Supporting public sector leaders and teams
Managing
Perhaps a “problem-solving” approach isn’t enough!
Oct 20th

- Image by michael.heiss via Flickr
Over the past few weeks I have been working on a relatively simple client project – helping a group of people refine their plan.
It is simple in one respect. In the end we will produce a written plan – one they can use both to guide their work and to come back to and reassess when they can see that things have shifted. In another respect, however, it is much more complex.
Because this group has been brought together relatively recently and because the work they are being asked to do is set in a context that is emerging, i.e. constantly changing in response to each thing that happens, many of the conversations we have had haven’t had much to do with defining the problems to be solved and the tasks to be completed. They have had a great deal more to do with questions of identity. No-one has asked it explicitly and directly but it seems to me that two questions they are exploring are:
- Who and what is it that people expect us to be and to do?
- How does that fit with our sense of what this situation seems to be calling for?
Sitting with questions like this can be really difficult. Here’s how UK consultant Johnnie Moore puts it:
… there is so much temptation to take big, decisive action, and take it quickly. It’s easy, for patience and sitting with ambiguity to be denounced as indecisive.
Well known US consultant and author, Peter Block has a similar view:
… we have a deeply held belief that the way to make a difference in the world is to define problems and needs and then recommend actions to solve those needs. We are all problem solvers, action oriented and results minded. It is illegal in this culture to leave a meeting without a to-do list. We want measurable outcomes and we want them now. What is hard to grasp is that it is this very mindset which prevents anything fundamental from changing. We cannot problem solve our way into fundamental change, or transformation.
I am not arguing here against problem-solving per se. When the issues we face are known and understood and the ways to work on them are known or at least knowable, then all is fine. The difficulties we are trying to overcome then, are difficulties of the intellect. Trying to figure out what to do based on known principles and good data.
It is when we are faced with difficulties that are more about emerging situations and particular circumstances that the conventional approaches seem to be less than helpful. What is most frequently a feature of these situations and circumstances, at least for people who lead, manage and organise, is what I will call the participative complexity of them. By this I mean that what happens is dependent on how the people who are participating in the situation act and respond to what’s going on and to each other. As a consequence, in these kinds of situations cause and effect is never linear or predictable. At best we can anticipate a range of possibilities – but even that is constrained by our own view of things.
As I reflect on the work we have done so far I am struck by how much we have begun to identify two different types of situation and to “plan” what will come next accordingly. In some instances the desired “outcome” is clear and a project plan will be very useful (provided we don’t kid ourselves that everything will go exactly to plan). In other circumstances a much more exploratory/experimental approach seems to be called for.
So my questions for this week are:
- To what extent are the difficulties you face in your work “solvable” by the application of known principles and good data (even if you don’t have it yet!)?
- To what extent do the difficulties you face in your work need to be approached “from within” – because you are a participant as much as anyone else – and because you won’t know what will happen until it happens?
- Whichever kind of difficulty you face, are you using methods or disciples that are useful in the circumstances?
Social poetics: leading and managing from within the experience of joint action.
Sep 10th
“ What people most need to hear is inside them. It’s their own inner voice, based on their own experience, their own perception.”
Joanna Macy
“As we struggle with the tensions and interplay of my voice/your voice, my sense/your sense, what I am struck by/what you are struck by, infinite possibilities emerge.”
Ann Cunliffe
“For us there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”
T. S. Eliot, East Coker, 1944
Last week my 11 year old daughter asked me, quite seriously, what I do for a job. I tried to explain by saying that I help people have meetings about things that are important to their work. When I said this she looked at me with a look that pretty much said, “… and you call that a job!”
Recently I started “coaching” a new client who said to me that she wasn’t interested in “waffly” conversations. What she wanted was to work out what needed to be done, develop a plan and then get on with doing it. After two sessions in which I think to the outside observer we just talked about what was going on in the particular situation she finds herself, she sent me an email just to confirm how helpful she was finding our work together. We have yet to make a plan, but we seem to have little difficulty knowing where we are headed and if we are making progress.
I have also begun noticing two things as I “facilitate” groups of people meeting and talking about things that are important to their work. Firstly, the situations and contexts in which people find themselves seem to me to be increasingly complex, paradoxical and unclear. The work is becoming much more about making some sense of where the group finds themselves and working out some next steps in a particular direction, than it is about making plans that will direct what people will do. Secondly, I have been experimenting with an increasing range of open-ended and “creative” approaches. People seem to thrive on them and make them their own in really interesting ways. Increasingly my “preparation” focuses much more on how the structure of the event itself will open enough space/time for conversation and dialogue and on how to get conversations started – not on where the conversations might end up. Mostly we end up with “raw material” to stimulate further conversation.
All this has led me to reflect quite a bit about the sense I have that what I do, along with a number of my colleagues, doesn’t really fit under the conventional, everday understandings of coaching, facilitation or consulting.
In the last few days I have been reading John Shotter’s latest paper (available free online until end of September if you register) which he begins by describing an exchange between a consultant and a senior manager who has been given the task, in a large corporation, of building a new capability in the area of sales and marketing. He draws attention particularly to the situation in which this manager finds herself which he describes as being required to “… bring into existence, within the already existing organization, a new institutional structure, with a wholly different character to it than any already in existence.” He points out that while a degree of planning will be required, and will be helpful in describing what the overall task will look like prospectively, it is not likely to be particularly helpful in getting a sense of and assessing the specific openings, real possibilities and actual resources available as she takes steps, in joint action with others, along the way.
Shotter proposes that what might be more useful in this process of “finding our way about” and “going on together” (two phrases he uses a lot) is an unusual (and yet strangely familiar) collection of methods he and his colleague Arlene Katz have termed “social poetics”. Here is a partial list of those “methods”.
- Paying attention to the “arresting moments” – the things that strike us as unusual or out of the ordinary in the everyday flow of relating and responding – thereby noticing and opening up the possibilities for novelty and change.
- Bringing words back to their everyday use and thereby bring ourselves back into the everyday situation from which our talk emerges rather than always operating from the theoretical and conceptual
- Using questions to call to mind and pay closer attention to the detailed use of words and their relationship to the concrete features and activities in the situation in the moment of their use rather than retrospectively.
- The continued use of particular examples as an antidote to our tendency to think and talk conceptually and cognitively and therefore “separate” our thinking and talking from our experience.
- The use of images, pictures and metaphors to help us open up new ways of talking and seeing and to sensitise us to alternative distinctions and relations that we may not otherwise see.
- Using comparisons to draw out other possible ways of talking, alternative perspectives and other options for action.
What struck me as I read through them, and particularly as I read Shotter’s discussion of the exchange between the consultant and the manager, was how much these ways of responding in coaching, facilitation and consulting contexts have become part of how I, and others I work with, operate. I’m not sure that this helps me to answer my daughter’s question, but it does help me to be clearer about what often comes to me rather intuitively. It also strikes me that these are often the things that leaders and managers do, or pick up on, in conversations that help people grasp more clearly where they are in a particular landscape of possibilities and action and open up new ways of thinking and therefore new avenues to “go on together”.
With this in mind I have begun two new projects:
- I will be researching and writing more about these methods with a view to articulating them more effectively and to making the connections with much of the things we already do. You can follow online or sign up for my weekly email.
- I will also be working on ways that I can engage leaders and managers in learning and exploring how these ways of working can contribute to their effectiveness in doing the work they need to do. If you are interested in hearing more about this or getting involved send me a message via the comments on this page.
PublicSphere – Government 2.0
Jun 25th
All tools have intrinsic politics and technology is the tool of now.
Godfrey Reggio
On Monday I attended the PublicSphere Government 2.0 conference hosted by Senator Kate Lundy at Parliament House. I went along because I have recently become interested in how Web 2.0 tools might be helpful in supporting engagement within and between government agencies. I was also interested to experience a conference/meeting that was organised in this way: 150 participants in the room, others watching the live stream from all over Australia (at least), lots of speakers giving 15 minute presentations, live Twitter and blog feeds up on the screen as people spoke. Mark Schenk from Anecdote pretty well summed up my (mixed) reaction in a post on their website on Tuesday. Here’s what he liked and didn’t like with a few square bracketed editorial comments from me.
He liked:
- 15 minute presentation format – this forced [most] speakers to have a few clear messages
- The diverse technologies available meant there was something for everyone [but the organisers apparently learned a lot about getting reliable wifi access in somewhere as secure as Parliament House and people trying to watch the live stream from behind organisational firewalls were quite frustrated]
- Meeting some very interesting people [yes!] and catching up with some people that I haven’t seen for ages
- It was very well organised and all up it ran pretty smoothly [but perhaps wasn’t as well designed as it could have been]
- Seeing the passion in Kate Lundy’s eyes for getting this stuff happening [and listening to the enthusiasm among speakers and participants for the opportunity this presents to enable more people to have more of a voice]
He didn’t like:
- The constant stream of presentations with no provision for discussion. It appeared that the organisers thought that electronic interaction via twitter and commenting on the live blog obviated the need for people to speak to each other. Exacerbating this was the preference for eating into the few breaks to make up time.
- Realising that he couldn’t cope too well with the multiple inputs while attempting to build a mind map of things that resonated (and watching others appear to handle it with ease) [I was merely trying to take notes and watch the Twitter feed]. He did learn a lot about twitter on the day. [I learned a lot about my own struggle to pay attention to multiple inputs!]
When I sat down to write this post I had in mind that I wanted to say something about the tools we use and how they enable and constrain at the same time. This was a conference format that enabled vast amounts of information and comment to be “transmitted” very quickly. For me it was a fascinating example of a “polyphony of unmerged voices”! One of the gurus (apparently) of this kind of stuff, Clay Shirky author of the book Here Comes Everyone talks about publishing first and filtering second. This conference was a wonderful example of that. Lots of people speaking at once, using whatever location and medium they found easiest – on the understanding that they would individually and collectively then find a way of “making sense” of what was said later.
This TED presentation from Clay Shirky sums it up pretty well for me:
Do I think this Web 2.0/Government 2.0 stuff has potential to change the way we work. Absolutely!
Will it be easy? Absolutely not!
Like all tools these ones aren’t easy, they are no more of a silver bullet than anything else and there is the usual risk that people will be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But they clearly provide ways in which more voices can be engaged and they clearly can enable us to do our own sense making before, during and after the event. As such then they provide an interesting way of maintaining multiple conversations across time and space.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=41eebd1f-2e1c-4ce4-a294-856e2fc58413)


![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7edb121c-353f-46ee-914f-155742a8e409)