Dealing with complex challenges - An example

Conventional wisdom tells us that to have an effective meeting we need to have an agenda, keep things moving, and track action items. That is excellent advice when the purpose of the meeting is to work on everyday, routine issues. However, much more than an agenda is necessary if the group is to deal with complex challenges.

Last week I was working with an organization that is dealing with a complex adaptive challenge. More than two years ago there was a merger of several high tech companies. The sales forces of the two main companies involved are being combined.

The leadership of the merged organizations tried for more than a year to implement solutions for the integration of the combined sales forces. However, existing assumptions, methods, processes, and tools were not working well in the face of complex challenges.

The leaders asked me to hep them design a meeting to move them forward toward a solution of their complex challenge. I suggested we convene a conversation between all the people involved in sales and sales-engineering. The conversation was design in a way that, through sharing, they ended coming together as one integrated team.

I want to share some of the elements I took into consideration in designing the conversation. I think leaders that want to design similar conversations can benefit from the same elements.

1. Identifying who needs to be in the conversation

Those that do the work and those that are impacted by the work have insights and knowledge that can help deal with challenges. Our inclination is to think too narrowly about inclusion. In designing the meeting, I asked what voices needed to be heard. As a result all that were involved in the cycle of sales were invited to participate. This made the conversation much more effective.

2. Framing the conversation

We wanted to understand the adaptive challenges they were facing. They needed to see with fresh eyes. Therefore, our first task was to elicit questions that would get to the heart of the issues, not just to the symptoms. Questions can limit or widen the scope of possibilities that could be discovered. The first task was to design questions that could guide the conversation into finding solutions. They provided very open and useful questions that were then grouped into themes, and used for the rest of the conversation.

3. Providing high interaction

The goal was to design for conversation rather than for presentations or speeches. We tend to assume we need a speech from the main leader or from an "expert" to confirm the meeting as important.  In this case, I designed the meeting in a way that 80% of the meeting time, was time participants were in conversation with each other. The other 20% of the time we were gathering the results of those conversations and designing an action plan.

4. Arranging physical space to serve the conversation

The physical space in which we talk has a greater impact on conversation, than most of us credit. Space matters. A circle with no tables can be ideal. Round tables elicit more collaboration (like King Arthur’s round table), than do square tables which suggest a contest (opponents in a negotiation). We did not have access to round tables, but made participants imagine the table becoming round. The tables were placed randomly around the room, not in rows.

5. Assigning the small group as the unit of conversation

The small group, (trios, quartets or pairs) is the unit of conversation that is most effective for addressing difficult issues. The group needs to be small enough that members can fully state their ideas and the reasoning behind them. They need to be able to query each other and probe for understanding of what others have said. We had four people to each table.

6. Keeping conversations alive

For each topic, the table, not the people, was the owner of the conversation. We had several rounds of conversation for each issue. For every subject, the conversation flowed for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, one person stayed as a “table anchor,” while the rest moved to other tables.

We then “harvested” what was being learned and moved to take action on how to implement the new learning. By changing tables often, participants were able to also change perspectives and have different kinds of conversations. At the end, what most participants mentioned as their favorite, was the way the space was used and how by moving around they were better able to keep an open mind and have more fruitful conversations.

7. Involving leaders in the conversation

My role was to guard the process of the meeting. As a result, the leaders were free to be participants in the conversation. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the leader’s participation in one small group does not inhibit the forthrightness of the conversation.  And as important, participating in the small groups gives them a voice in the conversation.

8. Encouraging connection before content

One of the important benefits that small groups engender is that they connect people more effectively than any ice breaker or round robin introduction could possible do.  If a group is going to work on difficult issues, they first need to gain a sense of who others are, the skills they bring, the experience they represent, and the hopes they have.  A sense of relationship needs to be built before people can address difficult issues together.

The questions the participants designed, provided the opportunity to make themselves known to others, e.g. talking about experiences they have had relevant to the adaptive challenge; discussing what importance the challenge has for them and their work, etc.

In their final comments many remarked that by being able to get to know each other's personalities and ways of thinking, they were able to see more clearly how they could effectively work together. Someone said he had come to the meeting with his mind made up about what was the needed solution. Nevertheless, in following the conversations from table to table, he completely changed his mind and saw things in a totally different light. This is the power of connection at work!

Since this was the first time these leaders had tried designing a conversation, instead of a traditional “working meeting,” they were not sure what to expect. At the end, they remarked the results had exceeded all their expectations.

The participants stated they felt all important issues were dealt with in a constructive way. They were very pleased about being able to not only voice concerns and challenges, but also find solutions and design an action plan. All had high praise for the design of the meeting as a conversation.

Leaders who find their organizations facing adaptive challenges can no longer rely on the old methods -- the senior leadership team meeting to develop the organizational response. However intelligent and experienced seniors are, they lack the diversity of thought that can be found in the whole organization.

Today, the task of the leader is more that of a conversation architect, convening and facilitating transformative conversations out of which new thinking can emerge.

What do you think?

What is a complex issue you are facing that could benefit from a transformative conversation? How can you design such a conversation? Are you willing to look for help if you are not sure how? Share your comments with us.

Photo: Logos Noesis