|
Greetings!
I just read a fascinating article* called Hastily Formed Networks in which Peter Denning looks at the factors behind successful relief efforts in large scale disasters, such as New Orleans or Haiti. Those are times when multiple organizations need to come together very quickly and organize spontaneously under extremely adverse conditions where communications and logistics are severely hampered.
Denning's analysis reveals that for a "Hastily Formed Network" to be successful, the individuals representing the various organizations must display very particular attitudes and behaviors. The 2 critical factors are the ability to hold effective conversations, and the ability to improvise.
What struck me is that these are the very conditions for any organization to build enduring team effectiveness through what I call "Diffuse Leadership", i.e. the ability for team members
1. to have meaningful conversations without leader intervention,
2. to make appropriate decisions without relying on the leader.
In other words, how an organization can build the conditions for team members to exercise their own brand of leadership. Today I would like to explore the need to create a conversation space; in our next newsletter I will discuss the ability to improvise.
Sincerely,
Alain Bolea
* Peter Denning, Hastily Formed Networks,
April 2006/Vol. 49, No. 4 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM |
| Making Critical Conversations Happen
|
The obstacles to self-management in groups are often ingrained in the way they interact. Too many interactions are really one-way communications. While the use of email accelerates the flow of information, it also reinforces monologues, where participants deprive themselves of opportunities for common insights because they are not focusing on the same issue at the same time. When people eventually come face-to-face, everyone wants meetings to be short because all believe meetings are a waste of time; in their experience, little of importance ever gets discussed. And, for the most part, it is true.
In an effort to make meetings tangible and practical, conversations generally focus on tasks. Typically everyone takes their turn to report on what they have done since the previous meeting. There is something comforting about this process: everyone is always busy, even if what they do does not really contribute to the overall success. Who can be blamed? But the task details just crowd out what really matters for the meeting, i.e. the issues or the blocks that are preventing the group's progress, are brushed aside. If the leader is not causing the needed important conversation to happen, team members are generally reluctant to bring up the "hidden" issues. Meetings keep repeating with little progress to report confirming to everyone that the best way to handle a meeting is to get out of it.
Meetings become productive only once common goals are clear and team members feel an overarching sense of purpose. In my experience, it takes a few hours for all team members to have the deep insights of what their shared reality and purpose are. The basic truth is that a group cannot successfully implement tasks and action steps unless the basic questions: "What are we trying to accomplish?" and "What do we stand for?" are answered for all in a compelling manner.
Individuals need to experience an activating sense of purpose. Once they achieve it, productive meetings, even short ones, can and will happen. Even so these meetings require a shift in focus: instead of simply reporting on what they've done, team members must ask for what they need in order to accomplish the common goals. This assumes that that there is a safe space, i.e. one where people will be not judged as having failed for requesting help.
In his article, Peter Denning proposes a recipe to enhance the behaviors that will make a multi-organization crisis team functional and successful. I would say this is good advice for leaders who want to energize their teams' diffuse leadership. I have just substituted the word "individuals" for "organizations" in the following quote:
"Promote [...] support for the individuals to cooperate, mutual respect for the competencies that each individual brings, concern for each other's welfare, and personal responsibilities for actions and outcomes."
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Strategic
Thinking |
The leaders of the teams and small or mid-size organizations we work with often have come to question the value of creating an organizational strategy in order to achieve the desired future. We mostly hear that it's too complicated or doesn't seem to apply well to their kinds of situations. Upon closer inspection, however, what we've observed is that they tend to get mired in the tasks and details of carving out the best future path rather than staying focused on what they are trying to accomplish: aligning everyone's work toward some new, future results.
The heart of any effective strategy is the commitment it generates to that best future. But, actually, much of what is labeled strategic planning does not gain the full commitment of those who would carry it out. How does it happen that people would try to implement a plan they don't fully stand behind? It derives from the fact that most efforts focus not on a vision that everyone relates to, but on the tough hurdles to achieving success, such as the overwhelming amount of work involved, fears about competition, or the lack of resources to devote to the plan. The commitment, however, to the strategy is assumed to be there. Because committed comes due with the paycheck, or because it's so "obviously" the best plan.
We have found these reasons insufficient to assure that everyone feels they have a real stake in the matter. Unless fears, sense of overwhelm or confusion are adequately addressed and cleared, the alignment and engagement with the strategy will remain weak and produce only incomplete effort and follow-through.
Here is where the leader's role, then, is crucial for organizations moving deliberately into their future. S/he has to be the one to hold clearly and constantly for all why they are preparing for the future, what future is needed, and its relevance to the organization. It's the leader who's responsible for making sure everyone is on the same page in actual energy in their conversation with each other. It takes sorting out individuals' different sense of what's really going on and needed. It also requires sorting out the different emotional phases in play (fear, overwhelm, resignation to name a few) that make it so hard to be fully committed.
The good news is this alignment can be accomplished rapidly. It essentially takes team discussions around their shared sense of current reality and their full potential as a team to address challenges and create positive outcomes. In this way it has been possible to assemble meaningful strategies that everyone commits to that serves both the short and long term.
Scott Brumburgh | |
| What are Your Organization's Current Challenges? | |
Please help us write about what really concerns you. Tell us about your organization's main challenges in this one minute survey. The answers are anonymous.
| |
Thank you in advance. |
|
|
