How we think about teams

Team Accelerator Process and Tools—Core Methodology Deck 2016
Transform Stakeholder influence Distributed leadership Robust challenge Disciplined decisions Team Accelerator Process and Tools—Core Methodology Deck 2016

How we think about teams
Build on each other’s energies and talents, generating synergy to deliver a shared purpose Teams that accelerate Mobilize, execute, and transform faster than their competitors Create a shared agenda that produces competitive advantage Execute with a metabolic rate that drives outstanding levels of achievement Renew continuously, setting stretching objectives and building improvement capabilities that outpace others Have high levels of trust and productive conflict Operate in a high-challenge, high-support mode Focus on accelerating performance

How we think about coaching teams
Sell/contract Diagnose and set goals Design Deliver Evaluate/cascade We strive to help our clients change the world, one leadership team at a time. The Team Accelerator is our core methodology for accelerating senior teams through a structured 9–12-month journey designed to support teams to mobilize, execute, transform, and operate with agility. All of our work with teams starts with identifying opportunities within new and existing clients where we can create real value for organizations and have a measurable impact. We contract carefully and thoroughly, making sure that clients know exactly what to expect and that we are set up to succeed. All of our work focuses on accelerating teams and organizations in a measurable way. Once we have contracted with our clients and before designing any interventions, we always conduct an in-depth diagnosis on where the organization and the team stands, including what accelerates them and what holds them back. This allows us to support teams in a way that is most effective for them and helps them pull the levers that will make the biggest difference to them and their organizations. We always set clear goals for our work and track these over time. We root the design of all of our team interventions in the Team Accelerator methodology and its main components (mobilize, execute, transform, and agility). You will find an in- depth exploration of these components in the Core Methodology decks. For 1:1 coaching sessions, which typically form part of the team journey, we draw on our documented approach to 1:1 coaching. We always design our interventions based on what we learn in the diagnostic phase and focus on what will make the biggest difference to our client. We design all interventions ahead of time, but always check in with our clients before and during events we are running to make sure we are still on track and hitting the mark. As working with teams can be messy, we often have to redesign sessions in the moment as the work unfolds. We deliver all team interventions in pairs. When working with teams our role can change from facilitator to consultant to coach, depending on the topic and the requirements of the team. Most importantly, however, we see ourselves as holding the process for our clients and providing support and challenge. We do not dictate the agenda and we are not attached to the outcomes the team is working on. Again, working with teams can be messy, and being insightful of what will shift the dial for the team, challenging them, and being adaptable is what we believe makes a great team coach. We track progress toward goals throughout the team coaching journey and most certainly at the end. What has been achieved is a central part of the closing discussion with the team and the team leader and a central input into what is next for the team. We often help teams to cascade their learnings to their own teams or run similar interventions either in different parts of or lower down the organization.

Resources available to you as a team coach
Resources are split across three types of decks: Overview and Sales decks to provide you with top-level information on the Team Accelerator methodology and the Team Accelerator Questionnaire as well as sales materials End-to-End Process decks to provide you with an overview and hints and tricks on how to run a team coaching journey Core Methodology decks outlining key content on how to design and deliver team interventions as well as an abundance of tried- and-tested exercises to choose from for your work with teams Sell and contract Diagnose and set goals Design Deliver Evaluate and cascade E2E Process deck: Contracting Overview and Sales deck: Team Accelerator overview Overview and Sales deck: Technical overview document E2E Process deck: Diagnose and set goals E2E Process deck: Design Core Methodology deck: Mobilize Core Methodology deck: Execute Core Methodology: Transform Core Methodology: Agility Core Methodology deck: Catalyst Core Methodology: Specialist team deck (Top team/Multiple team) E2E Process deck: Deliver E2E Process deck: Evaluate and cascade

This deck is about helping teams to Transform
Experiment and innovate to create new growth engines and to reinvent existing businesses ahead of the market The rate at which a team is able to reinvent the business to be ahead of the market is strongly influenced by the team’s ability to focus outwardly to leverage deep stakeholder relationships and inwardly to build trust, full team participation, robust challenge, and the ability to rupture and repair quickly. Teams that transform rapidly share information seamlessly and have clear mechanisms and decision rights in place to enable efficient decision making.

Transform is underpinned by four drive factors
Definition Drive-factor statements Constraints Stakeholder influence The team proactively shapes the wider context in which it operates through building, maintaining, and engaging key strategic partnerships. ‘The way we proactively shape the broader context in which we operate’ ‘The strategic partnerships we build and maintain with different stakeholder groups’ ‘The way we proactively engage with stakeholders to create win–win partnerships’ ‘A lack of in-depth insight into the wants and needs of stakeholders’ ‘Failure to communicate effectively with key stakeholders’ Distributed leadership The leader is effective in ensuring full team participation. The team has a collaborative mindset and members proactively take on challenges on behalf of the team. ‘A collaborative mindset that avoids unproductive silos’ ‘The impact of our team leader in ensuring full team participation’ ‘The way team members proactively take ownership of challenges on behalf of the team’ ‘A tendency for the team leader to micromanage’ ‘A reward structure that discourages collaboration’ Robust challenge There is a climate of support and trust that enables the team to be candid and robustly challenge each other. The team ruptures and repairs from conflict quickly to drive quality outcomes for the organization. ‘A climate of support and trust that enables us to speak candidly’ ‘Our readiness to robustly challenge each other to achieve the best outcome’ ‘The way in which we rupture and repair quickly when there is conflict’ ‘Allowing competition to undermine team effectiveness’ ‘A lack of diverse perspectives in the team’ Disciplined decisions Decision rights and responsibilities are clear, information is shared seamlessly, and streamlined mechanisms are in place to enable efficient decision making. ‘The clarity of decision rights and responsibilities’ ‘The seamless way information is shared to enable decisions to be made efficiently’ ‘The streamlined processes we have in place to make quality decisions quickly’ ‘Allowing specific team members to dominate conversation and distort decision making’ ‘Failing to adequately assess risk when making decisions’

Stakeholder influence Distributed leadership Disciplined decisions
Each chapter comprises key ideas, methods, and tools to accelerate this drive factor Stakeholder influence Distributed leadership Robust challenge Disciplined decisions Commitment vs. compliance Stakeholder mapping Influence mapping Coaching constellation Outside-in interview Stakeholder plan Inter-team alignment session Creating a communications plan Creating a compelling story Stakeholder archetypes Drivers Understanding triggers Transactional analysis—ego states ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ Transactional analysis— transactions Influencing styles Resistance Conflict Research and the role of team types in Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship Roles in team meetings Influence of the physical room setup on Distributed leadership Lencioni—number-one team Interconnections Team process checklist Hamburger model Psychological profiling Kantor four-player model Road to Abilene Conflict hierarchy Lencioni The building blocks of trust Personal history Global vote—human continuum Philosophers’ dinner Life-line exercise Wine and spirit—personal objects Mad, sad, and glad Lencioni conflict model Withholds Support-and-challenge framework Support-and-challenge skills- building session Ways to create Robust challenge Protecting your deviant Balcony and dance Encouraging diverse perspectives De Bono thinking hats Carson Todd/Shuttle Challenger Mental models Paradoxical thinking Groupthink The ladder of inference—Peter Senge The Stacey matrix Angela Merkel case study Self-assessment Implication of team type in decision making Decision-making options Mapping the information flow Risks Post-mortem

When working with a team on Transform, remember that
We work with the interpersonal behavior of team members and how it helps or hinders achievement of the team’s purpose and business goals The coaching is targeted at how they operate effectively with each other and their stakeholders to enable them to transform. This work is always situated in the context of purpose and business goals and creating an acceleration in performance The aim is to help the team notice when their behaviors get in the way and ensure they can interrupt their own negative patterns and limiting beliefs We work at a mindset level to discover what drives behavior in order to create and embed sustained change The application of the learning applies when the team is together, apart, in workshops, and in everyday meetings; it is often the case that individual coaching on constructive team behaviors is required It is OK and expected that this work will be uncomfortable at times The team coaches are part of the system and their impact on behaviors needs to be worked with There is one story which is told through many lenses to engage different types of stakeholders As team coaches, we endeavor to role-model flawless communication, excellent stakeholder engagement, and disciplined decision making. Stakeholder engagement is dynamic and ongoing, requiring time and continuous review and reshaping of the approach Good stakeholder engagement requires equal focus on rigorous planning and process as well as the emotional and relational dynamics Decision making is where the rubber hits the road in terms of transforming the team and the organization—the team might have the stakeholder insight and have had the rigorous debate, but if they fail to ground this in effective decision making, then they fail to move to action. This is often the Achilles heel for many teams who fail to get momentum behind the change agenda

Stakeholder influence
The team proactively shapes the wider context in which it operates through building, maintaining, and engaging key strategic partnerships

Stakeholder influence is underpinned by drive-factor statements and constraints The team proactively shapes the wider context in which it operates through building, maintaining, and engaging key strategic partnerships Drive-factor statements Constraints ‘The way we proactively shape the broader context in which we operate’ ‘The strategic partnerships we build and maintain with different stakeholder groups’ ‘The way we proactively engage with stakeholders to create win–win partnerships’ ‘A lack of in-depth insight into the wants and needs of stakeholders’ ‘Failure to communicate effectively with key stakeholders’

What the work around Stakeholder influence involves
Purpose: To ensure that the team actively considers then consciously shapes the wider context in which it operates through managing key relationships What it looks like Watch out for The work with stakeholders is about supporting teams to give focus and attention to deepening their stakeholder relationships. This is a key enabler to accelerating their performance today as well as providing key insights into how the team may need to adapt and transform for the future The bulk of the work is made up of the following areas which the team coach would cover over a series of team working sessions: Warming the team up to Stakeholder influence Establish who the key stakeholders of the team are Create insight on the wants and needs of key stakeholders Develop a stakeholder engagement plan Align stakeholders around the work to be done together Communicate effectively with stakeholders Manage resistance and conflict Assess effectiveness of approach and replan Remember that the team needs to own this work, so give them the pen when planning during working sessions and ensure they take the output to get it written up Ensure critical stakeholders from both inside and outside the organization are included in the process Ensure team members understand not only what they need to communicate to their stakeholders but also how they will do that—surfacing conflict and tension is critical for this Be careful that the team doesn’t overly focus on communicating versus active engagement/relationship building with stakeholders—teams can fall into the trap of believing they have engaged with stakeholders and can ‘tick the box’ on the stakeholder engagement plan if they have sent out communication or presented to them. Effective stakeholder management takes time, effort, and insight Ensure the team treat stakeholder engagement as an everyday activity, not a one-off planning exercise

Core elements/steps for this work
Stakeholder influence Core elements/steps for this work When working with teams on Distributed leadership, you can refer to the following list 1 Warm the team up to Stakeholder influence 2 Establish who the stakeholders of the team are 3 Create insight on the wants and needs of key stakeholders 4 Develop a stakeholder engagement plan 5 Align stakeholders around the work to be done together 6 Communicate with stakeholders 7 Working with resistance and conflict Find methods, exercises, and tools for each of these elements overleaf

Overview of methods, exercises, and tools (1/2)
Stakeholder influence Overview of methods, exercises, and tools (1/2) No Method/tool Core ideas 1 Warm the team up to Stakeholder influence Commitment vs. compliance Creating awareness of the level of involvement required to achieve different commitment outcomes with stakeholders 2 Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Stakeholder mapping Mapping the team’s key stakeholders in terms of their level of power and interest, and their wants and needs Influence mapping Using visual models to uncover the underlying relationships and influence that key stakeholders have, which impact on the team’s ability to achieve its mandate Coaching constellation An exercise in pairs where one person acts as the client and the other as the facilitator with the goal of uncovering the power bases within a team 3 Create insight on the wants and needs of key stakeholders Outside-in interview Interview style with the purpose of gaining in-depth insight into stakeholder perception of the team and their wants and needs 4 Develop a stakeholder engagement plan Stakeholder plan Creating a plan of how the team will engage the stakeholder groups previously defined 5 Align stakeholders around the work to be done together Inter-team alignment session Exploring the interdependencies between the team and its stakeholder teams to agree a set of engagement principles to accelerate performance

Stakeholder influence Overview of methods, exercises, and tools (2/2) No Method/tool Core ideas 6 Communicate with stakeholders Creating a communications plan Guidelines for how to develop a communications plan and a compelling story, which covers who needs to be communicated with and why, what will be communicated, how, and to who Creating a compelling story Coaching the team to articulate its mandate in a compelling story with presence and impact and with ‘one voice’ Stakeholder archetypes Helping the team think about how they could adapt their style to effectively engage stakeholders using the concept of archetypes Drivers Self-assessment followed by a facilitated discussion to help the team think about how they need to consider their own personal drivers and those of their stakeholders in their interactions Understanding triggers Helping the team adapt their style to avoid triggering a threat state with their stakeholders and to manage their own triggers when dealing with resistance, using the SCARF model Transactional analysis—ego states Helping the team find out about their communication style and how their behavior appears to others as well as identifying ways to adjust communication to improve relationships ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ Knowledge sharing and discussion in pairs to help teams understand the impact of their frame of reference in their interactions with each other Transactional analysis—transactions Information session sharing the human-interaction analysis to explore current relationship/interaction patterns Influencing styles Preparing the team for stakeholder conversations through effective framing and influencing strategies 7 Working with resistance and conflict Resistance Different ways of working with resistance to create win–win outcomes with stakeholders Conflict Facilitated mediation process to surface and resolve conflicts between individuals or teams

1. Warm the team up to Stakeholder influence Commitment versus compliance—Peter Senge Purpose To create awareness of the level of involvement required to achieve different commitment outcomes with stakeholders. In particular, exploring what is required for truly strategic partnerships Description Facilitated discussion using Peter Senge’s involvement/commitment model What it looks like in practice Explain to the team the importance of being clear about different stakeholder outcomes and the process which you would use in terms of the approach to stakeholder engagement. Show them the visual overleaf and describe examples of each of the approaches. Remind them that there is no right or wrong here—there are positives and negatives for each approach Get the team to brainstorm the positives and negatives for each of the approaches Get the team to discuss where they tend to focus most of their stakeholder engagement efforts and what the implications are

1. Warm the team up to Stakeholder influence
Use this to explain the different approaches to Stakeholder influence and the different outcomes to help frame (and challenge) the team’s thinking about how they engage stakeholders Co-create High Where you work out what outcomes are wanted together with others (need to decide who to involve) and jointly agree/state the desired results Consult Where you speak to others (need to decide who) to get their thoughts on what outcomes are needed or desired before you then work out the final outcomes yourself based on this information Test Sell Where you work out what you want and you test this out with the other person or group and amend the outcome based on their reactions Level of involvement with others Where you decide the end result you want and you sell the benefits of this to the other person or group Tell Where you decide the end result you want and you inform or tell the person what you want Low Compliance Commitment Level of commitment from others Source: Senge, P. M. (1992) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Business Books

2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Stakeholder mapping
Stakeholder influence 2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Stakeholder mapping Purpose To identify stakeholders that enable the team to deliver its mandate To map stakeholders in terms of their level of power to accelerate or slow the work of the team Description A team exercise to brainstorm who the team’s key stakeholders are, their level of power and interest, and their wants and needs What it looks like in practice Step 1: Using Post-it notes (with one name/position on each Post-it), ask the team to brainstorm who their stakeholders are. They should think of all the people who are affected by the work of the team, who have influence or power over it, or who have an interest in its successful or unsuccessful conclusion Step 2: Using a flip chart, draw up the power/interest grid (example on next page) and get the team to place the Post-it notes with names into the section of the grid and discuss. Key areas to explore to help the team understand their stakeholders more fully include: Fears Needs Desires Criteria for success NB To do this exercise effectively, it is often the case that outside-in stakeholder interviews are required, so step 2 may have to be run as a separate session Teams can sometimes be unaware of where the real power lies in the organization. It is important to challenge them to consider not only who their stakeholders are, but who influences the views of their stakeholders or has the power to make critical decisions about the existence of the team’s mandate and its delivery

Stakeholder influence 2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Stakeholder mapping Use this template for the team to map their stakeholders based on the stakeholders’ level of power to accelerate or slow down delivery (and their existence!) High Keep satisfied and informed High maintenance Power Low maintenance Get involved early, keep involved, LISTEN Low Low Interest High

Stakeholder influence 2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Stakeholder mapping Use this template as a way to get the team to think about the stakeholders’ frame of reference. It is also a helpful tool to challenge the team’s level of insight into the wants and needs of its key stakeholders. High Fears: Needs: Desires: Criteria for success: Fears: Needs: Desires: Criteria for success: Fears: Needs: Desires: Criteria for success: Fears: Needs: Desires: Criteria for success: Low Low Interest High

2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Influence mapping
Stakeholder influence 2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Influence mapping Purpose To uncover where the power bases lie in the context of the team’s ability to deliver its mandate Description Influence maps are important visual models of the key people and relationships that impact on the team’s ability to achieve its mandate through how decisions are made. (Don’t make the mistake of thinking that hierarchy or traditional lines of authority are always the routes by which decisions are made) This exercise uncovers the underlying relationships and influence that key stakeholders have. With this insight, the team can navigate the real sources of power and persuasion It is very useful for teams to consider both internal and external stakeholders who are critical for the team’s success What it looks like in practice Step 1: Prepare a stakeholder analysis. This helps you identify, prioritize, and understand your key stakeholders. Step 2: For each stakeholder, find out the following: Whom does he or she influence, and who influences him or her? How strong is that influence? What is the history of each relationship? How does this impact overall influence? What role does hierarchy play in the amount of influence? Step 3: Map the importance of influence using the size and position of the circles. The largest circles belong to stakeholders with the most influence. Where possible, place the most influential stakeholders at the top of the page, and put less influential people lower down. Step 4: Map the direction of influence by drawing arrows to link the stakeholders. (These may be one-way or two- way arrows, depending on whether influence flows to the same extent in both directions.) Step 5: Map the strength of influence by using thicker lines to indicate stronger influence. Step 6: Study the map, and identify stakeholders with the most overall influence. Next steps: Form a stakeholder-management plan that will allow the team to communicate with, and hopefully influence, these important influencers. Map these influence relationships on a regular basis. This way, you’ll better understand the dynamics of decision making.

2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Influence mapping
Stakeholder influence 2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Influence mapping The resulting influence map looks something like this: This influence map clearly shows how important Jon Evans is to the success of your restructuring plan. It also indicates that you should spend energy on gaining support from Wallace Houston and Dennis Gordon before moving on to other executives. Before you thought about stakeholder influences, you might have assumed that the CEO and CFO had the most influence on organization-wide change. But the influence map shows you that this is probably not the case in this situation. Influence is not static. It changes over time, just like the circumstances surrounding each project or decision. If you create influence maps at regular intervals, you’ll chart these differences and gain a much greater appreciation for the way decisions are made. This will help you to smooth the decision-making process and be more effective.

2. Establish who the stakeholders of the team are Coaching constellation Purpose To uncover where the power bases lie in the context of the team’s ability to deliver its mandate (an alternative to influence mapping) Description An exercise in pairs Mapping the first part of every constellation is something that can be done without comprehensive knowledge and extensive experience of constellations. For this exercise, one person brings a current challenge or issue and is the ‘client’; the other is the ‘facilitator’ What it looks like in practice Sit down together with some objects that have a directional aspect to them and can be used to represent the various people or elements in a system. When you are both grounded and quiet, ask these questions in turn, remembering the answer to each: What is the issue you’d like to explore, in just a few words? What would be different, for you, if this issue was resolved? If you created a three-dimensional map of this issue, what people or other elements do you need to include to be sure you’re working with the most important two or three? Define the boundary of the system and then, encouraging your client to work slowly and from a centered place, invite them to set up a map of ‘what is’: First, invite them to choose a representative object for themselves and find a place for it within the agreed system boundary. Then, slowly, invite them to find a place for the next most important representative and place it as it truly is, not how they’d like it to be. Notice with them the distance between and orientation of each of the representatives. If appropriate, co-create a phrase that simply embodies what is When ready, invite them to add the next representative, noticing again the distance and orientation. Then simply ask: ‘What do you notice about the map of this relationship system that you’ve created?’ Add another element if appropriate Bring the process to a respectful close and discuss what’s been illuminated by this spatial relationship model— and then what might be a next step toward resolution

3. Create insight on the wants and needs of key stakeholders Outside-in interview Purpose To gain in-depth insight into stakeholder perception of the team and their wants and needs Description Typically you will have completed a TAQ and so will have data from different perspectives; however, getting a more detailed outside-in view to support the existing data may be required. It is also a stakeholder-engagement intervention in itself The process involves a series of 45-minute interviews with key stakeholders to capture feedback. The verbatim feedback is typically shared with the team in its raw form. This enables the team to make sense of it for themselves and use the insight to inform their stakeholder engagement plans What it looks like in practice Work with the team (using the power/interest grid) to select stakeholders to be interviewed Leader to send briefing /invitation to stakeholders (see over for example) Call/meeting with stakeholders to cover: Contract on the purpose and how the data will be used/fed back Ask the following questions: With your history of working with X team, what has worked well and what could work better? What does X team need to do to contribute to the organization? How well does X team work with the rest of the organization? What do you need from X team and its leadership team? What do you think are the X leadership team’s greatest strengths? What aspects of the X leadership team could be improved in order to enhance X’s contribution to the organization? What behaviors do you see that contribute to or hinder the X leadership team’s effectiveness? What would you like to see? What advice would you give X and his/her new team? Capture feedback from stakeholders (verbatim rather than themes), anonymizing the comments where necessary, and share back with the team

3. Create insight on the wants and needs of key stakeholders Outside-in interview— invitation template In order to more accurately map stakeholders, it will be important to gain input from a number of key people. Here is a sample to set up an interview or collect more information. Example invitation for feedback from stakeholders To: xxx From: xxx Subject: Team leadership working session As you know, we have ambitious plans to transform X (leader adds his story here ...). As part of the organizational restructure, we need to establish a clear vision for the desired leadership behaviors that will make us successful. We also need to develop a strategy for how behavioral change can be achieved across our leadership team to support and deliver against our performance objectives. As part of this, we are looking to gain feedback from you on our current performance and insight into future expectations for X team. Your contribution will be really useful to act as a check and balance on my own thinking about the strengths of the team and as input to shape the changes required for the team to perform at its optimum level. With this in mind, xxx from Heidrick & Struggles will be contacting you to conduct a short interview, and below you will find some questions he/she will be asking you. Hopefully this will aid your thinking in advance of the telephone call. If you do need to contact XXX, his/her number is 079xx xxx xxx and his/her is XXX will keep all contributions confidential and will not attribute any comments directly to those providing them. Questions: With your history of working with X team, what has worked well and what could work better? What does X team need to do to contribute to the organization? How well does X team work with the rest of the organization? What do you need from X team and its leadership team? What do you think are the X leadership team’s greatest strengths? What aspects of the X leadership team could be improved in order to enhance X’s contribution to the organization? What behaviors do you see that contribute to or hinder the X leadership team’s effectiveness? What would you like to see? What advice would you give X and his/her new team? Many thanks for your support. XXX

4. Develop a stakeholder engagement plan Stakeholder plan
Stakeholder influence 4. Develop a stakeholder engagement plan Stakeholder plan Purpose To ensure that all parties that have a stake in the team or are impacted by it are aware, committed, and acting in support of the team Description Once the stakeholder groups have been defined through the stakeholder mapping process and their needs analyzed and understood, the next step is to create a plan of how the team will engage them What it looks like in practice This is a planning exercise with the team. The team can do some pre-work to come to the session with some initial thoughts; however, the dialog is an important part of the process, as it ensures the plan is robust and that there is mutual commitment and accountability to deliver it. The debate the team often has about what stakeholders are thinking/feeling/doing is helpful to deepen their collective understanding and align their views and efforts. The process involves: Listing the stakeholder groups (usually completed earlier—step 2) Determining the reason they are stakeholder groups Identifying where they are now (thinking/feeling/doing) Defining where they need to be (thinking/feeling/doing) Agreeing how the team will achieve the outcome (ensuring it leverages key relationships) Agreeing how the team will gather feedback on whether the plan is working

4. Develop a stakeholder engagement plan Stakeholder plan
Stakeholder influence 4. Develop a stakeholder engagement plan Stakeholder plan Use this as a template to work through with the team to create the stakeholder plan. It is important that the team works through this together. Stakeholder groups Why are they stakeholders? Where are they now (thinking, feeling, doing)? Where do they need to be (thinking, feeling, doing)? How will we achieve the outcomes? Feedback methods Who owns this process or team? Who are the key customers? Who has an influence on the work of the team? Who is likely to be impacted by the project? Who interfaces with the scoped area? Why do they have a stake in this team? Where do they need to be (outcome of the stakeholder activity)? What effect do you want the stakeholder activity to have? What’s the message or intervention? How will it be delivered? By who? When? Materials? How will you check the outcomes have been achieved? Consider how, who is responsible, and timing—e.g., a follow-up phone call to ensure message has been understood

5. Align stakeholders around the work to be done together Inter-team alignment session Purpose To explore the interdependencies between the team and its stakeholder teams (where relevant) to agree a set of engagement principles in order to accelerate performance Description This session runs as a facilitated contracting session with both teams in the room What it looks like in practice Ahead of the workshop, ask each team to come prepared with their key objectives, activities, and decisions (at a high level) and to think about what they need from the other team in order to achieve these. It is helpful for them to think of a recent example that has gone well or could have gone better and what specifically they would want replicated or changed Get each of the teams to share their objectives, activities, and decisions so there is a shared understanding of the ‘what’ Ask each of the teams to articulate what it is they need from each other in order to achieve these objectives (again this is the what). Capture these on a flip chart Get the team to pair up or work in small combined groups (mix up teams) to define how the teams need to work together in order to deliver the ‘what.’ These will predominantly be behavioral expectations and, once brainstormed, should be refined to create a set of engagement principles. Challenge the teams to be specific about what this would look like in practice using examples. The dialog is the critical part of this intervention, so be careful not to document the principles until the teams have really discussed how they work together The last part of the process is to facilitate a discussion on how the teams will hold each other to account and how they will review and adapt the principles when needed

5. Align stakeholders around the work to be done together Inter-team alignment session Use this with the team as an example of how to outline joint engagement principles What does group marketing need from functional marketing? Common engagement principles What does functional marketing need from group marketing? Functional marketing Group marketing Ensure clear articulation of business context to identify partnership with group Educate each group-marketing specialist area to a common understanding of functional specialist areas Provide visibility of plans through sharing an anticipated volume of unplanned activities based on past volumes Create a fit-for-purpose process for functional marketing to ensure speed, quality, sign-offs, SLAs, and monitoring through a formal escalation process Agree common engagement principles and be clear about expectations Agreement to operate as a coordinated team Ensure regular communication via joint progress scheduling, with end-to-end deadline planning Honesty where common understanding of briefings is limited Ensure common understanding of accountabilities and end-to-end ownership Establish a platform for supporting responsiveness to each other’s requests Support escalation of issues, not people Support of direct involvement of functional marketing specialists via external briefing Delivery against deadlines to generate trust through alignment around functional-marketing deadlines and agreed service requirements Daily/weekly updates to ensure seamless collaboration with functional marketing Establish a process for supporting integration of changes

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a communications plan
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a communications plan Purpose To ensure key messages are communicated effectively to stakeholders Description To work with the team to support them to develop a communications plan and a compelling story. This should cover who needs to be communicated with and why, what will be communicated, how, and to who What it looks like in practice A series of working sessions with the team to cover the following. Step 1: Use the stakeholder map that has been created by the team to identify who needs to be engaged and what the outcome is that they are seeking. To raise awareness—‘I know about this’ To develop understanding—‘I know what this is, why it’s important, and the part I play’ To create engagement—‘I feel positive about this and am ready to play my part’ To generate involvement—‘I am playing an active part in this’ To drive commitment—‘I am owning my part in this’ Step 2: Facilitate a session with the team to help them create their compelling story (see overleaf). Step 3: Get the team to select the best form of communication, who will do it (choose those who are most credible with the stakeholder you are targeting), and how. This should be documented in a detailed communications plan (see template). Step 4: Challenge the team on how they will govern the process. This is often where teams fall down. The cycle is simple (plan, communicate, feed back, reassess/refine), but giving it priority to maintain momentum will always be the challenge. It is a highly dynamic and continuous process.

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a communications plan—example Use this as an example communications plan to show the team what needs to be included A communications plan should outline in detail: The audience the communication is targeted at The objectives of communicating (with this audience, at this specific point in time) The message(s) being delivered (at this specific point in time) The mechanism/media to be used to deliver the message The timing for delivering the message Who will create the communication Who will deliver the communication The success measures for the communication Example template Audience Objective of communication Key message Mechanism/ media Timing Who will create Who will deliver Success measures Who needs to receive the communication? What stakeholders etc.? What is the purpose of the communication (e.g., to raise awareness of …, to develop understanding of …, to drive commitment to …)? What key messages should be included in the communication? Face to face (e.g., presentations, town halls, team huddles) OR non-face to face (e.g., reports, website, newsletter) One-off (insert date) regular (daily, weekly, monthly) Insert name How will we know that the communication has met the objectives?

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a communications plan—communication options Use this to stimulate thinking in the team about the best method of communication as they build their plan Comms channels fall into two main categories: Face to face Non-face to face (technology or paper) The main advantage of non-face-to-face methods is that they require fewer resources to reach large or dispersed audiences. However, they fall short when it comes to driving commitment. The golden rule is: Select the channel which achieves the aim you are seeking (awareness through to commitment) ‘The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.’ – George Bernard Shaw Score keeping Assessing what works Informing and refreshing the strategy

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story Purpose Ensure the team translates its mandate into a compelling story for stakeholders and uses it to powerfully engage key audiences Description A team session to support the team to articulate its mandate in a compelling story Coaching the team to tell the story with presence and impact and with ‘one voice’ What it looks like in practice The story is the same regardless of the audience. It is critical that the team develops one story with key messages that they all tell with one voice. The core story is then adapted/tailored for different audiences Facilitate a team discussion to define the key messages that the team is communicating—what are the ‘big ideas’? Break the teams into smaller groups and ask them to select one stakeholder group each to develop the story for Use the template overleaf to support them (what is the big idea, what is in it for me, what do you need from me, and what are the tough messages?) Get someone from each of the groups to stand up and deliver the story—getting the team to feed back on the delivery and to hone the messages to ensure 1) that they are speaking in one voice and 2) that the messages are compelling for key audiences Give the team the hints and tips and ask them to do further practice and to do a follow-up session to present to each other and provide feedback. The key is practice, practice, practice Top tips The story should be honest and not about spin Use language that makes sense to people The story should tell them what they need to know when they need to know it (not sooner) in a way that compels them to listen and act

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story Use this to share with the team the key elements of a compelling story. Get them to start crafting their story based on this. What is the big idea? What is in it for me? What do you need from me? What are the difficult decisions (tough messages)?

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story—hints and tips Use this to share hints and tips with the team that they can consider when crafting their story Your story is the narrative behind your strategies, results or plans—it’s your emotion, your reasoning, and your thinking. It should bring those alive and make them relevant. There is no substitute for a clear and compelling story. Here are the golden rules to make your story work. Be prepared Proper preparation prevents poor performance. This is the bit we can’t ever afford to leave out. Practice does indeed make perfect! Connect with your stakeholder Make them care by telling stories from the heart. Recount real experiences and use a little personal disclosure—anything that will engage your client in your message. Tell them ... tell them you’ve told them ... and tell them again. Repeat your clear, simple message so there is no misunderstanding about its meaning. Don’t think because you know all the detail they will too. You may have to be prepared to adapt your story for different audiences—so you will have to know and understand your stakeholders as well as your story. Be authentic and true to yourself You have to learn to become happy in your own skin—with your own style, and with your own story. If you don’t believe it, your stakeholders won’t. Work on your own style. If you go too fast, slow down—practice until a slower you feels like the normal you!

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story—hints and tips Use this to share hints and tips with the team that they can consider when crafting their story Understand the story Know what it is you are trying to say and don’t pull any punches Get the message across in plain English Think about the beginning, the middle, and the end. What do you want people leaving the room to be thinking or doing? Does your story make that plain to them? How will you know they’ve understood? Use the language of every day You don’t ‘proceed to the shops’ or ‘align with your family on the optimum way to spend the day,’ so why do we pick up these strange terms when we are talking at work? Use simple language that is easily understood. It’s said Churchill tried to keep to words of one syllable for ultimate impact and power. Powerful language Remember the power of three, contrasting pairs, and anaphora (repetition) Make it sound like you’re talking to me: Vary the sentence length. Have some fun—try to use a long sentence followed by a shorter one for more impact Always read any presentation out loud so it sounds like the spoken, not the written, word Use words like us, you, me, we Use contractions, e.g., don’t, can’t, won’t —just like you’d speak with your friends

6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story—top tips
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Creating a compelling story—top tips Use this to share with the team key criteria to use when giving each other feedback on the extent to which they are delivering their story with impact When telling a story, it is important to do it with presence and impact. Before you get started, consider the following: Make me care Practice, practice, practice Answer all of the questions Use your words, voice, and body Know and understand the story —beginning, middle, and end Keep it simple and clear If you can, make it different Involve your audience and spark new ideas 35

6. Communicate with stakeholders Stakeholder archetypes
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Stakeholder archetypes Purpose To help the team think about how they could adapt their style to effectively engage stakeholders using the concept of archetypes Description An information session followed by a facilitated discussion and work in pairs What it looks like in practice Outline that the purpose of the session is to provide a different lens to think about stakeholders and how they might need to adapt their styles to engage with different types of stakeholders more effectively. This is not about labeling—it is about exploring different influencing strategies for common stakeholder characteristics Share the different archetypes with the team Ask the team to take an initial view of where they would plot their top three stakeholders (from their stakeholder maps) Looking at the descriptions, what might they need to consider in terms of how they approach their stakeholder engagement activities? Share the material on how the archetypes interact. What might they need to consider in terms of who is best placed to engage their top three stakeholders most effectively from a style perspective?

6. Communicate with stakeholders Stakeholder archetypes—descriptions
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Stakeholder archetypes—descriptions Use this to describe the different stakeholder archetypes Stakeholder characteristic Producer Administrator Entrepreneur Integrator Work habits Long hours, restless, serious, little emotion, ‘do it now,’ get it done, ‘hard work resolves all,’ always fighting deadlines, explains by doing, feels that teamwork is less efficient due to communication needs Neat, organized, low key, control freak, careful, step by step, adhering to rules and procedures, punctual, schedules meeting as a rule rather than for a reason, seeks standardization, thinks teams will work if they follow team roles Irregular hours, may at times not show up at all, playful, jokes, tells stories, talks, inspires, exaggerates, doesn’t wait, action oriented, hopping around, unexpected views, teams are an audience for the entrepreneur’s vision Reliable, trustworthy, warm, caring, good listener, always there, seeks compromise, tries to understand people, empathetic, solves problems by talking them through, sees teamwork as a goal in itself Visual appearance Conservative Conforms to standard Trendy, retro, or artsy Warm, accommodating Likes you if you … Get things done Follow the rules Follow directions, play into his/her thought process Get along with others, confide in him/her inside information Dangerous when you … Are not working hard (enough) Want to change things Lack initiative or do things without his/her consent Criticize people in public, speak your own opinion on behalf of others Most influenced by … Stating, initiating, listening, finding commonality, and envisaging Initiating, listening, and understanding Feedback, discovering, finding commonality, and envisaging Initiating, listening, and understanding; discovering, finding commonality, and envisaging Source: Situation Management Systems

6. Communicate with stakeholders Stakeholder archetypes—how they interact Use this to describe the way stakeholder archetypes typically perceive other archetypes Stakeholder characteristic Producer Administrator Entrepreneur Integrator Attitude toward producer ‘Everybody should be like this’ ‘It won’t work like this in the long term’ Useful Tries to turn the producer’s contribution to the team’s advantage Attitude toward administrator ‘What a nit-picker’ ‘Wishes everybody was like this’ Bureaucrat Wants administrator to be nice to others about rules Attitude toward entrepreneur Crazy, lazy, or rowing upstream ‘This person is off the wall’ Finds the other entrepreneur arrogant and stubborn Always hoping that he/she is not creating an uproar Attitude toward integrator Doesn’t add any value Suspicious, feels undermined Good person Suspicious of political power Source: Situation Management Systems

6. Communicate with stakeholders Drivers
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Drivers Purpose To help the team think about how they need to consider their own personal drivers and those of their stakeholders in their interactions Description Self-assessment followed by a facilitated discussion on implications for stakeholder engagement and how to get the best out of individual drivers What it looks like in practice Ask the team to complete the drivers questionnaire and self-score Describe the different types of drivers in more detail (see below) Share with the group different choices they could make in their behavior and communication. Self-awareness helps you to identify how you can change the way you think, behave, and communicate to be more effective. You could choose to change your behaviors in one of the following ways. Be perfect—believe you’re good enough as you are Hurry up—take your time Try hard—just do it for a change! Be strong—take the opportunity to be open and express your needs from time to time Please others—please yourself for a change! In pairs or small groups, ask the team to consider how their drivers might show up in stakeholder engagement and what they might need to focus on to manage their drivers in stakeholder discussions As a larger group facilitate a discussion about how to identify drivers in others and, again, how they might need to adapt their style. For example, working with a stakeholder with a strong hurry-up driver, the team might need to consider how they match their pace Be perfect Hurry up Try hard Be strong Please others You are really good at doing accurate, detailed reports. You will be neat in your appearance and you will value cleanliness and tidiness You probably believe that everything you do has to be absolutely right. You may not be satisfied with anything that you do, because, in your eyes, it will never be good enough Delegation may be difficult because it is hard to trust others to do it right, or other people may find it difficult to accept your standards You get a great deal done in a short period of time You may find yourself overloaded and take on too much. You will always be in a hurry, often late for meetings, and always leaving things until the last moment before you do them You may find that you end up with too many appointments in one day and may appear impatient to others You love new projects and new things to do, and work well under pressure You are likely to have the belief that your personal value comes from the amount of effort you put into things. It is possible that you become more committed to trying rather than succeeding Others can become frustrated that you turn small jobs into large ones to increase the amount of effort you can put in You are great in a crisis, but can come across as aloof You believe that your own value comes from not revealing your feelings, by being the one who takes it all on your own shoulders rather than asking for help Other people can assume you are unemotional and don't need positive strokes You are a great team member, and like to please other people You believe that you must always do what others ask of you in order to be valuable. You feel guilty about saying no, even when the request is unreasonable Other people can become frustrated by your attempts to please them and interpret your actions as being insincere

6. Communicate with stakeholders Understanding triggers
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Understanding triggers Purpose To help the team consider how they could adapt their style to avoid triggering a threat state with their stakeholders and to manage their own triggers when dealing with resistance Description A facilitated discussion sharing neuroscience and the SCARF model What it looks like in practice Explain to the team that our brains are readily shaped by experience. Contrary to the common assumption that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, there is increasingly strong evidence that the adult human brain is remarkably malleable and capable of new feats even in the last decades of life, but it might need a little extra prodding to bring its plasticity into play. Researchers report that new experiences can trigger major physical changes in the brain within just a few days, and that certain conditions can accelerate this physical, chemical, and functional remodeling of the brain. Neuroscience is delivering two key themes: Much of our social behavior is motivated by the need to minimize threat and maximize reward The brain networks which are involved in this process are the same networks which motivate us to meet our primary survival needs, e.g., oxygen, food, and water David Rock has devised the SCARF model, based on these two themes. The model outlines the five major areas of human social experience: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. Neuroscience has shown that the brain is tuned into threats. Our brains show more arousal when we perceive that the situation is something to avoid than when we believe it is safe to approach. When we perceive ourselves to be safe, we have greater cognitive powers. Correspondingly, when we believe ourselves to be at risk, our cognitive powers reduce. Use the slides overleaf to explain the SCARF model See David Rock explain the model here: Stakeholder triggers—as a group, discuss: Thinking about your key stakeholders, which are the potential triggers for your stakeholders you will need to be aware of? Your triggers—in pairs, explore: What are the potential triggers that might cause you to feel threatened in your interaction with your key stakeholders? How might you manage this?

6. Communicate with stakeholders Understanding triggers—SCARF
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Understanding triggers—SCARF Use this as a frame for thinking about the way team members could adapt their approach to minimize threat responses in their stakeholders. You can also use this to stimulate a discussion about how team members can notice and identify their own triggers. S C A R F tatus ertainty utonomy elatedness airness Source: David Rock, Your Brain at Work, Harper Business Press, 2009

6. Communicate with stakeholders Understanding triggers—SCARF
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Understanding triggers—SCARF Use this slide to help bring the SCARF model to life Status threats: Being left out of something Being given advice Suggesting that someone is less than perfect at a task Status rewards: Learning and improvement being recognized Receiving positive feedback Beating one’s personal goals, e.g., sporting goals Taking on work in the community, running the social club at work Certainty threats: Not being told the truth, or the whole truth People acting incongruously Job insecurity Change of boss Certainty rewards: Breaking a large task down into small, clear tasks Agreeing how long a meeting will last Stating objectives at the outcome of a discussion Autonomy threats: Being micromanaged Having working patterns imposed Being questioned on small changes Autonomy rewards: Allowing people to arrange their own workflow Letting people personalize their own desk Offering options: We could do it this way or that way—which works for you? Relatedness threats: Meeting a group of strangers Not knowing who to trust Being let down by someone Relatedness rewards: Create social occasions when people can get to know each other Use video for some meetings Encourage social connections at work—it’s OK to talk in the kitchen, by the water cooler Build small group work—people relate better in small rather than larger groups Fairness threats: Perceiving a situation as unfair Believing that others are treated differently Believing that other departments are treated differently Perceived discrimination in any form Fairness rewards: Increase transparency Increase communication levels Increase employee involvement Establish clear expectations Allow teams to create their own rules

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—ego states
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—ego states Purpose For team members to find out about their communication styles To become aware of how their behavior appears to others To identify ways to adjust communication to improve relationships with stakeholders Description The team can complete a transactional analysis (TA) questionnaire followed by an information session, a facilitated discussion, and work in pairs What it looks like in practice Coach introduces TA model and the different ego states (see overleaf for some key concepts of TA). Transactional analysis: a theory of communication developed in the 1950s by Eric Berne His theory is that in each of us there exist three ego states: parent, adult, and child. We switch from one ego state to another depending on which ‘buttons’ someone pushes, the situation we are in, or the particular person we are talking to. People are often not aware of how their behavior appears to others Parent: displays protective, corrective behavior. Values driven. The nurturing parent expresses concern, care, support, and praise. The critical parent tries to make others do as they want them to do and expresses judgment and blame Adult: the rational, reasoning, mature part of us. Pragmatically driven. The adult talks reasonably and assertively Child: readily expresses feelings. Emotionally driven. The natural child is largely un-self-aware and enjoys fun and playing. The adapted child either changes themselves to fit in, or rebels against the forces they feel by throwing temper tantrums, sulking, or refusing to cooperate Get the team to complete the TA questionnaire (you would typically debrief the results of this one-to-one before a group discussion) Discuss verbal and non-verbal signs/indicators of the different states In group, discuss effects of different states on others in interactions and communication, e.g., how does it feel if somebody talks to me as critical parent? Notice which behavior this might generate in others Questions for individual reflection: Which ego state do you normally operate in? What do you default to under pressure? What effect might that have on others? Think of a difficult stakeholder relationship that you would like to improve. What is the dynamic of the relationship? Which of the three ego states do they most often inhabit? Which do you? What are you doing to perpetuate their behavior? What might you do differently to improve the relationship? Points to work on with triads/team: Identify ways that help you get to the desired state (and present in plenary) Notice how influencing your state makes a difference in how you feel/how others feel Source: Berne, E. (1986) Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Individual and Social Psychiatry. 11th edn. Ballantine Books.

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—key concepts
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—key concepts Use the notes below to help you understand some of the key concepts related to transactional analysis I’m OK, you’re OK ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ is probably the best-known expression of the purpose of transactional analysis: to establish and reinforce the position that recognizes the value and worth of every person. Transactional analysts regard people as basically ‘OK’ and thus capable of change, growth, and healthy interactions. Strokes Berne observed that people need strokes—the units of interpersonal recognition—to survive and thrive. Understanding how people give and receive positive and negative strokes and changing unhealthy patterns of stroking are powerful aspects of work in transactional analysis. Ego states Eric Berne made complex interpersonal transactions understandable when he recognized that the human personality is made up of three ‘ego states.’ Each ego state is an entire system of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from which we interact with one another. The parent, adult, and child ego states and the interactions between them form the foundation of transactional analysis theory. Transactions Transactions refer to the communication exchanges between people: which ego states people are transacting from and the transactional sequences so they can intervene and improve the quality and effectiveness of communication. Games people play Berne defined certain socially dysfunctional behavioral patterns as ‘games.’ These repetitive, devious transactions are principally intended to obtain strokes, but instead they reinforce negative feelings and self-concepts, and mask the direct expression of thoughts and emotions. Life script Eric Berne proposed that dysfunctional behavior is the result of self-limiting decisions made in childhood in the interest of survival. Such decisions culminate in what Berne called the ‘life script,’ the pre-conscious life plan that governs the way life is lived out. Changing the life script is the aim of transactional analysis psychotherapy. Replacing violent organizational or societal scripting with cooperative non-violent behavior is the aim of other applications of transactional analysis. Contracts Transactional analysis practice is based upon mutual contracting for change. Transactional analysts view people as capable of deciding what they want for their lives. Accordingly transactional analysis does its work on a contractual basis between the client and the therapist, educator, or consultant. Source: International Transactional Analysis Association 2014

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—ego states (scripts) Use this to explain the three ego states P P Parent—thoughts, feelings, and behaviors we have taken in from others A A Adult—thoughts, feelings, and behaviors corresponding to current reality C C Child—thoughts, feelings, and behaviors we have experienced in the past

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—ego states (scripts) Use this to explain the positives and negatives of each of the ego states—try to give both personal and stakeholder examples. Explain that, according to Berne’s model, the mode we operate in and patterns of communication are developed through early experience. Again, try to give a personal experience. Critical parent + Is strong and authoritative and stands up for his/her own and others’ rights without putting anyone down in the process – Tries to take away the self-esteem of others, over-controlling, demanding Nurturing parent + Cares for another person in a loving way when the other needs it – Is either overly permissive or else infantilizes people by doing things which are not requested or needed CP NP A A Adult Thinking through; reflecting, reality testing, decision making Adapted child + Gets what s/he wants or at least avoids pain by complying to his/her idea of what the ‘big people’ expect – Behaves in a self-destructive way in order to get attention from others or to resist control; over-compliant or rebellious AC FC Free child + Expresses directly what’s on his/her mind, has fun, gets close, and does not hurt anyone in the process. Feels and expresses feelings and needs.

6. Communicate with stakeholders ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’
Resilience Resilience Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ Purpose To help teams understand the impact of their frame of reference in their interactions with each other Description Knowledge sharing and discussion in pairs. You can use this to bring together some of the thinking from the transactional analysis session or alternatively as a stand-alone exercise What it looks like in practice Explain that our frame of reference, which is our starting point whenever we interact with someone else, can have a positive or negative influence on our relationships with other people. I’m OK, you’re not OK: ‘I believe that I’m OK, but this person/situation is stupid; there’s no point listening, because I’ve got my own priorities/team to focus on; I’m right and what I do is with good intentions. You’re wrong and are out to get me.’ I’m not OK, you’re OK: ‘I’m not OK, because this person is much more important/intelligent/stronger than/is too much for me; I’m not good enough to make a difference.’ I’m OK, you’re OK: ‘I’m OK and even though I don’t believe that this situation is going to be easy, it’s worthwhile investing in; I’m struggling with the way we’re working together, but I absolutely believe that we can make this work.’ I’m not OK, you’re not OK: ‘We’ll never make this work; I’m finding this too difficult to talk about and I don’t believe you can handle the message, so I won’t say anything. Besides, I’ll get it wrong anyway.’ Many people will operate from an ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ place. However, under stress or when things get difficult, people tend to fall into one of the other mindsets. So in emotionally charged situations, such as conflict, people often take on a different view of the world. Get the team to discuss in pairs: Which quadrant do you go to when you are stressed? How does this play out in your stakeholder relationships? What could you do differently? Source: Harris, T.A.A. (1980) I’m Ok, you're Ok: A practical guide to Transactional analysis. HarperCollins Publishers

6. Communicate with stakeholders ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’
Resilience Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ Use this as a visual aid to describe the ‘I’m OK/you’re OK’ model (details of how to describe it on previous page) You are OK with me I am not OK You are OK One-down position Get away from, helpless I am OK You are OK Healthy position Get on with, happy I am not OK with me I am OK with me I am not OK You are not OK Hopeless position Get nowhere with, hopeless I am OK You are not OK One-up position Get rid of, angry You are not OK with me

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—transactions
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—transactions Purpose To understand the common patterns of interaction and how this can be applied to stakeholder relationships Description An information session sharing the human-interaction analysis and paired work to explore current relationship patterns What it looks like in practice Coach introduces the concept of transactions using the TA model. A transaction takes place when I offer some kind of communication to you and you reply to me. In formal language, the opening communication is called the stimulus and the reply is called the response. There are three kinds of transactions—complementary, crossed, and ulterior—and for each there is a corresponding rule of communication. Use images overleaf to explain the following: Complementary—a complementary transaction is one where the ego state addressed is the one which responds. E.g., parent to child, ‘You are late’—child to parent, ‘Sorry.’ This can often be the dynamic between someone more junior in the organization with a senior stakeholder in a hierarchical culture. Crossed transactions are those in which the ego state addressed is not the one which responds, e.g., ‘Isn’t the boss awful?’ is parent to parent, but the response, ‘I don’t have any evidence to support that,’ is from adult to adult. When a transaction is crossed, a break in communication results, and one or both individuals will need to shift ego states in order for communication to be re-established. This is particularly relevant when trying to establish credibility with stakeholders who adopt a parent-to-child approach and the team needs to establish more equal footing or credibility. Ulterior transaction—in an ulterior transaction two messages are conveyed at the same time. One of these is the overt ‘social message.’ The other is a covert or ‘psychological-level message.’ The rule is: The behavioural outcome of an ulterior transaction is determined at the psychological level and not the social level. This is very relevant for stakeholders when there is lip-service agreement at the ‘social level’ but a lack of agreement at the ‘psychological level.’ This is why psychological contracting is so critical in stakeholder relationships. Ulterior transactions are out of awareness. Options—play out the interaction and see where it goes, change the game (take a new position), expose it—being willing to share what you are noticing and unpack with the stakeholder. Ask the team to work in pairs and for each individual to choose a stakeholder relationship that is critical to the team delivering the team mandate. Ask them to reflect on the following questions: What is the pattern of interaction you typically have with the stakeholder? How could you interrupt the pattern? What will you experiment with in your next interaction? Source: Claude Steiner, PhD. Transactional Analysis in the Information Age;

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—complementary transactions Use this to explain complementary transactions. It can be helpful to give an adult-to-adult example as well as the example below. P P A A ‘Late again’ ‘Sorry’ C C

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—crossed transactions Use this to explain crossed transactions. When a transaction is crossed, a break in communication results, and one or both individuals will need to shift ego states in order for communication to be re-established. P P ‘Isn’t the director hopeless?’ A A ‘I haven’t seen any evidence to support that’ C C

6. Communicate with stakeholders Transactional analysis—ulterior transactions Use this to explain ulterior transactions. In an ulterior transaction two messages are conveyed at the same time. One of these is the overt ‘social message.’ The other is a covert or ‘psychological-level message.’ P P A A What time is it? Five twenty C C The boss is out—shall we leave early? Yes, let’s.

6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing styles
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing styles Purpose To support the team to prepare for stakeholder conversations through effective framing and influencing strategies Description A working session which can be done as a team, in pairs, or as individuals. This could also be used for coaching individual leaders What it looks like in practice Share with the team that the purpose of this session is to help develop the ability to use influence in a way that both meets the team’s objectives and maintains or builds effective stakeholder relationships Outline the different influencing styles (details overleaf): Push—persuading and asserting Pull—bridging and attracting Take the team through the exercise on the following page Source: Situation Management Systems, Inc. The Influencing ‘Push/Pull’ Model

6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing styles
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing styles Use this model to explain the different influencing styles at a high level The influencing styles The situational influence model highlights that we need not rely on one predominant influence style or ‘energy.’ We instead apply the specific style best suited to each situation we face. PUSH The influencer asserts his/her position or seeks to persuade key stakeholders. The underlying energy is ‘push’ of one’s ideas or will to the other. PULL The influencer uses empathy or other involving, cooperative, value-based behaviors to attract and build bridges to key stakeholders. The underlying energy is ‘pull,’ drawing out the other or drawing them to one’s views. MOVE AWAY The influencer tactically disengages to manage emotions or deal with information needs. When disengaging, the influencer is still actively seeking to influence key stakeholders in contrast to avoiding a negative behavior. Source: Situation Management Systems, Inc. The Influencing ‘Push/Pull’ Model

6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing styles—set your influence objectives 1 Choose one stakeholder with whom you would like to develop a clear behavioral influence strategy that will move you toward achieving your goal. Name:… What outcome do you want to achieve with this person? Is it likely you can achieve this outcome in a single meeting with them? If not, what outcome do you want/need to achieve in your next meeting with them? Complete the following: The long-term outcome I want to achieve with this person is … The outcome I’d like from this meeting is … Write a brief description of this person’s style (if you know them). What do you find easy/difficult in dealing with them? In your experience, what works/doesn’t work with them? What behaviors will you need to use during your meeting to achieve your objective (e.g., disclosing, listening and understanding, positive suggestions)? How will you start the meeting (the first few minutes)? The ‘crunch’ or ‘critical’ part of the meeting ... The end of the meeting ... Write down any key statements you will need to say during the meeting; review and make sure you are clear, concise, and accurate. Are there any personal blocks or drivers that may affect your ability to stay fully engaged in the conversation with them? How will you manage these? When are you meeting them? Date Time Review what happened. Did you achieve your objective? What did you do that contributed to the result? What will you continue to do in future? What will you do differently? Replan—Considering your overall objectives stated at the beginning, what action do you now need to take to keep you on target in achieving your long-term goals? When will you do this? 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing—style
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing—style Use this material to outline the different situations appropriate for different influencing styles Persuading Asserting You and the other person are willing to be objective Relevant, hard facts are available The situation is more cooperative than competitive Alternative positions can be tested by facts and logic You control exclusive information You are respected as an expert in the situation You are viewed as wanting a rational solution Your and the other person’s emotions are under control You have legitimate needs in the situation You will lose something if your needs are not met You and the other person have a personal stake You prefer commitment, but compliance is enough You are willing to monitor compliance The other person’s need to control is low to moderate You control incentives and pressures Your incentives meet the other person’s needs Bridging Attracting You need the other person’s personal commitment You value the other person’s contribution The other person can work with you without losing You are open and flexible about the final decision You are unclear why the other person is resisting You are willing to admit past mistakes The other person is upset or visibly distressed The issue is emotional for you or the other person You are personally committed to the objective You and the other person share common goals and aspirations The other person trusts your motives Each of you has a critical role to play; synergy is possible You can make or support a continued effort Generating energy and a sense of purpose is a high priority The other person is unsure or directionless The other person’s feelings are under control Source: Situation Management Systems, Inc. The Influencing ‘Push/Pull’ Model

6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing—behaviors
Stakeholder influence 6. Communicate with stakeholders Influencing—behaviors Use this material to outline the different behaviors that underpin each of the influencing styles Persuading Asserting Proposing: ideas; suggestions; recommendations; questions that suggest a proposal Reasoning: facts and logic in support or opposition; argument for or against; rhetorical questions Stating expectations: needs; demands; standards; requirements Evaluating: positive or negative judgment, reinforcement, or criticism; personal and intuitive Using incentives (and pressures): specifying the ways and means you control that meet others’ needs Bridging Attracting Involving: soliciting views, ideas, and information from others; encouraging participation Listening: paraphrasing; summarizing; reflecting feelings; giving one’s interpretation of the other’s position Disclosing: admitting mistakes; revealing uncertainty, making oneself vulnerable; asking for help Finding common ground: highlighting common values, beliefs, ideas, agreement, or synergy Sharing visions: viewing future with optimism, picturing ideal outcome; using positive metaphor, analogy, or word pictures; using language that builds enthusiasm Source: Situation Management Systems, Inc. The Influencing ‘Push/Pull’ Model

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance
Stakeholder influence 7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance Purpose To create awareness of resistance as a normal human response To develop ways to work with resistance to create win–win outcomes with stakeholders and accelerate performance Description A team session to explore resistance and to practice ways to work with resistance What it looks like in practice Share the key concepts with the team on resistance Outline the change curve and explain that resistance is a natural response both to positive and to perceived negative change. Talk about where resistance comes from, what it looks like, and how to work with it, bringing it to life with examples as you go through Ask the team to think of a particularly challenging stakeholder who has demonstrated resistance on a specific topic/issue Set the team up in a fishbowl, with one person in the middle playing the stakeholder to step into their shoes (someone who knows them well) and someone else being themselves (team member, or ‘your shoes’), attempting to engage the stakeholder in the topic/issue identified above. The rest of the team are observers. Playing the role of the stakeholder here is also very powerful for the team to ‘stand in their shoes’ Run a practice session and rotate the ‘team member/your shoes’ role Debrief the session. Start with the person who was playing the stakeholder, then the team member, and finally the observer

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—perceptual positions Use this when introducing the resistance exercise to outline the different roles and the benefits of playing each of the roles. Often the value of playing second position is underestimated. First position—your ‘own shoes’ By putting ourself in first position, we are able to fully appreciate what is important to us personally. To do this we need to be able to see, hear, and feel the situation from our own perspective—in our own shoes. In this position we think in terms of what is important to ‘me’ and what ‘I’ really want. We tap into the truth of our own perspective. We can see and hear others and experience them from our ‘map of the world.’ Second position—their shoes By putting ourself in second position, we are able to understand where the other person is coming from and what has to be true for them to be doing or saying what they are. It is quite different to ‘put yourself’ in another’s shoes, as opposed to thinking about what it must be like to be in their shoes. Putting ourselves in their shoes means we experience the situation as if we are them. We are able to imagine how it is to look out of their eyes, hear out of their ears, and feel out of their body. Of course, we cannot get this absolutely right, but it is amazing how uncannily close we can get, and just by trying we will have thought and planned more for the different situations, which in itself leads to more successful outcomes. When we are in someone else’s shoes, we are better able to understand their map of the world. No matter how bizarre someone’s behavior might seem, in their shoes it is normal and perfectly understandable. Third position— observer This position gives us the opportunity to stand back from a situation and experience it as if we are a detached observer. In our mind we are able to see ourself and the other person as if we were a fly on the wall. We are unlikely to have emotions in this situation, as we are able to dissociate from what is going on. This is the position of analysis and learning. We can stand back and become more aware of the dynamics between first and second positions. Here we can get the bigger picture. Here is where you can identify how you can change to make a difference—and remember, it is only you who can change.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—perceptual positions Use this when debriefing the resistance exercise to share hints and tips that help the team to manage different perceptual positions while managing their own triggers If you find yourself in a conversation/situation that isn’t working out as you hoped, asking yourself the following questions can help you understand the other person better and give you more choice in how you respond. What are their real concerns right now? What are they concerned of losing if things go my way? (E.g., face, status?) What other pressures are they under right now? How can I help them look good about this? What triggers are they experiencing (look at SCARF overleaf to help you think about this)? What common ground is there? What are they bringing up in me? How would I view this differently if I focus on the person rather than the situation? How can I help them reframe the situation?

Stakeholder influence Performance or self-esteem
7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—the transition curve Use this to explain how resistance is a natural part of the change curve—it is not a personal attack The transition curve 6. Problem solving and integration. Actively looking for new approaches and ways of moving forward. 4. Confusion. Unsure whether to change, not feeling competent, not ready or knowing how to move forward. 5. Acceptance. Starting to let go of past attitudes and behaviors. Lower anxiety. Beginning to deal with the new situation. 2. Denial. Protecting self from new reality. Clinging to old reality. Can seem like ‘head in the sand.’ 1. Shock. Perceived threat. Feelings of anxiety, disorientation, or helplessness. Time Performance or self-esteem 3. Blame. Realizing change is occurring but dealing with it by blaming self and/or others. Source: Adapted from the work of Elizabeth Kübler-Ross.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—where it comes from
Stakeholder influence 7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—where it comes from Use this to explain where resistance comes from Working with resistance Where does resistance come from? Underpinning behavior that is experienced as resistance are a number of concerns or emotional reactions—it’s all about reaction to change. Three key concerns that may cause resistance: Maintaining control is at the center of the value system of most organizations and is often how reward systems are designed (how much you earn is based on how much control, responsibility, and authority you have). So being out of control can provoke anxiety, and if a person feels out of control, we may face resistance. 1 Control 2 Fear of being hurt, politically and/or personally, can also create resistance. Individuals and their department’s status or image may be seen as being threatened, and in many organizations, needing help can be seen as weak. Vulnerability Another way of looking at what underpins resistance is to consider the security level of the individual concerned. If people have a high level of security, they see no need to change. If they have a low level of security, they will be too frightened to make a change. The behavior that both display, however, tends to be very similar, if not the same. A medium level of security tends to mean that the person is more willing to listen and try things out. 3 Security levels Forces that affect security levels There are forces both inside the person being asked to change and in the situation that affect security levels. Inside individual Knowledge and skill Inside situation Market Self-esteem Security of company Motivation to achieve Status of department Tolerance of uncertainty Attitude toward risk It is useful to find out what is underpinning the behavior and then offer challenge with support as appropriate, demonstrating your understanding as well. Also, you need to point out the limitations of the current situation to those with high/low levels of security and build a vision of the future for all three levels. NB Sometimes it is not resistance, it is a straight no! ‘No, I do not want to do this project. It is too high risk, as the department is very vulnerable right now.’ This uses no blaming words and could be a legitimate concern that needs to be discussed. Source: Adapted from Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: a guise to getting your expertise used. John Wiley & Sons.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—what it looks like
Stakeholder influence 7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—what it looks like Use this to explain types of resistance, and ask the team to share examples of when they have come across different types of resistance Remember: Resistance is an indirect expression of reservations. You need to get the individual to express them openly—to get them out on the table rather than leaving them fermenting underneath. There are a number of ways resistance can manifest itself. Peter Block calls these the ‘faces of resistance.’ Here are some examples: ‘Give me more detail’ ‘Flood you with detail’ ‘No time’ ‘Real world’ ‘Nothing new’ ‘Attack’ ‘Confusion’ ‘Silence’ ‘Intellectualizing’ When you get fed up with the number of questions you are being asked, you are probably facing resistance rather than a legitimate need for information. ‘I think it all started five years ago—or was it four? It was a Monday—no, a Wednesday …’ The moment you start to get bored or confused about what the information you are being given has to do with the problem at hand, suspect that you may be facing resistance. ‘I’d really like to do it, but the timing isn’t good right now.’ No time is also often shown by constant interruptions. It can be a form of resistance. You, in your role of ‘facilitator’ (or whatever role you have), apparently don’t live in it. Constant and intense references to the ‘non-practicality’ of what you are suggesting may be an indicator of resistance. This is where, when you give feedback, the response is, ‘I’m not surprised.’ It somewhat waters down your input. You can therefore see the desire ‘not to be surprised’ as a possible form of resistance. This is the most obvious one—desk thumping/finger wagging. We tend to respond either in kind or by withdrawing totally—this normally means we are taking it personally rather than seeing it as resistance. Often there is legitimate confusion, but once you find yourself re-explaining things three or four times, then you can begin to view it as possible resistance to what you are saying rather than not understanding the way you are expressing it. This can be a tricky one—this is where you get no feedback at all. The ‘OK, keep going, I’ll tell you when I’m not happy’ routine. Silence does not necessarily mean agreement—it may mean a very obstinate form of resistance inside the other person. If there are few signs of life, consider whether it is really compliance or resistance. Sidetracking into the realms of theories about why things are the way they are is a way of taking the pain out of the reality. While we should not discount the value of a good theory, it can be a way of resisting dealing with the issue at hand. You need to bring the discussion back to actions and away from theories. Source: Adapted from Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: a guise to getting your expertise used. John Wiley & Sons.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—what it looks like (continued) Use this to explain types of resistance, and ask the team to share examples of when they have come across different types of resistance ‘Moralizing’ ‘Compliance’ ‘Methodology’ ‘Flight into health’ Listen out for phrases like ‘those people should’ and ‘they need to understand that.’ This is about going into the world of how things should be or could be if only ‘they’ would get it right. It’s an ‘I understand and they don’t’ mentality—‘they’ can be either senior or subordinate to the person saying these things. This is a difficult one. If the person expresses no reservations to you and agrees with everything you say, you might well be facing resistance. Often any reservations will be expressed elsewhere (there must be some). So beware of the person who agrees quickly, does not discuss problems, goes straight for a solution, and acts very dependent on you. They are also likely to absolve themselves from any blame if it goes wrong. Lots of questions about how you are working/have worked—do results correlate? ‘What does the tea lady think?’ is OK for about 10 minutes. After that you can safely bet you are facing resistance. It all helps delay action. Often experienced by marriage-guidance counsellors—just as you are about to meet the unhappy couple, everything seems to be OK again. This often happens in the workplace too with senior teams—just as you are about to run the first team-development session, the team leader/team members say everything is fine: The problem seems to disappear (often the symptoms are lessened but the real cause is still very much in evidence). It is another way of resisting confronting the real issues. Source: Adapted from Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: a guise to getting your expertise used. John Wiley & Sons.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—meeting resistance
Stakeholder influence 7. Working with resistance and conflict Resistance—meeting resistance Use this to explain the steps to work with resistance What do you do when you meet resistance? There are three steps to follow: 3 1 2 Identify a form of resistance in your own mind. Think of a way of describing what is happening as you see it. Name the resistance in a non-threatening or non-punishing way. For example: If naming it does not appear to help, try stating how you feel. The other person may not care, but you are being honest about it and this will normally get a response of some kind. Pay attention to non-verbals Be aware of own reactions Silence—‘You seem very quiet right now. Can you say what is happening for you?’ Individual avoiding responsibility—‘You don’t see yourself as part of the problem?’ Attack—‘You are really questioning a lot of what I am saying. You seem very angry about something?’ Be quiet and let the person respond. Often there is a temptation to go on talking. You end up either giving them an escape route or making them feel too pinned down. Remember: Don’t take it personally. They’re not really out to get you! Give two ‘good faith’ answers to every question you are asked. When you have been asked the same thing for the third time, see it as a form of resistance. Don’t get further involved in discussion on content—go through the steps above.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Conflict
Stakeholder influence 7. Working with resistance and conflict Conflict Purpose To surface and mediate conflict between individuals or teams Description A facilitated mediation process to surface and resolve conflicts between individuals or teams What it looks like in practice For individuals Initial listening exercise, where both parties talk about what the main issues are. No detail yet; in a few sentences, describes what is at the heart of the tension/breakdown in communication etc. Facilitator notes these Focusing on one issue/incident, conduct a facilitated listening exercise. Take in turns. Each individual has five minutes to talk. The other listens carefully. After both have spoken, facilitator requests they change places and repeat back what they have heard from the other person’s perspective. Facilitator debriefs exercise Repeat for next issue/incident. Focus on building understanding, not on resolving differences at this stage Where there is heat or high feelings are expressed, facilitate reflection to focus firstly on the feelings of the other person to acknowledge the strength of these, before going on to detail of logic or rationale. This is critical to lower the temperature of interaction in order to progress constructively Work through issues in an agreed order of priority. Facilitator uses a range of tools. For example: If one or both parties seem to be being unreasonable, then adopt technique of working with cognitive dissonance (thinking disconnect) to highlight discrepancy. Aim is to increase internal recognition of their own behaviors For teams Take a typical scenario(s) where there was recent conflict between the teams. Deconstruct together, focusing on the four stages Each team takes it in turn to describe each stage Exchange perspectives and facilitator ensures ‘active listening only’ in response to each comment expressed Acknowledge level of openness displayed and willingness to listen Express how each team is feeling having exchanged perspectives Use visuals, sounds, physical space, and demonstration to capture essence of conflict Conduct baseline test again. If there has been movement in a positive direction, proceed to next step, OR facilitate mediation in context of denial and resistance (outlined separately). Assuming positive movement: Using same scenario(s), focus on reconstruction/repairing, based on good-practice principles Work through rebuilding possibilities, articulating vision for working together, using principles of emotional intelligence, exploring actions, and awareness of self and others New vision—what we will do differently from now on Final relationship scaling exercise

7. Working with resistance and conflict Conflict—example session and pre-work Use this as a guide to help you as a team coach to run a mediation process for 1:1 conflict A team will need to manage key stakeholders. Here is a high-level mediation process for when there is significant conflict between individuals. Work to be done before mediation One to one Overview design Meet with managers/commissioners to agree terms and boundaries of engagement Contracting to establish mediator’s role, boundary issues around confidentiality, responsibilities, what mediation is and is not, reasonable expectation of everyone in the process Agree initial plan with individuals involved—number of sessions, neutral space to meet, what to expect, what they want from mediation Coach and team leader to have a meeting/conversation to discuss: Levels of trust between individuals—how ready are they for an open dialog to try to resolve differences? How to engage best in a joint mediation Explore the quality of the relationship, history of difficulties, nature of conflict What interdependencies are there? Where does it work well … and not work well? What would success look like for the team leader in relation to these individuals? Then decide your strategy and approach Initial listening exercise, where both parties talk about what the main issues are. No detail yet; in a few sentences, describes what is at the heart of the tension/breakdown in communication etc. Facilitator notes these. Focusing on one issue/incident, conduct a facilitated listening exercise. Take in turns. Each individual has five minutes to talk. The other listens carefully. After both have spoken, facilitator requests they change places and repeat back what they have heard from the other person’s perspective. Facilitator debriefs exercise. Repeat for next issue/incident. Focus on building understanding, not on resolving differences at this stage. Where there is heat or high feelings are expressed, facilitate reflection to focus firstly on the feelings of the other person to acknowledge the strength of these, before going on to detail of logic or rationale. This is critical to lower the temperature of interaction in order to progress constructively. Work through issues in an agreed order of priority. Facilitator uses a range of tools. For example: If one or both parties seem to be being unreasonable, then adopt technique of working with cognitive dissonance (thinking disconnect) to highlight discrepancy. Aim is to increase internal recognition of their own behaviors. OR If issue is a disagreement about a particular decision/situation etc., facilitator conducts a cost/benefit analysis around that decision/situation, focusing on increasing the other’s understanding and perspective. Where behaviors toward each party are entrenched, use cognitive-behavioral principles to explore the thinking and feelings that lead up to episodes. Use scaling exercise to determine what progress has been made. Facilitator can also reflect back on observed progress and areas of agreement. Then plan together the follow-up session, focusing on what individuals would find most useful, and where the blockages are.

7. Working with resistance and conflict Conflict—example session and pre-work Use this as a guide to help you as a team coach to run a mediation process for inter-team conflict A team may need to engage with another team, and there is a high level of conflict Work to be done before inter-team event Overview workshop design (one day) Team coach and team leader to have a meeting/conversation to discuss: Levels of trust between both teams—how ready are both teams for an open dialog to try to resolve differences? How to engage the other team in a joint mediation How to engage this team in the joint mediation Team leaders of both teams—what is the quality of the relationship, history of difficulties, nature of conflict? What interdependencies are there? Where does it work well … and not work well? What would success look like for you? Then decide your strategy and approach Welcome and introductions Objectives for the day and desired outcomes from the session (as identified through discussion with team members before this event) Share hopes, expectations, and concerns about working together Establish group contract, focusing on need for openness, shared responsibility, and support required from facilitators Baseline scaling exercise (1–10) about quality of relationship: 1 = very poor, 10 = excellent Introduce principles of deconstruct and reconstruct in resolving differences Facilitator goes through the four key stages of conflict: Arousal Trigger Target Weapon Take a typical scenario(s) where there was recent conflict between the teams. Deconstruct together, focusing on the four stages. Each team takes its turn to describe each stage Exchange perspectives and facilitator ensures ‘active listening only’ in response to each comment expressed Acknowledge level of openness displayed and willingness to listen Express how each team is feeling having exchanged perspectives Use visuals, sounds, physical space, and demonstration to capture essence of conflict Break Conduct baseline test again. If there has been movement in a positive direction, proceed to next step, OR facilitate mediation in context of denial and resistance (outlined separately) Assuming positive movement: Using same scenario(s), focus on reconstruction/repairing, based on good-practice principles Work through rebuilding possibilities, articulating vision for working together, using principles of emotional intelligence, exploring actions, and awareness of self and others New vision—what we will do differently from now on Final relationship scaling exercise Before you hold the inter-team event, you will need to have discussed the following with both teams: Purpose of and outcomes from an inter-team event Test early design of event How will you and the other team need to work together on the event (hopes and expectations)? What concerns do you have about the event (fears and concerns)? How ready are you (and they), as a team, to have this conversation? What else needs to happen to get to the point where you are both ready? Post-event: The two team leaders meet to review progress (team coach facilitates). What’s going well/pleased about What is not going well/needs attention It would help me if you … What could I do to support you? Then, ideally, both teams meet together following this to review progress, although sometimes it may be enough for a small representative group to meet with the other team and vice versa to review progress as noted above.

Distributed leadership
The leader is effective in ensuring full team participation. The team has a collaborative mindset and members proactively take on challenges on behalf of the team.

Distributed leadership is underpinned by drive-factor statements and constraints The leader is effective in ensuring full team participation. The team has a collaborative mindset and members proactively take on challenges on behalf of the team Drive factors Constraints ‘A collaborative mindset that avoids unproductive silos’ ‘The impact of our team leader in ensuring full team participation’ ‘The way team members proactively take ownership of challenges on behalf of the team’ ‘A tendency for the team leader to micromanage’ ‘A reward structure that discourages collaboration’

What the work around Distributed leadership involves
Purpose: To support the leader in creating an environment where leadership within the team is shared and team members collaborate where needed to deliver the team’s mandate What it looks like Watch out for The role of the leader in this drive factor is critical; as such, the intervention that might make the greatest impact on this dimension is individual coaching with the team leader. This is often the starting point for work in this space. From a team-coaching perspective, the work here involves a key focus on developing a collaborative, enterprise-wide mindset A key element of Distributed leadership is effective facilitation skills and team process. Facilitation is a critical competency for the team leader but also for the team to enable each other to engage in both the process and the content of meetings. Hence a big focus for Distributed leadership is effective chairmanship of meetings Work in this area typically covers: Enabling Distributed leadership Exploring the role of team type in breaking down silos Creating alignment and agreement on key dependencies Understanding and influencing team dynamics Falling into the trap of thinking that Distributed leadership is about consensus. The level of consensus that needs to be achieved is dependent on the type of decision that has to be made

Distributed leadership Core elements/steps for this work When working with teams on Distributed leadership, you can refer to the following list 1 Warm the team up to Distributed leadership 2 Enable Distributed leadership 3 Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies 4 Understand and influence team dynamics Find methods, exercises, and tools for each of these elements overleaf

Overview of methods, exercises, and tools
Distributed leadership Overview of methods, exercises, and tools No Method/tool Core ideas 1 Warm the team up to Distributed leadership Research and the role of team types in Distributed leadership Heidrick & Struggles’ five team types provide a frame for thinking about the level of collaboration and integration in order for the team to achieve its mandate and accelerate its performance. This provides the foundation and common frame of reference for the work on Distributed leadership 2 Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship Self-assessment, discussion, live feedback, and role plays on best practice in effective facilitation and chairing of meetings to help develop individuals’ facilitation skills Roles in team meetings Outline of different roles in team meetings, including facilitator, thought leader, participants, and scribe Influence of the physical room setup on Distributed leadership Tool to encourage team members to think about the impact of the physical layout of the space they are operating in 3 Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Lencioni—number-one team Technique to generate commitment that the leadership team needs to be team members’ number-one team (rather than the team they lead) Interconnections Two group exercises which help participants understand each other’s business areas and the interdependencies between them. Particularly useful in siloed, non-collaborative cultures 4 Understand and influence team dynamics Team process checklist Checklist for team members to reflect on team processes and identify missing steps to be more effective Hamburger model Model that illustrates the three levels of interaction during any meetings Psychological profiling Observation of the team during a business-as-usual meeting in which the team coach documents in-depth insights into the team dynamics and presents them in a report Kantor four-player model Exercise to bring awareness to which of the four actions (mover, follower, opposer, bystander) team members typically use and to help them consciously adopt a role to influence a conversation positively

1. Warm the team up to Distributed leadership Research and the role of team types in Distributed leadership Purpose To support the team leader in thinking about Distributed leadership in the context of the type of team they need to be to accelerate performance Description Heidrick & Struggles’ five team types provides a frame for thinking about the level of collaboration and integration in order for the team to achieve its mandate and accelerate its performance. This provides the foundation and common frame of reference for the work on Distributed leadership What it looks like in practice Share the Google research into Distributed leadership Share the team types with the team (see overleaf) to highlight the following areas: What is the purpose of the team? (Main purpose) How will the team be led? How will the team leader work with the team members? (Leadership) How will the information flow across the team? (Information) How will decisions be made? Who is involved? Who takes the lead? (Decisions) How will team members work with one another? (Members) Put the names of each of the team types on a piece of paper and place along a continuum on the ground. Facilitate a discussion to explore where the team is now versus where they need to be to accelerate performance using a human continuum What is the team type now? (why are you there?) What does the team type need to be in the future? (rationale/business reason) How quickly does this need to happen? What is the action plan to get there? In order to drive a change in team type, the leader will have to assess and potentially change his own approach to leading the team. For example, this may mean that he has to become much less authoritative as a leader and much more supportive. As a team coach, ask the team leader what he believes he will need to do/do differently to support a change in team type. It may also be appropriate to hold the mirror up to the team leader at this stage or give him some feedback. Different commissions in different contexts will demand different team types. Key principles for choosing and implementing a particular team type include: Level of integration required Level of Distributed leadership required Maturity of the team to take collective responsibility Sophistication/maturity of the leader to manage complex team dynamics and delegate authority Level of knowledge needed from each team member Watch out for None of the team types are better than the others. The best team type for a team depends on its organizational reality, what it aims to deliver, and how it aims to deliver it. Some team leaders naturally assume that ‘Accountable’ is best because it sits on the right of the page, but it may not be appropriate for their team It is harder to be a team leader at the accountability end of the spectrum, and additional training, contracting, and development may be required

1. Warm the team up to Distributed leadership Research
Use this research to frame the importance of Distributed leadership Over two years Google conducted 200+ interviews with their employees and looked at more than 250 attributes of 180+ active Google teams. Here’s what they found: One of the behaviors that the high-performing teams generally shared was that members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ‘equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.’ On some teams, everyone spoke during each task; on others, leadership shifted among teammates from assignment to assignment. But in each case, by the end of the day, everyone had spoken roughly the same amount. ‘As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well,’ Woolley said. ‘But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence declined.’ Source: Edmondson, A. C. (2010) The Learning Challenge: What Leaders Must Do to Foster Organizational Learning. Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.

1. Warm the team up to Distributed leadership The role of team types in Distributed leadership Use this to explain the five typologies to the team to explore the level of Distributed leadership required Action Assurance Advisory Alignment Accountable Reporting to the team leader Information exchange to avoid gaps and overlaps To provide the team leader with advice and to debate key issues For ensuring coordination and alignment For making the key decisions most affecting the whole organization Main purpose Authoritative leadership Authoritative leadership Consultative leadership Supportive leadership Challenging leadership Leadership Flows up and down Flows up, down, and across Flows up, down, and across Fully shared to ensure alignment Fully shared Information Flow down Flow down Flow down, but members’ advice used to make better decisions Cross-boundary decisions made by subsets of the team. Leader gives direction. Made by whole group on key decisions for business. Different team members take the lead at different times. Decisions Independent of each other Aligned but primarily independent Give and receive advice Highly interdependent, work together in different combinations to coordinate cross-functional objectives Members all equal, with leader being first among equals. Decision authority comes from team leader. Members

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship
Purpose To develop individuals’ ability to facilitate meetings or informal discussions within the team or with their own staff To encourage effective facilitation to become part of team norms To highlight what effective participation in team meetings looks like Description Discussion, live feedback, and/or role plays on best practice in effective facilitation and chairing of meetings What it looks like in practice Introduction of three elements of chairmanship role Brainstorm on what team members can do to chair effectively or help the chair lead effectively (supplemented by reference list of useful tools) Ask team members to each complete the facilitation self-assessment Team then starts a ‘real’ working session, with one person either naturally playing the role of chair or volunteering to play the role, while facilitator observes their interactions Facilitator pauses the meeting and solicits feedback from each person on the team. What is working well? What could go better? Reference the facilitation self-assessment skills as a frame for the feedback. Supplement with own evidence- based feedback and suggestions for improving effectiveness Use the tools—such as the meeting flow, tips to resolve conflict, different roles in meeting, and physical layout of room—to share with the team as part of your interventions to build knowledge and skills as appropriate. Team practices new skills/acts on feedback by repeating segments of same meeting Can rotate for another person to try chairing another item on the agenda

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship—key elements
Use this to explain the key elements of meeting chairmanship Push the thinking Guide the process Manage the climate Probes for clarity and logic Pushes for synthesis Intervenes when team is stuck Makes reality checks Focuses discussion Enforces any ground rules and procedures Monitors pace Monitors airtime Promotes harmony Resolves conflict Tests for consensus

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship—key elements
Use this to explain the key tasks of the chairman Push the thinking Guide the process Manage the climate Task Ask questions—how? why? what? for whom? by whom? Rephrase what’s been said, and invite other interpretations Enrich the discussion by adding your own knowledge and expertise Link comments back to the group’s goals or agenda Use questions as directional influences (‘That’s an interesting point—but could you help me understand how it fits in with this issue?’) Introduce new concepts by piggybacking onto a previous comment Make reality checks (‘Is it realistic to expect to achieve X within this time frame?’) Help the group when it gets stuck (‘Suppose we did it this way … What would happen?’, ‘Another company does this … Would that work here?’) Identify issues for further discussion and create agendas for future meetings so the group can move on (‘Would anyone object if we moved on to the next point?’) Monitor airtime and involve reluctant participants by inviting their suggestions (‘Does anyone who hasn’t spoken want to comment? John, what do you think about …?’) Listen actively, e.g., by nodding and picking up on unexpected comments, to build rapport Reflect the good points of suggestions or ideas Redirect the discussion if conflict becomes personal (‘As we can’t resolve this now, shall we move on to the next point? Perhaps it will shed some light on this issue.’) Tip/ example

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship—facilitation self-assessment Use this for the team leader or team members to self-assess. It can also be used as a way of gathering feedback on the effectiveness of facilitation skills. To what extent do you practice each of the following facilitation behaviors in interactions with the team: Not at all To some extent To a great extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Make yourself accessible for conversations with team members  Invite and appreciate input from others and listen well Emphasize consideration of everyone's ideas Encourage creativity/innovative thinking Ensure that priorities and tasks are clarified and that things get done Ensure an orderly and efficient team process in meetings to follow agendas, track decisions and next steps, and refocus to stay on task Ensure meetings have clear agendas with defined topics, desired outcomes, and processes for each topic Take an active role in meeting to ensure the group stays and gets back on task when needed ‘Punctuates’ the discussion/‘calls the play’ (calls the decision, makes the decision, calls who makes the decision, etc.) Communicate and reinforce operating guidelines and norms of behavior on the team Clarify decision rights on who decides what, what is a team decision, and when you own the decision as CEO Model learning from mistakes Focus on the well-being (team spirit and development) of team members Hold yourself and others accountable for commitments Share leadership with other members of the team/facilitate informal leadership by others Leverage authority to provide direction to the team

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship—flow and responsibilities Use this to explain the ideal flow of a meeting and responsibilities of the chairman NARROW OPEN Screen Eliminate duplicates Apply knockout criteria CLOSE Break the ice Introductions Icebreakers/games Reach agreement Negative poll Both/and Organize Group Prioritize: N/3, apply criteria Generate Brainstorm Round robin Pairs/trios Assess Pros/cons Identify implications Advocate/counter- advocate Build up/eliminate Apply criteria Use simulations/games Determine next steps Identify actions Assign responsibilities Present Suggest approach/hypothesis Report findings/progress Recommend solution Ensure closure Enact closing rituals Source: Adapted from Interaction Associates, reprinted with permission

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship—flow and responsibilities Use this to provide some top tips on how to open the meeting and how to intervene throughout Opening meeting checklist Welcome and introductions Agree on the goal of the meeting, and the end products aimed for Agree on agenda and the timing of each session/item Agree on ground rules If applicable, review the previous meeting Initiate the discussion Right from the start, watch the group dynamics and intervene when necessary Intervention checklist Can I use the ‘boomerang’? Return a difficult question to the person who asked it, or to the group Should I ask or say what’s going on? ‘It’s gotten very quiet. Is everyone lost, or do you just want some time to reflect?’ ‘My sense is that not everyone agrees with the way we’re going. Does anyone else feel that way?’ Do I need to enforce the ground rules? ‘We said we’d spend 10 minutes on this and it’s already been 15. I think we need to move on.’ Can I use body language to tackle this problem? Regain focus by moving into the middle of the room Encourage contributions by asking for ideas with your palms open Boost energy levels by raising your voice or moving around Use eye contact/move toward someone who wants attention Can I accept/legitimize/deal with or defer? ‘You’re not convinced we’re getting anywhere? You may be right. Would you be prepared to stick with it for 15 minutes and see what happens?’ Screen Eliminate duplicates Apply knockout criteria Organise Group Prioritise: N/3, apply criteria Reach agreement Negative poll Both/and Assess Pros/cons Identify implications Advocate/counter- advocate Build up/eliminate Apply criteria Use simulations/games Determine next steps Identify actions Assign responsibilities Ensure closure Enact closing rituals Source: Adapted from Interaction Associates, reprinted with permission

2. Enable Distributed leadership Meeting chairmanship—strategies for resolving conflict Back up one step Verify underlying assumptions List points of consensus and disagreement Use pros-and-cons debate Identify facts needed to resolve conflict Focus on what solution should not be Turn problem back to owners Build small agreements Try defending each other’s view

2. Enable Distributed leadership Roles in team meetings
Use this to outline the different roles in team meetings Facilitator Elicit process Monitor and enforce process Monitor climate Thought leader Push thinking Synthesize Participants Provide information Generate ideas Clarify Encourage each other Scribe Record comments Check with facilitator Synthesize Goal

2. Enable Distributed leadership Influence of the physical room setup on Distributed leadership Use this to encourage team members to think about the impact of the physical layout of the space they are operating in. Get them to consider how they might change it to create different dynamics based on what is needed for the agenda. The seating arrangement and table shape have a strong impact on team dynamics and Distributed leadership Team members often tend to talk directly to or through the leader and less to each other Team members need to be able to address another team member as well as address or ‘talk to the team’ Encourage members to learn how to ‘talk to the team’ and oscillate and make eye contact around the group Table shape Description How to manage to support better team performance Long table creates a control model Only the Chair can see the faces of all the members Dynamics are generally to speak ‘toward the Chair’ 1 Old-style board Ask people to ‘bow out’ in the middle to allow others to see fellow team members Sit at both ends * * Newer shapes include diamonds and multiple sided Set up for presentation Square-like shape encourages team discussion, but energy tends to be toward the open space Often the dynamic is that the presenter is ‘coming before the team’ Minimize the open space to be closer Have members close-in the open end for discussion Try a larger square or ‘hollow square’ 2 Classic ‘U’ * * ‘Hollow square’ 3 Circle or square King Arthur wanted all the knights to be equally engaged as a team Best shape to be able to ‘talk to the team’ as well as address team members or the Chair/leader For deeper discussion or more team intimacy, try without the table in between team members Good for off-sites/retreats (with more living-room-like comfortable seating) * When using screens for presentations, OK to put toward one end of table or even diagonal and use swivel chairs to allow people to rotate to see the presentation and pivot back to talk to the team

3. Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Lencioni—number-one team Purpose To generate buy-in and commitment that the leadership team needs to be team members’ number-one team (rather than the team they lead) Description Outlining the importance of the team you are a member of being your number-one team, followed by discussion What it looks like in practice Explain to the team that one of the first disciplines they need to engage in to help accelerate performance is to define which is their number-one team: the one they lead, or the one they belong to? Let them know it is common for many leaders in an organization to prioritize the team that they lead. This is natural and understandable. Often they enjoy leading the team: It sits with their functional expertise and they have hired the people in it, BUT it is dangerous and leaders need to overcome this or they will never create an accelerating organization When everyone prioritizes the team they lead rather than the one they are a member of, the executive becomes like the UN rather than a cohesive team leading the whole organization Some leaders worry that people below them would be upset if they prioritized the leadership team, but the reality is that the people in the organization want this—it will make a huge difference to unwinnable battles below Ask the team: What would it look like in practice for you to prioritize this team above the teams you lead? In pairs, discuss what you would need individually to stop/start/continue to make this your number-one team How will you hold each other to account? Source: Lencioni The Advantage 2012

3. Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Interconnections—option 1 Purpose Creates an empathetic understanding of each area of the organization Reveals how each area sees one another in a way that constructively clarifies misconceptions Strengthens group interaction quality via working and problem solving together Encourages creative thinking on how the structure can be made to work most effectively Establishes a shared language around the ‘identity’ of each area in the organization Emphasizes personal responsibility for making the model work Description Group exercise which helps participants understand each other’s business areas and the interdependencies between them. Often useful when: a siloed, non-collaborative culture prevails a new way of working requires more cooperation and coordination between different functions and business units the team has a lot of new members who don’t know how the organization ‘works’ What it looks like in practice Each participant represents one area/function in the organization and outlines: Main responsibilities and deliverables Major challenges in meeting objectives Needs and inputs from other areas/functions Information from all participants is posted on the wall in a mural. Group clarifies, modifies, and acknowledges information for each area/function Cross-functional smaller teams then ‘redesign’ how the organization works together to fulfil the needs/objectives of each area/function Group discussion and agreements Participants then reflect on what each of them can do personally to better support the organization, and share ideas with a partner

3. Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Interconnections—option 2 Purpose To explore interdependencies to support enterprise-wide leadership Description In many situations, teams and leaders of teams are used to managing downward and managing the resources they are directly accountable for, while the strategy requires them to work across the team and into the wider organization. This exercise helps teams to explore existing interdependencies and how to manage these most effectively going forward What it looks like in practice 5 Introduce marketplace exercise for role clarity (how does each part of the organization work with the others toward the aspiration?)—set up objectives and process 15 Individuals or small groups representing various client/functional areas each write on a single chart for their area: Top-three decisions they make Principal relationships with other parts of the team and organization Biggest challenges and top-three reasons why each is a challenge Top-three milestones 10 Mural of all flip charts posted on a single wall and reviewed by the group, who use Post-it notes to call out missing interdependencies, and ask questions of clarity 30 Team members clarify/note anything that appears on the Post-its for their chart (plus group acknowledgment if appropriate) Cross-functional small groups formed with the task of drawing a picture of how the organization should work together to best serve customers and achieve the aspiration (facilitators play role of pushing team’s thinking on how this all fits, how the interactions would work, the handoffs, etc.) 25 Teams share their pictures; group discussion on common themes/model Personal reflection question—‘Given the discussion, what can I do individually to better facilitate how the organization works together?’ —followed by paired discussion of these reflections

3. Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Lands work (pt. 1 of 2) Purpose To build cross-functional empathy across groups by walking teams through their colleagues’ perspectives on a specific business issue or challenge Description Many leadership teams are challenged with thinking both in terms of their daily work, and in terms of opportunities for collaboration across functions. In order to break down silos and build empathy and appreciation for interdependence in the group, teams often need to take the proverbial ‘walk in each other’s shoes’ Teams that accelerate with Distributed leadership are able to consistently think and work beyond functional boundaries to get the job done. This exercise facilitates the needed conversations around greater cross- functional understanding that move the team toward having those conversations consistently What it looks like in practice Within an open space, denote sections of the room for each function/subgroup that’s participating in the exercise with a label, tape, or some other visible signifier. Enough room should be placed between sections that the boundaries separating one group from another are obvious Begin the exercise by having the group separate into their own functions, or ‘land.’ (You may want to predetermine these depending on the size of the total group, functional representation, and whether some functions can be aggregated) After the functions have separated, read the following out loud: ‘Your land will be a metaphor for your job area, and like any country or land, boundaries form organizations. It is clear where “our country” or “our land” ends and “your land” begins. We’re going to explore what it‘s like to live and work in these different lands. For example, what relationship does your land have with other lands and what are the interdependencies? This exercise has the goal of reaching a place of ‘our land’ and making decisions based on “our land” vs. “individual territories.”’ With everyone in their own ‘land,’ raise the issue or challenge that you want the overall group to consider during the activities Ask each group to appoint a spokesperson and then ask the following question: ‘From your group’s perspective on this issue, what deeply matters to you?’ Allow groups to discuss and generate a response Go around the room and hear from each group After hearing each response, have each grouping rotate one space clockwise. Encourage the group to leave the customs, ‘baggage,’ and language of their ‘original lands’ behind, and adopt the perspective and views of their ‘new lands’ Purpose

3. Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Lands work (pt. 2 of 2) Purpose To build cross-functional empathy across groups by walking teams through their colleagues’ perspectives on a specific business issue or challenge Description Many leadership teams are challenged with thinking both in terms of their daily work, and in terms of opportunities for collaboration across functions. In order to break down silos and build empathy and appreciation for interdependence in the group, teams often need to take the proverbial ‘walk in each other’s shoes’ Teams that accelerate with Distributed leadership are able to consistently think and work beyond functional boundaries to get the job done. This exercise facilitates the needed conversations around greater cross- functional understanding that move the team toward having those conversations consistently What it looks like in practice Ask the following question, with a spokesperson to report out from the ‘new lands’: ‘As a member of this new land, what are the challenges and pressures surrounding this issue?’ Have the group rotate spaces again, encouraging them to leave their old perspectives behind. Ask: ‘From this land, what’s your worst fear about your land of origin regarding this issue? Remember you’re talking about you, but from someone else’s perspective!’ Repeat the rotation with the following questions: ‘From this land, what do you need from the other lands to overcome this issue?’ ‘What are your hopes and dreams?’ Once every group has answered the questions from the perspective of each different ‘land,’ have them return to their own land of origin, and address the groups with the following debrief questions: What was it like for you to experience the others talking from your position? What are you learning about this team, and what will be different going forward? After hearing each group, remove the ‘land’ boundaries and have the groups come together. Share with the team that we’re now in ‘our land.’ Now we’re going to move into brainstorming mode to come up with ideas for next steps Capture responses on a flip chart with large sticky notes. Use a prioritization process to distill the best next steps and ones that individuals/groups are willing to own Watch out for Encourage people to speak passionately about their position, but discourage blame This is not a debate about whose perspective is accurate, but an exercise in gaining a better understanding of each other’s perspectives This is not about finding a single right way of doing things, but is intended to look at what approach going forward would best serve the team Seek permission for facilitators to move the process along Purpose

3. Create alignment and a shared understanding of interdependencies Lands work The facilitator should determine logical groupings before the activity to optimize the time. Lay out tape on the floor and label each area so team members know their initial group. Security Ops Business issue Quality Support functions (HR, Finance) Ben to proof Strategy (PMO, Leadership)

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Team process checklist
Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Team process checklist Ask the team to reflect on a specific task—include results, process, quality of interactions/behaviors. Use this checklist to reflect on team process (use the team-behaviors charter for behaviors) Review the effective-team checklist to help the team identify what went well and less well Identify whether any missing steps would have made the team more effective Contract to include/improve the steps next time You could create a survey using Survey Monkey or pick a few key relevant items to run as a human continuum To what extent did we as a team … No. Team process Red Amber Green 1 Collectively consider and agree the purpose of the task so we were all clear? 2 Set realistic, achievable, but stretching objectives and time frames? 3 Pool ideas on approach and select the best one? 4 Genuinely listen to others’ ideas and challenge/build on them? 5 Identify strengths and allocate roles based on this? 6 Plan the steps, communicate them, and check for understanding? 7 All agree or disagree but still commit? 8 Check in with each other informally on progress and work together to solve issues? 9 Reflect on/review progress regularly and honestly as a team? 10 Give each other honest feedback on how we were doing? 11 Change things that weren’t working? 12 Celebrate success? 13 Learn from mistakes?

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Hamburger model
Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Hamburger model Purpose To raise awareness of the three levels at which the team are interacting so that they can make choices and be intentional about how they behave around task, process, and climate Diagnose at which level(s) the team are having difficulties so that they know where to intervene to address those difficulties Description A simple model that illustrates the three levels of interaction during any meeting What it looks like in practice To contract at the beginning of a meeting: Introduce the model and explain the three levels of interaction that occur in any meeting Explore with the group the task they want to achieve, the process they will use to achieve the task, and how they need to behave together to get commitment to the desired outcomes Suggest that this is a good model to use at the beginning of any meeting/session to ensure that everyone is aligned around task and process, and as a reminder of helpful behaviors in working together Agree where the coach/facilitator will intervene during the meeting, e.g., at the process level if it’s not working and at the climate level if interpersonal behaviors are hindering task achievement. The coach can also intervene at these levels to highlight effective process and climate to help the team embed learning about what works To intervene during a meeting: The group is struggling to achieve the task or desired outcomes Stop the meeting and introduce/reintroduce the model Explore with the group at which level(s) they think they are stuck or struggling, e.g., task—not clearly defined; process—not working; climate—people not listening to each other. Explore and agree what they need to do differently, e.g., redefine and agree the desired outcomes, change the process, and agree to listen and ask more questions To review a meeting: Introduce the model at the end of a meeting to review how it went: what worked well; what didn’t work well at task, process, and climate levels Agree what they need to keep doing and what they need to do differently next time Suggest they use the model at the beginning of the next meeting as a reminder of good practice and what they intend to do differently

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Hamburger model
Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Hamburger model Use this to describe the hamburger model to the team and the levels of interaction. This exercise works particularly well with the balcony-and-dance exercise (in the next chapter on Robust challenge). A simple model that illustrates the three levels of interaction during any meeting: Task: Clearly define and agree the task or objectives to be achieved, e.g., what is the outcome we want to achieve in this session/meeting? Where are we now (A) and where do we need to be (B)? Task Process Process: Procedures or processes appropriate to achieve the task. E.g., define roles such as chairperson and timekeeper; agree processes, e.g., discussion, brainstorm, presentation; decision making—how will we decide/who will decide? A B Climate Climate: How team members behave that either helps or hinders the task and procedures, e.g., they help by listening, building common ground, expressing feelings, encouraging, and involving; they hinder by dominating, withdrawing, rambling, or interrupting.

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling Purpose To provide in-depth insight on the team dynamics Description Psychological profiling involves observation of the team during a business-as-usual meeting. The team coach notes down what they observe and later documents key observations in report form for the team What it looks like in practice Observing the team—capturing verbatim and interpreting the team dynamics through the following lenses: Level of appreciation (e.g., leader giving positive reinforcement, the team showing respect for more junior guest presenters, etc.) Individualism—the extent to which the conversation focuses on individual needs versus enterprise wide and what ‘team type’ they exhibit Double binds—examples of double-bind statements: conflicting demands for which if one is achieved, the other cannot be Circular conversations and first-order change The nature of interactions—parent/child, adult/adult (transactional analysis) Levels of awareness and functioning (logical/social/deeper meaning) Generative conversations—Kantor’s four players (movers, opposers, followers, bystanders) Feminine and masculine archetypes Watch out for This exercise requires a high level of expertise in transpersonal psychology. Do not attempt this if this is not an area you specialize in

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 1/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. Appreciations Allan does a good job of translating key messages from above in his brief—i.e., what does this mean for us? Allan has a warm sense of humor and sometimes shows he is aware of his ‘faults.’ The team were respectful of their junior guest speaker and able to turn their concerns/criticisms back on themselves. The team is clearly trying to do the best it can and shows a strong will and determination to succeed. There is evidence of enthusiasm and commitment to the job in the willingness of members to stay in difficult conversations. Lovely to see the team keen to do volunteering despite their busy schedules—indicates an interest in deeper aspects of the work (referred to below). Allan received some strong challenges (e.g., from Mark, the opposer) with humor and interest and was able to synthesize the positive and negative aspects of the situation well (this was about the current state of the market and the organization’s prospects). People’s individual expertise is very apparent. Allan recognizes the value of collective leadership. Allan consistently offers to mediate difficult relationships between his team members and external staff/customers (‘If you can’t sort it out with them, then come to me.’) Allan does give praise and thanks people (‘This is a really good discussion’). Allan makes efforts to remind team of their purpose (‘We all need to understand the shape of the organization and then focus on what to do in your space’). Allan demonstrated in the performance-management conversation his commitment to rewarding good performance (with pay). Individualism The group appear to be more comfortable when imparting briefs to each other concerning their own area of expertise and leadership. They appear to have difficulty synthesizing these individual briefs into a ‘collective’ story/way of understanding that has more power than the sum of the parts. They demonstrate the qualities of a ‘working group’ or ‘pseudo team.’ Individuals come together to swap opinions/’facts’ and collect information rather than engage in synergistic processes that support strategic thinking and complex problem solving. The danger in this kind of behavior is that it produces short-sighted thinking and behaving and simplistic, linear problem solving. Recurring statements from Allan that support these behaviors: ‘You need to understand …’ ‘I don’t want words … give me facts …’ ‘I’m sick of complaining and whinging, give me facts …’ ‘I appreciate you want to have a big debate about this, but …’ (asks for facts again) ‘Let’s fix that problem when we inherit it. For now, can we pay attention to the problem ahead of us?’

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 2/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. Double binds The essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the recipient torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. ‘I must do it, but I can't do it’ is a typical description of the double-bind experience. Double-bind experiences are well known for causing mental distress and inertia. There is some evidence of double-bind constraint at work in this group. For example, Allan frequently demands that the team ‘understand’ or ‘think about’ a problem in order to be able to offer him more insightful and useful solutions. However, at the same time he also blocks conversations and attempts by members of the team to talk and think deeply about a problem. Furthermore, there is no clear agreement reached about when conflicting demands can be resolved (e.g., when can we have a different kind of conversation about performance management?). Examples of observed double-bind statements: We need to talk about this I don’t want words Give me the details Don’t get clinical about this

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 3/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. Circular conversations and first-order change—‘more of the same’ Common sense might suggest that the way to counteract a problem is by introducing its opposite. So, for example, Allan might decide that if the group are complaining that they never get a chance to talk about a problem, the right response is ‘Then let’s talk!’ (the proposed solution). However, when talking was allowed or encouraged in this meeting, the conversations took on a circular quality. Talking actually seemed to make the problem worse! What is happening here? The proposed solution, ‘Let’s talk,’ becomes a demand that the group use talk to solve the problem. However, the group are not able to respond well, as they are not good at talking collectively, so they fail at this task. The talk becomes circular and stuck and this confirms to Allan that talking is not such a good thing after all. So talking is discouraged and the group remain in the same place— wanting to but unable to have effective conversations. The group is left feeling confused and disengaged. They know they want to talk, but talking just seems to make things worse. First-order change—like responding to a problem by evoking its opposite—can work for simple problems (it is hot, so turn the heating down). However, it is not very effective when working with systemic, complex problems. Second-order changes (for example, exploring and intervening around the underlying reasons for why the group are unable to engage in generative and collective conversations) lead to changes in the system itself and arguably to more sustainable change. In this meeting Tony referred to the problem of first-order change (his example was about ‘salami slicing’ budgets) and this was supported by Tanya. So, the group have some awareness that they are stuck in a circular conversation about certain important business issues to which they apply first-order solutions—which bodes well for their future development. More frustration and disappoint-ment Talking gets us nowhere. Give me facts! But talking is difficult. We don't understand each other. Not being allowed to talk increases frustration and problems OK, so we need to talk!

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 4/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. The nature of transactions is important to understanding communication Harris identified three basic transactional states—parent, adult, and child. Parent, adult, and child We each have internal models of parents, children, and adults, and we play these roles with one another in our relationships. We even do it with ourselves, in our internal conversations.

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 5/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. Parent There are two forms of parent we can play. The nurturing parent is caring and concerned and often may appear as a mother figure (though men can play it too). They seek to keep the child safe and offer unconditional love, calming them when they are troubled. The controlling (or critical) parent, on the other hand, tries to make the child do as the parent wants them to do, perhaps transferring values or beliefs or helping the child to understand and live in society. They may also have negative intent, using the child as a whipping boy or worse. Adult The adult in us is the 'grown up' rational person who talks reasonably and assertively, neither trying to control nor reacting. The adult is comfortable with themselves and is, for many of us, our 'ideal self.' Child There are three types of child we can play. The natural child is largely un-self-aware and is characterized by the non-speech noises they make (yahoo, etc.). They like playing and are open and vulnerable. The cutely named little professor is the curious and exploring child who is always trying out new stuff (often much to their controlling parent's annoyance). Together with the natural child, they make up the free child. The adaptive child reacts to the world around them, either changing themselves to fit in or rebelling against the forces they feel. In this meeting it appeared that varieties of a strong parent–child dynamic were in operation between different people at different times, with some members acting from more than one state depending on who they were talking to. Allan generally behaved as critical parent (‘answer the bloody question’ and ‘this is a bullshit conversation’). Standing at the blackboard, throwing his pen down, Peter was treated and responded as a child. In particular, George appeared to behave as a frustrated parent responding to a difficult teenage son (‘Allan, let me try and get this clear; I want to understand you … This really gets me frustrated.’ ‘Stop this bit about “not through lots of conversation”’). Peter/Bill Andrews behaved as children in their playful and combative arguments (these two appeared to enjoy this level of communication and it introduced playground dynamics to the room). There are some members of the team whom I have no sense of yet as their contributions were minimal. These are: Mark, Beth, Jim, John, and Phil. Steve, Jack, and Matt Nolan appeared to behave in the adult state most consistently in this meeting. There are also gender issues which I will refer to later that seem to make the female members disappear.

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 6/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. Levels of awareness and functioning This group operates primarily in a cognitive mode: ideas, theories, propositions, advocacy, information, and paper-based ‘facts.’ This group seems to pay less attention to: The personal: the intrapersonal psychodynamics that influence their behaviors (what is going on in me?) (Little reference made by individuals to their own psychological state, although some expressed frustrations). The social: the way these individual psychologies interact and create a group dynamic and relationship (what is going on between us?) (no breaks to explore how are we doing, are we getting anywhere?). The physical: the needs of the physical body for rest, food, and movement (no breaks, no food provided for a working lunch). The information provided by the body in the form of sensations, physical reactions (no reference to feelings or ‘gut’ reactions, many people slouched, hunched, arms crossed defensively). The deeper meaning: What really matters to me? What is the higher purpose and meaning that I attribute to my work? (The group rarely smile or nod their heads, the energy level is low (loud voices do not necessarily indicate high energy).) I also observed: Many people played with their BlackBerrys during the meeting. Mark used his laptop for half of the meeting. Several people paced (prowled?) around the room during conversations. People often looked bored, unhappy, cynical, or disengaged. George several times asked to talk about an issue in more depth—he was not allowed to and he was also not supported by anyone else when he made this request.

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Psychological profiling—example 7/7 This is what an example profile report looks like. Use this to help you write up your observations and the team profile. Generative conversations Kantor suggests a healthy/generative conversation requires four contributions or actions to occur freely and in balance. He suggests that a generative conversation needs movers, opposers, followers, and bystanders. This model has much potential to help the group explore and develop their ability to be in productive conversations. At present it would appear that the dominant mode sequence is: Move—follow (present in immature groups denying conflict or difference). In this group I suspect that although members may appear to be ‘following,’ they are, in fact, ‘disabled opposers,’ unable to express their concern or difference and so defaulting to a ‘shoulder shrug’ of acceptance that masquerades as following. Move—oppose (present in groups that are fragmenting and breaking up). Bystanders (wise people, perspective givers) in this group do not have the conditions to contribute—there is little reflection or pause (we needed the official two-minute silence for that!). This group is encouraged by Allan to behave as movers—even though the domination of moving rarely leads to the best result. This team need to know when to engage in DISCUSSION (focused on collective decision making and tangible outcomes) and DIALOG (focused on creating shared understanding of complex issues)—there is a place for both. At the moment the most the team do is DEBATE (which is a combative exchange aimed at destroying one idea in favor of another). Women on the team Based on George McDonald’s work … The energy is masculine/dynamic—evocative of the ‘Warrior’ archetype. There is an absence of the feminine (e.g., Good Mother/Medicine Woman archetypes). There is also evidence of the masculine static ‘Good King’ archetype (e.g., in Tom). Again—there is some good work we could do together using these archetypes and their implications. Women on the team appear to have less status than the men. The guest speaker, Paul, made most eye contact with the women in the room. He seemed to find reassurance and confidence in the feminine. Worth reflecting on! Recommen- dations (in draft form) The team commit to a minimum of six (but more likely eight) development sessions (2–3 hours each) held the day before each monthly meeting. Each session will use as content a key business dilemma or question and will introduce a process for engaging in that conversation generatively. This will involve skills building and relational facilitation and will draw upon some of the theories and models mentioned above. The team will be asked to apply their learning, particularly in the monthly meeting. I will observe these monthly meetings in order to provide feedback and assess ongoing development needs.

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model
Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model Purpose To enable team members to consciously choose to adopt a particular role to influence a conversation positively in order to accelerate performance Description An exercise to bring awareness to which of the four actions (mover, follower, opposer, bystander) team members typically use and which combined sequences of actions have become entrenched, undermining the pace of delivery and team learning. It is often helpful to run a brief session on this at the start of a business-as- usual working session and to revisit it throughout based on real interactions in the team What it looks like in practice Explain each of the positions/actions, including the advantages and disadvantages. Share the different archetypes of patterns of interaction and discuss which one resonates with the team in terms of the way they typically operate These are only a few sequences of moves. As you start noticing this, you can provide what isn’t present and shift the dynamic and tone of an interaction. ‘If you provide what isn’t present, you will make a shift every time.’ This involves paying attention to the content and the structure. In a healthy situation, all four players are present. The question is: ‘How do you get the team to play all four roles well?’ Part of the answer is to provide what is missing or encourage someone else to provide what is needed Divide the room into four quadrants, i.e., move at the front, oppose at the back, follow on the left, and bystand on the right. Have people go to the area of the room that represents their most comfortable/familiar action position in real life. Ask members to share what they notice. Then ask individuals to move to areas they are most uncomfortable in and the action they need most practice in Option 1: live working session Get the team to discuss what the implications are for them moving into the working session and how they will surface and shift patterns that are derailing the team Intervene (and encourage the team to intervene) throughout the business-as-usual meeting when you/they identify patterns. Ask the team to reflect on what is happening, what needs to shift, or what is happening that is working well and they could do more of Option 2: retrospective Get the team to choose a recent session in which they worked together to make a decision Ask the team: Which roles did we each play when making x/y/z decision? Which roles were overplayed in this team? Which roles were missing? What do we need to consider/adapt moving forward? Source: Kantor, D. and Lonstein, N. H. (2012) Reading the Room: Group Dynamics for Coaches and Leaders. Wiley, John & Sons.

Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model Use this to explain the four different actions that are part of the system (see overleaf for more detail) Kantor’s four-player system Move Without movers there is no direction M Bystand Without bystanders there is no perspective Follow Without followers there is no completion B F O Oppose Without opposers there is no correction

Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model This is to explain the four roles in more detail and to get individuals in the team to think about where they tend/prefer to operate Mover Follower Opposer Bystander Action intends Direction Discipline Commitment Perfection Clarity Completion Compassion Loyalty Service Continuity Correction Courage Protection Integrity Survival Perspective Patience Preservation Moderation Self-reflection But sometimes comes across as Omnipotent Impatient Indecisive Scattered Dictatorial Placating Indecisive Pliant Wishy-washy Over- accommodating Critical Competitive Blaming Attacking Contrary Disengaged Judgmental Deserting Withdrawn Silent

Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model This is a visual representation of the different patterns of interaction to stimulate conversation about the current patterns the team exhibits Courteous compliance M-F-F-F Serial monologs M-M-M-M Point/ counterpoint M-O-M-O Hall of mirrors M-B-B-B Covert opposition M-F/O. M-B/O M M M M F B M M M B B F F B F F B F B M O O O O O B F O O O

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model—features of stuck teams Use these characteristics of stuck and balanced teams to guide your observations of the team or to share with the team if helpful to stimulate discussion Features of stuck teams Individuals get locked into a single action Opposers are punished by the group, or they dominate There are no strong movers, or no one ever follows a move The bystander is disabled Individuals attach double messages to their moves Ritualistic and unproductive patterns of behavior prevail The team is unable to reach closure and produce results Lack of capability or flexibility to engage in all four action behaviors Individuals gravitate to favorite behaviors (and are typecast in roles by others) Features of balanced teams Capability to engage in all four actions (move, follow, oppose, bystand) in observable balanced sequences Individuals have the flexibility to engage in more than one of the behaviors The group and individuals do not get caught frequently in repetitive or ritualized patterns of behavior The group has an active, enabled bystander function which helps it inquire and stay unstuck People in the group are able to make clear, rather than mixed or ambiguous, moves The group is able to reach closure and produce results

4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model—exercise Use this slide as an exercise with the team to unpick a recent example in order to develop a deeper understanding of how the team dynamics impacted on the quality of decision making Four roles are necessary for high-quality interactions and constructive challenge, which lead to effective decision making and execution within groups or teams: Without movers there is no direction Without followers there is no completion Without opposers there is no correction Without bystanders there is no perspective Which roles did we each play when making x/y/z decision? Which roles were overplayed in this team? Which roles were missing? Initiate an action MOVE Move Step back, reflect, offer perspective BYSTAND Support an action FOLLOW Bystand Follow Oppose Challenge an action OPPOSE

Distributed leadership 4. Understand and influence team dynamics Kantor four-player model Use this slide as hints and tips for team members to help them think about what they individually could do differently when they notice a different ‘play’ is needed to shift the dynamic in the team and the pattern of interaction Bear in mind that people commonly make hybrid action steps that blend more than one position. For example, ‘We are going in circles. Let’s discuss a new topic for a while’ is a combination of a bystand and then a move. How can I do it myself? How can I invite others to do it? How can I use a structure? Move ‘I think we should …’ ‘John, what do you think we should do?’ Have a team member prepare a straw-man proposal Follow ‘That’s a great idea! How can I help?’ ‘How can we support Peter’s suggestion?’ Rules for rapid brainstorming and prototyping Oppose ‘An alternative approach might be to …’ ‘Does anyone see anything in this that might not work?’ Designate a devil’s advocate for major decisions Bystand ‘I’ve noticed that we’ve been circling the same topic for some time …’ ‘What are we overlooking?’ Engage a facilitator or take turns facilitating

Robust challenge Robust challenge There is a climate of support and trust that enables the team to be candid and robustly challenge each other. The team ruptures and repairs from conflict quickly to drive quality outcomes for the organization.

Drive-factor statements
Robust challenge Robust challenge is underpinned by drive-factor statements and constraints There is a climate of support and trust that enables the team to be candid and robustly challenge each other. The team ruptures and repairs from conflict quickly to drive quality outcomes for the organization Drive-factor statements Constraints ‘A climate of support and trust that enables us to speak candidly’ ‘A readiness to robustly challenge each other to achieve the best outcome’ ‘The way in which we rupture and repair quickly when there is conflict’ ‘Allowing competition to undermine team effectiveness’ ‘A lack of diverse perspectives in the team’

What the work around Robust challenge involves
Purpose: Support the team to develop a strong foundation of support and trust, to engage in productive debate, and to interact in a way that challenges and stretches each other’s thinking in service of achieving the best-possible outcome What it looks like Watch out for This is typically a key area of development for teams. Work on this drive factor often starts with exploring and building the levels of trust in the team, as this is a cornerstone of productive conflict. As a team coach, you will typically increase the level of challenge/discomfort in your interventions gradually to build their capability. Some behavioral indicators that there is an issue with trust in the team include: Choosing words and actions based on how they want others to react rather than based on what they really think Saying what they think the leader/others want to hear Withholding the truth or even lying to protect self/others Keeping their head down and not speaking up Language that indicates lack of trust in the good intentions of colleagues—assuming colleagues are out to get them Not confronting team leader/team members because of fear of his/her reaction Teams who demonstrate high levels of challenge, even if unproductive, can sometimes be more straightforward to work with on conflict than those who avoid challenge or have a tendency toward groupthink. The reason for this is that the behaviors are more overt, visible, and identifiable The leader and the extent to which they are comfortable with conflict can have a significant impact on the level of Robust challenge in the team, so work in this space often involves 1:1 leadership coaching in addition to focused work with the team. This work with the team typically involves: Understanding the role of Robust challenge in accelerating performance Understanding the systemic drivers of conflict Building a foundation of trust and support in the team Interacting with high challenge and high support Stimulating productive conflict Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge The pendulum swing—when building capabilities, team members can often overcompensate by going too far in the other direction, e.g., if they are high support they can become highly confrontational or vice versa as they test these new skills out Sometimes the root cause can be related to poor governance, lack of clear direction, or ambiguous accountabilities. Use the conflict hierarchy as a point of reference when exploring challenge and conflict

Robust challenge Core elements/steps for this work When working with teams on Distributed leadership, you can refer to the following list 1 Create the case for Robust challenge 2 Understand the systemic drivers of conflict 3 Build a foundation of trust 4 Stimulate productive conflict 5 Interact with high support and challenge 6 Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process Find methods, exercises, and tools for each of these elements overleaf

Robust challenge Overview of methods, exercises, and tools (1/2) No Method/tool Core ideas 1 Create the case for Robust challenge Global financial crisis Outline of the global financial crisis as an example of ‘groupthink’ and a lack of ‘diversity’ Road to Abilene A parable to share with the team in order to introduce the concept of ‘groupthink’ and its implications in the context of Robust challenge 2 Understand the systemic drivers of conflict Conflict hierarchy Model to help you identify root cause of conflict 3 Build a foundation of trust Lencioni Model to help you explain the five dysfunctions of a team and the behaviors that relate to each of them The building blocks of trust Exercise that asks individuals to examine their own and others’ behaviors against four elements of trust, with discussion in pairs and in plenary. Includes a diagnostic self-assessment tool. Personal history A round robin which helps the team to get to know each other on a more personal level in order to build trust Global vote—human continuum Exercise to get team members to talk openly about their feelings, attitudes, and level of personal trust Philosophers’ dinner Informal exercise performed over dinner in which team members choose poems and read them out to the team Life-line exercise Round robin where each of the team members talks for 10 mins about the key events in their life that made them who they are Wine and spirit—personal objects Informal exercise performed over dinner in which participants take turns showing the rest of the group an object of personal significance Mad, sad, and glad A simple and quick process usually done early in the day to give people a chance to express how they are feeling about the team in order to free things up for the rest of the work in an event or meeting Building a foundation of trust – getting connected An exercise to break the ice by getting team members to build interpersonal relationships and camaraderie through conversation

Robust challenge Overview of methods, exercises, and tools (2/2) No Method/tool Core ideas 4 Stimulate productive conflict Lencioni conflict model Model to help surface conflict in teams that avoid it (especially where there is ‘artificial harmony’) and to exercise the team’s muscle to be able to rupture and repair quickly from conflict Withholds Team exercise in which participants surface and clear unspoken negative thoughts and feelings in a constructive way to remove blockages 5 Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge framework Facilitated session to help the team develop a common understanding of what high challenge with support looks like in practice whilst raising awareness of the current team climate Support-and-challenge skills-building session A two-part skills building session to develop people’s capability to have a high-support/challenge conversation 6 Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process Ways to create Robust challenge Introducing ways to create Robust challenge within a team, including methods to spot and avoid groupthink Protecting your deviant Evidence for why it is important to have a deviant in a team (as too much homogeneity can stifle creativity and learning) Balcony and dance Exercise to be introduced as part of a business-as-usual working session to support the team to be engaged in team discussion while being aware of team dynamics and the level of Robust challenge Encouraging diverse perspectives Typically a coaching conversation to support the leader to foster different perspectives in order to stimulate productive conflict in the team De Bono thinking hats Tool to help the team to separate thinking into six clear roles, each identified with a colored symbolic ‘thinking hat.’ This is designed to help people focus or redirect thoughts, the conversation, or the meeting.

1. Create the case for Robust challenge
Use this slide to help explain why Robust challenge is important and what the risks of homogeneity are People generally think that teams that work together harmoniously are better and more productive than teams that don’t However, in order to create a high-performing team, it is critical to create an environment where teams are encouraged to ‘robustly’ challenge the status quo and have the ability to rupture and repair from conflict at pace Contrary to popular belief, too much homogeneity can stifle creativity and learning Teams can be ineffective when members do not completely share what they know with each other or challenge each other’s thinking The global financial crisis—market failure by ‘groupthink’ and lack of ‘diversity’ 2007’s financial crisis illustrates the dangers associated with a lack of Robust challenge in a team Groupthink can present itself as social pressure to accept and conform to the particular conceptual framework of the peer group. In the case of the housing bubble, the conceptual convention was that housing prices would always go up. Within that convention, smart experienced people could not process observations that contradicted the prevailing wisdom Researchers found that diversity within a team stirs Robust challenge or constructive conflict around the task at hand. The expression of different viewpoints is important for team productivity and innovative output Diverse perspectives and conflicting points of view are important because they weed out assumptions and enlarge the pool of available information Teams that feel psychologically safe enough for conflicting opinions to be aired through high levels of support and trust are able to exploit the benefits of diverse perspectives Source: Stan Sorscher, Group-think Caused the Markets to Fail. Huffington Post

1. Create the case for Robust challenge Road to Abilene
Purpose To introduce the concept of groupthink and the implications in the context of Robust challenge To ensure they look out for symptoms of groupthink when discussing big issues as a team To introduce practical ways of creating Robust challenge Description Introduce the team to the symptoms of groupthink, which can be described as: Collective group morality: ‘We represent (certain principles, higher standards of conduct, or morally superior goals)’ Collective rationalization Illusion of invulnerability Self-censorship An illusion of unanimity What it looks like in practice Share the parable of Abilene with the team. It can serve as a ‘real life’ example of our strong need for being in agreement and avoiding dissent. The Abilene paradox is one of the most well-known examples used for groupthink in the literature Facilitate a group discussion around situations where the team has found themselves in groupthink. Ask individuals to be specific in providing examples and talk about how they spotted that they were in groupthink Also get individuals to think about what has stopped them from speaking their mind or has made them go along with a group despite not wanting to/not thinking that this was the right thing to do Introduce the team to conditions that can favor groupthink Strong team spirit, high cohesiveness Limited contact with outsiders Poor intelligence-gathering process High stress—deadlines Directive leadership Facilitate a discussion with the team to identify which groupthink-favoring conditions may apply to them Outline ways to create divergence within the team and brainstorm with the group how they could implement some of these strategies day to day to avoid groupthink

1. Create the case for Robust challenge
Road to Abilene Share this parable with the team as an example of groupthink In 1974, Professor Jerry Harvey of George Washington University developed this wonderfully simple parable to illustrate what he believes is a major symptom of organizational dysfunction: the management of agreement, as opposed to the management of disagreement or conflict. This unique perspective has much to teach us about how we do or do not engage in deep inquiry and in self- disclosure when attempting to come to agreement with others. The parable of the Abilene paradox Four adults are sitting on a porch in 104-degree heat in the small town of Coleman, Texas, some 53 miles from Abilene. They are engaging in as little motion as possible, drinking lemonade, watching the fan spin lazily, and occasionally playing the odd game of dominoes. The characters are a married couple and the wife’s parents. At some point, the wife’s father suggests they drive to Abilene to eat at a cafeteria there. The son-in-law thinks this is a crazy idea but doesn’t see any need to upset the apple cart, so he goes along with it, as do the two women. They get in their non-air-conditioned Buick and drive through a dust storm to Abilene. They eat a mediocre lunch at the cafeteria and return to Coleman exhausted, hot, and generally unhappy with the experience. It is not until they return home that it is revealed that none of them really wanted to go to Abilene—they were just going along because they thought the others were eager to go. Naturally, everyone sees this failure to communicate as someone else’s problem! Source: ‘The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement,’ in Organizational Dynamics,

Share the content of this slide with the team after having shared the parable of Abilene. Highlight the six characteristics of groups failing to manage agreement effectively. Then open up the discussion: When have they as a team experienced groupthink? Which of these characteristics did they observe at the time? Encourage them to be specific and use a real-life example. How do we know when we are headed for Abilene? Harvey points to six characteristics emblematic of a group failing to manage agreement effectively: Members individually, but privately, agree about their current situation. The group in Coleman knew individually that they were satisfied with just sitting on the porch. Members agree, again in private, about what it would take to deal with the situation. In this case, the members privately agreed that staying on the porch was a good way to spend a hot and dusty day. Members fail to communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another, and, most importantly, sometimes even communicate the very opposite of their wishes based on what they assume are the desires and opinions of others. People make incorrect assumptions about consensus. In the Abilene case, one suggestion (offered on the assumption that the people wanted to do something besides sit on the porch) began a domino-like sequence of individual agreement with the concept in spite of each person’s private misgivings about the desirability and wisdom of making the trip to Abilene. Based on inaccurate perceptions and assumptions, members make a collective decision that leads to action. It is in the action that it becomes apparent that the decision is contrary to individual desires. They thereby arrive at a destination they did not want to go to in the first place. Our protagonists in the parable do not actually discover their unanimous disagreement with the action they took until someone says, ‘Well, that was a nice trip.’ Another person is then moved by frustration and exhaustion to blurt out the truth: ‘It was not a good idea or a nice trip!’ Members experience frustration, anger, and dissatisfaction with the organization. Often this leads to the forming of subgroups that take combative or blaming positions toward each other. The Abilene group begins by asking themselves immediately: ‘Whose crazy idea was this anyway?’ and thus starts the blaming cycle. Finally, members are destined to repeat this unsatisfying and dysfunctional behavior if they do not begin to understand the genesis of mismanaged agreement.

Share with the team why we stop ourselves from speaking out or why we would even go against our wishes. Open the discussion: When have you as individuals stopped yourselves from speaking out? When have you gone against your wishes? Ask individuals to share specific examples. Sources of the paradox It is provocative to ask why people would actually speak against their own desires. What psychological reasons are there for doing something that is bound to result in both individual discomfort and a lack of full and valid information for the group and our organizations? It is believed, according to Harvey, that people behave in this manner because they are afraid of the unknown. His hypothesis, quite different from others, is that we know what we are afraid of and that it generally has to do with loneliness, being left out, separation, and alienation. To avoid these, we will actually act against our best interests, hoping to be ‘part’ of something, members of the whole. Source: ‘The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement,’ in Organizational Dynamics,

2. Understand the systemic drivers of conflict
Robust challenge 2. Understand the systemic drivers of conflict The hierarchy of conflict can be used as a reminder for you or to share with teams that there can be a tendency to get hung up on interpersonal relationships when the cause of conflict is in fact more systemic. As a team coach you need to be careful to pay attention to the whole hierarchy. Environmental constraints Stakeholder contention Primary purpose/ commission Collective endeavor Strategic objectives Goals/team KPIs Roles Processes Team dynamics Interpersonal relationships Personal angst

3. Build a foundation of trust Lencioni
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Lencioni Purpose To understand what is getting in the way of the trust in the team and to create an aligned view of what needs to happen to build trust Description The Lencioni model, if used in full, could be a multi-day workshop. Alternatively, a short introductory workshop should give the team a solid enough understanding of the framework so that they can incorporate the thinking and vocabulary in their ongoing process. For a full workshop, see: Lencioni Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, A Field Guide. Below are some suggestions for a short introduction to the model with a specific focus on trust. What it looks like in practice Get the team to complete the online questionnaire before the session Take the team through the Lencioni triangle Ask the team to say where they think the team is now (can use red/amber/green to traffic-light where they think the team is) Share the actual results of the questionnaire with the group This exercise is where trust is lowest Ask the group to brainstorm what trust means in a team context Share the definition: ‘feeling able to be vulnerable in the group, to display your weaknesses, and to be your authentic self’ Split the group into pairs or threes and set them four questions to share back with the group: What surprised us and why? What gets in the way of us being open with each other? What would need to happen in this team for there to be more trust? What are the top two or three biggest issues we are avoiding talking about? Ask the groups to come back together Remind them of the ground rules and ask each group to share their thoughts Ask for the reactions of the whole group Avoid the group leaping to actions—that can come later Source: Lencioni, P. M. (2005) Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Managers, Team Leaders, Consultants and Facilitators. Jossey-Bass Inc.

3. Build a foundation of trust Lencioni
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Lencioni Use this to help you explain the five dysfunctions of a team and the behaviors that relate to each of them. See overleaf for more detailed descriptions to support you with the explanation. The overall story: A true measure of a team is that it accomplishes the results that it sets out to achieve. To do that on a consistent ongoing basis, a team must overcome the five dysfunctions listed here by embodying the behaviors described for each one: Absence of trust—members of great teams trust one another on a fundamental, emotional level, and they are comfortable being vulnerable with each other about their weaknesses, mistakes, fears, and behaviors Fear of conflict—teams that trust one another are not afraid to engage in passionate dialog around issues and decisions that are key to the organization’s success—all in the spirit of finding the best answers and making great decisions Lack of commitment—teams that engage in unfiltered conflict are able to achieve buy-in around important decisions, even when various members initially disagree Avoidance of accountability—teams that commit to decisions and standards of performance do not hesitate to hold one another accountable for adhering to those decisions and standards. Also, they don’t rely on the team leader as the primary source of accountability: They go directly to their peers Inattention to results—teams that trust one another, engage in conflict, commit to decisions, and hold one another accountable are very likely to set aside their individual needs and agendas and focus almost exclusively on what is best for the team Inattention to Results Avoidance of Accountability Lack of Commitment Fear of Conflict Absence of Trust Source: Lencioni, P. M. (2005) Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Managers, Team Leaders, Consultants and Facilitators. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Lencioni—behaviors for each of the five dysfunctions Use this material to help you explain to the team the behaviors that relate to each of the five dysfunctions (this should help you bring the pyramid to life) Members of trusting teams: Admit weaknesses and mistakes Ask for help Accept questions and input about their areas of responsibility Give one another the benefit of the doubt before arriving at a negative conclusion Take risks in offering feedback and assistance Appreciate and tap into one another’s skills and experiences Focus time and energy on important issues, not politics Offer and accept apologies without hesitation Look forward to meetings and other opportunities to work as a group Members of teams with an absence of trust: Conceal their weaknesses and mistakes from one another Hesitate to ask for help or provide constructive feedback Hesitate to offer help outside their own areas of responsibility Jump to conclusions about the intentions and aptitudes of others without attempting to clarify them Fail to recognize and tap into one another’s skills and experiences Waste time and energy managing their behaviors for effect Hold grudges Dread meetings and find reasons to avoid spending time together Teams that engage in conflict: Have lively, interesting meetings Extract and exploit the ideas of all team members Solve real problems quickly Minimize politics Put critical topics on the table for discussion Teams that fear conflict: Have boring meetings Create environments where back-channel politics and personal attacks thrive Ignore controversial topics that are critical to team success Fail to tap into all the opinions and perspectives of team members Waste time and energy with posturing and interpersonal risk management Source: Lencioni, P. M. (2005) Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Managers, Team Leaders, Consultants and Facilitators. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Lencioni—behaviors for each of the five dysfunctions Use this material to help you explain to the team the behaviors that relate to each of the five dysfunctions (this should help you bring the pyramid to life) A team that commits: Creates clarity around direction and priorities Aligns the entire team around common objectives Develops an ability to learn from mistakes Takes advantage of opportunities before competitors do Moves forward without hesitation Changes direction without hesitation or guilt A team that fails to commit: Creates ambiguity among the team about direction and priorities Watches windows of opportunity close due to excessive analysis and unnecessary delay Breeds lack of confidence and fear of failure Revisits discussions and decisions again and again Encourages second-guessing among team members A team that holds one another accountable: Ensures that poor performers feel pressure to improve Identifies potential problems quickly by questioning one another’s approaches without hesitation Establishes respect among team members who are held to the same high standards Avoids excessive bureaucracy around performance management and corrective action A team that avoids accountability: Creates resentment among team members who have different standards of performance Encourages mediocrity Misses deadlines and key deliverables Places an undue burden on the team leader as the sole source of discipline A team that focuses on collective results: Retains achievement-oriented employees Minimizes individualistic behavior Enjoys success and suffers failure acutely Benefits from individuals who subjugate their own goals/interests for the good of the team Avoids distractions A team that is not focused on results: Stagnates/fails to grow Rarely defeats competitors Loses achievement-oriented employees Encourages team members to focus on their own careers and individual goals Is easily distracted Source: Lencioni, P. M. (2005) Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Managers, Team Leaders, Consultants and Facilitators. Jossey-Bass Inc.

3. Build a foundation of trust The building blocks of trust
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust The building blocks of trust Purpose To make a relatively intangible concept much easier to discuss by using an accessible framework To encourage reflection on what is required for trust to exist within a team, and encourage each individual to reflect on how their actions and attitudes help to create or destroy it To help restore and build trusting relationships within the team by facilitating an open conversation about each member’s needs and expectations Description Exercise which asks individuals to examine their own and others’ behaviors against four elements of trust, with discussion in pairs and in plenary What it looks like in practice Take group through the four elements of trust—reliability, acceptance, openness, and congruence—and the subcomponents of each. Explain that for a trust-based relationship, all four are necessary Ask participants to rate themselves against each of the four elements, giving themselves scores on how strongly they exhibit each—can ask for one score for in work and another for outside Paired share regarding reflections on personal scores and on individual preferences for building trust Plenary debrief and discussion on why trust breaks down Personal reflection on where trust has broken down in business relationships and the performance impact that it had/continues to have Reflect on what can be done to restore trust and improve productivity in business relationships—can be in paired share Role-play suggestions/simply get feedback on new approaches and commit to action Debrief Watch out for Be thoughtful about when to use this tool versus doing work on building trust. Given it is another diagnostic, there is a risk the team can spend time ‘admiring the problem’ rather than actively engaging activities to build trust (outlined on the following slides) Source: Keith Ayers, The building blocks of trust;

3. Build a foundation of trust The trust building blocks
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust The trust building blocks Use this to help you explain the building blocks of trust Making realistic promises Being on time for your meetings Keeping your deadlines Being proactive in planning how you will keep your promises Being tenacious and committed; not backing off when your promises turn out to be harder to keep than you thought Accepting the identity of the other person Respecting the other person’s point of view Showing empathy: being able to feel for others Not judging others, not wanting them to be different Allowing mistakes and learning from them Reliability Acceptance Wanting to listen to what others have to say Valuing the opinions/advice of others; being ready to change in response to what they say and what they show you Telling others what you think, feel, and believe Being aware that your influence can actually help others change Making sure that your body language and attitudes reflect your inner state Making your expectations clear Recognizing your limits and limitations honestly Being sincere: not deceiving others or concealing things Making your limits and rules clear Knowing when to say no Openness Congruence

3. Build a foundation of trust Trust building blocks example agenda
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Trust building blocks example agenda Use this as an example agenda for the building blocks of trust Timing Activity 10 mins Introduction: Trust is an essential component of any productive relationship, and it takes time to build People trust us because of the things we do and say—i.e., our actions—not our feelings and intentions. They only know what we do There are four elements that combine to create trust, and all of them are necessary. They are reliability, acceptance, openness, and congruence, and each has several subcomponents (refer to diagram) Like professional athletes, professional people can develop and strengthen their skills by analyzing what the successful person does (in this instance to build trust in relationships), and then practicing it until it becomes familiar Individually, please use the scoring sheet to rate yourself on each dimension and subcomponent of trust (in both your professional and your personal life) 15 mins In pairs, compare scores and individual preferences for building trust. Discuss the following questions: When you make the professional/private comparison, is there a difference? Why? When you make the objective score/subjective score comparison, is there a difference? Why? Where are the main limitations to your trustworthiness? Do these limitations come from education or from personality? How can you modify or change poor scores and test the result? Difficult or not? Personal reflection on where trust has broken down in business relationships and the performance impact that it had/continues to have. Reflect on what can be done to restore trust and improve productivity in business relationships Commit to one or two things you are going to do to increase your trustworthiness. Take turns sharing with the group 5 mins Debrief

3. Build a foundation of trust Trust building blocks diagnostic
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Trust building blocks diagnostic Use this as a self-assessment for the team to further understand where they might need to pay attention to improve trust Reliability Accept the identity of the other person Respect others’ points of view Show empathy: feel for others Do not judge others; don’t wish them to be different Allow mistakes and learn from them Total Make realistic promises Be on time for meetings Meet your deadlines Be proactive in planning how you will keep your promises Be tenacious and committed; don’t back off when your promises turn out to be harder to keep than you thought Be ready to listen to what others have to say Value the opinions and views of others; be ready to change in response to what they have to say and what they show you Tell others what you think, feel, and believe Be aware that your influence can actually help others change Make sure that your body language and attitudes reflect your inner state Make your expectations clear Recognize your limits and limitations honestly Be sincere: Don’t deceive others or hide things Make your limits and rules clear Know when to say no Overall score /10 Score per element /50 Total for all elements Overall score (total for all elements divided by 20) /200 Acceptance Openness Congruence

3. Build a foundation of trust Personal history
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Personal history Purpose To support the team to get to know each other on a more personal level in order to build trust Description A round robin where each of the team talks for 5 minutes about their personal history What it looks like in practice Set up the session and explain the purpose—that personal disclosure helps to build trust within the team Contract with the team, making sure you let the team know that they should only share what they feel comfortable sharing to a level of disclosure where they still feel safe. It is also important to agree confidentiality Instructions to the team 5 minutes to talk on three of the following questions: Say a few things about your personal background Describe personal events/situations (personal, organizational, or both) that affected your career in a significant way Say something about the best/worst times in your life What kind of people do you admire? What do you see as your greatest accomplishments? What was your greatest failure/disappointment? What makes you angry, happy, mad, or sad? What regrets do you have as you look back on your life? If you could change two things in your life, what would they be? How do you look at the future? Ask team members to listen, reflect, and be prepared to respond on: What was surprising? What was new? What particularly resonated for you?

3. Build a foundation of trust Global vote—human continuum
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Global vote—human continuum Purpose To support the team to get to know each other on a more personal level in order to build trust Description Team members physically move around the room along a continuum to express their views around the key components of trust in the team What it looks like in practice Positioning: This exercise is designed to get team members to talk openly about their own feelings, attitudes, and level of personal trust. Interpersonal trust can be viewed as having five components: Telling the truth Showing respect Demonstrating understanding and support Keeping commitments Putting the business interests ahead of our own personal interests Process: Two flip charts are positioned 30 to 50 feet apart. Then the number one and the words ‘Almost never’ are written on one flip chart. On the other, the number seven and the words ‘Almost always’ are written. Participants are asked to imagine a scale between one and seven, to think about the statement ‘We tell each other the truth,’ and to vote with their feet. That is, get up and physically position yourself on the scale. The facilitator asks each group to declare where they are standing on the scale: ones, twos, etc. Then the facilitator chooses someone, looks them in the eye, and asks, ‘Why are you standing there?’ After hearing the answer, the facilitator moves on to the next person and asks the same question. All participants should be given the opportunity to answer the question on telling each other the truth Then the facilitator makes the statement ‘We respect one another,’ and instructs the team to vote with their feet. Again, depending on time constraints and the size of the team, everyone might be given the opportunity to answer the question: ‘Why are you standing there?’ The statements and voting continue with ‘We seek to understand one another,’ ‘We support one another,’ and, ‘We keep commitments to one another.’ Trustworthy means that we do what we say we are going to do and keep our commitments to one another. As the facilitator gets to the last two or three questions, it might be a good idea to call on people randomly, planning to hear from only a portion of the team members At this point, give the team a short break and do not attempt to process the exercise for take-aways or learnings. The value of this exercise is that team members can calibrate their team members’ attitudes, beliefs, and convictions on these very important team- relationship dimensions. This will guide individual team members in determining the best way to deal with one another when these dimensions come into play later as the team continues to form

Establishing and maintaining trust—the building blocks
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Global vote—human continuum Use this to help you explain the components of trust as a framework for the team to use for the human- continuum exercise Two-way feedback Self-awareness Personal disclosure Empathy and understanding Getting the basics right—ground rules for courtesy and respect: Don’t interrupt or talk over me Don’t make decisions that affect me without consulting or at least informing me Ask before telling—seek first to understand, then to be understood Don’t let me down—always honour commitments Don’t embarrass me in front of others—no surprises, no put-downs, no point-scoring Don’t talk negatively about me to others; talk to me about me Courtesy and respect Support and challenge Focus on team rather than me Status and ego invulnerability Establishing and maintaining trust—the building blocks Trust is not about personal integrity. It is about vulnerability—e.g., whether you feel safe enough to expose your weaknesses and express your real concerns. It’s about being able to be your ‘authentic self’ rather than ‘playing the game.’ Seek Accept Give

3. Build a foundation of trust Philosophers’ dinner
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Philosophers’ dinner Purpose To increase openness/build trust among team members Description An informal exercise usually performed over dinner in which team members choose poems from a selection and read them out to the rest of the group. The audience then tries to derive insight into the reader from their selection What it looks like in practice Before the dinner Discuss rationale behind ‘philosophers’ dinner’ Hand out collection of poems to choose a reading from Give instructions for over-dinner exercise At dinner Facilitator proposes a toast to set the tone for the evening One person reads poem, others discuss why they think that person chose the poem, reader shares their reason Process continues until everyone who would like to take part has read and shared

3. Build a foundation of trust Philosophers’ dinner—session overview
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Philosophers’ dinner—session overview Timing Activity 10 mins Before dinner—an introduction Tonight, as part of our journey toward a relationship-focused culture, we will gather for a ‘philosophers’ dinner’ We see the connection to relationships when we explore the Greek roots of the word philosophy: Sophia is wisdom, while Phila is one of three Greek words for love that means love of others (the other two are Eros, meaning sexual love, and Plato, meaning love between friends) So, philosophy is wisdom created between friends. Tonight we’ll gather over dinner and create collective wisdom together as friends. How will we do it? I have a collection of poems, which I’ll hand out in a moment. I’d like you to select a poem to read out over dinner. Select a poem that opens a little window of yourself to the rest of the team—you can choose the size of that window. This is completely voluntary: If you don’t want to do it, you don’t have to. Our experience is that it’s a fun way to get to know each other The Greek philosophers would sometimes gather at ritual dinners called symposia at which they would eat fine food, drink fine wine, discuss philosophy, and build the bonds between them. Tonight we’d like to invite you to a symposium to create collective wisdom between friends. Pass out poems and remind them how to select one 120 mins At dinner: Propose a toast to the creation of wisdom between friends. The wisdom of the Greek philosophers was not generated by the philosopher sitting alone and thinking. The wisdom of Socrates, ‘the father of philosophy,’ is not to be found in anything he wrote—it’s to be found in written recordings of conversations he had with others, especially Plato So here is how we are going to cook up the conversation tonight: A person reads out their poem, others then say why he/she may have chosen that poem, and the person then tells the group why he/she chose that poem The process is repeated until everyone who wants to read a poem has taken a turn

3. Build a foundation of trust Life-line exercise
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Life-line exercise Purpose To support the team to strengthen relationships and build trust through getting to know each other on a more personal level Description A round robin where each of the team talks for 10 minutes about the key events in their life that have made them who they are (both highs and lows) What it looks like in practice Set up the session and explain the purpose—that personal disclosure helps to build trust within the team Let them know that they will be asked to share with the team significant events in their lives that have shaped who they are today. The reason for this is that personal disclosure helps to build trust. Let them know that while disclosure is important, it is also important that they feel safe, so go to a level that feels comfortable (or perhaps just a little outside their comfort zone). Let them know that there won’t be any questions, observations, or feedback. The purpose is just to share. It is also important to contract on confidentiality Step 1: Each person is given 20 minutes to create a flip chart with a personal timeline noting significant events (highs or lows) that have shaped who they are today. Note any values or beliefs that were established at this life stage (where appropriate) Step 2: Each person is given 20 mins to share their life line—‘events that have shaped you’—with the whole team. There are no questions, observations, or feedback after each person shares

3. Build a foundation of trust Life line
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Life line This is an example of what the life line typically looks like. The low points and high points would form the basis of the stories that are shared. yrs

3. Build a foundation of trust Wine and spirit—personal objects
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Wine and spirit—personal objects Purpose To create openness, connection, compassion, improved communication, respect, and dignity through disclosure of personal details within a group Excellent for alignment, embedding, inspiring leaders, and establishing connections within new groups Description An informal group exercise—usually in the evening during dinner—in which participants take turns showing the rest of the group an object of personal significance to them and explaining why it is special to them What it looks like in practice Typically run as an evening session after dinner, over drinks/dessert, in a comfortable setting For a team who already know each other, it can be used before the main body of the workshop if there is an introductory dinner; for teams who know each other less well, it’s better to allow a full day to elapse before using the module Ask participants before the workshop to bring an object that has personal significance Find a comfortable, private space—make sure waiters finish serving and leave before start of exercise. For example, find a lounge area to have dessert, coffee, and a glass of wine (in winter around a nice open fire) or if warm enough in summer find an area under the stars (around a campfire if in the country) Facilitator begins by showing own object and telling the story of the object’s significance (care must be taken to choose the right story to set the correct tone for different groups) Participants take turns sharing their respective objects/stories (5 minutes each) Ensure all participants are present—if anyone leaves, stop the sharing until they return Do allow at least 5 minutes per person—rarely takes less than an hour, often much more

3. Build a foundation of trust Mad, sad, and glad
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Mad, sad, and glad Purpose A simple and quick process usually done early in the day to help people to acknowledge and express how people are feeling about the team—a chance to vent and celebrate in order to free things up and move the team forward for the rest of the work in an event or meeting Description This session is run in three stages. Firstly, individuals capture their feelings about the team on flip charts; secondly, they review the collective responses with a partner; and, finally, they share their response with the whole team What it looks like in practice Three charts on the wall, one headed Mad, one Sad, and one Glad Ask team members to think about their experience over the last 6 months (you need to decide what time frame to focus people’s attention on depending on what you are doing with them as a team; it may be 6 months, a year, a month, etc.) and then individually write Post-it notes—one note for each thing that makes them feel mad, sad, or glad. They should write as many things as come to mind and then post them on the charts No names are needed, as the intention is to help people fully express themselves without fear of being pointed out as being ‘difficult,’ ‘emotional,’ etc. Give about 10–15 minutes depending on the group size. Encourage people to visit the charts and see what is stimulated so they can add to the charts as they go along With all the Post-it notes on each chart, ask people to pair up and review using the following questions: What stands out most as you review all three charts? What are you most pleased about? What are you most disappointed or saddened by? Given where you are all at collectively, what ‘words of wisdom’ would you offer right now? Ask the pairs to share their responses to the questions with the whole group while everyone is still standing. This keeps the energy going and the conversations focused and brief. Don’t try to ‘sort everything out’ or move into ‘problem solving’ The purpose is to raise awareness early on in a team event and help the fuller expression of feelings Acknowledge where people are at, move into a short coffee break, and then move on

3. Build a foundation of trust Getting connected
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Getting connected Purpose To break the ice by getting team members to build interpersonal relationships and camaraderie through conversation Description Team members line up across from one another like corporate speed dating, and alternate between answering a question and rotating to new team members What it looks like in practice Facilitator breaks the team into two specified groups. Group A lines up on one side of a line (tape on the floor), and Group B lines up on the other side. Each team member should shake hands with their partner to ensure that they know who to talk with for the first question Flash the first question on the screen. Each person in each pair will have 30 seconds to answer each question After each person has answered, the facilitator will chime a bell and designate a ‘rock’ for the activity. This person should be standing at the end of one of the lines. The group will rotate around the ‘rock’ for the rest of the activity Rotate the group one step to the left, except for the ‘rock,’ who will stay in their position. Instruct the group to shake the hands of their new partner and introduce themselves. Show the next question, and give each individual 30–45 seconds to answer. Make sure to tell the group to offer their partner a chance to answer Signal the end of the question with a chime. Repeat the rotation, and flash up the next question. Repeat this process until all of the team members have had a chance to talk with each other Watch out for Individuals should give their partners a chance to answer, and not monopolize conversations Encourage the team members to continue the conversations beyond simply answering the question; talk about it! Purpose

3. Build a foundation of trust Getting connected
Robust challenge 3. Build a foundation of trust Getting connected Use this slide to think about some of the powerful questions you’d want to ask the team. Some of those questions in the past have been as follows. Name three things you are really good at. What was your first job? If you could live anywhere in the world, where would you live? Who would you most like to meet (dead or alive)? What superhero power would you most like to acquire? What was a pleasant memory from your childhood? What is your idea of happiness? What do you appreciate most about your friends?

4. Stimulate productive conflict Lencioni conflict model
Robust challenge 4. Stimulate productive conflict Lencioni conflict model Purpose To help surface conflict in teams that avoid it (especially where there is ‘artificial harmony’) and to exercise the team’s muscle to be able to rupture and repair quickly from conflict Description This is a team workshop that moves through three key areas: profiling, conflict norming, and mining for conflict What it looks like in practice Conflict profiling: to identify individual and collective conflict tendencies. Time: about 30 to 60 minutes Have team members review their Lencioni behavioral profile, highlighting implications specific to conflict. Have the team members each share those implications, along with other conflict, including in their lives (including family and life experiences). Discuss the similarities and differences of the team in terms of the collective outlook on conflict as well as the potential implications. Conflict norming: to provide clarity to team members about how they expect one another to engage in discussion and debate. Time: about 30 minutes Have all team members write down their individual preferences relating to acceptable and unacceptable behaviors around discussion and debate. Areas might include use of language, tone of voice, emotional content, expectations of involvement and participation, avoidance of distractions, or timeliness of response. Have the team members each review their preferences with the rest of the team while someone captures key areas of similarity and difference. Discuss preferences, paying special attention to areas of difference. Arrive at a common understanding of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that all members of the team can commit to. Formally record and distribute behavioral expectations around conflict. Mining for conflict: ongoing use of the learning from above. The leader can use the insights and vocabulary to mine for conflict if it continues to be avoided in meetings/interactions. Source: Lencioni, P. M. (2005) Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Managers, Team Leaders, Consultants and Facilitators. Jossey-Bass Inc.

4. Stimulate productive conflict Lencioni conflict model
Robust challenge 4. Stimulate productive conflict Lencioni conflict model Use this model to describe Lencioni’s team-functioning model to facilitate team ability to have robust debate. NB Most teams spend their time at the ‘artificial harmony’ end of the conflict spectrum, which means they are not producing the best outcome or commitment to decisions. Teams need to move to the ‘constructive, passionate debate’ part of the continuum. This is hard to do in practice. If naked aggression is experienced, teams need to know how to repair and move on. The conflict spectrum Artificial harmony Naked aggression Constructive, passionate debate Source: Lencioni, P. M. (2005) Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Managers, Team Leaders, Consultants and Facilitators. Jossey-Bass Inc.

4. Stimulate productive conflict Withholds
Robust challenge 4. Stimulate productive conflict Withholds Description A team exercise in which members surface and clear ‘withholds’—unspoken negative thoughts and feelings— by sharing and discussing them with the relevant person in the team Purpose To surface (and ideally resolve at least some) unspoken sources of tension in a constructive, positive way, to remove blockages to enable the team to work better together To give the team an approach to discussing differences/conflicts in a constructive way that they can use going forward when new tensions arise How it can be used Usually within a workshop where there has been time to lay the ground for this exercise, e.g., a personal- transformation workshop or workshop that has significant reflection/EQ content Particularly useful where conflict is not handled effectively, e.g., personalization of disagreements or insufficient openness What it looks like in practice Discuss what happens in conflicts—what feelings participants had Discuss how conflicts escalate through discomfort–incident–misunderstanding–tension–crisis (the ‘conflict curve’), role of withholding thoughts/emotions in allowing escalation to happen, and consequent value of clearing ‘withholds’ early on Personal reflection on withholds—some may be positive as well as negative. Individual time to write withholds— push for a good number with people in the room. Explain how to surface withholds constructively—the ‘I’ statements—rather than ‘dumping’ Ask people to find someone in the room with whom they want to clear a ‘withhold’; when they have done it, ask them to find someone else. If they run out of negative things to ‘clear,’ suggest they share positive withholds, e.g., appreciation that they have not communicated

4. Stimulate productive conflict Withholds—example agenda
Robust challenge 4. Stimulate productive conflict Withholds—example agenda Timing Activity 10 mins Discuss what happens in conflicts, what feelings participants had Discuss how conflicts escalate through discomfort–incident–misunderstanding–tension–crisis (the ‘conflict curve’), role of withholding thoughts/emotions in allowing escalation to happen, and consequent value of clearing ‘withholds’ early on Personal reflection on withholds—some may be positive as well as negative. Allow time to write notes on withholds— push for a good number with people in the room. Can be things we want or need to say and don’t Can also be things we hold on to that are long past: past hurt, regret, resentment, and guilt for things that happened or did not happen to us, or things that we have done or not done Often we hold on to withholds because we fear the consequences of communicating these to another or we doubt our ability to communicate ourselves effectively Withholding thoughts or emotions can limit our ability to relate to others, resulting in poor communication, stress, tension, and a sense of being stuck in the past Can escalate into larger withholds and conflict, and result in a diminished sense of energy, aliveness, authenticity, spontaneity, and creativity Letting go of withholds may involve communicating directly with others, or quiet reflection that leads to an ‘internal letting go’ 30–40 mins Explain steps to clearing withholds using ‘I’ statements: Offer your perspective on the withhold by describing the event without blame or accusation. Avoid inflammatory language and say what is really the matter: ‘I would like to share my perspective on …’ or ‘When …’ Describe how you felt in a way that expresses ownership of your response. Avoid casting blame: ‘I felt …’ or ‘I feel …’ Suggest a way forward without attachment to outcomes. Avoid phrasing as a demand and ensure that it is specific enough to allow options to be collaboratively developed: ‘And what I would like …’ or ‘I would be helped if …’ 5 mins Ask people to find someone in the room with whom they want to clear a ‘withhold’; when they have done it, ask them to find someone else. If they run out of negative things to ‘clear,’ suggest they share positive withholds, e.g., appreciation that they have not communicated.

5. Interact with high support and challenge
Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Purpose To develop a common understanding of what high challenge with support looks like in practice and to raise awareness of the current team climate Description A facilitated session in pairs and as a group What it looks like in practice Can be done at the start of the session or in the middle of a session (at a break/transition point in the agenda). Start of a session Setup— ‘introduce a model that will look at how we would like to work together’; ‘about creating a climate and atmosphere for the work we will be doing together’ Talk about the experiences they had together in the past/earlier in the team-coaching process if relevant Follow the processes detailed below Part way through Setup—‘review how we have been together’; ‘put a mark on the morning’; ‘ a potential way to learn about what we have been doing together’ What have you noticed? What made it work? Have we had the right levels of support? Of challenge? What does that mean to you? Introduce the model and the four quadrants; when each is useful/gets in the way (see attachments); for our work, we generally want to be in the top right—this is where learning happens Work with the model—option 1—paired work: Have them each place an X on the model that best describes the climate in the room Discuss their experience in terms of : a) how they believe they themselves contribute to creating this climate—being open (what they do that helps and what they do that doesn't) and b) how they believe the others in the meeting contribute to creating this climate—behavioral feedback (what they believe others do that helps and doesn't help) What are they prepared to keep doing and to do differently in the future? Come back together as a team and discuss The conversation should include specific examples to ensure the team has a shared view of what both ‘support’ and ‘challenge’ look like for them Gain agreement to use the model to monitor the climate of the team going forward Work with the model—option 2—physical: especially good in the middle of the day to bring energy and a different perspective: Use masking tape to create the quadrants on the floor Stand where they are now … discuss Move to where they want to be ... discuss What are they prepared to keep doing and to do differently in the future Source: Nevitt Sanford (1966). Self and Society: Social Change and Individual Development. Atherton.

Leadership Challenge Module 3 Handbook Jan 14
Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge framework Use this to explain the support -and-challenge model. Explain the difference between low support and high support and then the difference between low challenge and high challenge. Next get the team to brainstorm the behaviors in each of the quadrants and their outcomes (e.g., comfort). Start with the bottom right, then bottom left, top left, and finally top right. More Positively confronts Holds accountability Challenges assumptions Honest feedback (with positive intent) Intuitive Brave Creates: Commitment (instead of compliance) Alignment with the strategic direction and purpose Transformational change A sustainable performance edge Stress zone Growth zone Challenge Comfort zone Zone out Less Less Collaboration More Source: Adapted from Nevitt Sanford’s challenge-and-support model (1966). Self and Society: Social Change and Individual Development. Atherton. Leadership Challenge Module 3 Handbook Jan 14

Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge framework Challenge: intention to achieve a particular outcome or result conveyed by directness and clarity of message Support: intention to maintain healthy relationships conveyed by encouragement and emotional acknowledgment Q1: High challenge and high support Used when we want to get tough messages across in a highly motivational way. The challenge may be difficult, but the receiver is in no doubt that the sender cares about them. Q2: High challenge and low support Used when the need for a direct and immediate response outweighs feelings in the short term, e.g., in a crisis. Q3: High support and low challenge Used when it is necessary to de-emphasize results or tasks to leave people in no doubt that they are cared about, e.g., in cases of burnout or trauma. Q4: Low support and low challenge Used when people need to know that they must operate independently, e.g., tough love for development purposes. Challenge Support H L

Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge skills-building session (Part A: Support) Purpose To help the team to understand why creating a supportive environment is integral to holding challenging conversations and accelerating performance Description 90-minute skills-building session to develop the capability to have a high-support/challenge conversation. This is part of the challenging conversations program, which should be done in its entirety (3 days) if there is a significant capability gap in this area. This typically follows a team session on the challenge-and-support model What it looks like in practice Introduce the group exercise: Ask the team to sit in a circle. Its task is to help you, the facilitator, with some thinking around a current dilemma (choose something that has meaning for you, but nothing too complex, to enable you to process your responses to the questions while paying attention to the helps and hinders people asked—recalling specific questions or phrases used is helpful). Provide your own example—nothing too complex, but something that is not quite as straightforward as it seems. Each team member is given two questions. How far can they help your thinking progress? At the end of round 1 ask the group ‘what helped’ and ‘what hindered’ from its perspective. Note observations on the flip chart. Take time to explore the importance of each point with them to ensure understanding. If they miss any important points, add in Round 2—knowing what they now know, ask them to resume the discussion. Same rules apply: only two questions per person At the end of round 2, do a debrief on the difference between rounds 1 and 2 Introduce the 121 exercise In pairs: ‘A’ talks about their role, the key challenges (what would they like to start doing more of, do less of, stop doing, or change?). B’s role is to engage with ‘A’ in the conversation, in the way that they normally would. Using the helps-and-hinders list, at the end of the 15 minutes, ‘A’ provides feedback on the impact ‘B’ had on them. How supportive vs. challenging did it feel? Where was the balance? Discuss for 10 minutes, then swap Short debrief as a group, key learning, coach’s observations

Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Challenge-and-support skills-building session You can use this after the group exercise when the team has brainstormed what helps and hinders—this can help to supplement the ideas that they have generated Helps Empathy Listening Being curious Open questions Creating a flow Rapport and empathy Leaving ego at the door Building the conversation (and ...) Working toward a common purpose Hinders Assumptions and judgments Too many closed questions Using own agenda, not their agenda Focusing on leading, suggestions, and solutions Negating what’s just been said (yes, but ...) Disingenuousness

Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge skills-building session (Part B: Challenge) Purpose To help the team understand and experience how to add appropriate levels of challenge to a conversation by stretching the other person’s thinking to accelerate team performance Description 80-minute skills-building session to develop the capability to have a high-support/challenge conversation. This is part of the challenging conversations program, which should be done in its entirety (3 days) if there is a significant capability gap in this area What it looks like in practice Challenge-and-support framework Think about the conversations you normally have. Where would you usually be in this framework? Why? How does that reflect the organizational culture? What’s the shift required in the conversations you have for you to be operating in the top-right-hand box? Where’s the opportunity to stretch yourself? Ask each participant to think about what they would like to practice specifically in this next exercise (relative to where they usually are and where they would like to be). Make a note on the flip chart to help focus attention. Introduce group-conversation exercise Ask if anyone would like to participate in a session where they share their current business challenge Do a high-level check to ensure the context is appropriate Choose a couple of people (based on the appropriateness of their topic) Explain that the person with the challenge will be coached by the group (encourage all to participate). Remind them the purpose is to challenge by stretching the thinking of the other person and to do so with support Facilitator takes the opportunity to freeze-frame on one or two occasions when appropriate to ask the group where they are on the challenge-and-support model Run two iterations (of 30 minutes each) Debrief exercise Team coach to lead debrief to capture learning—focus on how effectively they stretched the other person’s thinking, or not

Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge skills-building session Challenge: intention to achieve a particular outcome or result conveyed by directness and clarity of message Support: intention to maintain healthy relationships conveyed by encouragement and emotional acknowledgment Q1: High challenge and high support Used when we want to get tough messages across in a highly motivational way. The challenge may be difficult, but the receiver is in no doubt that the sender cares about them. Q2: High challenge and low support Used when the need for a direct and immediate response outweighs feelings in the short term, e.g., in a crisis. Q3: High support and low challenge Used when it is necessary to de-emphasize results or tasks to leave people in no doubt that they are cared about, e.g., in cases of burnout or trauma. Q4: Low support and low challenge Used when people need to know that they must operate independently, e.g., tough love for development purposes. Challenge Support H L

Opportunities to stretch thinking
Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge skills-building session Use this to stimulate the team’s consideration of when they could challenge others’ thinking. Helpful to bring this out to share during the practice session when you notice they are missing a number of cues they could be picking up on. About ME About OTHERS Opportunities to stretch thinking All-or-nothing thinking Either/or thinking Mind-reading Personalization Generalizations Assumptions Imposter syndrome Dismissive thinking Labeling Demand thinking

The uncomfortable space
Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge skills-building session Use this to stimulate the team’s thinking (you can draw it up on the flip chart) when you notice conversations are circling around the ‘comfortable space’ in order to challenge them to get to the ‘real’ issue. You can do ‘timeouts’ and ask the team, ‘Where is the conversation now?’ The comfortable space The uncomfortable space The heart of the matter Source: Adapted from Blakey, J. and Day, I. (2012) Challenging Coaching: Going Beyond Traditional Coaching to Face the Facts. Nicholas Brealey International

Robust challenge 5. Interact with high support and challenge Support-and-challenge skills-building session Use this to help as a prompt for you as a team coach on where you could intervene to stimulate a greater level of constructive challenge Possible interventions in the course of facilitated sessions or as a review point during the session: What we might be seeing What questions we would ask How we would move the group on How they will see it for themselves No one is challenging the others’ views I notice no one is questioning or challenging. Why is that? What might be more helpful? Lots of aggressive challenging, little support To the challenged: What are you hearing? To the challenger: Is that your intent? Can you clarify what it is you are asking of ...? Where would you like to go? As a review What has been the climate of the meeting thus far? What has been helpful? Not so helpful? What do you want to continue doing? What do you want to start doing differently? What will you look for yourselves the next time? How will you move to the upper right?

Robust challenge 6. Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process Ways to create Robust challenge Use this slide to introduce ways to create Robust challenge within a team. Stimulate a group discussion around how they will be able to spot when they are in groupthink and what they are going to do to avoid groupthink going forward. Generate multiple alternatives Form subgroups Encourage minority reports Rotate devil’s advocate Consult outside experts Report dissent indirectly Role-play adversaries How will we make sure that we spot when we are in groupthink in the future? - What will we do as a team to avoid groupthink going forward? 155

Robust challenge 6. Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process Protecting your deviant Purpose Ensure your team has robust debate and does not fall into the homogeneity trap. Every team needs a deviant: someone who can help the team by challenging the tendency to want too much homogeneity, which can stifle creativity and learning The deviant opens up more ideas, and that gets you a lot more originality Description Content input and facilitated discussion What it looks like in practice Ensure the team appoints a designated deviant for important discussions. Some teams may like to appoint a deviant longer term (i.e., fulfilling this role for a few days/weeks), while others may want to appoint a new deviant for every major discussion The designated deviant will say things that nobody else is willing to articulate, such as, ‘Wait a minute, why are we doing this at all?’ or ‘We’ve got to stop and maybe change direction’ These observations can open up creative discussion, but they also raise others’ anxiety levels. People feel compelled to crack down on the deviant and try to get him to stop asking difficult questions—maybe even knock him off the team. Deviants veer from the norm at great personal cost Don’t let that happen—if you lose your deviant, your team can become mediocre Remember, deviant thinking is a source of great innovation

Robust challenge 6. Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process Balcony and dance Purpose To support the team to be engaged in team discussion while being aware of team dynamics and the level of Robust challenge Description An exercise to be introduced as part of a business-as-usual working session This is about being both present in the moment AND detached from it. This is about doing the dance but seeing the whole room. Think 007 It is like the world-class athlete who can receive the pass but be aware of the whole field This state of witness consciousness—being in the moment AND detached from it—is the state athletes call ‘being in the zone.’ The world-class footballer or basketball player is both in the moment of receiving the pass AND aware of the overall field, as if watching the play from the commentator’s box The person is on the balcony while in the dance What it looks like in practice Introduce the concept of balcony and dance to the team. Explain to them that at all times they can process information and activities at various levels. When in the dance they are participants, part of the system. When on the balcony they are observers of the system and very likely to see and learn different things than they would as participants on the dance floor Encourage the team to observe itself more fully and regularly, giving themselves the chance to identify areas for growth and learning—e.g., where do we typically get stuck? Why is this type of decision so controversial for us? You could practice balcony and dance by nominating a team member to be ‘on the balcony’ during a team discussion and to feed back his/her thoughts afterward You could also use the concept of balcony and dance as a way to challenge the team to dig deeper and find opportunities for learning: ‘We have discussed the issue now as you see it as participants of the discussion. Imagine yourselves more detached from this situation on the balcony. What else would you see?’

Robust challenge 6. Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process Encouraging diverse perspectives Purpose To support the leader to foster different perspectives in order to stimulate productive conflict in the team Description Typically this would form part of a coaching conversation with the leader in addition to some simple exercises to run with the team What it looks like in practice Stimulating diverse perspectives within the team: The leader needs to consider diversity as part of the team’s composition As part of team integration of a diverse team, the leader’s focus needs to be on creating coherence in terms of core values, beliefs, and attitudes, but maximizing differences through knowledge, skills, and abilities to accelerate performance (Harrison 2002) Get the team to brainstorm ideas about how they could increase the level of diversity in team discussions/decision making (e.g., bringing in people from outside to contribute) Get the team to complete De Bono’s six-thinking-hats exercise (see descriptions of the hats overleaf). Get each team member to adopt a different ’thinking hat’ as part of a discussion about a key topic. This can help inject diverse thinking into the process and elicit Robust challenge, as well as stretching individuals in the team in terms of their preferred thinking style, to help broaden their repertoire

Robust challenge 6. Practical steps to generate and embed Robust challenge into team process De Bono thinking hats Use this to explain the role of each of the thinking hats in the De Bono exercise The White Hat is neutral, objective, and non-emotional. White is effectively colorless. With this thinking hat you focus on the data available. You look at the facts and figures and see what you can learn. You try to extrapolate past trends from historical data. You search for gaps in your knowledge, and either try to fill them or take account of them. The Red Hat by contrast is the emotional hat, where you can present views based on your intuition without explanation, or justification of your emotions. ‘Wearing’ the red hat, you look at problems using intuition, gut reaction, and emotion. You should also try to think how other people will react emotionally. Try to understand the responses of people who do not fully know your reasoning. The Black Hat is gloomy and negative. You take time to look at the risks and why a proposed solution will fail. Black-hat thinking helps to make your plans ‘tougher’ and more resilient. It can also help you to spot fatal flaws and risks before you embark on a course of action. Black-hat thinking is one of the real benefits of this technique, as many successful people get so used to thinking positively that often they cannot see problems in advance. This leaves them underprepared for difficulties. The Yellow Hat is sunny and optimistic and you take time to be hopeful. The yellow hat helps you to think positively. It is the optimistic viewpoint that helps you to see all the benefits of the decision and the value in it. The Green Hat stands for the creation of new ideas, concepts, and perceptions. Green is the color of plants that grow from tiny seeds and the creativity of nature. When you are wearing the green hat you are concerned with change, and escaping old ideas in order to find better ones. It is a freewheeling way of thinking, in which there is little criticism of ideas. The Blue Hat stands for process, control, or taking an overview. As the sky is over all of us, and blue is the color of the sky, then wearing a blue hat means taking time to look from a higher and wider perspective to see whether you are addressing the right issue. This is the hat worn by people chairing meetings. Source: De Bono, Edward (1985). Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management. Little, Brown, & Company

Disciplined decisions
Decision rights and responsibilities are clear, information is shared seamlessly, and streamlined mechanisms are in place to enable efficient decision making

Disciplined decisions is underpinned by drive-factor statements and constraints Decision rights and responsibilities are clear, information is shared seamlessly, and streamlined mechanisms are in place to enable efficient decision making Drive factors Constraints ‘The clarity of decision rights and responsibilities’ ‘The seamless way information is shared to enable decisions to be made efficiently’ ‘The streamlined processes we have in place to make quality decisions quickly’ ‘Allowing specific team members to dominate conversation and distort decision making’ ‘Failing to adequately assess risk when making decisions’

What the work around Disciplined decisions involves
Purpose: To support teams to make quality decisions effectively and efficiently through focusing on both the quality of thinking and process rigor What it looks like Watch out for As a team coach, it is important to explore Disciplined decisions WITH Agility. It is not just about process rigor, but also about the quality of thinking and the ability to create the space for both divergent and convergent thinking. Resource fluidity and ripple intelligence are key capabilities that you should help teams consider as part of the work on decision making. For a detailed description of these concepts read the relevant chapters in the book on Accelerating Performance. At the heart of this work is helping the team understand what the critical few decisions are that they need to make and executing them in a way that leverages diverse and innovative thinking with the discipline to translate this into tangible outcomes and actions. Working sessions with the team to cover the following key areas: Decision-making challenges Framing the decision Coming to conclusions Creating focus on the anatomy of the decision Making the decision Learning from the decision Key follow-on from work in Disciplined decisions is Focused grip—ensuring that what has been decided is followed through and executed. Allowing this work to become theoretical or bureaucratic. Ground the work with the team in current business challenges and examples, and avoid getting lost Teams putting off decisions—not making a decision is a decision in itself!

Disciplined decisions Core elements/steps for this work When working with teams on Distributed leadership, you can refer to the following list 1 Decision-making challenges 2 Framing the decision 3 Coming to conclusions 4 Creating focus on the anatomy of the decision (thought) 5 Making the decision 6 Learning from the decision Find methods, exercises, and tools for each of these elements overleaf

Overview of tools (1/2) No Method/tool Core ideas 1 Decision-making challenges Carson Todd/Shuttle Challenger An exercise in which the participants will make a decision under pressure—Carson Todd and Shuttle Challenger case studies 2 Framing the decision Mental models A series of exercises and case studies for individuals that highlights the way our mental models frame our thinking Framing—paradoxical thinking An introduction to the paradoxical thinking model, with graphics and a link to a talk from Colin to aid explanation 3 Coming to conclusions Groupthink An introduction to the idea of groupthink, with graphics and pointers to aid explanation The ladder of inference—Peter Senge An introduction to the ladder of inference, with a graphic and pointers to aid explanation The Stacey matrix A guide to the Stacey matrix model and the different types of decision making within it, with graphics to illustrate

Overview of tools (2/2) No Method/tool Core ideas 4 Creating focus on the anatomy of the decision (thought) Angela Merkel case study A case study of Angela Merkel to raise awareness of the key thought processes in making decisions 5 Making the decision Self-assessment A mini self-assessment for the team to reflect on whether they need to pay attention to this aspect of decision making Implication of team type in decision making A graphic to illustrate information sharing and the role the team needs to play in decision making Decision-making options A guide to help the team think about how to move from convergent thinking to a decision point Mapping the information flow An example of a map of information flow and decisions Risks A session to illustrate the process for assessing risks in the context of decision making and a template for thinking about risk management 6 Learning from the decision Post-mortem An outline of the post-mortem/AAR process and a guide to discussing the time and effort put into each step of the decision-making process

1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd
Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd Purpose To raise awareness of the difficulties in decision making Description An exercise in which the participants will make a decision under pressure They will fall into typical decision traps, which will be highlighted to demonstrate the difficulties What it looks like in practice Divide them into teams of four to six. Hand out two-page ‘Todd Racing’ case to each person Give them 10 minutes to read case and come to a decision: ‘If you were Todd Carter, what would you do?’ Get them to give their answers. Write them on a flip chart. (80% will answer, ‘Yes, let’s race,’ and some of the others will say, ‘No, let’s not’ Except the question was not: ‘Should Todd race?’ This is the first trap—the binary decision trap—whereby we always think we are being asked a yes/no, blue/red, today/Friday question Ask them about dissenting discussions, alternative ideas that were floated, and how they came to a conclusion Run through alternatives that have been raised. The most important one was to get the complete set of data; they have only been provided with failure points, not successes, which only show half the picture Mistake to assume there is no correlation between temperature and failure (show ’the role of data’ slides). Second trap: No going beyond the data/anchoring bias What made this decision so difficult? Time, financial pressure, narrow focus? What is this case based on? Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986 High-profile launch, as had run a two-year program to put a teacher in space. Many kids watching. High-pressure event (even more than usual!). Some discussion about possible O-ring failure, but no real assessment of the consequences The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the Shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident The Rogers Commission found NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident NASA managers had known since 1977 that contractor Morton Thiokol’s design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings, but failed to address it properly They also disregarded warnings (an example of ‘go fever’) from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors 73 seconds into the Shuttle Challenger flight, both O-rings failed These guys all had PhDs in rocket engineering. Making tough decisions was their day job. But with the right pressure, even they got it wrong Can you think of a recent decision you’ve made with bad data? What happened? What would you do differently next time?

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd Use this as a handout to give to the team as part of the Carson Todd exercise What should we do? Carson Todd was not sure, but his brother and partner, Christian, was on the phone and needed a decision. What should they do about this race? It had been a successful season so far, but the Dover race was important because of the prize money and TV exposure it promised. This first year had been hard because the team was trying to make a name for itself. They had run a lot of small races to get this shot at the big time. A successful outing could mean more sponsors, a chance to start making some profits for a change, and the luxury of racing only the major events. But if they suffered another engine failure on national television, it would be a PR and ultimately a financial disaster for the team. Just thinking about the team’s engine problems made Carson wince. They had blown an engine seven times in 24 outings this season with various degrees of damage to the engine and car. No one could figure out why. It took a lot of sponsor money to replace a $20,000 racing engine, and the wasted entry fees were no small matter either. Carson and Christian had everything they owned riding on Todd Racing. This season had to be a success. Alain Bowden, the engine mechanic and 15-year veteran of the racing circuit, was guessing the engine problem was related to ambient air temperature. He argued that when it was cold, the different expansion rates for the head and block were damaging the head gasket and causing the engine failures. It was below freezing last night, which meant a cold morning for starting the race. Dick Burnside, the chief mechanic and 25-year veteran of the circuit, didn’t agree with Alain’s ‘gut feeling’ and had data to support his position (see Exhibit 1). He pointed out that gasket failures had occurred at all temperatures, which meant temperature was not the issue. His experience had taught him that luck was an important element in success. Dick had argued this view when he and Alain discussed the problem last week: ‘In racing, you’re pushing the limits of what’s known. You can’t expect to have everything under control. If you want to win, you have to take risks. Everybody in racing knows it. The drivers have their lives on the line, I have a career that hangs on every race, and you guys have got every dime tied up in the business. That’s the thrill, beating the odds and winning.’ Last night over dinner, Dick had added to this argument forcefully with what he called Burnside’s First Law of Racing: ‘Nobody ever won a race sitting in the pits.’

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd Use this as a handout to give to the team as part of the Carson Todd exercise Carson, Christian, and Dick had discussed Todd Racing’s situation the previous evening. This first season was a success from a racing standpoint, with the team’s car finishing in the top five in 12 of the 15 races it completed. As a result, the sponsorship offers critical to the team’s business success were starting to come in. A big break had come two weeks ago after the Dunham race, where the team scored its fourth first-place finish. Hardstone Tire had finally decided Todd Racing deserved its sponsorship at Dover—worth a much-needed $40,000—and was considering a full season contract for next year if the team’s car finished in the top five in this race. The Hardstone sponsorship was for $1,000,000 a year, plus incentives. Carson and Christian had gotten a favorable response from Hardstone’s racing program director last week when they presented their plans for next season, but it was clear that the director’s support depended on the visibility they generated in this race. ‘Carson, we only have another hour to decide,’ Christian said over the phone. ‘If we withdraw now, we can get back half the $15,000 entry fee and try to recoup some of our losses next season. We will lose Hardstone. They’ll want $25,000 of their money back, and we will end the season $50,000 in the hole. If we run and finish in the top five, we have Hardstone in our pocket and can add another car next season. You know as well as I do, however, that if we run and lose another engine, we are back at square one next season. We’ll lose the tire sponsorship and a blown engine is going to lose us the oil contract. No oil company wants a national TV audience to see a smoker being dragged off the track with their name plastered all over it. The oil sponsorship is $500,000 that we cannot live without. Think about it—call Dick and Alain if you want—but I need a decision in an hour.’ Carson hung up the phone and looked out the window at the crisp fall sky. The green flag was due to drop in two hours. The temperature sign across the street flashed ‘40 DEGREES AT 9:23 AM.’

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd Use this to share some of the options that could have been considered 1 Contact sponsors to co-opt them or renegotiate 2 Get expert advice to fix the engine problem 3 Preheat the engine (run engine or space heater) 4 Race strategically—top five or just to finish 5 When engine problems arise, crash on purpose 6 Develop PR story: Play human-drama angle 7 Hedge the risk: Bet—pool—insurance—find $ 8 Seek postponement of race (on technical grounds) 9 Mask sponsorship—reveal when victorious 10 Get better data: Temperature for ALL races

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd Use this as a handout to give to the team as part of the Carson Todd exercise Exhibit 1: Note from Dick Burnside Carson, I got the data on the gasket failures from Alain. We’ve run 24 races this season, with temperatures at race time ranging from 53 to 82 degrees. Alain had a good idea in suggesting we look into this, but as you can see, this is not our problem. I tested the data for a correlation between temperature and gasket failures and found no relationship. In comparison with some of the other teams, we’ve done extremely well this season. We’ve finished 62.5% of the races, and when we finished we were in the top five 80% of the time. I’m not happy with the engine problems, but I’ll take the four first-place finishes and 50% rate of finishing in the money (i.e., in the top five) over seven engines any day. If we continue to run like this, we’ll have our pick of sponsors. —Dick Relationship between temperatures and gasket failures 3 2 Breaks in head gasket during each race 1 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Ambient air temperature °F

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Carson Todd Use this as a handout to give to the team as part of the Carson Todd exercise Making a decision with bad data is worse than making a decision with no data The full story from all past races Relationship between temperatures and gasket failures 3 Races with no incidents 2 Breaks in head gasket during each race 1 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 All incident-free races ignored! Ambient air temperature °F

1. Decision-making challenges Shuttle Challenger
Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Shuttle Challenger Use this as a visual aid to talk about the Shuttle Challenger

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Shuttle Challenger Use this as a visual aid to talk about the Shuttle Challenger The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident.[1] NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings (an example of "go fever") from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors.

Disciplined decisions 1. Decision-making challenges Shuttle Challenger Use this as a visual aid to talk about the Shuttle Challenger 73 seconds into the flight both o rings failed

2. Framing the decision Mental models
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models Purpose To raise awareness of the implications of our mental models on effective decision making Description A series of exercises for individuals that highlights the way our mental models frame our thinking What it looks like in practice Jack-of-spades exercise: Ask the team to view the playing cards and name what they are (they will typically see this as a memory exercise and will say jack of hearts, king of clubs, and ten of diamonds) Flash up the slide (see next page) containing the three cards for three to four seconds and then conceal it Pull up the slide again and ask them whether what they saw was correct (often it still doesn’t register that they have it wrong) Point out that one of the cards is actually a jack of spades, but because we see red and it is a similar shape, our existing mental model sees it as a jack of hearts The reason for this is that we all rely on old mental models. We take in so much data that our brain has to filter information quickly—it serves a key function. However, we need to be conscious of the implications when making judgments or decisions Old lady/young lady exercise: Put up the old lady/young lady slide Ask people what they see (some will see a young lady in a hat, others an old lady with a big nose) Both are correct but different Outline the implications of our old mental model: They filter what we see, they are often hard to see, they appear complete (and therefore ‘right’), they are exclusive (when you see one, you can’t see the other), and they are difficult to change The disposition effect Say to the team ‘You’ve decided to see a local play and have bought a $150 ticket. As you enter the theater, you realize you’ve lost your ticket. You can’t remember the seat number, so you can’t prove to the management that you bought a ticket. Would you spend $150 on a new ticket? Divide the group into Team X and Team Y. They each get their own version of the questions, which have the same outcomes in the answers. But typically, the groups answer the questions differently. The difference in answers lies in how the question is framed: whether the question is framed as deciding to accept a loss or as finding a way of minimizing a loss The disposition effect states that the pain for x points of loss is greater than the joy for x points of gain. Therefore, we will always go for the option that minimizes loss, despite the rational probabilities Organizational mental models We look at the mental models that drove General Motors’ decisions and hence its inability to change, and contrast this with Google’s mental model. What works well now may not work for future conditions Can you think of a time when your company’s mental model affected a decision you made? What was the impact? What are the implications of this for you as a team?

2. Framing the decision Mental models—the decision process
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—the decision process Use this as a visual aid to talk about the decision-making process Framing the issues Learning from experience Gathering intelligence Coming to conclusions 176

2. Framing the decision Mental models—exercise
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—exercise Use this slide to flash up on the screen for the jack-of-spades exercise

Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—exercise Use this image for the young lady/old lady exercise

Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—exercise Version X Question 1 You’ve decided to see a local play and have bought a $150 ticket. As you enter the theater, you realize you’ve lost your ticket. You can’t remember the seat number, so you can’t prove to the management that you bought a ticket. Would you spend $150 on a new ticket? A large car manufacturer has recently been hit with a number of economic difficulties, and it appears as if three plants need to be closed and 6,000 employees laid off. The vice-president of production has been exploring alternative ways to avoid this crisis. She has developed two plans: Plan A: This plan will save one of the three plants and 2,000 jobs. Plan B: This plan has a 1/3 probability of saving all three plants and all 6,000 jobs, but has a 2/3 probability of saving no plants and no jobs. Which plan would you select? Question 2

Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—exercise Version Y Question 1 You’ve reserved a seat for a local play for which the ticket price is $150. As you enter the theater to buy your ticket, you discover you’ve lost $150 from your pocket. Would you still buy the ticket? (Assume you have enough cash left to do so.) Question 2 A large car manufacturer has recently been hit with a number of economic difficulties, and it appears as if three plants need to be closed and 6,000 employees laid off. The vice-president of production has been exploring alternative ways to avoid this crisis. She has developed two plans: Plan A: This plan will result in the loss of two of the three plants and 4,000 jobs Plan B: This plan has a 2/3 probability of resulting in the loss of all three plants and all 6,000 jobs, but has a 1/3 probability of losing no jobs. Which plan would you select?

Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—exercise Use this model to explain the disposition effect after the team has answered the questions Utility A prospect theory value function Gains Status quo Notice that a given amount of gain yields less extra satisfaction than the decline in satisfaction incurred from a similar value of total loss Loss aversion Sell winning positions too early

2. Framing the decision Mental models—case study
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—case study Use this case study to illustrate the potential consequences of fixed mental models Key assumptions: GM is in the business of making money, not just cars Success flows from rapid adaptation, not technological leadership (automatic transmission was last major innovation) Cars are primarily status symbols: People want to upgrade Planned obsolescence works (quality less important) Efficiency of mass production beats other approaches The US car market is isolated from the rest of the world Fossil fuels (oil) will remain cheap and abundant Bigger is better—bigger engines Bigger is better—we are too big to fail! The government is an enemy and so are unions

2. Framing the decision Mental models—Google’s mental model 2010
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—Google’s mental model 2010 Use this case study to illustrate a currently ‘winning’ mental model, but question whether this will still be a winning model in 30 years’ time We have a broad sense of purpose We will organize the world’s knowledge We will raise the world’s IQ Success requires a flat and transparent organization There is no ‘chief software architect’ Internal Darwinian competition of ideas We believe in giving people budget flexibility to explore 20% of each budget is flexible Buying options on future: Googlettes We reward excellence and ‘keep the bozos out’ Grueling hiring process (only A-level) Foster internal entrepreneurs We need a portfolio view and a smart risk-taking culture IPO warns of unusual investments Pursue big ideas ($ billion plus)

2. Framing the decision Mental models—cognitive biases
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Mental models—cognitive biases Use this slide as a handout for teams to consider as part of framing decisions and data gathering. It could be used as a prompt for a balcony-and-dance exercise as a point of challenge. 20 cognitive biases that screw up your decisions Anchoring bias People are over-reliant on the first piece of information they hear. In a salary negotiation, whoever makes the first offer establishes a range of reasonable possibilities in each person’s mind. Availability heuristic People overestimate the importance of information that is available to them. A person might argue that smoking is not unhealthy because they know someone who lived to 100 and smoked three packs a day. Bandwagon effect The probability of one person adopting a belief increases based on the number of people who hold that belief. This is a powerful form of groupthink and is the reason why meetings are often unproductive. Blind-spot bias Failing to recognize your own cognitive biases is a bias in itself. People notice cognitive and motivational biases much more in others than in themselves. Choice-supportive bias When you choose something, you tend to feel positive about it, even if that choice has flaws. Like how you think your dog is awesome—even if it bites people every once in a while. Clustering illusion This is the tendency to see patterns in random events. It is key to various gambling fallacies, like the idea that red is more or less likely to turn up on a roulette table after a string of reds. Confirmation bias We tend to listen only to information that confirms our preconceptions—one of the many reasons it’s so hard to have an intelligent conversation about climate change. Conservatism bias Where people favor prior evidence or information that has emerged. People were slow to accept that the Earth was round because they maintained their earlier understanding that the planet was flat. Information bias The tendency to seek information when it does not affect action. More information is not always better. With less information, people can often make more accurate predictions. Ostrich effect The decision to ignore dangerous or negative information by burying one’s head in the sand, like an ostrich. Research suggests that investors check the value of their holdings significantly less often during bad markets. Outcome bias Judging a decision based on the outcome—rather than how exactly the decision was made in the moment. Just because you won a lot in Vegas, doesn’t mean gambling your money was a smart decision. Overconfidence Some of us are too confident about our abilities, and this causes us to take greater risks in our daily lives. Experts are more prone to this bias than laypeople, since they are more convinced that they are right. Placebo effect When simply believing that something will have a certain effect on you causes it to have that effect. In medicine, people given fake pills often experience the same physiological effects as people given the real thing. Pro-innovation bias When a proponent of an innovation tends to overvalue its usefulness and undervalue its limitations. Sound familiar, Silicon Valley? Recency The tendency to weigh that latest information more heavily than older data. Investors often think the market will always look the way it looks today and make unwise decisions. Salience Our tendency to focus on the most easily recognizable features of a person or concept. When you think about dying, you might worry about being mauled by a lion, as opposed to what is statistically more likely, like dying in a car accident. Selective perception Allowing our expectations to influence how we perceive the world. An experiment involving a football game between students from two universities showed that one team saw the opposing team commit more infractions. Stereotyping Expecting a group or person to have certain qualities without having real information about the person. It allows us to quickly identify strangers as friends or enemies, but people tend to overuse and abuse it. Survivorship bias An error that comes from focusing only on surviving examples, causing us to misjudge a situation. For instance, we might think that being an entrepreneur is easy because we haven’t heard of all those who failed. Zero-risk bias Sociologists have found that we love certainty—even if it’s counterproductive. Eliminating risk entirely means there is no chance of harm being caused.

2. Framing the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking Purpose Using paradox as a mechanism to challenge existing ways of thinking can be a powerful enabler for teams to move away from making trade-offs such as ‘we can deliver at low cost or at high quality,’ allowing them to tackle challenges through new, better solutions Description This is often a helpful intervention ‘in the moment’ when the team is working on a key strategic decision, but could also be run as a team exercise What it looks like in practice Introduce the paradoxical thinking model. This is a core model for Heidrick & Struggles, designed by Colin Price. Listen to the recording to help you to explain it: and read the book chapter for detailed description and examples. Share a personal example to bring the model to life for the team Share the different implications for how we might choose to operate, problem solve, choose our identity, or perceive others (see table below for summary) Share the two examples of control/empowerment and cost/service (some further examples below that you can talk through if helpful) Ask the team to think about the challenge they are currently working on. How have they been framing the decision? Which level has the conversation been at? What would it take to move up a level? Further work on support/challenge may be required to enable the team to elicit level 4 thinking in each other Level How we choose to cooperate How we choose to problem solve How we choose our identity How we choose to view others Leadership 4 Win–win Cohesion Together we are better Amplifiers Absolve—‘this is not my problem’ 3 Balance Creativity Live and let live Accelerants Solve—‘someone has to decide’ 2 Trade-offs Compromise Keep out of my way At odds Resolve—‘there is an opportunity here’ 1 Win–lose Clarity I’m better than you Adversaries Dissolve—‘let’s think about this differently’

Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking Use this slide to introduce the overall model. This is a key framework for Heidrick & Struggles, designed by Colin Price. Listen to the recording of him talking through the model to help you to explain it ( 4. Frame the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking Tendency B And Level 4 Tendency A Level 3 Both Tendency B Tendency A Level 2 Degree Black White Level 1 x Or Not x

Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking Use this slide to land the concept in practical terms with a dilemma most teams are familiar with Example 1: Paradox—low cost AND high service Choice can be approached through four levels of thinking Level 4: Paradox And ‘If we get service right first time, we can reduce wasteful activity and take cost out of our operation (and invest back in customer service and reduced cost)’ Business decision Level 3: Polarities ‘We want to focus on certain aspects of customer service, for some customers, and achieve cost savings elsewhere’ Both We are trying to manage business performance across the apparently competing objectives of customer service and cost Level 2: Puzzles Degree ‘We need to target an acceptable level of customer service at the lowest cost that allows’ Purpose of slide Land concept in practical terms with a dilemma they’ll all be familiar with. Speaker notes This can provide a link back to the customer first session Work through the levels drawing out how the thinking develops up the levels. Level 1: Problems ‘We can either run a high-service operation or a low-cost operation’ Or

2. Framing the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking example
Disciplined decisions 2. Framing the decision Framing—paradoxical thinking example Use this slide to land the concept in practical terms with a dilemma most teams are familiar with Example 2: Paradox—empowerment AND control Choice can be approached through four levels of thinking Level 4: Paradox And ‘If I’m really clear about what outcome we need and I’m satisfied people have the skill, will, and tools to do that, I can trust them to get there as they need to, as long as the end result is what I need’ Business decision Level 3: Polarities ‘I’ll let them have control over some aspects of how we serve customers, but not if it is about anything important’ Both We are trying to give people the space to lead without losing control of our business performance Level 2: Puzzles Degree ‘I need to let people have more control over how they work without me losing control of how I need it to be done’ Purpose of slide Land concept in practical terms with a dilemma they’ll all be familiar with Speaker notes Links to day 1 example of TSO power engineers. Work through the levels drawing out how the thinking develops up the levels. Level 1: Problems ‘I can either empower people to act or I can be in control’ Or

3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink Purpose To raise awareness of groupthink and the potential pitfalls Description Team discussion What it looks like in practice Share the ‘group decision making’ slide, which outlines a high-level process for decision making. Highlight that it is key to know where you are in the process and where the team needs to move to. E.g., the role of the chairman is to know when is the right time to move from divergent to convergent thinking and ultimately to a decision point. Often teams skip the stage of divergent thinking and narrow down to a decision too quickly, which can impact on the quality of conclusions drawn and decisions made. This is particularly prevalent when ’groupthink’ has emerged within the team. Share with the team the following symptoms, conditions, and ways to create divergence Symptoms of groupthink: Collective group morality: ‘We represent (certain principles, higher standards of conduct, or morally superior goals)’ Collective rationalization Illusion of invulnerability Self-censorship An illusion of unanimity Conditions favoring groupthink: Strong team spirit, high cohesiveness Limited contact with outsiders Poor intelligence-gathering process High stress—deadlines Directive leadership Ways to create divergence (overviews of additional tools can be found in Agility) Generate multiple alternatives Form subgroups Encourage minority reports Rotate devil’s advocate Consult outside experts Report dissent indirectly Role-play adversaries Which biases and decision traps are most prevalent in the team? How can the team counter these biases and improve decision making? Summarize your insights for the team

Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink Use this slide to demonstrate how groups need to lay out their combined wisdom to diverge thinking and generate multiple options, before converging on a preferred course of action O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O divergent thinking convergent thinking New topic Decision point Generate options

3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—symptoms
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—symptoms Use this slide as a visual aid to explain symptoms of groupthink Collective group morality ‘We represent (certain principles, higher standards of conduct, or morally superior goals)’ Collective rationalization Self-censorship Illusion of invulnerability An illusion of unanimity 191

3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—conditions favoring groupthink
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—conditions favoring groupthink Use this slide as a visual aid to explain conditions favoring groupthink Strong team spirit, high cohesiveness High stress—deadlines Limited contact with outsiders Directive leadership Poor intelligence-gathering process 192

3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—ways to create divergence
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—ways to create divergence Use this slide to introduce ways to create divergence. Stimulate a group discussion around how they will be able to spot when they are in groupthink and what they are going to do to avoid groupthink going forward. Generate multiple alternatives Form subgroups Encourage minority reports Rotate devil’s advocate Consult outside experts Report dissent indirectly Role-play adversaries How will we make sure that we spot when we are in groupthink in the future? - What will we do as a team to avoid groupthink going forward? 193

3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—second-chance meetings
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—second-chance meetings Use this slide as a visual aid for groupthink Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here … Then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. 194

3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—pre-mortem process
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink—pre-mortem process Use this slide to talk through an approach that will quickly test your thinking and focus on likely weak areas Probing questions: What are the key assumptions? What are the critical sources of information? Is there any reason for the sources to be deceptive? Has contradictory evidence been surfaced? Is there information missing and, if so, is that significant? Based on the responses above, assume the plan or project has failed and describe how this happened

Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions Groupthink Use this slide to demonstrate a checklist to measure decision quality. Have we, the team, taken all the necessary steps? Creative, doable alternatives Clear values and trade-offs Meaningful, reliable information DQ Logically correct reasoning Appropriate frame Commitment to action

3. Coming to conclusions The ladder of inference—Peter Senge
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions The ladder of inference—Peter Senge Purpose The ladder of inference helps you to draw better conclusions, create more options and choice, or challenge other people’s conclusions based on a wider range of facts and sense of reality. It can be used to help you analyze hard data, such as a set of sales figures, or to test assertions, such as ‘the project will go live in April.’ You can also use it to help validate or challenge other people’s conclusions Description This is often a helpful intervention ‘in the moment’ when the team is working on a key strategic decision. It is a set of key questions for them to consider as individuals, but could also be run as a team exercise What it looks like in practice Introduce the ladder of inference model. Develop a personal example to bring it to life. Take the team through the following steps to challenge thinking using the ladder of inference: Stop! It’s time to consider your reasoning. Identify where on the ladder you are. Are you: Selecting your data or reality? Interpreting what it means? Making or testing assumptions? Forming or testing conclusions? Deciding what to do and why? From your current ‘rung,’ analyze your reasoning by working back down the ladder. This will help you trace the facts and reality that you are actually working with. At each stage, ask yourself WHAT you are thinking and WHY. As you analyze each step, you may need to adjust your reasoning. For example, you may need to change some assumption or extend the field of data you have selected. The following questions help you work backward (coming down the ladder, starting at the top): Why have I chosen this course of action? Are there other actions I should have considered? What belief led to that action? Was it well founded? Why did I draw that conclusion? Is the conclusion sound? What am I assuming, and why? Are my assumptions valid? What data have I chosen to use and why? Have I selected data rigorously? What are the real facts that I should be using? Are there other facts I should consider? Tip: When you are working through your reasoning, look out for rungs that you tend to jump. Do you tend to make assumptions too easily? Do you tend to select only part of the data? Note your tendencies so that you can learn to do that stage of reasoning with extra care in the future. With a new sense of reasoning (and perhaps a wider field of data and more considered assumptions), you can now work forward again—step by step—up the rungs of the ladder. Tip: Try explaining your reasoning to a colleague or friend. This will help you check that your argument is sound. If you are challenging someone else’s conclusions, it is especially important to be able to explain your reasoning so that you can explain it to that person in a way that helps you reach a shared conclusion and avoid conflict. The ladder of inference was first put forward by organizational psychologist Chris Argyris and used by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization

3. Coming to conclusions The ladder of inference—Peter Senge
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions The ladder of inference—Peter Senge Have you ever been accused of putting two and two together and making five, meaning that the other person thinks you have jumped to the wrong conclusion? In today’s fast-moving world, we are always under pressure to act now, rather than spend time reasoning things through and thinking about the true facts. Not only can this lead us to a wrong conclusion, but it can also cause conflict with other people, who may have drawn quite different conclusions on the same matter. The ladder of inference describes the thinking process that we go through, usually without realizing it, to get from a fact to a decision, action, or reaction. The thinking stages can be seen as rungs on a ladder and are shown in the diagram. Actions Believe it Conclusions Assumptions Interpreted reality Selected reality Data Starting at the bottom of the ladder, we engage with the data. From there, we: Experience this data selectively, based on our beliefs and prior experience Interpret what it means Apply our existing assumptions, sometimes without considering them Draw conclusions based on the interpreted facts and our assumptions Develop beliefs about ‘the world’ based on these conclusions Take actions that seem ‘right’ based on what we believe to be true This can create a vicious circle. Our beliefs have a big effect on how we select from reality, and can lead us to ignore the true facts altogether. Soon we are literally jumping to conclusions—by missing facts and skipping steps in the reasoning process. By using the ladder of inference, you can learn to get back to the facts and use your beliefs and experiences to positive effect, rather than allowing them to narrow your field of judgment. Following this step-by-step reasoning can lead you to better results, based on reality, and thus avoiding unnecessary mistakes and conflict.

3. Coming to conclusions The Stacey matrix
Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions The Stacey matrix Purpose To help teams realize it is OK and normal not to have all the answers or detailed plans when dealing with complexity. It can also help to: Make sense of an array of decisions (or agenda for a group) When innovations and creative alternatives are needed, this matrix can be used to deliberately try to increase the uncertainty and disagreement to nudge the system to the edge of chaos Description The Stacey matrix helps to guide you by offering a method to select the appropriate management actions in a complex adaptive system based on the degree of certainty and level of agreement on the issue in question The art of management and leadership is having an array of approaches and being aware of when to use which approach. Ralph Stacey proposed a matrix to help with this art by identifying management decisions on two dimensions: the degree of certainty and the level of agreement What it looks like in practice Outline the matrix for the team (use the slide overleaf and the description below to support you with this) Get the teams to note down some key decisions they need. Note them down on Post-it notes and map them onto the model. Get them to discuss what the implications are for how they might need to think about and manage these decisions Close to certainty: Issues or decisions are close to certainty when cause-and-effect linkages can be determined. This is usually the case when a very similar issue or decision has been made in the past. One can then extrapolate from past experience to predict the outcome of an action with a good degree of certainty. Far from certainty: At the other end of the certainty continuum are decisions that are far from certainty. These situations are often unique or at least new to the decision makers. The cause-and-effect linkages are not clear. Extrapolating from past experience is not a good method to predict outcomes in the far-from-certainty range. Agreement: The vertical axis measures the level of agreement about an issue or decision within the group, team, or organization. As you would expect, the management or leadership function varies depending on the level of agreement surrounding an issue. Source: Brenda Zimmerman;

Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions The Stacey matrix Use this to help you explain the different types of decision making inherent in the Stacey model Close to certainty: Issues or decisions are close to certainty when cause-and-effect linkages can be determined. This is usually the case when a very similar issue or decision has been made in the past. One can then extrapolate from past experience to predict the outcome of an action with a good degree of certainty. Far from certainty: At the other end of the certainty continuum are decisions that are far from certainty. These situations are often unique or at least new to the decision makers. The cause-and-effect linkages are not clear. Extrapolating from past experience is not a good method to predict outcomes in the far-from-certainty range. Agreement: The vertical axis measures the level of agreement about an issue or decision within the group, team, or organization. As you would expect, the management or leadership function varies depending on the level of agreement surrounding an issue. Source: Brenda Zimmerman;

Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions The Stacey matrix Use this to help you explain the different types of decision making inherent in the Stacey model Technical rational decision making Much of the management literature and theory addresses the region on the matrix which is close to certainty and close to agreement. In this region, we use techniques which gather data from the past and use that to predict the future. We plan specific paths of action to achieve outcomes and monitor the actual behavior by comparing it against these plans. This is sound management practice for issues and decisions that fall in this area. The goal is to repeat what works to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Political decision making Some issues have a great deal of certainty about how outcomes are created, but high levels of disagreement about which outcomes are desirable. Neither plans nor a shared mission are likely to work in this context. Instead, politics become more important. Coalition building, negotiation, and compromise are used to create the organization’s agenda and direction. Judgmental decision making Some issues have a high level of agreement but not much certainty as to the cause-and-effect linkages to create the desired outcomes. In these cases, monitoring against a preset plan will not work. A strong sense of shared mission or vision may substitute for a plan in these cases. Comparisons are made not against plans, but against the mission and vision for the organization. In this region, the goal is to head toward an agreed-upon future state, even though the specific paths cannot be predetermined. Chaos Situations where there are very high levels of uncertainty and disagreement often result in a breakdown or anarchy. The traditional methods of planning, visioning, and negotiation are insufficient in these contexts. One personal strategy to deal with such contexts is avoidance—avoiding the issues that are highly uncertain and where there is little disagreement. While this may be a protective strategy in the short run, it is disastrous in the long run. This is a region that organizations should avoid as much as possible. Complexity zone There is a large area on this diagram which lies between the anarchy region and regions of the traditional management approaches. Stacey calls this large center region the zone of complexity—others call it the edge of chaos. In the zone of complexity the traditional management approaches are not very effective, but it is the zone of high creativity, innovation, and breaking with the past to create new modes of operating. In management we spend much of our time teaching how to manage in areas (1), (2), and (3). In these regions, we can present models which extrapolate from past experience and thereby can be used to forecast the future. This is the hallmark of good science in the traditional mode. When we teach approaches, techniques, and even merely a perspective in area (4), the models seem ‘soft’ and the lack of prediction seems problematic. We need to reinforce that managers and leaders of organizations need to have a diversity of approaches to deal with the diversity of contexts. Stacey’s matrix honors what we already have learned, but also urges us to move with more confidence into some of the areas which we understand intuitively but are hesitant to apply, because they do not appear as ‘solid.’ Source: Brenda Zimmerman;

Disciplined decisions 3. Coming to conclusions The Stacey matrix Use this to help you explain the different types of decision making inherent in the Stacey model Source: Brenda Zimmerman;

4. Creating focus on the anatomy of the decision (thought) Angela Merkel case study Purpose To raise awareness of the key thought processes in making decisions Description A case study to highlight potential pitfalls with decision-making processes What it looks like in practice Share the example of Angela Merkel. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, widely viewed as a level-headed political leader, led Germany and the European Union out of trouble during the recent global crisis. The Central Banks and other financial institutions see her as a savior However, she has come unstuck during the recent refugee crisis. She unilaterally opened Germany to 1.1m Syrian refugees and persuaded Jean-Claude Juncker of the EU Commission to impose quotas on member countries, in fear of fines Within six weeks, Germany and Austria had closed their borders, and Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Macedonia, and the Czech Republic were facing mass unrest. Within seven weeks Denmark and Sweden had closed their borders. The Chancellor is at her lowest popularity in Germany, refugees are being attacked, and the Schengen Agreement is all but shut What was her decision-making process? Unilateral: No other countries were consulted Options were not explored with European stakeholders: financing camps and facilities in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, actively engaging in fighting IS, and military patrolling of the Mediterranean could have been explored The criteria for success were never explored or shared But time was pressing: The left-wing press was pushing against her, and the refugees were suffering What might have been the frame? Vergangenheitsbewältigung (guilt for the past), most Germans were refugees in 1945–7, democracy is an inconvenience (takes too long and not always the right result), Europe owes Germany, the electorate is small minded, demographics requires large immigration, etc.

4. Creating focus on the anatomy of the decision (thought) Angela Merkel case study Use this slide as a visual aid for the Angela Merkel case study Angela Merkel shows great courage among European leaders in dealing with the refugee crisis, but did she employ the right decision-making process?

5. Making the decision Purpose To support teams to ensure they move from generating options to a decision point Description This work takes place in a team working session; however, individual coaching may also be required for the team leader. Ultimately the team leader is accountable for determining the team type required for different decisions and for adapting their behavior accordingly—moving the team from convergent thinking to a decision point What it looks like in practice Refresh the team on divergent and convergent thinking (see overleaf) and highlight the need to move to a decision point (this is the role of the leader or whoever in the team is facilitating the process). This is a key facilitation skill—knowing when to let the thinking open up to generate options, and when it needs to close down and a decision be made The way the decision is made should be informed by the role the team needs to play (advisory/accountable). Different team roles are needed for different decisions (see team type slide) and require different levels of information sharing Exercise Get the team to choose a live decision they are working on Ask them what type of role the team is required to play in the decision (using the team types) What type of information do they need in order to do this? (If information flows are sounding complex, it is helpful to map these out—see the information-flow example for a visual on how to do this) How will they assess the risks in making this decision? (See the risk exercise) How will the decision be made? (See the decision-making-options slide) You can take the team through a few examples of this so that they get into the habit of working through this type of process for decision making

5. Making the decision Self-assessment
Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Self-assessment You can use this as a mini self-assessment for the team to reflect on whether they need to pay attention to this aspect of decision making Self-assessment tool Yes or no? Decisions Does your team take too long to make decisions or sometimes never seem to make a decision? Does every decision take two or three sessions to get to an answer? Do you find yourselves always asking for more data, more analysis, and more options? Execution Do you leave a meeting unsure about what was really decided? Do different parts of the decision pull in different directions? Are some decisions forgotten or simply ignored if they don’t fit with individual priorities? Authority Is it unclear which group can take which decisions or which area has responsibility for execution? Are policies laid out and yet not clear enough to guide decisions further down, or do they provide management with unrealistic constraints on their actions? Are the real decision makers often not in the room?

5. Making the decision Implication of team type in decision making
Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Implication of team type in decision making Use this to explore the level of information sharing and how decisions will be made based on the role the team needs to play in the decision making. Remember—the team may flex between team types for different decisions. Action Assurance Advisory Alignment Accountable Reporting to the team leader Information exchange to avoid gaps and overlaps To provide the team leader with advice and to debate key issues For ensuring coordination and alignment For making the key decisions most affecting the whole organization Main purpose Authoritative leadership Authoritative leadership Consultative leadership Supportive leadership Challenging leadership Leadership Flows up and down Flows up, down, and across Flows up, down, and across Fully shared to ensure alignment Fully shared Information Flow down Flow down Flow down, but members’ advice used to make better decisions Cross-boundary decisions made by subsets of the team. Leader gives direction. Made by whole group on key decisions for business. Different team members take the lead at different times. Decisions Independent of each other Aligned but primarily independent Give and receive advice Highly interdependent, work together in different combinations to coordinate cross-functional objectives Members all equal, with leader being first among equals. Decision authority comes from team leader. Members

5. Making the decision Decision-making options
Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Decision-making options Use this as input for the team to help them think about how to move from convergent thinking to a decision point Process Whole group Buzz groups (trios or duos) Subset (committee) Breakouts Facilitation tools Outside the room Sharing info, presenting a concept or an update Who needs to be present in the audience? Presentation in the room Share reactions quickly to get the pump started Information only essential for a subset of the team N/A PPT, newsletters, website posting, Pre-reading Defining the issue and desired outcome Who does it affect and needs to be part of the discussion? Who owns it? Who has decision authority? Define the issue live with whole team Delegate to a subset to define and bring it back or do it live Capture live on flip chart or screen Come with the issue defined and circulate beforehand Generating input, sharing points of view—collecting ideas, diverging, brainstorming Whose content, expertise, and support is essential? Total group brainstorm Brainstorm in buzz groups first and then report out (use cards or flip charts) Delegate the challenge to a smaller subgroup, brainstorm in fishbowl Do brainstorming and generation of solutions in breakouts Capture on flip charts Capture live on screen, use cards Collect input via , interviews, chat page, small groups Converging on the critical view—debating the points Who has the strongest views that will add to the best outcome? Check on clear consensus, and if there is, call it and be done! Debate openly, reduce to the critical few options Choose representative from different points of view and let them debate it Develop and/or debate alternatives in breakouts Multi-vote on preferences Create a debate site Deciding—getting to resolution Who and how do we decide? Drive to consensus in whole team Vote in pairs or trios first and then drive to consensus Delegate to subset of key players to decide One person owns it/decides Tell subset to go off now and come back with recommendation Multi-vote on preferences, electronic voting Decision gets made out of the room, team gets informed

5. Making the decision Mapping the information flow
Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Mapping the information flow A good option when the information flows and decisions seem overly complex is to pictorially represent them using a map. It also enables the team to understand where there are potential blockages in decision making and information flows. Monthly exec CC DCs ??? Operations team meeting review meetings Operations projects Heads of and meetings GMs team Quarterly business review National stations improvement program Performance exec working group Door-on-catch railway steering Right time group groups RTR Local Safety Injury prevention steering group recommendations review group Standards Departmental SIP focus safety and IP Customer service engagement Comms and during disruption information Passenger experience Customer focus groups Local customer Project board Major projects PRG MI and analytics Stakeholder and third party Consistent customer experience across channel and process Develop, grow, and coach people Proactive and reactive risk management Plan, land, receive projects Alignment Comms Trans configured for demand

5. Making the decision Risks
Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Risks Purpose To help teams assess risk as part of their decision-making process Description Working session to identify and assess the level of risk associated with decisions and potential actions What it looks like in practice Risk management is a highly specialized area; there are many tools, approaches, and techniques available to support teams and organizations in managing risks For some organizations it is a core regulatory requirement, which will therefore lead to highly stringent, often prescribed mechanisms to manage risks As a team coach you certainly do not want to get into the nitty-gritty of risk management in the organizations we serve, unless you are specifically qualified to do so However, we can support teams in discussing if they are managing their key top-level risks in the right way It can be the case that although an organization has extensive risk-management processes in place to oversee all operational activities, teams are less stringent in managing the risks they are taking through their strategic decisions, ways of working, or type of leadership Get the team to choose a specific decision they need to make with high stakes Get them to identify all the potential threats/risks on Post-it notes Draw the matrix on a flip chart and get the team to map the risks according to the probability and impact of the risk Finally ask the team to determine what action they will take Avoiding the risk (think how!) Sharing the risk (think how!) Accepting the risk (think why) Controlling the risk (think how)

Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Risks Use this to illustrate the process for the team to go through to assess risks in the context of decision making Identify threats Estimate risks Decide how to manage the risks Identify all existing and potential threats. Think of Human—illness, death, injury, or other loss of a key individual Operational—disruption to supplies and operations, loss of access to essential assets, or failures in distribution Reputational—loss of customer or employee confidence, or damage to market reputation Procedural—failures of accountability, internal systems, or controls, or from fraud Project—going over budget, taking too long on key tasks, or experiencing issues with product or service quality Financial—business failure, stock-market fluctuations, interest-rate changes, or non-availability of funding Technical—advances in technology, or from technical failure Natural—weather, natural disasters, or disease Political—changes in tax, public opinion, government policy, or foreign influence Structural—dangerous chemicals, poor lighting, falling boxes, or any situation where staff, products, or technology can be harmed Either by: Calculating the risks Risk value = Probability of event x cost of event Or by: Plotting the risk Decide what type of management is most appropriate: Avoiding the risk (think how!) Sharing the risk (think how!) Accepting the risk (think why) Controlling the risk (think how) Business experiments Preventative action involves aiming to prevent a high-risk situation from happening. It includes health and safety training, firewall protection on corporate servers, and cross-training your team. Detective action involves identifying the points in a process where something could go wrong, and then putting steps in place to fix the problems promptly if they occur. Detective actions include double-checking finance reports, conducting safety testing before a product is released, or installing sensors to detect product defects. Source:

Disciplined decisions 5. Making the decision Risks Use this as a template for the team to use to think about how they manage risks involved in their key decisions Team exercise: Use three of the biggest decisions you are making at the moment to run through the model on the previous slide. What are your strategies for managing the inherent risks? Decisions we are making Threats Size of risk Action to manage Source:

6. Learning from the decision Post- mortem
Disciplined decisions 6. Learning from the decision Post- mortem Purpose To create a focus on continuously improving the effectiveness of decision making in the team by taking learning from past decisions Description Team working session What it looks like in practice Post-mortems are known in the armed forces as after-action reviews, in which a training exercise is debriefed Ask the team to select an initiative/project that has failed and ask the following probing questions: What are the key assumptions? What are the critical sources of information? Is there any reason for the sources to be deceptive? Has contradictory evidence been surfaced? Is there information missing, and, if so, is that significant? Based on the responses above, assume the plan or project has failed. Ask the team to describe how this happened, working through the following in small groups Initial objective What was planned? What were the intended results? Reality What really happened? What were the actual results? Goals What can we do better next time in terms of our decision making? What will we sustain or improve? Learning What is the take-away? What caused our results?

6. Learning from the decision Post- mortem—after-action review (AAR)
Disciplined decisions 6. Learning from the decision Post- mortem—after-action review (AAR) Use this slide to outline the post-mortem/AAR process Initial objective What was planned? What were our intended results? Reality What really happened? What were our actual results? Goals What can we do better next time? What will we sustain or improve? What we learned What is the take-away? What caused our results?

6. Learning from the decision Post- mortem—average executive responses
Disciplined decisions 6. Learning from the decision Post- mortem—average executive responses Use this slide to discuss the amount of time and effort needed to focus on each part of the decision-making process Actual time Intended time Allocation 5% 20% 45% 35% 40% 25% 10% Framing 1 Intelligence gathering 2 Coming to conclusions 3 Learning focus 4 215

How we think about teams

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "How we think about teams"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

How we think about teams

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "How we think about teams"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback