1

Dialogue and Learning in Teams

2

High Performing Organization Course

•Team Learning and Dialogue

•Team Learning and Reflection

•Energy

•Communities of Practice & World Bank

•Customer Communities

•Assessing and Supporting Critical Informal Networks

•Personal Networks

•Organizational Memory and BP

•Enabling Technologies and Roles

•Competing in a Knowledge Based Economy.

•Knowledge Creation (Buckman & Chic)

•Knowledge Strategy (Accenture & McKinsey)

•Learning Tactics Inventory

•Emotional Intelligence

Strategy

Organizational Level

Work Team Communities & Networks

Individual Level

3

Your Ideas On the SNA Work…

Now that you have done an assessment:• What would you do again (or did you see others

do that you would repeat)? • What would you do differently (or did you see

others do that you would change)?

4

Concluding Thoughts….

1. Pick Groups and Opportunities That Matter.

2. Pick Relationships That Matter.

3. Look For Groupings That Can Have An Impact On Overall Performance and Use Both Diagrams and Density Tables To Identify Key Opportunities.

4. Show The Visual Impact Of Losing Key Groups or Individuals.

5. Assess The Role of Key Players Quantitatively.

6. Consider Supporting Relationships (Like Energy and Trust).

7. Look At Other Attributes (e.g., Gender, Diversity, Values).

8. Use Regressions To Show Key Links Among Networks and To Outcomes.

5

Action Science Skills Are Critical

Adapted from Peter Senge, 1990

Inquiry: Ability to inquire effectively into others’ assumptions and viewpoints. Doing this from an open and learning perspective.

Dealing with judgments - “Js to Ps: Why are you the way you are?”• Ask questions relating to the individual assumptions - Why do you

feel that way?

• Discuss bases for assumptions

Advocacy: Ability to outline and make public assumptions that are leading to your conclusions. Advocacy Guidelines

• Make your reasoning explicit• “I believe this to be true based on these observances.”

• Encourage others to explore your view• “Do you see any flaws in my reasoning?”

• Encourage others to provide different views• “Do you have any different data/conclusions?”

6

Launch Made Despite Compelling Evidence Against Decision:

How Does Legitimate Info Get Overlooked?

Was Boisjolly effective in inserting his concerns? Was his boss effective in his reaction?

7

How Did The “Group” Come To Ignore This Evidence?

Where Did The Conversation Go Wrong?

8

The Powerful Question

• Assume the other has a reason for their conclusion that makes sense to them

• Ask a question to discover that reason

9

Larry Mulloy: “Whoa! Wait a minute! Am I looking at the right charts? The charts I’ve got don’t support that conclusion.”

Roger Boisjoly: “They do, I think they do.”

Larry Mulloy: “Well, you began by saying what you’re presenting can’t be proved. And I agree, it can’t. But now you’re drawing serious conclusions from it, and you’re making very serious recommendations.”

Roger Boisjoly: “Serious recommendations are called for.”

You’re wrong

I’m right

You’re wrong

I’m right

The Pattern

Larry: “Maybe you’re seeing something that I’m missing, so walk me through the chart so that I can see how you get to that conclusion.”

“What data are you looking at that you see as inconsistent with our recommendation?”

10

Cave Rescue Activity

Split into groups of 7 (with people you have not worked with this semester).

Take five minutes and read the cave rescue briefing sheet and personal details sheet and then rate who you would rescue and how.

As a team then take 15 minutes to come to an agreement on who to save and how.

Put ratings up on the chalk board.

11

Levels of Conversation

Levels: Names, Criteria, Why Criteria Matter To A Person.• Lottery is cowardly!!• Abdication of responsibility OR Value of a life?

Did people discuss why certain things were important to them or get into a defensive posture as core values were being touched?

Surprises that came from listening?• Leaving the pastor to counsel the dying.

12

13

Assessing Your Approach Real-Time

Ask yourself about: Advocacy orientation Inquiry orientation

Your perception of what the options are:

Go/no go (Win/lose) Multiple alternatives likely exist

Dissent during the discussion Not evident Frequent

Your sense of progress on the issue

Limited, or none: going around in circles; no one seems to give or change

Deepening understanding of issues, development of new possibilities or tests

Gaps in individuals’ cases (e.g., in your case)

Remain unfilled and remain largely hidden

Are being partially or completely filled by combining knowledge

Individual learning None on issues, increased awareness of others limitations

Awareness of each others’ reasoning and its implications for issue