Here's the format I've followed:
The first + hour I discuss ISO 9000, and the theories, tools, and methods
of Total Quality Management (TQM) and Learning Organizations (I never call
it "learning organizations", as that would frighten people; I call it
"learning together"). I also focus on helping each engineer begin
developing the skills they'll need to be effective as we engage in
continuous improvement, and as we seek to create a new future for Novell.
The second + hour I open the meeting up for discussion. This is a time for
a rather unstructured group discussion, which I loosely facilitate, where
everyone can talk about the following:
* The work we do as individuals, teams, and as a department, and how that
work either helps us, or prevents us, from achieving our objectives;
* Why we work the way we do (i.e. what are the assumptions behind our
work);
* How we might work better (i.e. more effective, efficient, competitive,
and profitable).
Everyone who attends the luncheon can participate in the group discussion.
There are only two rules:
* Flaming managers and peers, and belligerent language is not tolerated.
This is a legitimate time for sincere reflection, inquiry, and advocacy.
* Everyone who wishes to voice their ideas, feelings, or concerns must be
willing to explain their reasoning, and the assumptions behind that
reasoning.
My objective has been to help each engineer begin to think deeply about
the work they do, and how they might find a great sense of fulfillment in
it. (I also am trying to lay the ground work for encouraging everyone in
the department to begin practicing the discipline of Personal Mastery.)
Sometimes I start off the discussion by identifying a very common
assumption, and challenging its accurateness. That usually gets the ball
rolling in a hurry. Other times, there's one or two people in the luncheon
who are "charged up" and are "chomping at the bit" to express their
feelings/frustrations/concerns/aspirations. In these luncheons, I let the
dialogue follow its natural course. And I rarely say anything once it
starts. I just make observations and take notes.
If a particular group is struggling to identify an assumption, I'll ask
bizarre and out-of-the-ordinary questions, like: Is up, down? Is sideways,
straight ahead? It gets people thinking.
Lately I've been trying to guide the discussion (if that is an appropriate
thing for me to do), to deeper issues. The last couple of days there has
been some wonderful discussion on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and how
those needs are satisfied by the work we do. We then begin to look for
other social, emotional, and intellectual needs that people have that are
not being satisfied by the work they do. Once we've identified a few, we
begin discussing how the work we do could help us satisfy those needs.
It's been a painful process for many people. Their comfort zone is
crashing in on them, and they're feeling stress and anxiety as they begin
to realize that they'll have more and more responsibility for the work
they do. Others find the discussion to be invigorating, and enjoy the flow
of the conversations.
I'd be interested to know how others are helping people in their
organizations take any of the following actions on the assumptions that
underlie the work they do:
Identify assumptions
Challenge assumptions
Validate assumptions
Change assumptions
--Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell, GroupWare Support Quality Manager | fax: (801) 222-6991
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>