The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures: Simple Rules to Unleash A Culture of Innovation (43 page)

• S
  Separateness: the amount of diversity in perspective, expertise, and background among group members
  
• T
  Tuning: the level of listening deeply, reflecting, and making sense of challenges together
  
• A
  Action: the number of opportunities to act on ideas or innovate with group members
  
• R
  Reason to work together: the benefits that are gained from working together
  
• Invite them to jointly shape action steps to boost generative results
  

• Tables for small groups of 4, with a STAR compass graphic and pens for each individual
  
• A STAR compass graphic on a flip-chart page for each small group
  
• A STAR compass graphic on a flip-chart page for the whole group
  

• Everyone in a working group or team is included
  
• Everyone
  has an equal opportunity to contribute
  

• Individually to make initial assessments
  
• Small groups
  
• Whole group
  

•
  
Participants individually assess
where the team is
in regard to each of the four elements (5 min.):

• S
  How diverse are we as a group? Do we draw out our diverse perspectives among members?
  
• T
  How well are we in tune with one another?
  
• A
  How much do we act together?
  
• R
  How important is it that we work together? How clear is our purpose?
  

• In small groups, participants place a dot along each compass point, then talk with their neighbors (1-2-4) about their placements, looking for consensus and differences. 5 min.
  
• Small groups decide what type of results are generated by the pattern of interaction they have identified (e.g., high
  T
  uning + no
  A
  ction = we get along well but accomplish little, high
  A
  ction + low
  T
  uning = routine results with no innovation, high
  T
  uning + high
  S
  eparateness + high
  A
  ction + low
  R
  eason = many false starts, etc.). 5 min.
  
• In small groups, brainstorm action steps to boost elements that need attention. 5 min.
  
• Whole group assembles list of action steps and decides “What first steps can we take right now?” 5 min.
  

• Improve the performance of a team
  
• Help a team become more self-managing and autonomous
  
• Sharpen the purpose and identity of the group
  
• Help people step away from blaming individuals and move toward understanding their patterns of interaction
  
• Combine
  “diagnosis and treatment” without separating the planners from the doers
  
• Reduce frustration of people not happy with team dynamics and results
  

• Work up from the individuals to pairs, then table conversations
  
• Avoid making right or wrong judgments about where people assess the team
  
• Encourage team members to research, organize, and act on their own remedies
  
• Finish the activity with at least one specific action for each participant
  
• Make sure that who is going to do what by when is clear for all
  

•
  
String together with Liberating Structures that may boost low compass-point assessments:

• Use with virtual groups by inviting participants to place their STAR assessments with a dot on the chart on the whiteboard, then chat in pairs and with the whole group about the pattern that emerges. You may want to create a “synthesizer” role to help keep things moving. Generate action steps via a chat version of 1-2-All.

• For a strategy retreat, focusing attention on group dynamics and results
  
• For
  deciding the composition and purpose of a new team or task force to be formed
  
• For two people to use in mending their relationship
  

Below: presentation material we use to introduce
Generative Relationships STAR

“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask….” Albert Einstein

Source: adapted from professors Brenda Zimmerman and Ralph Stacey

• Invite participants to categorize their current challenges as simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic
  
• Ask them to place every challenge in the matrix based on their answers to two questions: What is the degree of agreement among the participants regarding the challenge and the best way to address it? What is the degree of certainty and predictability about what results will be generated from the solutions proposed for addressing the challenge?
  
• Ask them to think about the approaches they are using or considering to address each challenge, evaluate how well these fit, and determine where there are mismatches
  

• Chairs for people to sit in groups of 4–6, with or without small round tables
  
• Long open wall with a large tapestry paper illustration of the matrix taped to the wall
  
• One page with a blank matrix for every participant
  
• Post-it notes and markers for everybody
  

• Everyone involved in the work team or unit under discussion (not only leaders)
  
• Everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute
  

• Individually to make initial assessments
  
• Small groups of 4 to 6
  
• Whole group
  

• Ask participants to individually generate the list of challenges that take up their time. 5 min.
  
• Still working individually, participants place challenges in their individual matrixes. 5 min.
  
• Ask participants to discuss in pairs. 5 min.
  
• Invite them to chat with others in a group of 4–6 to find points of agreement, difference, and where there are mismatches. 10 min.
  
• Invite
  everyone to post their challenges on the large wall matrix. 5 min.
  
• Ask participants to form small groups and step back to reflect on, “What pattern do we see? Do any mismatches stand out that we should address?” 5 min.
  
• Invite whole group to share reflections and decide next steps. 10 min.
  

• Reduce wasted effort by matching challenges with methods
  
• Identify where local experiments may help solve larger problems
  
• Make visible to everyone the range and the nature of the challenges facing people in the organization
  
• Reduce the frustration of people not making progress on key challenges by identifying mismatches
  
• Share perspectives across functions and levels of the organization
  

• Clarify what type of challenges and activities are being included
  
• Work up from the individual, then into pair and table conversations
  
• Avoid making judgments about where people put their activities
  
• Explore items that fall into more than one sector by asking, “Does this challenge have multiple dynamics at play? How is it simultaneously simple and complex?”
  
• Learn more from professor Brenda Zimmerman @
  www.changeability.ca/Change-Ability.html
  

• Ask, “Where are there mismatches in your approach; what countermeasures make sense?”
  
• Create a table that captures the mismatches and any action steps that will be taken
  
• Use the same approach for a single issue people are facing in their work
  
• Link to or string together with Liberating Structures aimed at developing strategies:
  Critical Uncertainties, Purpose-To-Practice, Ecocycle, Panarchy, Integrated~Autonomy, Discovery & Action Dialogue
  

• For introducing managers trained only in linear cause-and-effect analysis to what is different about complex challenges
  
• For selecting a mix of change methodologies at the start of a new improvement project
  
• For helping a planning group move beyond “analysis paralysis” into an action phase
  
• For organizing the projects of a department
  

Below: participant Post-its illustrate Agreement and Certainty Matrix placements for all to see— each Post-it represents an activity or program in the organization