Marvin Weisbord (1992) has popularized a process, which he calls the future search conference, for involving the whole organization in the development of strategy. A typical search conference brings together thirty to eighty people for sixteen hours across three days. Together they engage in a series of tasks that involve exploring the organization’s past, present, and preferred future. The process is basically a democratic one, reminiscent of town meetings. There are no lectures by experts nor vision statements by leadership. The purpose is to learn together about a preferred future and to make that future happen. Each part of the conference—past, present, and future—has four elements: (1) to build a database, (2) to look at it together, (3) to interpret what is found, and (4) to draw conclusions for action.
The three days of the future search conference are preceded by a lengthy period of planning. A small group, representative of the prospective participants, meets with the conference facilitators to select the attendees and to communicate the search purpose and plan. A conference typically involves a wide diversity of participants, including customers and suppliers. The conference itself is facilitated by a team trained in the conference model.
The work of the search conference alternates between the large group and teams of approximately eight. Some of the tasks are accomplished by homogeneous, functional teams, whereas other tasks are accomplished in mixed stakeholder teams. The teams self-manage their semi-structured dialogue. The intent of the dialogue is not to resolve conflicts but to find “common ground all can stand on without forcing or compromising” (Weisbord, 1992, p. 7). The search conference seeks “to hear and appreciate differences, not reconcile them” (p. 7).
There are conclusions drawn at three levels: those for individual use, which each individual keeps; those for the functional level, which are reviewed at the meeting by the department personnel; and those that go across functions, which are reviewed at the conference by the top-management group. At each level, action plans are drawn up and agreed to, based on the conclusions.
Open space technology is a meeting format developed by Harrison Owen. Its purpose is to create a space in which breakthrough ideas can emerge. An open space conference is held in a large room without much furniture but with a great deal of wall space to post ideas and notices. A typical conference lasts for two to three days. The essence of the conference is embedded in the rules Owen (1992) has constructed for it:
(1) There is no agenda, but there is a theme that is stated at the beginning of the conference.
(2) No one is in charge.
(3) The meeting starts with everyone standing or sitting in a circle where they can see each other.
(4) Each participant who chooses identifies an issue related to the theme for which he or she is willing to take responsibility for holding a discussion. The topic is announced and then posted so that others can join. The identification of topics continues until all ideas have been exhausted.
(5) When all the ideas are out, participants sign up for the groups that are of particular interest to them.
(6) The sponsor of each group convenes the group at the appointed time, leads the discussion, and takes notes.
(7) The notes from all of the meetings are typed into a bank of computers and made immediately available to everyone.
(8) Each day of the conference, the topic identification and subsequent discussions are continued.
(9) “The rule of two feet” says that if a participant is bored or has nothing to contribute to a group, he or she should “honor the group” and leave to join a group that is of more interest.
According to Owen, the lack of form allows ideas to take their own shape, undistorted by status or politics. The facilitation for open space involves little more than establishing the purpose initially and outlining the minimal open-space guidelines as listed above.
Action-learning is a process developed by Reginald Revans fifty years ago in the coal fields of England. He involved managers in the resolution of their own production problems, an unheard of idea in 1945. Action-learning has two goals: (1) to benefit the organization by addressing perplexing problems that have heretofore been unsolvable, and (2) to benefit individuals by making it possible for them to learn with and from others by discussing the difficulties each member of the action set experiences while working on a significant organizational problem.
A typical action-learning program begins with a large-group workshop of three to five days in length. Following the workshop, small groups are formed to address specific organizational problems. The groups meet with or without a facilitator on a weekly or biweekly basis over a lengthy period, perhaps six to nine months. The groups meet for a full or half day depending upon the nature of the problem and the constraints of the organization. Halfway through this time all the groups may come together again for three to five days to exchange information. A final meeting of three to five days is usually planned at the end.
The nature of the problems that the groups address is critical. First, they are problems that are important to the organization, not made-up exercises. Second, the problems are complex in nature, dealing with systemic organizational issues. Third, they are problems that are not amenable to expert solutions nor have ready-made right answers.
Action-learning differs from more typical cross-functional task forces in that action-learning groups are charged with learning from the problems they are solving; that means assumptions are challenged and actions are confronted. In conventional task teams the major goal is to address the problem; any learning that occurs is incidental. A second difference is that action-learning groups are charged with implementation as well as planning. Much of the learning from an action-learning problem comes from attempting to garner the support and face the problems inherent in implementation. A third difference is that action-learning groups address unfamiliar problems rather than problems in which they already have expertise, as might be more common in task forces or process-improvement teams. Addressing unfamiliar problems results in fresh perspectives being brought to bear on problems and provides individuals the opportunity to learn new ways to address problems.
Action-learning is based on adult-learning principles, which hold that: (1) managers learn best from each other, (2) managers learn from reflecting on how they are addressing real problems, (3) managers learn when they are able to question the assumptions on which their actions are based, and (4) managers learn when they receive accurate feedback from others and from the results of their problem-solving actions.
Likewise, action-learning is based on organizational principles that hold that: (1) organizational issues are solvable by organizational members who care about the issues and (2) organizational members who have not previously been involved in the issue can offer a fresh perspective that results in innovative solutions.
There are numerous variations of action-learning which have been successfully implemented in different organizations. Action-learning can vary in terms of the composition of the groups, that is, across organizations, functions, and departments. It can also vary in terms of the length of time and frequency with which groups meet.
The use of the term real time refers to the simultaneous planning and implementation of change. This whole-system-in-the-room process addresses the current issues of the organization in terms of their interconnections with the entire organizational system. All or a critical mass of the people in an organization from all levels are involved, including key internal and external stakeholders. This widespread involvement serves three purposes:
(1) A data-rich, complex, clear, composite picture of the organization’s reality can be constructed by integrating the many perspectives represented.
(2) Shared insights that emerge from this more informed view pave the way for establishing internal and external partnerships that previously would have made no sense when stakeholders operated solely out of their limited perspectives.
(3) All key stakeholders understand, accept, and can start to use these broad, whole-picture views in deciding how they want and need to do business in the future (Jacobs, 1994, p. 25).
Real-time strategic change involves up to 2,000 people in three-day meetings. The three days are based on having a flow of information from the individual, to the small group, to the whole group, and back again. To accomplish this, conference facilitators set task and time limits; however, the discussions that go on within the groups are not structured. The intent is to control the process, not the content. There is an emphasis on truth-telling and honesty.
Real-time strategic change involves a more active role of the organization’s leadership than do some of the other forums described here. For example, the meeting begins with a welcome from the organization leadership to highlight the importance of the event and the power of the group to shape the organization’s strategy; times are set aside for the leadership to respond to questions formulated by mixed-table discussions; and the leadership is tasked with constructing a strategy based on the data generated by the mixed groups.