Task 4 : Methodologies and tools for solving complex problems

For this weeks blog I have addressed an issue at work by selecting a number of techniques that have been presented in the last couple of week’s lectures. 

Presently, one of the programs I manage is not reaching its goals and expectations set by the funding body and I recently attended a review meeting were a number of issues were raised and some short term objectives have been set to improve performance quickly.

One specific objective is the quality of the Individual Performance Plans (IPP), which workers develop with clients.  These should be more detailed and specifically link to the services that are being provided to the client.

I organised a meeting to discuss strategies for improving IPPs and invited the Area Manager, Program Manger and three Program Coordinators.  Before the meeting, I sent the staff this link :

http://leadership.fuller.edu/Leadership/Resources/Part_4-Leading_for_Transformative_Change/III__Constructing_a_Holding_Environment.aspx

I asked them to read it and think about how the ideas could be used to support our staff and improve our learning culture.  The article, from Fuller Theological Seminary, discusses the ideas of Ronald Heifetz (2009) in regards to constructing a “holding environment” that is "uncomfortable enough that a person cannot avoid the problem, but safe enough that a person can experiment with new ways of doing things”.  One of my leadership goals is to develop a team culture that supports and motivates staff to creatively approach challenges and share their successes. 

In setting up the meeting I considered Jurgen Habermas’s (1971) work relating to developing a “ideal speech situation”.  I made sure I booked the meeting room for a couple of hours, organised refreshments and asked our PA to take messages for all the managers in the meeting so it was a mobile phone free zone.  I started the meeting by setting up ‘group rules’ for the discussion that encouraged the group to:

• ·      Speak and share ideas no matter how left field,
• ·      Question anything that is said,
• ·      Provide context about why they have suggested something,
• ·      to try and not influence others through coercion.

I also advised everyone that I would be utilising a dialogue mapping tool as presented by the CogNexus Institute as this would allow us to record the ideas and see how they link to each other.  As I was utilising a data projector so everyone could see the map, it would allow us agree on the content and reduce mistakes.   The meeting lasted for an hour and a snapshot of part of the map is below:

The process worked very well for us.  As it was a shared display, everyone became engaged and focused in presenting ideas, questions, and comments to support or challenge assertions.  Our discussion kept to logical streams and all the ideas suggested where recorded with further discussions linked to these ideas in a logical manner.   The finished map clearly showed ‘open issues’ and ‘action items’ for future follow up.  Practically, it was a really useful record of what we discussed which captured the thinking process of the group, which we could give to other managers and staff who did not attend the meeting. 

The dialogue-mapping tool is definitely something I will use again, even though my inputting and Power Point skills often did not keep up with the ideas that were flying around the room.