54 Roles
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
to learn together. While the role of a basic facilitator is to help a group
function more e ectively by taking responsibility for the group’s process,
the multi- level learning coach provides this type of assistance only when
it is required to foster productive re ection, learning, and performance
improvement. Therefore, while the role of the coach is not purely that of
a basic facilitator, he must be able to diagnose and intervene when ine ec-
tive group processes get in the way.
This section draws on the work of Roger Schwarz (1994), Chris Argyris
(1990), and others to provide an overview of models for an e ective group
process. We begin rst with a discussion of goals, roles, and procedures
and their importance for e ective teams. We then move to an overview of
models for e ective group processes, including communication, problem
solving, decision making, and boundary management. We then conclude
this chapter with guidance on how the multi- level learning coach might
use these models to diagnose and intervene with groups in order to im-
prove the groups’ processes and enhance their learning capacity.
GOALS, ROLES, AND PROCEDURES
When people get together to accomplish a task, especially if they come
from a variety of communities of practice, backgrounds, or functional
disciplines, their capacity and e ectiveness as a group depend in large part
upon the level of clarity in their goals, roles, and procedures for working
together (Berlew, 1993; Rubin et al., 1975). The pyramid in Figure 3.2 de-
picts these elements in a hierarchical fashion in a way that can be useful for
facilitators. Each component depends on the one above it. For example, it
is important to be clear about the task or goal to be accomplished before
selecting people to ll speci c roles. At the top of the pyramid, therefore,
are a group’s goals. Most of us who have been members of teams have
rsthand knowledge of how important it is to have clear goals that every-
one accepts, whether the team is an athletic team, a unit in the armed ser-
vices, a senior management group, or a project team. It is for this reason
that preaching the importance of having clear, accepted goals may not
be nearly as helpful as actually making it happen. Questions for groups
include: Do all members of the group share the same vision of what they
are trying to accomplish or create? Are the goals clear and unambiguous?
The Multi-Level Learning Coach 55
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
Are there con icting goals among group members that might impede the
accomplishment of the collective aim? Does each team member agree
with the goals, or should they be modi ed or enhanced to ensure that
everyone can live with them?
Roles are the next component in the sequence; they can be addressed
after taking a pass at goal clari cation. Clear, con ict- free roles are the
ideal. Questions for groups include: Is everyone familiar with the skills,
capabilities, and talents that each person brings to the e ort? Do team
members know what to expect from one another? Are there any concerns
about whether everyone can carry out her role, and if so, what can be
done to resolve this potential con ict? In practice, it is not always possible
to have an ideal level of clarity on goals and roles, yet running through
these questions can help a team get started and prevent surprises or disap-
pointments later on.
The next level down in the pyramid is procedures. Without basic work-
ing procedures that are agreed upon at some level, it will be di cult for
a group, especially one with new members, to accomplish its work in a
productive way. Procedures, also referred to as group processes, include
communication, problem solving, decision making, and boundary man-
agement, each of which is discussed later in this section.
Goals
Roles
Procedures
Interpersonal
FIGURE 3.2
Goals, Roles, and Procedures
56 Roles
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
At the bottom of the pyramid are interpersonal relationships. If people
like to work with one another, then they have a better chance of becoming
an e ective group. However, if team members have di culty relating to
one another in the work environment, the problem can often be traced to
the upper levels of the pyramid. Team members do not have to be friends
(or even like one another) to work together if the other levels in the pyra-
mid can be addressed adequately. At the same time, rules and structures
can go only so far. People often need to feel supported, included, and,
hopefully, intrinsically energized by working with others in the group on
a collective task that they feel is important.
When problems arise in any of the areas related to goals, roles, pro-
cedures, or interpersonal relationships, the multi- level learning coach can
help the team re ect by going one step up in the pyramid to ensure clar-
ity at that level rst, as this may in and of itself clear a path for solving
the problem at the next level down. When there appears to be confusion
about roles and responsibilities, for example, the coach might help the
team go one level up in the pyramid to ensure that its goals are clear.
Doing so may lead to a more productive discussion about roles and re-
sponsibilities. It may take more than one iteration, of course, for goals,
roles, and procedures to be clari ed, yet this can be a very useful tool for
multi- level learning coaches, particularly in conducting prospective ses-
sions (or before- action reviews) prior to executing a strategy, implement-
ing a process improvement, or planning the next stage, phase, or iteration
of a project or program.
We now turn to a more in- depth discussion of models for e ective
group procedures, more commonly called group processes.
Communication
Our ability to communicate with others is the foundation for all other
group processes. It underlies everything we do. As such, ine ective
com mu nication can be a powerful inhibitor of group e ectiveness and
collec tive learning, particularly within the context of the strains of orga-
nizational life (Argyris, 1990). Chris Argyris and Donald Schön have done
extensive research on how people undermine both their own e ectiveness
and that of their organization by enacting defensive routines that block
learning and create “self- sealing” perspectives that freeze organizations in
The Multi-Level Learning Coach 57
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
place, restricting improvement and the achievement of important goals.
In Chapter 1, we discussed how defensive routines, often triggered by
red- light learning, can lead to blame, bias, distortions, and the inability
of project and program teams to resolve problems e ectively in sustain-
able ways. Multi- level learning works to build re ection and learning
into work routines on a continuous, systematic basis so that people are
not thrust into these situations only when problems occur. Yet potential
embarrassment, face-saving, and the perception of personal threat often
lie just under the surface, even when everything appears to be working
ne. The multi- level learning coach, in his objective, substantively neutral
role, can help groups at all levels mitigate the e ects of defensive routines
by diagnosing and intervening to facilitate more e ective communication
patterns. This can enable groups to resolve problems proactively before
they snowball into larger issues, blowups, and surprises that trigger a red
light on the status report.
The Ladder of Inference (Argyris, 1990) is a model that can help us bet-
ter understand how our perceptions create a self- reinforcing loop in which
our individual beliefs in uence what information we select and hear, and
how what we select and hear in uences the actions that we subsequently
take. As people react to one another’s behavior, the Ladder of Inference
works unconsciously in the background and can explain how information
that goes untested and unvalidated in our own heads can undermine our
ability to communicate e ectively, leading to escalations in con ict and
organizational dysfunction.
We will use as an example an interaction between two people that oc-
curred on a large- scale global project that was ultimately cancelled. The
goal of the project was to select and implement an enterprisewide soft-
ware package, one that would eventually a ect thousands of employees.
The CIO of the company considered it a mission- critical project. A con ict
arose between two managers on the team. The rst was Bernard, who was
assigned the responsibility for “developing the high- level strategy.” The
second was Tracy, who was responsible for translating this strategy into
“detailed requirements.” Neither manager had done this type of project
before, and both had expressed concerns about whether or not the project
would succeed.
Bernard, having nished the high- level strategy document, said to
Tracy, “I’ve completed my part of the project plan, which was to develop
58 Roles
American Management Association
www.amanet.org
a high- level strategy. It’s now your responsibility to translate the strategy
into detailed requirements.” In reaction, Tracy responded, “This is not
useful to me; it’s too high- level. You need to take another crack at it.”
Bernard, in response, said, “Of course it’s high- level. That’s the point of
it. It’s high- level requirements. That was my part of the project plan. Now
you need to take this to the next level so that the team can select the right
software.” The interaction continued in this way for a while, ultimately
leading to a stalemate. Unfortunately, the managers worked in di erent lo-
cations, one in London, and one in New York. After they left the meeting,
they did not see each other again for quite some time, and the problem
remained unresolved for days, then weeks.
In the background, both Tracy and Bernard may have been climbing
the Ladder of Inference during this interaction. As shown in Figure 3.3,
at the bottom of the ladder are observable data—statements, behaviors,
and gestures that can be readily observed, as on a video recorder. Observ-
ing these statements, Tracy and Bernard may have selected certain data
based on their personal lters, and ascribed meaning to these statements
based on their previous experience. They then may have moved rapidly
up the ladder, making assumptions about each other, drawing conclu-
sions that ultimately led to another observable response, and so on. The
tricky part, however, is that much of this happens in the background—in
people’s heads—and is based on each individual’s assumptions and be-
liefs, which are shaped by that person’s individual experiences. Tracy, for
example, may have selected the data “it’s your responsibility.” She may
then have taken this to mean that she was the one who would be blamed
if it wasn’t done right. Climbing up the ladder of inference, she may have
assumed (or feared) that she didn’t have the knowledge and/or skills to
take the next step, and that Bernard was attempting to skirt the respon-
sibility himself for the same reasons. Her conclusion might have been,
“He’s setting me up to avoid getting blamed himself.” She may have acted
on this belief by attempting to place the responsibility back on Bernard
by explaining to him that he needed to improve the document before she
could work with it.
It may be that both managers were engaging in defensive routines as
they climbed the Ladder of Inference. Although we will never know what
each of these managers was actually thinking, it’s possible that each was
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.