up with roughly twice as many solutions as the brainstorming groups. Psychologists have summarized the science: "Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas." But if brainstorming doesn't work, the question still remains: What's the best template for group creativity? Want Something Novel? Turn Up the Heat Most research and advice suggest that the best way to come up with good solutions is to come up with many solutions. Freewheeling is welcome; but researchers added that when the "debate" condition "is added as a rule – not just don't be afraid to say anything that comes to mind even if is critical of someone ideas, but you should debate and criticize each other's ideas – things improve dramatically. Most studies suggest that. When a group received no further instructions on the process of generating ideas, leaving them free to collaborate however they wanted, the results were telling: the brainstorming groups slightly outperformed the groups given no instructions, but teams given the debate condition were the most creative by far. On average, they generated nearly 20 percent more ideas. And, after the teams disbanded, another interesting result became apparent. Researchers asked each subject individually if he or she had any more ideas about the topic debated. The brainstormers and the people given no guidelines produced an average of three additional ideas; the debaters produced seven. Those studies suggest that the ineffectiveness of brainstorming is due to the very thing that Osborn thought was most important. Is imagination inhibited by the merest hint of criticism? Apparently it can thrive on conflict! According to number of studies, dissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others and to reassess our viewpoints. This weird notion that the most important thing to do when working together is stay positive and get along, to not hurt anyone's feelings is just wrong. Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive. True creativity requires some trade-offs. The template for group creativity I have always thought that criticism – and conflict - allows people to dig below the surface of the imagination and come up with collective ideas that aren't predictable. And recognizing the importance of conflicting perspectives in a group raises the issue of what kinds of people will work together best. So the misconception behind brainstorming is that there is a particular script we should all follow in group interactions. But when the composition of the group is right—enough people with different perspectives running into one another in unpredictable ways—the group dynamic will take care of itself. All these errant discussions add up. In fact, they may even be the most essential part of the creative process. Although such conversations will occasionally be unpleasant—not everyone is always in the mood for small talk or criticism—that doesn't mean that they can be avoided. Hard to admit, but we have been wrong for so long – pleasant brainstorming sucks. The best template for group creativity is an open conversation and a reasonable degree of diversity of opinions. When I read these studies a long time ago, those ideas changed my concept of what creativity and innovation were all about. I hope they can be helpful to you too. Adriano Pianesi | ParticpAction Consulting, Inc.

Logging on, dialing in and ...dozing off in your webinars?

Wednesday July 25, 2012 I used to hate webinars: just plainly boring affairs where we log on, dial in and ...doze off. You probably know about this kind of webinars. You may have attended a few yourself. Perhaps you found them boring and un-engaging, with no chance to interact or ask questions to a guarded speaker. Did the speaker drone on as you – yes, you! – checked your email? Good news: we are not talking about that kind of webinar. Yes: there is another way! Why "THE ART OF ONLINE HOSTING"? As a facilitator, a trainer and an adjunct professor working primarily face‐to-face, I have noticed that the one‐way nature of most webinars and web conferences misses an opportunity to engage an audience and draw on the wisdom of the group as well as the knowledge of the guest speaker, salesperson or instructor.                                                                                                             As the use of web conferencing extends to management training and leadership development, interactive workshops and collaborative meetings, the requirements of webinars shift from pushing information out to pulling ideas and knowledge in through many‐to‐many collaboration and interaction. This requires a new look at the design and facilitation of webinars and the technology tools used to deliver them. This requires a shift from Powerpoint to POWERFUL. From presenters to hosts. Face‐to‐face workshops employ a wide range of collaborative learning techniques from case study analysis and group problem solving to role plays, inquiry circles and brainstorming.  Unfortunately as training programs and workshops have moved online they have become less interactive, limited by assumptions about technology choices and participant engagement. What are the opportunities of "LEADERSHIP 2.0"? The opportunity presented by a more interactive and collaborative approach to webinars is to reclaim the many learning methods used in face‐to‐face workshops and adapt them for a virtual environment. In addition, we can take the opportunity that web conferencing technology offers as a chance to redefine the meaning of learning together, of being an educator, and of being in the world. I see interactive webinars as an opportunity for more learning, shorter meetings, greater participation, and more ongoing collaboration. But also as an opportunity to update the work of learning (and teaching) as we know it, online and offline; as an invitation to join in defining the new exciting possibilities of "Leadership  2.0" ... Check out our new website for The Art of Online Hosting

Is Good Teaching Servant Leadership?

Thursday June 7, 2012 "Good teaching cannot be equated with technique. It comes from the integrity of the teacher"  - Parker Palmer If you are active in the search of your own philosophy of the teaching-learning process read this piece written some 150 years ago. I find it refreshingly current. A Point of View on Teaching "... if real success is to attend the effort to bring a man to a definite position, one must first of all take pains to find HIM where he is and begin there. This is the secret of the art of helping others. Anyone who has not mastered this is himself deluded when he proposes to help others. In order to help another effectively, I must understand what he understands. If I do not know that, my greater understanding will be of no help to him. If, however, I am disposed to plume myself on my greater understanding, it is because I am vain or proud, so that at bottom, instead of benefitting him, I want to be admired. But all true effort to help does not mean to be a sovereign but to be a servant, that to help does not mean to endure for the time being the imputation that one is in the wrong and does not understand what the other understands . . . For to be a teacher does not mean simply to affirm that such a thing is so, or to deliver a lecture, etc. No, to be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner. Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner, put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he understands and in the way he understands it ." Soren Kierkegaard, The Journal, 1864

How can you leverage Peer Coaching in your workplace?

Wednesday May 16, 2012 It can be seen as untapped resource in any organization and as an effective cost-reduction strategy. Peer coaching is like a special kind of friendship, providing a structure for personal development and growth. Found in many forms and used in multiple situations, the idea is simple; rather than hire an expensive external consultant, a peer coach can: ·         Walk beside new hires until they are up to speed, sharing his or her knowledge of the organization's processes and culture; ·         Show the ropes to a person with a less-than-stellar record of achievement for a given period of time, focusing on those areas that they have jointly identified as needing attention; ·         Stand by employees being groomed for greater management responsibilities and teach them how to give feedback and supervise others, modeling the expectations for supervisors or managers in real work situations; ·         Support a colleague in solving a problem by sharing experiences which can lead to skill building and increased awareness. In any of these scenarios, confidential peer coaching can serve as a useful process through which two or more professional colleagues work together to reflect on current practices; expand, refine, and build new skills; share ideas; teach one another; or solve problems. It is built around the philosophy of learn-teach-learn, and can be implemented at a very low cost, without tapping scarce training funds. One must wonder: Why isn't peer coaching adopted more widely and consistently in business and non-profit organizations and government agencies? Is it too good to be true? What obstacles reduce the impact of Peer Coaching? Peer coaching is not without its challenges. The objections or issues that I've encountered in the organizations I have worked with go like this: "The peer coach is busy!" Peer coaches have their own jobs to do.  When coaching, they may feel pressure to get back to work. Because of this, peer coaches might take short cuts, present incomplete information, or neglect altogether the needs of their coachees. At other times, busy peer coaches might forget something, or not fully recognize as part of their job the need to provide emotional support when their coachees are challenged by difficult tasks.  "The peer coach is not a coach!" Much of what a coachee learns is dictated by the peer coach's own way of working. But if the peer coach cannot clearly communicate with the coachee, it may lead to greater confusion. Knowing a subject matter does not guarantee being able to share it clearly and understandably with others.   "The peer coach is not able to connect with the staff member!" In organizations with dispersed offices, it might be hard for some peer coaches to reach the staff members they are working with. This is especially true when there is no room available or no administrative support for the coaching program.   Three ways to add value to Peer Coaching with technology Peer coaches can easily boot up their skills and use the latest technology to gain efficiency in working with their peers. Here are three strategies that I have successfully used to improve the quality of a peer coaching program: 1. Build mini e-learning modules. This can ensure consistent delivery of critical information while compressing the time to learn and reducing demand on the peer coach. Consistent messaging delivered through an intentional training design also allows you to review and assess the learner's understanding and progress with built-in measurements. 2. Create virtual training rooms by subject matter. If your peer coaching program relies exclusively on the phone or on Skype, you are undermining its effectiveness. By using a web conferencing system, you can minimize duplication of effort and share information more quickly. The system will enable you to use the same rich-media meeting room  again and again for the same topic. In other words, you do the work once and set up several meeting rooms, each on a particular topic, uploading relevant files, creating polls, etc.  When it's time for a session, the peer coach and the coachee together simply access the room devoted to that subject. 3. Encourage the use of an "Online Learning Journal." This creates a personal bridge between online and face-to-face coaching; something the learner always has access to. Besides helping with knowledge transfer, note-taking encourages reflection in action and often results in powerful insights. Learners can use checklists to record what they've learned as they advance. This can serve as a progress report for the learner, the peer coach, and his or her supervisor, enhancing the level of accountability in the program. Last but not least: Train your coaches in effective coaching techniques. The best peer coaching programs include a coach development component. Coaches should learn to use deep, probing questions as a way to review what was learned and assess the person's understanding, while encouraging further inquiry on a given topic. In supporting self-assessment, the coach might plant a seed of reflection and self-improvement that can go well beyond the peer coaching program. Adriano Pianesi and Anne Kelly | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc.

Can you talk politics with someone of a different party and still have fun?

Wednesday April 4, 2012 My mother-in-law was adamant: in good company, you do not discuss politics or religion. I had been living in the US for only a few years and those words seemed most curious to me, almost as curious as the word "controversial." (I distinctly remember asking my friend Val; "What does the word controversial mean?") Why? Where I'm originally from everything is "controversial" (and perfectly fine) and all people do is talk about politics and religion (and this is also ok). That's why this post is about your ability to have a political discussion with someone who doesn't agree with a word you say: Can you do it? Even better, can you do it and have fun? As we enter more squarely into this election year with a political system that many experts say is more polarized than ever before in history, I hope you find this topic interesting. One Simple Condition of Success This has nothing to do with the fact that I teach conflict resolution: I have been guilty myself of, ahem, unproductive political conversations. Eventually I realized that, unless the conversation has one necessary (but hardly sufficient) condition the effort is not likely to be successful. I've learned that context is key. Ideally you need to be sitting at a lunch table. And somewhere between your tagliatelle with porcini mushroom and eggplant parmesan, you can try talking about any controversial topic from abortion, to gay marriage, to animal rights. After all what do we really, really know about politics? So, give it a try: you and your lunch companion might end up agreeing on some matters. For instance, about what wine to drink and whether or not take another portion before the next round of pasta. But be warned: what will make your lunch memorable—besides the food— will be how deeply you will disagree, and how congenially. You run the risk of laughing a lot. Hopefully each of you will be able to finish your sentences. Isn't that nice? How satisfying is talking politics with people who agree with everything you say? Isn't what dazzles in these different conversations the slow realization that by talking with a person with dissimilar ideas reminds you of what you hold dear and firmly believe? So here are the ground rules: ·         Make sure you pay attention to the context (i.e. there's good food on the table or at least a congenial atmosphere). ·         Think about what the other person has to say. ·         Try like hell to listen rather than to talk. (The food will help!) Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc.

Why is Engagement so Hard to Generate in Group?

Wednesday March 14, 2012 What are the cornerstone principles of engagement when working with groups? The same headache always arises. It doesn't matter if you are working to lead a group in an action learning set, a strategic planning session or in a teambuilding retreat: the principles of engagement are elusive, making this work an art more than a technique. Its tentative, improvisational, error-prone nature reminds us of the experience of "flow"... but doesn't' help us clarify it. I see groups as living systems and my work through the lens of service to the whole.  As such sometimes I wonder:  Why should I create engagement? What is engagement really telling me about the group? If I interpret engagement as success, whose success am I talking about? Mine? What if – more humbly – I simply focus on knowing what is really going on "deeply" in a group, drop my concern, and stop influencing a group towards engagement? What if I try to work on a deeper awareness of where the group is instead? With this perspective, I have found that my observation skills are greatly improved if I work with the concept of the four "flows." Inspired by David Sibbet, those are great and simple ways I use to improve my awareness and my ability to diagnose what is really happening in a group. back to top The Four Flows While working with groups is not a mathematical equation that can be solved in a distinct way, I believe that raising the quality of my awareness in groups is possibly the best and most honest help I have to offer. The four flows of Operations, Communication, Energy and Intuition can help you do it. The flow of OPERATION concerns all the logistical, control-oriented parts of a process, all the decisions, commitments, and constraints of the work:  design choices made with the client, methodologies , time allocations, agenda, recording equipment, room set-up, the invitation sent to attendees. In other words this is the ground zero of the work, the one that, if done right, frees your attention and energy for more important things. To manage this flow you need to be effective in coordinating and planning the session. Key questions: ·         What work before the session will contribute to the success of the meeting? ·         Have I embraced all the constraints of this work as an opportunity for creativity? The flow of COMMUNICATION concerns all the information, stated meeting roles and objectives, expectations, reflections, critical thinking, languages, artifacts, graphic recordings, and all the explicit communication taking place in a session. In other words this is the domain that is most visible and is where people pay most attention in meetings. To manage this flow you need to stay focused on the processing of the group as well as on the information being shared. Key questions: ·         Is everyone on the same page? ·         What do we need to unlearn to proceed? ·         Are we learning together? The flow of ENERGY concerns feelings, emotions, excitement, frustrations, and so on. This flow is hard to manage as it ebbs and flows through the pace of the sessions and the physical movements of the people. To manage this flow you need to be in it yourself or be on the sidelines creating opportunities for its movement through structured experiences. Key questions: ·         What's the feel of this group right now? ·         Where is the quality and direction of it? ·         What is the quality of participation? The flow of INTUITION concerns the intention, attention, and consciousness of the work in group. To manage this flow you need to be aware and centered in the complex field of a group in session. Done right this flow has the power to inspire, direct, and move group attention.  Key questions:  ·         Am I being present for this group right now or am I hiding/overpowering? ·         Am I open to the possibilities of this group without judgment? ·         Is the group tapping into its own collective intelligence? There you have it! I hope you find this helpful for your day-to-day work in teams and groups. I look forward hearing from you.

Why Do We, As Leaders, Tend to Apply the Wrong Solutions?

Tuesday January 17, 2012 In my leadership classes I often ask people what they think leadership is about. The answer is often something like, "Leadership is about solving problems and making good decisions." If for so many people leadership is about problem solving and decision making, then it might be helpful for all of us to identify the kind of problems that calls for leadership and, more importantly, what kind of solutions - longer term solutions vs. quick fixes - leaders tend to use to address those problems. Here are four examples of problems leaders might face: ·         #1: a co-worker is unable to do his share of work in a team project ·         #2: a software system has a different rate of adoption across different departments ·         #3: a CEO realizes that her company's traditionally most-profitable product is rapidly losing market share to its main competitors ·         #4: a local non profit struggles in establishing its first fund-raising annual campaign. Which of these problems require a quick fix and which a deeper change? Quick Fixes Vs. Deep Change Some problems cause disturbances that trigger certain responses. If we have the knowledge, the expertise and the cultural assumptions to deal with those problems, the action resolves the problem by providing the solution. In these situations distress is alleviated fairly quickly because it is within the know-how of the organization to solve. • in #1: the boss can talk to the coworker • in #2: the department heads can be asked by the top person to use the system more • in #3: the CEO can quickly develop a new marketing campaign to counter-attack its competitors and address the losing market share • in #4: the local non-profit can let go the current fund-raising director and hire a new one. All those actions can very well bring a solution in a relatively short period of time. And leaders are often under pressure to provide those fixes. They often do because responsiveness is understood as a measure of good leadership: the faster the fix, the more respected the leader. However consider what issue is left untouched in those good solutions: • in #1: how can every team ensure accountability in the process of working together on a project? • in #2: what are ways to develop a more customer-focused software development process? • in #3: how can we be more responsive to changing customer's needs? • in #4: in what ways can we make the culture of this organization more results-oriented? Many problems come bundled; they need quick fixes as well as longer terms solutions. Leaders' overuse of quick fixes can be deleterious. Why? Because when a more complex problem comes - one that requires deeper work and one where the distress doesn't go away quickly - a dependency on quick fixes makes people see their leaders as ineffective. They also see themselves as spectators rather than part of the solution. Engaging in Complex Problem Solving for Deep Change Whether they are called "adaptive challenges" or "wicked problems" or "swamps," many problems people deal in organizations are complex, and often resistant to quick fixes. When an issue - addressed before without success - explodes in a sudden crisis, causing a state of conflict, those are all indicators of problems that need a longer-term solution. These are issues that require for people to learn new ways. They require experimentation and patience because the organization currently does not have the know-how to fix it quickly. Exercising leadership in these situations requires keeping people focused on the ongoing efforts, the ongoing behavioral and aptitudinal change. When a more complex problem comes, leaders must engage in a different conversation, one that requires people to take responsibility, to learn new ways, and to allow solutions to emerge from a collective undertaking. In this work as leaders we need to keep people - often over a long period of time - in a "productive state of disequilibrium." This is a place that allows for people to be engaged while solving the problem without shortcuts, but also without such a level of discomfort that they are not working productively together. Our job as leaders or as people in a position of authority is to frame the right questions for which answers are discovered over time by the collective intelligence of all the people involved. Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc.

Is our thinking "emotional intelligent"?

Wednesday December 14, 2011 I read this interesting quote the other day: "There is a form of folly that is the absence of everything except our rationality." I never really subscribed to the clear-cut distinction between rational and emotional (and research shows us that emotions are actually located in specific and trackable portions of the brain). I do agree that ultimately being "only rational" is a sure way to become dysfunctional. In fact I often feel that our ability to think strategically and critically needs to assess not only our cognitive abilities, but also our feelings or emotional states. Or does it? To disagree or not to disagree? Some situations reveal the complex interplay of our cognitive and emotional abilities and resist simple labels: think about a time when you were in doubt about whether or not to disagree with your direct supervisor on an important decision. ·         Was your thinking rooted in emotions? ·         Was your thinking a simple rational calculation based in data?  ·         What did influence your decision to step in or not into a potentially dangerous situation? ·         What role did emotional evaluation played in that choice? I can imagine the negative consequences that might come my way if I disagree with my boss. Maybe the fear of reprimand plays an important role in my thinking about this and will influence it. Feeling fear is not a nice place to be: how does one deal  productively with such a strong emotional response? I think we find the answer in "emotionally intelligent" critical thinking. I believe that is ultimately our ability to reflect about the crucial link between intelligence and emotions what will allow me to think well in that situation, and maybe muster the courage to take the risk. Thinking well as interplay of intelligence and emotions Emotions are not more or less important than thoughts; the fact is that if we want to change a feeling, we need to understand it. To do so it might be helpful to identify the thinking that ultimately leads to the feeling. So in a situation like the one described we might want to ask ourselves: • What purpose does my decision to disagree serve in this situation? • What purpose does my decision to agree serve in this situation? • What feelings are surfacing for me as I think about this? • What is the risk that I believe I am dealing with here? • What has been the outcome of similar behaviors in this same context? • What is the worst that can happen if I decide to take this risk? • What am I revealing about myself with my decision to take or not take this risk? • Regardless, how can I claim my "part of the mess" in this situation? • What would taking responsibility look like in this situation? Where would that lead? If you think that you can't prevent a bad decision in a meeting with your boss, then you will feel satisfied and decide not to take any risk. Again your assessment of the situation – based on your thinking – will allow you to feel content and satisfied (not taking any risk) or motivated and driven towards a different outcome enough to put yourself on the line (taking the risk). Thinking well as power Notice how your "emotional intelligent" thinking about your organization/team/department influences the outcome and –ultimately – gives you or not the power to make a difference in the situation. In situation A when you think that they "don't get it" and that no matter what is decided, it will make no difference: your behavior will make that thought come true and you will feel satisfied with your decision not to speak up. This is no matter how wrong the final outcome might turn out to be. In situation B when you think exactly the same but feel that that particular decision is very important to you, and that your organization is really not that horrible and that its mission might be worth risking something, then your choice will be different. I wish you a courageous and creative new year! Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc.

 

Are we "simpatici" in our work with groups?

Wednesday November 16, 2011 There is a word in Italian and other romance languages that can't be translated into English: Simpatico. The dictionary defines the word as [sim-'pä-ti-'kō] adj Informal 1. pleasant or congenial 2. of similar mind or temperament; compatible. I have also heard it translated as likeable or nice. Yet those translations do not capture an element at the root of the word "simpatia," which poorly translates into English as sympathy. I catch myself using this word a lot to name the emotional and intuitive "sense" that takes place "below the neck" when people work with groups. We know what it is, and yet we can't define it. I can say that "simpatia" exists only in the interaction between Individuals; it is not a personality trait, although an individual may be particularly adept at developing rapport in certain situations. And I find that people that are "simpatici" are more creative together and more likely to build positive results. So, what does it mean to be "simpatico" or its opposite "antipatico"? What does "simpatia" mean for our work with groups? back to top Are we builders of a "community of feelings"? The meaning of "simpatia" has nothing to do with compassion or pity. Instead, the word comes from sympatheia;  sympathes in Greek meaning, "having a fellow feeling, affected by like feelings." Both words come from syn- "together"+ pathos "feeling," literally feeling with. On the other hand, when you do not like someone and perhaps can't explain why, you might say that that person is "antipatica". Literally this mean that you can't feel with that person, you can't connect at an emotional level. I like to say that "simpatia" highlights the ability to build rapport, to build a "community of feeling" animated by "affinity between certain things." Rapport is the closest concept I have found though this too is not a perfect fit.   Are we antipatici with our groups? Can we connect with others at an emotional level? Can we create with our groups a "community of feeling"? How? Are there people whom you like a lot but are unable to say why? Wouldn't it be great to understand and emulate what it is about those people that makes them "simpatici" to us? back to top A recipe for "simpatia"? While everybody is looking to make the most of this enlivening dynamic—whether they are salespeople, teachers, or consultants—we also know that it can't be faked. In fact, individuals experience "simpatia" as the result of a combination of qualities embodied by each individual during an interaction, often at an unconscious level. Research shows that there are three elements present when rapport exists: Mutual attentiveness:  Paying attention to each other—not focusing on yourself—is one key to building rapport, along with experiencing the dynamic as being reciprocal. Questions to ponder: ·         In what ways can we pay attention to each person in the group? ·         How do we gain people's attention in a non-manipulative way? ·         How do we actively pursue reciprocal attention in our groups? Shared positive feeling:  Another key is to hold a joint focus on each other. This goes beyond paying attention to really "feeling with," and establishing an affinity—a common ground. Questions to ponder: ·         Are we really listening to each other? ·         What happens when we tune in to each others' feelings in a group? ·         In what ways we can find elements of common ground with total strangers? Coordination or Synchrony: Exchanges that are spontaneous—not guarded, but free-flowing—are most likely to result in rapport. Questions to ponder: ·         What if we drop our guard in our exchanges with groups? ·         What does it mean to be authentically present with a group for you? I wish you fun and fulfillment as you explore "simpatia"! Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc. | Increasing Your Returns on Collaboration and Learning

Why is it so hard to have a "learning conversation" at work?

Thursday October 20, 2011 People often ask why it seems so hard for them to replicate at work the same quality conversations they have in my workshops, the kind of conversations that allow people to learn something with and from each other. Indeed, I have found that many organizations struggle with this: How to increase the "learning quotient" of a conversation about a big decision and what can be done to ensure that people learn during an important group discussion. Is our "problem solving" attitude the problem? I do not know about you, but I do not listen much when my focus is on winning, showing off or solving somebody's problem. By paying attention to "looking good," "making an impression," or "doing my best," I leave myself little time for learning or reflecting. Likewise, when I am under attack or under pressure to perform, concerned about avoiding embarrassment or threat, feeling vulnerable or incompetent, I notice that I create impenetrable defensive mechanisms that effectively prevent learning. When we approach a real-life scenario with an "I win, you lose" mindset, we inevitably end up in a tug-of-war, where conversations break down, listening is superficial, and no learning actually happens. Learning is not possible if a conversation is a competitive game—I win you lose. On the other hand, learning is inevitable when I think cooperatively—I win you win. (To prove this point I often engage groups in a negotiation exercise with the purpose of demonstrating how thinking "win-win" is the beginning of learning.) In a famous article, Chris Argyris talked about the need for managers to go beyond learning as problem solving and "... look inward...to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organization's problems, and then change how they act. ... learn how the very way they go about deŽfining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right." So, why is our problem solving attitude the problem? Well, because we want to do just that: Solve the problem. And our focus is not on learning. How can we do both? Five things to help "Action Learning" is a methodology that delivers results on two fronts at once: you learn while solving problems. Drawing on that methodology and on many other frameworks, here are a few ready-to-use suggestions to enable great learning conversations in teams: ·         MINDSET: Think win-win and make it a point to focus on listening as hard as you possibly can; ·         KEY QUESTION: Outline a key question that will direct the learning (that is, uncovering what you do not already know!); ·         TIME LIMITS: Establish clear time limits (i.e., 40 minutes), and state the purpose and desired outcome of the session in specific terms; ·         INFORMAL TONE: Hold the session in a non-formal setting. Avoid board rooms; ·         GROUNDRULE: Enforce the key "Action Learning" groundrule that "Statements can only be made in response to questions". This encourages curiosity and improves inquiry. Try it and see for yourself a dramatic improvement in your ability to reflect and learn together. Good luck! Adriano Pianesi | ParticipAction Consulting, Inc. | Increasing Your Return on Collaboration

Do you engage your team in vigorous debate to improve the quality of your decisions?

Wednesday September 14, 2011 If it is true that great leaders do not take "yes" for an answer, your success as a leader may depend on your willingness to push the inquiry of a group into passionate, emotional territory. Are you able to maximize the search for answers while keeping people engaged in vigorous and spirited debate? Does your team attend to the work of deciding what to do, or do they get diverted by interpersonal friction, "broken record" ideas, and intolerance for new questions? A bias I often notice is the idea that good decision making is dispassionate, rational, and totally unbiased. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: eliminating passion and emotion from decision making is not only nearly impossible; it's counterproductive. At the end of the day, those feelings are the same ones that will drive the successful implementation of the team's decision.   How do you make it vigorous? Rather than try to put passion aside, the key is to adopt a specific set of actions before, during, and after the actual conversation. BEFORE THE CONVERSATION: Establish ground-rules for how people should interact during the conversation, clarify the roles people are to play in the decision making process, and—most importantly—test to make sure that the group understands what is being decided (by asking people to restate it). DURING THE CONVERSATION: Ask questions and reframe statements as the group works though the decision. Involve everyone—especially the silent members—and summarize or revisit what has been said when the group reaches an impasse. Make good use of any distress that arises during the process by dismissing repetitive ideas or openly restating a controversial statement (to increase the controversy). Invite people to verbalize their emotions and reach out to other team members for help (to decrease the emotional discomfort). AFTER THE CONVERSATION: Ask people not to take themselves too seriously. Take the time to repair any damaged relationships or hurt feelings. Reflect on the value of the work that you've done and celebrate the effective ways in which the group has worked through a difficult decision.