Initiating the learning experience

THE MAN WHO HAS CEASED TO LEARN OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO WANDER AROUND LOOSE IN THESE DANGEROUS DAYS

M.M. COADY

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Expectations exercise

Time required: 1 - 2 hours, depending upon number of participants

Most training sessions of more than three or four days can benefit from an initial exercise (after the opening session) to bring out the participants’ expectations about the forthcoming training.

While this small group exercise on course expectations makes some people nervous, experience with it has been positive. The biggest problem can be the amount of time it takes. This one has been designed to be less time-consuming by using smaller groups that combine their expectations and report them as a small group. It begins the self-reflection process, prompting such questions as “What is important for me to learn during this programme?” It also gives the trainer information for evaluating progress as the course proceeds.

In spite of its potential usefulness, if you do not feel comfortable using such an exercise, don’t. However, it is often valuable to take some risks, to experiment. When I used this expectation exercise with a management team many years ago, it turned into a lengthy series of monologues about each member and his or her background. I was anxious when the discussion went far beyond the time allotted to it. When an attempt was made to hurry the participants along, they were very harsh with me. As it turned out, this management team had worked closely together but never really knew each other as persons. It was an opportunity they did not want to forfeit. As the team-building workshop progressed, it became clear that the time was well spent. Sometimes the group has to be trusted to say what is important and valuable to it - and the trainer needs to be responsive to their needs.

TASKS:

1. Brief the total group on the exercise and ask each participant to spend 5-10 minutes responding to the statement “This management course will be a success for me personally if ___.”

2. As stated in the work sheet, groups of four to six should join together to discuss their individual responses and to put together a summary to report to the total group. Twenty minutes should be adequate but monitor the groups and time the session accordingly.

3. Bring the small groups together and have each group make a short presentation. As they progress from the first report, to the second, etc., group representatives should not repeat what has already been said by previous groups. This is a good time to start modelling effective group behaviour! Effective group behaviour includes putting a value on time as a scarce resource and how it can be used effectively.

4. Bring the session to a close by summarizing what you see as key expectations and how the course is designed, or can be altered, to meet these expectations. If some expectations are clearly outside the realm of possibility, this is the time to say so. Many years ago at an executive course one person came to the course with only one goal in mind, to learn about zero based budgeting (ZBB)! ZBB was not on the agenda and no one else wanted it added as a topic for discussion. Luckily, it proved possible to locate a book on the subject and loan it to him. The trainer arranged to meet with him at a mutually convenient time to discuss the approach.

EXERCISE

TOPIC: EXPECTATIONS

Take a few moments and complete the following statement.

This management course will be a success for me personally if:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

When you have finished writing, join three to five others who are also finished and share with each other your criteria for a successful course. Be prepared, as a group, to summarize the most important criteria for making this time together productive and professionally rewarding. (Use the following space to summarize your small group’s discussion.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Record in the following space the most important criteria to be applied to this course if it is to be successful in meeting the learning needs of you and your colleagues (based upon small group and plenary discussions).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

The urban management challenge

THE SECRET OF MANAGING IS TO KEEP THE GUYS WHO HATE YOU AWAY FROM THE GUYS WHO ARE UNDECIDED

CASEY STENGEL

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: The urban management challenge

Time required: Approximately 1 1/2 hours

The overall purpose of this session is to help the participants think about: (a) what it means to be effective either as a manager or an organization designed to serve specific audiences; and (b) the various factors that contribute to individual and organizational effectiveness. It is also a good icebreaker to help get participants into an experiential, interactive learning mode. (This exercise was designed to be used within an urban management course. If the participants you are working with represent a different work setting, change the exercise accordingly.)

TASKS:

1. Brief the total group on the rationale for the session and the tasks they are to perform.

2. Break total group into four smaller working groups of similar size. Two groups are to address the individual dimension of urban management and two groups the organizational dimension. All four groups will be requested to carry out two specific tasks:

(a) To define “effectiveness” from either an individual or organizational perspective;

(b) To list those factors they believe contribute to individual or organizational effectiveness.

3. Give each group newsprint and markers; they should have 30 minutes to complete the two tasks.

4. At the end of the 30 minutes bring the four groups together to report their results. Each group will have approximately 10 minutes to make their presentations when they return to the plenary discussion.

The trainer should ask each group to comment briefly on how they worked together as a team. How did they decide to address each task? Were they frustrated by the tasks and the way they worked together? If they had to do it again, would they address the tasks differently?

Compare, to the extent possible, the responses of the two groups working on the same tasks and the differences and similarities in respect to individual and organizational effectiveness.

Training outcomes should include:

a. A greater awareness of what is meant by “effectiveness”;

b. What contributes to individual and organizational effectiveness;

c. Whether or not the total group sees these two approaches to effectiveness as being fundamentally different or the same;

d. Some discussion of the consequences of the exercise regarding their work together during the workshop (the “so what” factor).

EXERCISE

TOPIC: THE URBAN MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE - PART I

Task assignment
Groups land 2:

Your group has two tasks to perform within the next 30 minutes.

Task 1: Agree on a definition of “Managerial Effectiveness” as it would apply to an urban situation.

Task 2: List those factors your group believes contribute to the manager’s effectiveness.

Your group is free to use whatever method you believe will be effective in accomplishing the two tasks stated above.

Task assignment
Groups 3 and 4:

Your group has two tasks to perform within the next 30 minutes.

Task 1: Agree on a definition of “Organizational Effectiveness” as it would apply to an urban situation.

Task 2: List those factors your group believes contribute to the organization’s effectiveness.

Your group is free to use whatever method you believe will be effective in accomplishing the two tasks stated above.

TOPIC: THE URBAN MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE - PART II

Summarize, briefly, each group’s definition of effectiveness.

GROUP 1: Managerial effectiveness
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

GROUP 2: Managerial effectiveness
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

GROUP 3: Organizational effectiveness
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

GROUP 4: Organizational effectiveness
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

TOPIC: THE URBAN MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE - PART III

Summarize each group’s list of factors which they believe contribute to “Managerial Effectiveness.”

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4

Organizational change: concepts and strategies

There are only two choices in life: to accept things as they are or to take responsibility for changing them

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Organizational change

Time required: Approximately 1 hour

The following materials entitled, “Organizational Change: Concepts and Strategies,” are designed to provide a theoretical basis for the follow-up sessions on action research and planning. It is suggested that you prepare a short 20-30 minute lecture based on the concepts and strategies outlined in the article and follow this by a general discussion. During the discussion, encourage the participants to talk about their own experiences in trying to bring about changes in their organizations. The more specific they can be, the more meaningful the discussion will be. Ask questions such as:

· Why was it so difficult to bring about the change?

· Was the change organization wide or confined to one department or project?

· What could have been done differently to have increased the effectiveness of the change?

CONCEPT AND STRATEGIES

The idea that organizations can “plan and manage change” has been a part of management theory and practice for many years. Management literature is infused with expressions like planned change, managing change, organizational change, change agents and, more recently, change masters. They are attempts to categorize and make available in usable forms a collection of theories, principles and practices about change and how it can be more effectively harnessed to serve the needs of organizations and their clients. The basic underlying assumption which fuels all the rhetoric and energy that goes into managing change is that, in fact, change can be managed. It is assumed that organizations, and their managers, can have more influence and control over the changes that are taking place in their midst. Organizational change, as a management strategy, assumes a pro-active stance toward events rather than mere reaction to events.

Two questions immediately come to mind regarding the possibility of planned organizational change as a potential management strategy:

a. Are the references about planned change in organizational settings merely empty rhetoric to be bandied about in classrooms and management publications, or do they, in fact, represent important ideas and strategies for managers to consider in their day-to-day operations?

b. More importantly, are these concepts and strategies of organizational change so culture bound that they have little or no relevance in developing country settings?

Regarding the first question about the legitimacy of organizational change in the work place, managers can manage the change process and, therefore, the literature about organization development and change is potentially valuable to the practising manager. Like all bodies of knowledge and experience, it should be approached with a critical mind.

As for the cultural boundedness of organizational change strategies and their potential effectiveness in diverse settings, I am less certain. Too often it is assumed that management concepts, principles and practices are generic and applicable to almost any situation, regardless of the geographic or cultural setting. Much more care needs to be taken in the adoption of new management or organization strategies in cultural settings where they have not been fully tested.

It is true that there is a tendency to dismiss new ideas because they “didn’t originate here.” Cultures do change, norms and values become altered, and management and organization practices are constantly being challenged from within the organization and from the larger environment. Because organizations and their environments are dynamic and ever changing, the manager can hardly ignore the need to manage the change process. This often means adapting (not adopting) ideas that have been successful in other settings.

Before considering specific organizational change strategies, comments will be made on the role of organizational change within the larger context of national development. As well as the genesis of organizational change and development as a major theme in management theory and practice.

DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

The act of development has as its central theme the management of change. Unfortunately, development, as a change strategy in developing countries, is too often defined in broad policy terms (abstract statements of desired future states) or as specific projects and programmes (end-products adhering to a prescribed cycle of planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating activities often imposed by outside institutions).

Because orientations to development are largely concerned with producing a final product or a future condition, opportunities to nurture individuals and organizations as agents of change are largely ignored. In fact, the concept of a change agent, within a specific organizational setting, may be antithetical to much of development in its present context. What is required, on the part of those who control the development process in developing countries, is a greater awareness of several fundamental issues integral to planned change.

First, the process of change is as important as the outcome of change. How change comes about, at all levels of society, will determine whether change can be sustained after external resources are no longer available.

Secondly, development involves many simultaneous changes including economic, social, political, cultural and behavioural. While it is readily admitted that economic, social and political changes are integral to the national development process, there is often reluctance to acknowledge that development also requires cultural and behavioural changes. Yet, cultural and behavioural changes may be the most critical factors in development and the most difficult to manage.

Thirdly, changes that result from development will be: (1) intended and unintended; (2) planned and unplanned; and (3) managed and unmanaged - even, on occasion, unmanageable. Managing change, as a function of development, should be designed to anticipate and minimize the unintended, unplanned and unmanaged aspects of development.

Finally, organizational change must be seen as a keystone of national development. Organizations, both public and private, are the places where development happens. Those who take on the responsibility to provide leadership and management within operating organizations should recognize their role in overall national development.

To summarize, the successful management of change and development will require clear attention to the process as well as the products of development and ultimately involve changes in the organization’s culture and behaviour. Change will also involve unintended, unplanned and unmanaged events and consequences. The key to managing organizational change is to anticipate and minimize these events and their consequences to the extent possible.

Just because everything is different doesn’t mean anything has changed

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Organizational change, and the broader theme of managing change, have a well documented history. The following is a brief review of the roots of planned change and how they grew.

While there have been major practitioners and writers of managing change concepts and strategies over the centuries, the focus here is on one individual who has had a major influence on much of what we know about managing change at the present time. This person is Kurt Lewin, a social scientist who emigrated to the United States of America in the early 1930s.

At the core of Lewin’s concerns was the challenge of bringing about attitudinal and behavioural change without the usual manipulation that underlies many of these effects.

At least five of Lewin’s research interests and contributions have found their way into contemporary organizations and form the basis for much of modern management theory and practice. These include:

a. The role of democratic leadership in non-political settings including the sharing of power, authority, responsibility and decision-making at all appropriate levels of organizations and societies;

b. Group dynamics (human relations) and their impact upon the effectiveness of individuals and teams in task-oriented settings;

c. Experiential learning (learning by doing) as an approach to developing skills and changing attitudes and behaviours;

d. Action research, as a practical decision-making and problem-solving process;

e. The analysis of forces at work within and among social systems - an important contribution to the concept of organizations as open systems. Open systems are those that are influenced by, and in turn influence, their external environment.

These five major themes in the management of complex socio-economic/political systems (usually known as organizations or institutions) did not always fall on fertile ground in the years following Lewin’s initial research and writings. In fact, it has taken decades for the combination of Lewin’s efforts and contributions to make their mark on a significant number of operating organizations.

The period from 1950 to the present has been fertile with the blossoming of new ideas and approaches to management Those who have followed and, on occasion, immersed themselves in the latest management fad have witnessed the rise and fall, or at least, the faltering, of such movements as sensitivity training, the managerial grid, organization development, systems analysis, team building, matrix management, operations research, sociotechnical systems, management by objectives (MBO), worker democracy, The One Minute Manager, and many more. Management theorists have experienced their own “green revolution” when it comes to planting new approaches to effective management and organizations. The problem arises at harvest time when it is often difficult to tell the maize from the weeds.

ON A MORE POSITIVE NOTE

While it is easy and sometimes appropriate to administer a dose of healthy cynicism to the probing and flailing that has characterized management/organization theory and practice in recent years, one must also applaud the tenacious manner in which managers and theoreticians have struggled to find “a better way.”

Those who come from harder disciplines (science, engineering, economics) often scoff at the “softness” of management techniques and strategies. However, their attempts to rationalize and quantify the workings of complex organizations often demonstrate a naivete about management and have at times resulted in disastrous consequences.

Unfortunately, the management of complex organizations is a messy business. It is fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty. It is also constrained by outmoded theories and practices which were devised in a previous century. Most of the world’s formal organizations cling to Weber’s bureaucratic model. It is characterized by the hierarchical pyramid, the definition and assignment of specific work tasks, sharp distinctions between workers and managers, and formalized and rigid patterns of organizational behaviour and practices.

When it is realised that these managerial and organizational systems are undergirded, and often undermined, by a rich tradition of local culture or cultures, it is little wonder that there are many questions and few answers about how one should go about managing organizations, projects, programmes and services in societies and multi-societal settings that are rapidly changing.

For those who are charged with the task of “managing,” this rich contextual stew of concepts and techniques can be of little comfort. The real challenge of management is learning to live temporarily with the inherited “system” while beginning to change it so it works for the manager, and not against him, in carrying out the responsibilities of the position.

PLANNED CHANGE STRATEGIES - THE HIGH ROAD

Before bringing this discussion to a close it would be well to include a brief look at: (a) an academic categorization of planned change strategies that has been generally accepted over the years; and (b) a more practical set of change techniques designed for the manager.

One widely accepted academic taxonomy of planned change strategies is by Robert Chin and Kenneth Benne. It includes three broad categories: (a) empirical-rational; (b) normative-re-educative; and (c) power-coercive.

Empirical-rational. This approach assumes that individuals are rational and follow their rational self-interests once these are revealed to them. It further assumes that decisions can be made from a data base which adheres to rational arguments and provides a strong semblance of predictability. This approach includes basic and applied research and the dissemination of knowledge through general education, administrative decisions based on merit or recognized standards, systems analyses and operations research as management tools for decision-making, and the installation and use of quantitative informational systems to guide management actions.

Normative-re-educative. This category of change strategies assumes that patterns of action and practice are supported by socio-cultural norms and by commitments on the part of individuals to these norms. These strategies do not deny rational thought but go beyond rationality in determining what influences commitments and behaviour. It assumes the capacity to unlearn old norms, values, attitudes and behaviours and to learn new ones. It further assumes a transactional relationship between the individual and his or her environment. This approach includes many of Lewin’s early efforts, such as experiential training and action research, individual development approaches such as psychotherapy, counselling and coaching, and organizational activities designed to foster growth of individuals and the problem-solving capabilities of the system, through such activities as team-building and organization development.

Power-coercive. This approach to change assumes the application of power in some form, political or otherwise. The influence process involved is one of compliance by those with less power to the plans, direction and leadership of those with greater power. This category of change strategies includes: the use of political institutions; the composition and manipulation of power tes; non-violent confrontation as employed by Gandhi and Martin Luther King; conflict management; economic sanctions; and the making of power coalitions.

To these three categories of change strategies, proposed by Chin and Benne, a fourth might be added - that of technological-structural change. While Chin and Benne would, no doubt, argue that their three categories encompass changes of a technological and structural nature, these are too important in today’s managerial environment to risk being lost under the trilogy of approaches listed above.

Technological-structural. These changes assume the infusion of new technology into systems and their environment and the alteration or re-ordering of social systems to achieve certain goals. Included under this category are such activities as: the installation of computers; the deployment of new equipment and materials; and the structural alteration of organizational relationships.

FROM THE THEORETICAL TO THE PRACTICAL

French and Bell, in their book Organization Development, provide a succinct look at the major families of types of organizational change interventions. These are strategies designed to help managers put into practice many of the concepts associated with planned change:

a. Diagnostic activities: fact -finding activities designed to ascertain the state of the system, the status of a problem, the “way things are.” Available methods range from projective devices like “build a collage that represents for you your place in this organization” to the more traditional data collection methods of interviews, questionnaires, surveys, and meetings.

b. Team-building activities: activities designed to enhance the effective operation of system teams. They may relate to task issues, such as the way things are done, the needed skills to accomplish tasks, the resource allocations necessary for task accomplishment; or they may relate to the nature and quality of the relationships between the team members or between members and the leader. Again, a wide range of activities is possible. In addition, consideration is given to the different kinds of teams that may exist in the organization, such as formal work teams, temporary task force teams, and newly constituted teams.

c. Intergroup activities: activities designed to improve effectiveness of interdependent groups. They focus on joint activities and the output of the groups considered as a single system rather than two subsystems. When two groups are involved, the activities are generally designated intergroup or interface activities; when more than two groups are involved, the activities are often called organizational mirroring.

d. Survey-feedback activities: related to and similar to the diagnostic activities mentioned above in that they are a large component of those activities. However, they are important enough in their own right to be considered separately. These activities center on actively working the data produced by a survey and designing action plans based on the survey data.

e. Education and training activities: activities designed to improve the skills, abilities, and knowledge of individuals. There are several activities available and several approaches possible. For example, the individual can be educated in isolation from his or her own work group (in a T-group comprised of strangers), or one can be educated in relation to the work group (when a work team learns how better to manage interpersonal conflict). The activities may be directed toward technical skills required for effective task performance or may be directed toward improving interpersonal competence. The activities may be directed toward leadership issues, responsibilities and functions of group members, decision making, problem solving, goal setting and planning, etc.

f. Techno-structural or structural activities: activities designed to improve the effectiveness of technical or structural inputs and constraints affecting individuals or groups. The activities may take the form of: (i) experimenting with new organization structures and evaluating their effectiveness in terms of specific goals; or (ii) devising new ways to bring technical resources to bear on problems. Included in these activities are certain forms of job enrichment, management by objectives, socio-technical systems, collateral organizations, and physical settings interventions.

g. Process consultation activities: activities on the part of the consultant “which help the client perceive, understand, and act upon process events which occur in the client’s environment.” These activities perhaps more accurately describe an approach, a consulting mode in which the client is given insight into the human processes in organizations and taught skills in diagnosing and managing them. Primary emphasis is on processes such as communications, leader and member roles in groups, problem-solving and decision-making, group norms and group growth, leadership and authority, and intergroup co-operation and competition. Emphasis is also placed upon learning how to diagnose and develop the necessary skills to be effective in dealing with these processes.

h. Third party peacemaking activities: activities conducted by a skilled consultant (the third party), which are designed to “help two members of an organization manage their interpersonal conflict”. They are based on confrontation tactics and an understanding of the processes involved in conflict and conflict resolution.

i. Coaching and counselling activities: activities that entail the consultant or other organization members working with individuals to help them; (i) define learning goals; (ii) learn how others see their behaviour; (iii) learn new modes of behaviour to see if these help them to achieve their goals better. A central feature of this activity is the non-evaluative feedback given by others to an individual. A second feature is the joint exploration of alternative behaviours.

j. Planning and goal-setting activities: activities that include theory and experience in planning and goal-setting, utilizing problem-solving models, planning paradigms, ideal-organization versus real-organization “discrepancy” models, and the like. The goal of all of them is to improve these skills at the levels of the individual, group and total organization.

Within each of these broad categories of organizational interventions is a wide range of activities and exercises that managers and consultants can use to address organizational problems and concerns.

SUMMARY

The potential for organizational change should be at the core of every manager’s thinking and strategy. With the necessity to work within a dynamic environment, where uncertainty and rapid changes are everyday events, the manager cannot afford to maintain the status quo.

Once the manager has decided to enter into an organizational change effort, it is important to ensure that it is compatible with the organization’s current cultural norms and values. This does not mean that those norms and values will not change through development. If they do not, then one can assume the change effort has not been successful. It is important, however, to have an initial success when entering into a long-term investment in organizational development. This, more often than not, requires the manager to start the change process at the point where the organization and its members are at the time. Effective change agents do not work uphill anymore than they have to.

Few managers realize how much little will do

Personal and organizational effectiveness

ACTION SPRINGS NOT FROM THOUGHT BUT FROM A READINESS FOR RESPONSIBILITY

DIETRICH BONHOFFER

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Personal and organizational effectiveness

Time required: Approximately 2 - 2 1/2 hours

This bridges the gap between the discussion of “Organizational change” and the beginning of the sessions on “Action research and planning.” It is designed to help course participants look at their personal readiness to engage in decision-making and problem-solving as well as the readiness of their organization. The questionnaire is written to reflect various steps in the “Action research and planning cycle” which is covered in subsequent sessions. Odd-numbered statements in the questionnaire are designed to cover organizational readiness factors and even-numbered statements, the individual readiness to make decisions and solve problems within the organization.

TASKS:

1. Distribute the questionnaire and ask each individual to complete and score it.

2. Have participants, as they finish the questionnaire, form small groups of three to discuss the results of the questionnaire.

3. In these groups of three, one person is to act as a consultant to another and the third is to observe the discussion and feed back information about the content and process of the discussion to the other two.

The purpose of these discussions is twofold: (a) to help each individual better understand what problems might be affecting his or her individual and organization’s performance when it comes to day-to-day operations, based upon the results of the questionnaire; (b) to practice individual skills in helping others in a coaching, problem solving situation. The role of the observer is to give the other two participants feedback on their ability to clarify the issues and concerns outlined in the assessment questionnaire. The intention is not to determine ways to improve the individual’s, or his or her organization’s, state of readiness but to understand these states of readiness. Each round of discussions and feedback should take approximately 20 minutes (15 for discussion and 5 for observer feedback).

After each participant has had an opportunity to perform all the roles, the total group should be reconvened to discuss the experience. The trainer might, during the three person discussions, gather the individual scores for personal and organizational readiness and post them as part of the final discussion.

4. Convene a plenary session to discuss the exercise and to summarize the small-group discussions. For example, ask the group such questions as: What problems seem to be most common? Least common? Is the individual, or his/her organization, more ready to engage in problem solving? Given the results of the questionnaire and the small-group discussions, what does the group think the course should focus on to improve individual and/or organizational readiness?

EXERCISE

TOPIC: PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

A CHECKLIST TO ASSESS PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS

The following checklist is designed to help you assess your personal, as well as your organization’s, readiness to make decisions, solve problems and bring about desirable planned changes. For each statement, circle the number you believe reflects your and your organization’s operational reality. If you believe the statement is not important, check the column on the far right.

	Fully	Mostly	Partly	Slightly	Not at all	Not important
1. Top management expectations for the organization are clearly defined and communicated throughout the organization	5	4	3	2	1
2. I understand what my immediate supervisor expects from me on the job	5	4	3	2	1
3. The underlying values which guide and drive my organization and its performance are dear	5	4	3	2	1
4. If asked what my organization values most, in terms of its overall operation, I could respond immediately	5	4	3	2	1
5. The ground rules my organization uses to make decisions and solve problems are understood throughout the system	5	4	3	2	1
6. While I understand these ground rules I am willing to confront them and my supervisors when they are not working to foster decision-making and problem-solving in the organization	5	4	3	2	1
7. The roles and responsibilities of each unit in the organization are dearly defined and understood	5	4	3	2	1
8. I clearly understand what my role and responsibilities are within the organization	5	4	3	2	1
9. Organizational resources are adequate to get the job done	5	4	3	2	1
10. I have all the resources I need to perform my job responsibilities effectively	5	4	3	2	1
11. Timely and accurate information is readily available in the organization for making decisions and solving problems	5	4	3	2	1
12. I have access to the kinds of information and data I need to perform my responsibilities effectively	5	4	3	2	1
13. My organization has clearly established goals and objectives that guide the day-to -day operations and provide long-term direction	5	4	3	2	1
14. I understand the goals and objectives of my work unit and have a commitment to fulfilling them	5	4	3	2	1
15. It is common in my organization to consider various options before pursuing a course of action	5	4	3	2	1
16. I personally consider the consequences of my actions before I carry out a project or task	5	4	3	2	1
17. Programme and budget targets are set for the organization and, in most instances, met	5	4	3	2	1
18. If someone asked me to define the performance target of my work unit for the fiscal year, I could answer immediately	5	4	3	2	1
19. The organization has a system for maintaining and evaluating programme and financial performance	5	4	3	2	1
20. My work unit routinely assesses its performance and uses the information to make improvements	5	4	3	2	1

The sum of all the numbers you circled for the uneven-numbered statements (1, 3, 5, 7, etc.) represents your assessment of your organization’s readiness. The total score of the even-numbered statements (2, 4, 6, etc.) is your assessment of your own readiness to make decisions and solve problems. The maximum score in each category is 50.

In either case, a score of 40 points or above indicates a healthy state of readiness. A total score of less than 20 in either category indicates serious deficiencies that should be addressed to achieve a state of organizational or personal readiness.

If you checked more than 5 of the 20 statements as not being important, this workshop will either prove to be a peak experience or a total waste of time.

Organizational readiness	Total score
Personal readiness	Total score
The “not important” factor	Total number checked

(introduction...)

NO ACTION WITHOUT RESEARCH: NO RESEARCH WITHOUT ACTION

KURT LEWIN

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Action research and planning

Time required: Approximately 1 1/2 - 2 hours

This session is designed to provide participants with an overview of the Action Research and Planning process and to form work groups around performance deficiencies common to their individual organizations.

The assumption is made for this session and following ones that it is most effective to have the training participants apply the various steps in the Action Research and Planning process to specific performance problems they are experiencing in their organization.

TASKS:

1. Give a short lecture on the seven steps involved in Action Research and Planning and how it can prepare participants to be more effective decision makers and problem solvers. Leave time for questions and discussions.

2. Ask each participant to fill out the Performance Discrepancy Indicators Checklist, entitled “Taking the Temperature of Your Organization.”

3. Divide the total group into smaller groups of 3 to 5 participants based upon common interests. You may want to list the most common discrepancies from the individual checklists on newsprint or a blackboard to facilitate the formation of groups.

4. If there is time, each group can spend the remainder of the session clarifying the discrepancy indicator they will address during the remaining sessions on AR.

OVERVIEW

Making decisions and solving problems are two of the most important tasks that managers perform. They permeate day-to-day operations and affect the long term health of any organization. In spite of the common nature of these two activities in organizational life, many managers are under skilled in carrying out the processes of decision making and problem solving. Skills, of course, are only one aspect of managerial performance in these two vital areas of concern. Motivation, resources, timing, and the overall environment of the work setting are also important to the acts of making decisions and solving problems.

On the other hand, one can argue that all of these factors are integral to decision making and problem solving. The effective manager’s “skillfulness” should not only include a well-honed set of tactics but an overall philosophy and strategy of management.

The manager’s effectiveness will be judged not only by his or her ability to make decisions or to solve problems, but to perform these acts within the larger context Mature judgement, consideration for others, involvement of colleagues, attention to long term as well as short term consequences and many other factors and qualities make for good management

As basic as decision making and problem solving skills are to the effective performance of all managers, they are often overlooked in management courses and woefully absent in many organizations.

THE ACTION RESEARCH AND PLANNING CONNECTIONS

What do research and planning have to do with the manager’s ability to “make” decisions or to “solve” problems. After all, research and planning sound a bit academic and most organizations relegate these activities to staff personnel - not line managers.

Since many managers hold these perceptions of research and planning, I believe it is important to look at these two management strategies in some depth.

The act of planning, in most organizations, has been misunderstood, misallocated and misused. Sometimes, planning is seen as “the thing to do”. Your organization is not considered a modern organization if it doesn’t have a “planning department”. Planners are frequently viewed as staff functionaries far removed from the day-to-day action. Consequently, top managers often ignore their advice when it comes to making decisions.

Planning is all too often seen as a pre-management function. How often have you seen the terms “planning and management”, “planning and implementation”? On the other side of the planning conundrum is the belief that making decisions is an integral part of implementation. Decision making is management work. Planning is planner’s work. WRONG! Planning is decision making. When managers are engaged in determining what the potential problems and opportunities are in their organization, and sorting among the best options to be considered in addressing them, and figuring out how to allocate scarce resources, they are not only planning, they are making decisions. Planning is decision making - and managers should plan. It is too important to be left to staff personnel who are labeled as planners.

ACTION RESEARCH

While you may be convinced that planning belongs in the manager’s tool kit, research is a very different issue. If we are talking about basic research, or even applied research, I would tend to agree with you. But, the issue on the table is action research. It is, as the saying goes, a horse of a different color. Action research is very much an operating strategy. As an operating strategy, it produces both knowledge and change. In the dynamic world in which most organizations and their managers operate, increased knowledge is critical and planned change is expected. Action research is an approach that can accomplish both.

Action research, as a management strategy, involves more than just a set of working tools. Action research is a conceptual framework for thinking about problems as well as a managerial philosophy that can be used to center all activities.

Action research, because it is both conceptual and practical, philosophical and pragmatic, must be embraced not only as a logical sequence of steps to be taken (seven, in the case of these training materials) but as an overall strategy for improving individual and organizational performance. Consequently, action research is different from most approaches to decision making and problem solving. The differences are worth noting.

· Action research involves widespread participation

Everyone who is involved in the problem is seen as capable of making a contribution.

AR is based on the fundamental belief that people are more likely to change if they participate in exploring the reasons for, and the means of, change.

· Action research puts a premium on learning

Training is built into the heart of the process. The intent is not simply to solve immediate problems, but to help those involved to gain the knowledge and skills needed to solve future problems. This is critical in organizations that are thin on management capacity.

· Action research is practical and direct

It is carried out within the context of real issues and concerns defined by those involved; and involves practical research as a means of gathering the information which can be use immediately to enhance the process of problem solving.

· Action research is developmental

A major task of AR is to develop individuals, organizations and communities to help them become more self-reliant.

· Action research is experimental

It is an approach which is flexible and open to new changes. It encourages experimentation and practice; recognizing the importance of using that which is learned to guide that which is yet to be done.

· Action research is dynamic

It attempts to comprehend an ever widening range of factors and consequences in an effort to be congruent with the needs and environment of the client system.

ACTION RESEARCH: A SEVEN STEP PROCESS

Action research involves seven interrelated steps, or tactics, within the overall strategy. These steps are summarized as follows:

(a) Building A Problem Solving Relationship

Like the foundation of a house, the relationship of the people engaged in problem-solving is the base upon which all future actions rest. When that relationship is one of mutual trust and understanding, the process of making decisions and solving problems is greatly improved.

Building the relationship means:

· Sharing people’s expectations and values
· Setting ground rules
· Assuming useful roles and responsibilities
· Learning how to work as a team

(b) Identifying Problems and Opportunities

This is the initial process of determining what problem the group is trying to solve or what opportunity it hopes to capture. Sometimes this also means redefining the problem or opportunity. This step generally involves:

· Identifying potential problems and opportunities
· Discussing and sorting out those items
· Deciding which items are most important and which can be ignored

(c) Analyzing the Problem

Once the critical problem area is determined, the problem solving team needs to:

· Explore the nature and extent of the problem
· Translate the problem into an objective statement
· Analyze the forces working for and against the achievement of that objective

(d) Planning a Course of Action

Having analyzed the problem, the next step is to decide how best to tackle it. This entails:

· Identifying a full range of options
· Analyzing each option
· Developing a plan of action (usually one, or a combination of options)
· Devising a method of evaluating the proposed action

(e) Experimenting and Redesigning

Too many promising solutions are “implemented” without a trial period and, in effect, are never successfully implemented. AR calls for a period of experimentation and practice. This allows the problem solving team to assess how effective and workable its proposed plan of action will be, and to redesign it if necessary.

(f) Implementing the desired course of action

This is doing it for real; it is putting into effect the plan of action and managing the changes that accompany that plan. Even at this stage there is room for modifications and improvements.

(g) Evaluating the Results

At various points during the implementation stage, the plan of action is evaluated against the original objectives established in Step C.

While each of these steps will be more detailed in the materials that follow, it may be helpful to review a graphic representation of the total process, following this discussion. The Action Research process is deliberately shown as a cyclical and not a straight line process. There are reasons for this:

(a) The idea of recycling is built into the approach. Once the cycle is complete, it should lead to another cycle, based upon what has been learned and accomplished.

(b) The process can be entered into at any stage in the life of an organization or community.

(c) The process is often untidy, moving back and forth between the steps as required in any particular situation. This is represented by the arrows that connect the various parts with the hub of the cycle.

It is often necessary to return to a previous step for one reason or another. One may realize, for example, that it is impossible to set objectives (c) without a better understanding of the problem or opportunity (b). At other times, steps in the process might be skipped. For example, the course of action (d) may be so clear and the time so short that experimentation (e) doesn’t make sense. The important point is to view the process as dynamic, one which is flexible and responsive to the needs and desires of those who use it.

Think like a man of action; act like a man of thought

Henri Bergson

ACTION RESEARCH

EXERCISE

TOPIC: PERFORMANCE DISCREPANCY INDICATORS: A CHECKLIST

Time Required: 30 minutes

The following exercise is designed to highlight performance discrepancies common to most organizations. It is also a way for the trainer(s) and workshop participants to identify a number of problems/issues to work on as they go through the various steps in the action research process (which represents a major focus of the workshop).

By using this exercise to form workshop groups, you can be more assured that the participants are working on performance discrepancies they are also experiencing in their individual organizations. Anyway you, as the trainer, can make the training more relevant to the participants’ experience back on the job will not only have an impact on their motivation to learn, but have an impact on the potential application of the learning.

The tasks to be undertaken by the training participants, in completing the Performance Discrepancy Indicator Exercise, are outlined on the sheets that will be provided to the trainees. Review these tasks before using the exercise in the classroom. Better yet, complete the checklist yourself before you use it. This is good advice for all training exercises of this kind. To paraphrase the “golden rule” - don’t do to others what you haven’t done to yourself beforehand.

TASKS:

1. Ask each participant to complete the Performance Discrepancy Indicator Questionnaire and score their responses. Explain how the scoring works. After each indicator is a scale of 0 to 50; 1 means there is no discrepancy and, therefore, no action is needed at this time. At the other end of the continuum is 50 which indicates a discrepancy of the highest order. Do something immediately! In between are 49 other choices, depending on the participant’s perception of the particular discrepancy and its state of existence in the organization. After scoring each, the participant is to total the scores and divide by 10. This will give each respondent a “temperature” score to record on the thermometer.

2. After they have scored, convene the participants into small groups of two to four to discuss their individual scores further. You can also ask them to give you their scores so you can do a group profile of temperatures for later discussion.

3. Close the session by reflecting on the importance of looking at performance discrepancies as a management tactic.

Taking the Temperature of Your Organization
A Checklist of Performance Discrepancy Indicators

I. Indicators of Known Discrepancies

Check each on the scale of 0 to 50 and record your response on the line at the right.

Remember: 0 = no problem; 50 = serious problem

1.	costs are rising in relation to output	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
2.	work quality is below expectations	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
3.	short term goals are not being met	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
4.	employee grievances are increasing	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
5.	customer complaints are increasing	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
6.	work loads are not evenly distributed	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
7.	employees are not getting needed information	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
8.	equipment failures are common	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
9.	work is running behind schedule	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
10.	staff turnovers/vacancies are higher than usual	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
11.	employee morale is declining	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
12.	personal conflicts are common	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
13.	creative ideas or suggestions are rare	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
14.	employees are unwilling to take risks	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
15.	non-compliance with regulations is common	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
16.	accident and injury rates are high	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
17.	cooperation among work units is low	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
18.	mistakes are often repeated	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
19.	equipment and material shortages are common	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50
20.	misuse or misappropriation of funds, equipment and supplies is common	0 ....10 ....15 ....20 ....25 ....30 ....35 ....40 ....45 ....50

RAW SCORE Total 1-20
EFFECTIVE SCORE Divide the raw score by 10 and record here
This represents the “temperature” of your organization.

Take the temperature of your organization

Take the effective score from the previous page and mark it on the thermometer. Discuss it with your work colleagues.

Figure

II. Pick the highest scoring performance discrepancy, based upon the organizational assessment you just completed and list it below. (Alternative: Pick a discrepancy which is particularly troubling to you personally as the problem you want to address in the problem solving session.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

III. Identify up to four other individuals in the course who have identified the same performance discrepancy as being indicative of a problem in their organizations and form a work team. This team will work together for the next few days to apply the action research process for decision making and problem solving. The course instructor will assist with identifying and organizing teams around specific performance discrepancy indicators.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Building a problem-solving relationship

Figure

MAN IS A BUNDLE OF RELATIONSHIPS, A KNOT OF ROOTS, WHOSE FLOWERS AND FRUITAGE IS THE WORLD

RALPH WALDO EMERSON

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Building a problem solving relationship

Time required: Approximately 1 - 1 1/2 hours

This session is designed to help the participants understand the importance of reaching out to others who should be involved in problem solving (or tapping opportunities) and how to build an effective working relationship with these individuals, groups and organizations. Two issues are important to convey in this session. The first is the importance of collaboration and participation. Few problems and opportunities are best addressed alone. Most involve others. Involving others in the problem solving process early saves time and resources in the long run. The second issue has to do with clarifying assumptions, values, roles and responsibilities as quickly as possible in the problem solving process.

TASKS:

1. Deliver a short lecture based upon the written materials and your own experience in working with others. An alternative is to pose the question, “What are the critical issues you need to think about in building a problem solving relationship with others?” Follow the query by asking, “Why are these issues important?” Once the training participants have contributed to the discussion, you can fill in the missing pieces from your own knowledge and the notes provided in the workbook.

2. Many alternatives are possible as a follow up to the previous task. I would probably ask each individual to construct a list of important collaborators who might assist in overcoming the performance discrepancy identified in the previous training session, stating why they are important to the problem solving process. You might also use a three way discussion as a way of soliciting information on the who, why, and how of building problem solving relationships. In this training approach, one person discusses his or her problem, another acts as the consultant/coach, and the third monitors the discussion and gives both feedback on the substance and the process of their dialogue.

3. Once the training participants have discussed, in one way or another, who is important to the problem solving process you might want to stage a role play between the person with the problem and a party who can contribute to its resolution. For example, ask for a volunteer who would like to seek assistance in solving the performance problem identified in the previous session. The person should identify in broad terms for the training group the essence of the problem and someone they believe can help solve it. The potential collaborator needs to be described in some detail (e.g., Who is it? What is his or her role? What is the relationship between the two?). The reason for soliciting information, which is as specific as possible regarding the collaboration role, is to prepare another participant to play this person’s role in the discussion that follows.

Once you have enough information about the problem and the potential collaborator, ask someone from the group to play the role of the problem solving collaborator. You will want the role play to clarify: the problem and its ramifications; assumptions about working together; values that each party might hold that are important to the problem solving venture; and the roles and responsibilities each can be expected to fulfill.

The role-playing should continue until you believe optimum learning has been achieved from the discussion or it raises questions, either in content or process, that could benefit from an open discussion involving all course participants. There is no magic formula for determining this point in a role play. Let your judgement and intuition guide your actions.

One final comment about the above notes: They are written to give you general ideas about how to handle the session, not detailed step-by-step procedures to follow. I believe training sessions are more effective when the trainer has flexibility in both design and content, given the needs of the trainees. Too often training designs are written in a rigid lock-step fashion which give the trainer little room for adaptation. Such designs deny creativity and input from the trainees, as well as the trainer.

OVERVIEW

STEP A: BUILDING A PROBLEM SOLVING RELATIONSHIP

Whatever the situation whether (meeting as a management team to address performance problems and plan major changes or working with community groups), the relationship among members of a group has a great deal to do with the group’s ability to solve problems, to learn, and to plan new programs. Like the foundation of a house, the problem solving relationship needs to be built, and sometimes rebuilt, since almost every other action depends upon the strength of this relationship.

Factors to consider in building an effective problem-solving relationship are:

· Expectations

What expectations do various parties to the problem-solving process have about their working together? Within a training session, for example, it is important for the trainees to know the expectation of the trainers and the sponsoring organizations. Likewise, the trainers need to know what the trainees expect from the program. If these expectations are very different, it could lead to serious problems in communicating and working together. To the extent possible, it is important to work toward a common set of expectations. The expectations of large groups of employees in many organizations never get surfaced. They continue to be hidden and the organization’s ability to make decisions and solve problems is thwarted.

If a pickpocket meets a holy man, he will only see his pockets

· Values

People who join organizations and groups often have strong values, e.g., things they prize or place a high value on. For example, many trainers value shared responsibility for, and involvement in, learning - the belief that people are not taught - they learn. This suggests active involvement in setting learning goals and contributing to the learning of others. The participants also come with their own values and they may be in conflict with those of the teaching staff. Values are a part of every interaction we undertake they need to be mutually understood if people are to work well together.

· Ground Rules

A good problem solving relationship involves establishing ground rules that are understood and agreed upon by all parties. How many times have you gone into a situation when you did not know what the ground rules were? Not a comforting feeling, is it?

A group that strives to make quality decisions and to solve complex problems needs to establish ground rules on how it is going to operate. These include:

· How it will go about analyzing and solving problems

· How it will make decisions

· How it will set agendas, keep notes, share information

· Whether it will have a regular group leader or rotate that responsibility among the participants.

· Roles and Responsibilities

The roles and responsibilities of each party involved, and how these are viewed by others, are important issues to be considered in establishing an effective problem solving relationship.

People play various roles in groups - some helpful, some not so helpful. We will be looking at those roles in this course and how they affect each group’s work.

· Resources

Any task to be undertaken requires resources. It is important to initially assess whether or not you have the necessary resources available, or whether you can acquire them if and when they are needed. Nothing stops problem solving more quickly than a lack of resources or the belief that they are not available.

Building a problem solving relationship is getting to know the territory in which decision making and problem solving should take place. It would include raising and answering questions that help develop a level of trust and understanding among those who should be involved. To assure a high level of congruence between the ideas being taught in the course and the behavior of the instructors, certain things should be done to aid building such a relationship. For example, the objectives of the course should be explained, along with the proposed schedule. There should be an opportunity for you (the participants) to discuss the objectives and make changes if they feel this is necessary. The trainers, should talk about some of our own values about learning why we believe they are important, and what they mean in this program.

The training program also provides an opportunity for you to express their expectations about the training and your particular needs as operating managers and trainers.

Finally, the training program is an opportunity to increase knowledge and skills in group work - all of which should contribute to a solid relationship. These are discussed in more detail in the following section.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN BUILDING EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS

· Group Values and Behaviors

What people do in the problem solving relationship is important and may have a greater impact on what happens than anything else. Here are some things that are helpful in building a strong working relationship.

(a) Empathy. It is important to try to see the situation from another person’s point of view - to “tune in” on the other person. Managers often forget what it was like to be a “worker.” Reflecting upon those experiences can be important in becoming a more effective manager.

(b) Honesty. Being honest will contribute to effective problem solving. While direct communication has different connotations in different cultures, it is a value worth considering.

(c) Respect. Having a positive regard for others and respecting their feelings, experience and potential for contribution is important to effective relationships and problem solving.

(d) Commitment. There are a number of ways that commitment can be measured, including presence and involvement in the task.

(e) Flexibility. Above all, the effective problem-solver is flexible, willing to hear others and to change his or her mind when a better idea is presented or a better way is found.

· Group functions

Another important part of effective problem solving is an understanding of how groups function. How we interact with others is a complex, interesting part of everyday life. Here are some things to know about working together that can be useful in making our interaction with others more productive.

CONTENT AND PROCESS

In all human interactions, there are two major ingredients - content and process. The first deals with the subject matter of the task upon which the group is working. In many interactions, the focus of attention is on the content.

The second ingredient, process, is concerned with what is happening between and to group members while the group is working. In many interactions, little attention is paid to process, even when it is the major cause of ineffective group action.

Sensitivity to group process will better enable one to diagnose group problems early and deal with them more effectively. Since these processes are present in all groups, awareness of them will enhance a person’s worth to a group and enable him or her to be a more effective group participant.

PARTICIPATION

One indication of involvement is verbal participation. Look for differences in the amount of participation among members:

· Who says a tot; who doesn’t?

· Do you see any shift in participation, e.g., “talkers” become quiet; quiet people suddenly become talkative?

· How are the silent people treated? How is their silence interpreted? Is it seen as consent, disagreement, disinterest, fear?

· Who talks to whom?

· Who keeps the discussion going? Why?

INFLUENCE

Influence and participation are not the same. Some people may speak very little, yet they capture the attention of the whole group. Others may talk a lot but are generally not listened to by other members.

· Does anyone make a decision and carry it out without checking with other group members? (self-authorized). For example, he/she decides on the topic to be discussed and immediately begins to talk about it.

· Does the group drift from topic to topic?

· Who supports other members’ suggestions or decisions? Does this support result in the two members deciding the topic or activity for the group?

· Is there any evidence of the majority pushing a decision through over other members objections? Do they call for a vote (majority support)?

· Is there any attempt to get all members participating in a decision (consensus)?

GROUP ROLES

For a group to work effectively, a number of functions or roles must be performed by both the designated leader and/or the members of the group. The performance of these functions permits the group to satisfy the needs of its members and to move toward achievement of its objectives. There are two main categories of leadership/membership functions: (1) those required to meet needs on the level of task achievement; (2) those required to meet needs on the level of group maintenance. A third category of composite roles helps the group both to do the job and also maintain and strengthen itself as a group.

TASK FUNCTIONS

The following task functions are necessary if a group is to operate effectively. If any of these roles are omitted, the effectiveness of the group declines.

(a) Initiating Activity: Proposing solutions; suggesting new ideas; providing new definitions.

(b) Seeking Information: Asking for clarification of suggestions; requesting additional information or facts.

(c) Seeking Opinions: Looking for an expression of feeling about something from members; seeking clarification of values, suggestions, or ideas.

(d) Giving Information: Offering facts and relating one’s own experience to the group problems to illustrate points.

(e) Giving Opinions: Stating an opinion or belief concerning suggestions others might make.

(f) Elaborating: Clarifying; giving examples or developing meanings; trying to envision how a proposal might work out if adopted.

(g) Coordinating: Showing relationships among various ideas or suggestions; trying to pull ideas or suggestions together; drawing together activities of various subgroups or members.

(h) Summarizing: Pulling together related ideas or suggestions; restating suggestions after the group has discussed them.

(i) Testing Feasibility: Making application of suggestions to real situations; examining the practicality and workability of ideas.

RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS

In this category are described those functions which are required to strengthen and maintain the life of the group and its activities. They are necessary in order to alter or sustain the way in which members of the group work together.

(j) Encouraging: Being friendly and responsive to others; praising others and their ideas; agreeing with and accepting the contributions of others.

(k) Gatekeeping: Making it possible for another member to make a contribution to the group; or suggesting limited talking time for everyone so that all will have a chance to be heard.

(l) Standard Setting: Expressing standards for the group to use in choosing its content or procedures or in evaluating its decisions.

(m) Following: Going along with the decisions of the group; thoughtfully accepting the ideas of others.

(n) Expression of Group Feeling: Summarizing what group feeling is sensed to be; describing reactions of the group to ideas or solutions.

DUAL FUNCTIONS

This category of leader/member roles represents functions which accomplish a dual purpose. They help to integrate the group, while at the same time, releasing its energies toward the achievement of its task or solution to its problem.

(o) Evaluating: Submitting group decisions or accomplishments for comparison with group standards; measuring accomplishments against goals.

(p) Diagnosing: Determining sources of difficulties and appropriate steps to take next; analyzing the main blocks to progress.

(q) Testing for Consensus: Tentatively asking for group opinions in order to find out whether the group is nearing consensus or a decision; sending up trial balloons to test group opinions.

(r) Mediating: Harmonizing; conciliating differences in points of view; making compromise solutions.

(s) Reflecting Expressed Feelings: Recognizing and accepting feelings expressed by members of the group; restating what has been said, thus freeing a member of the group for further self-understanding, insight and participation.

DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR

Often in groups, one can observe behavior that does not fit any of the above mentioned categories. This is likely to be self-centered behavior, sometimes referred to as “nonfunctional” roles. This is behavior that does not contribute to the group but only satisfies personal needs. The following non-functional roles are to be avoided in one’s own behavior.

(a) Being Aggressive: Working for status by criticizing or blaming others; showing hostility against the group or some individual; deflating the ego or status of others.

(b) Blocking: Interfering with the progress of the group by going off on a tangent; citing personal experiences unrelated to the problem; arguing too much on a point; rejecting ideas without consideration.

(c) Competing: Vying with others to produce the best idea; talk the most; play the most roles; gain favor with the leader.

(d) Special Pleading: Introducing or supporting one’s own pet concerns or philosophies; lobbying.

(e) Seeking Recognition: Attempting to call attention to one’s self by loud or excessive talking; extreme ideas; unusual behavior.

(f) Withdrawal: Acting indifferent or passive; resorting to excessive formality; daydreaming; whispering to others; wandering from the subject.

PROBLEM SOLVING RELATIONSHIPS AND GROUP PROCESS

It is important for managers to understand group process and its impact on managerial decision making and problem solving. Managers rarely work alone. Their average day is filled with meetings - from one-on-one counseling of valued employees - to small work sessions - to large group settings. In every case, those involved must consider how best to develop the relationship, whether temporary or long standing, so it will be productive. Those who know how to build problem solving relationships in a variety of interactive circumstances have mastered one of the keystone skills for effective management.

Problem identification

Figure

ONE SOMETIMES FINDS WHAT ONE IS NOT LOOKING FOR

ALEXANDER FLEMING

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Problem identification

Time required: Approximately 2 1/2 - 3 hours (can vary given the way this exercise is processed)

This session is designed to help participants understand how to identify problems more precisely. On the surface, this may seem unnecessary. After all, a problem is a problem. Unfortunately, many managers encounter difficulty in carrying out their responsibilities because they do not take time to identify problems more accurately or have the necessary skills to do so. In either case, this is an important step in the problem solving process and merits attention in management training.

TASKS:

1. Present a short lecture based upon the written materials in the workbook and your own experience. Focus on the differences between problems, symptoms and solutions. This is an area where many managers encounter difficulty in the problem solving process.

2. If you have small groups of participants working on performance deficiency indicators identified in an earlier session, have these small work groups (3 -4 participants) use the problem identification exercise to verify the problem and to increase understanding about the problem. Since the performance deficiency will vary in its particulars with each participant’s work situation, I would have each individual complete the questionnaire and then hold a discussion, within the small work group, of the similarities and differences in their perceptions of the problem.

An alternative option is to have the total group identify a problem common to most organizations and work through the questions outlined in the exercise in a plenary session. Each step in the process can be discussed regarding its implications to problem solving.

3. The small group discussions can be followed by a plenary session to re-emphasize the key points in problem identification and to answer remaining questions.

OVERVIEW

STEP B: IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

In the action research cycle of events, no step in the process can be as difficult as identifying problems and opportunities. Of course, there are times when the problems we face, or the opportunities that can be tapped, are crystal clear. No one questions them and they can be addressed directly.

There are other times, however, when problems are fuzzy, ambiguous, difficult to describe. They even go around masqueraded as something else. While opportunities can also fit these descriptive terms, they are more often limited by the imagination and the courage of the organization and its leaders. First, a look at problem identification.

Thinking is preparation for action. People who are afraid of action, Increase the preparation

Otto Fenichel

THE “HOW TO” OF PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Problems are those things that keep you or your organization from getting from where you are to where you want to be. This suggests that you know where you want to be - which is not always the case. Sometimes problems defy identification, let alone solution, because we are not clear about what we want to achieve.

Setting goals, or defining end results (what would the problem look like if it were solved?), becomes an important task early in the problem solving process. Without knowing where we want to go, it is difficult to determine: (1) how we want to get there; and (2) whether or not we have arrived. If we don’t know where we want to go, it doesn’t help to buy a road map.

Another “problem” in identifying problems is the tendency for problems to mask themselves as symptoms, or even solutions. Symptoms are those visible aspects of a problem that often bring the problem to our attention. Symptoms rarely explain a problem; they are only manifestations of the problem. For example, a headache is a symptom of something else. The problem could be eyes train which, in turn, may be a symptom of something else - a problem within a problem. We could treat the headache (a symptom) but the next time we read, the “problem” returns. Effective problem solvers need to dig beneath the surface, where symptoms reside, if satisfactory results are to be achieved. Solutions also masquerade as problems. In a workshop of this kind, a management team from an East Africa city was asked to identify a problem. They said they needed to install water meters throughout the community. Problem or solution? Solution, of course, but what’s the problem? When they took the mask off their “problem,” they discovered two different faces. Water meters would: (1) raise revenues and (2) save water - a scarce resource. In this case, the management team was faced with two legitimate problems: (a) a revenue deficiency and (b) a limited water supply. Once the management team “identified” the real problems, water meters were no longer seen as a problem, but a solution. The team quickly realized that the installation of water meters was only one solution to the two-faced resource problem. There are many ways to raise revenue or conserve water. Identifying a solution as the problem often denies the consideration of other solutions.

One of the first questions to ask in the problem identification stage of problem solving is: “Have we defined the problem or have we identified a solution?”

THE PROBLEM DIALOGUE

One way to understand your problem is to talk to it - ask it a series of simple questions. This dialogue with your problem is perhaps the easiest way to understand whether you have a problem and whether or not you want to do something about it. Sometimes the best solution is not to solve the problem.

Here are some questions to ask your problem:

· What is the problem?

· Why is it a problem?

· Why should the problem be solved?

· When is it a problem?

· Where is it a problem?

· Whose problem is it?

· Are others interested in the problem?

· Do they see it as a problem?

· Would they be willing to contribute to its solution?

· Who is sufficiently unhappy with the problem that they are willing to try and solve it?

· Who will be opposed to solving the problem?

· What, really, is the problem, and why? (It is important to continue to come back to these fundamental questions even though you thought you had the answers earlier?)

· Is the problem, as we defined it, a symptom of something else? (A problem within a problem?)

· Have we defined the problem as a solution?

· What would happen if we didn’t solve the problem? How many times have you been so perplexed by a problem that you simply ignored it - and it slowly went away? Sometimes the best solution to a problem is no solution.

These questions, when taken seriously, will trigger a flow of information that will: (1) help you understand the complexity of the problem; and (2) begin to suggest alternatives for solution.

For example, questions regarding individuals or groups who are involved in the problem and their commitment to resolving it may, in fact, begin to tell you that the time is not right to spend your energies trying to solve the problem at this time. Just because a problem exists, doesn’t mean those involved are willing to do anything about it.

On the other hand, solving the problem may require a redefinition of both the problem and those who can help bring about a solution. As mentioned earlier, identifying the problem can be the most difficult step in the action research process.

A problem well stated is a problem half-solved

THE OPPORTUNITY GAME

Effective managing not only involves making decisions and solving problems. It also requires a pro-active stance by the manager to search out and seize upon opportunities, both within the organization and its external environment. Problem solving, by its very nature, is reactive. The manager has a problem; he or she reacts to solve it. Opportunities require a proactive style - reaching out for a course of action that is important but not urgent. Problems are urgent, or they would not be seen as problems. On the other hand, they are not always important.

There are other distinctions one can also make between problems and opportunities.

· Problems are often oriented toward maintenance (fix it, solve it, get on with it). By contrast, opportunities are focused on development.

· Opportunities as problematic, they always involve some risk and uncertainty. Is it feasible? Will it work? If it works, will there be any benefits? If there are benefits, will they outweigh the costs? Problems on the other hand, only become risky and uncertain when they are not solved.

· Opportunities live in the future and the risks must be calculated against a future that is not always predictable. Problems live in the past, resulting from actions or inactions that have or have not already happened. The results of solving the problem or not solving the problem is often more predictable.

· Opportunities require foresight - a vision about what can be. Problems more often than not require hindsight - determining what went wrong.

· The critical question, when tapping opportunities, is: What if? The important question, when solving problems, is: why?

· With problems, you seek solutions. With opportunities, the search is for benefits.

· Finally, opportunities can be ignored. Problems, more often than not, cannot be ignored.

The optimistic manager sees an opportunity in every problem while the pessimistic manager, when presented with an opportunity, only sees problems in trying to take advantage of it. The difference between a problem and an opportunity is sometimes only a state of mind.

EXERCISE

The following questions are designed to help you define your problem in more detail. (If you have decided to pursue an opportunity, many of the following tasks would also apply.)

1. What is the problem? (Start with a rough description and underline the key words and phrases.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

2. Why is it a problem? What would the problem look like if it were solved?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

3. Whose problem is it? Who owns it? (Once you have determined who the problem belongs to, go back and underline all those you believe are willing to invest in its solution and, finally, circle the individual, group or organization you believe is the most important in the problem solving venture).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

4. Where is it a problem? Is it localized and isolated, or is it widespread and pervasive?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

5. When is it a problem? (e.g., every Monday morning at 8 a.m.; once in a full moon; only when it rains; when the boss is in town). As with other questions, be as specific as possible in your answer.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

6. How long has it been a problem? If it is a long standing problem, this may say something about the ability, will or priority to solve it.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

7. Really now, what is the problem? Go back to your statement in task one and determine whether: (a) the problem you defined is a symptom of a bigger problem; or (b) a solution to what you think is the problem. If you decide you are dealing in either symptoms or solutions, go back to Step 1 and try to identify the real problem.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

8. Finally, what would happen if nobody did anything to solve the problem?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Analysing the problem

Figure

He was in logic a great critic
Profoundly skill’d in analytic
He could distinguish and divide
A hair ‘twixt south and south-west side.
On either which he would dispute,
Confute, change hands, and still confute

Samuel Butler

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Analysing the Problem: Part 1

Time required: Approximately 3 - 4 hours

After the participants have identified and verified the problem sufficiently, it is time to: (1) translate the problem into an objective (the end result); and (2) analyse the forces working for and against the objective. This session is designed to accomplish these steps in the problem solving process.

TASKS:

1. Working with the total group, help them identify criteria for setting objectives. (These are listed in the written materials.) While participants will be able to identify most of the essential criteria for determining objectives, you may need to complete the list based upon your own experience and those criteria outlined in the training manual. (I find getting the participants to identify the points one would cover in a lecture more effective than providing it for them.)

2. Ask someone from the group to volunteer their problem statement. Still working in the plenary group, assist the participant to translate the problem statement into an objective statement. The other participants should be encouraged to join the discussion.

3. After the plenary discussion, ask the participants to reconvene in the small groups they have been working with and spend a few minutes (no more than 20) writing an objective statement that meets the criteria defined in the plenary session. If you have been following the routine of working shared performance deficiencies in small groups of participants, ask them to write the objective based upon the performance deficiency they have agreed to work on.

4. Reconvene the total group, have each small group report their statement of the objective to be achieved, critique the statement and move quickly to the next task. Problem analysis exercise sheet: Part I should be completed by each participant to help them reinforce the points to be learned about setting objectives.

5. Demonstrate the use of the force field analysis technique. This can be most effectively presented by taking one of the group’s stated objective and analysing it in a plenary session, soliciting ideas and comments from the participants. Follow up with questions for clarification about the process before moving to the next task.

6. Reconvene the small work groups to analyse the forces impacting upon the achievement of their stated objective. The workbook form, Problem Analysis: Part 2 (Exercise), is designed to help small groups and individuals work through this analytical process. Problem analysis can be a time consuming task, so plan accordingly. I hesitate to put specific time frames on each of these task since so many variables enter into the completion of training events. Just remember that time is a scarce commodity and the task ALWAYS expands to fill the time allotted!

OVERVIEW

STEP C: ANALYSING THE PROBLEM

As suggested in Step B, there is a tendency in the problem solving process to pursue symptoms (mini-problems masquerading as the real thing) or to jump to conclusions (solutions). In the first case, the symptom may be solved but the problem continues to exist. When the solutions are defined as problems, they immediately eliminate all other options for problem solving. More importantly, jumping to solutions may have you chasing after the wrong problem - or no problem at all.

Analysis is the bridge between Step B (identifying the problem/opportunity) and Step D (planning a course of action). Talking to your problem as suggested in Step B begins the analysis stage of problem solving.

Identifying the problem, in a precise way, is half the challenge of problem solving. No one understands the importance of this better than Japanese managers. They have a tendency to spend, at least in the minds of many Western managers, an inordinate amount of time on “problem finding.” This means, more often than not, getting agreement on what the questions are that need to be asked. Implementation, in Japanese organizations, results from consensus decisions that emanate from in-depth discussions and reflections on the issues involved, starting with the all important step of defining, as precisely as possible, the problem they are confronted with.

By contrast, many Western managers, particularly Americans, have the tendency to rush into situations - to solve the “problem.” The rush to solution often has the American manager spending valuable time in what might be called backward planning. Backward planning, more often than not, has the manager redefining the problem to fit the solution. It is not a recommended approach to problem solving.

ANALYSIS IS A TWO-STEP PROCESS

Problem analysis, as I have defined it, is a two-step process: (1) translating the problem into an objective; and (2) analysing the forces working for and against that objective.

· Setting Objectives

One can view a problem as two split halves with a gap in between, as shown below. One half is where we are now, the other, where we want to be. The problem is the discrepancy between the two.

Figure

Problem solving is the art of closing that discrepancy

Figure

Setting objectives may be the most difficult, certainly the dullest, part of the problem solving process. It requires a kind of discipline that some of the other steps do not. If you don’t know where you want to go, it is impossible to decide how you want to get there or whether you are there when you think you have arrived.

An objective is a statement of where you want to go or what you want to accomplish. It is specific about who will do what, with whom, when, and how we will know it has happened.

SOME CRITERIA FOR SETTING OBJECTIVES

For an objective to be well written (or stated) it should meet most or all of the following criteria:

(a) It is specific. It states what is to be accomplished in the shortest possible terms.

(b) It states an end result, not an activity.

(c) It must be something the individual, group, organization wants to do - otherwise it will have a tendency to slip away.

(d) It is measurable; we must be able to know when we reach it and be able to determine our progress toward it. Can we time it, count it, measure it, complete it?

(e) It has a target completion date. The absence of a date by which the objective is to be met is a license to ignore it.

(f) It is attainable within the time available.

(g) It is largely within our control. Without some control, it is difficult to assure that the objective will be accomplished. While it is recognized that many things about any objective may be outside of our control, it is important to minimize outside influence or interference.

The real problem in setting objectives is to state them in such a way that we will know whether or not we are moving toward them. Our tendency is too often to state objectives in a vague way, to make them “fuzzy.”

As you begin to write objectives, ask yourself are they:

· Measurable?
· Specific?
· Result oriented?
· Realistic and attainable?
· Time bounded?

You should also ask:

· What do I want done?
· Who will do it?
· Who will it benefit?
· When will it happen?
· How will I know if I have been successful?
(What is the measure of success?)

When a man does not know what harbour he is making for, no wind is the right wind

Seneca

Once you have defined where you want to go (your objective), it is time to analyze the forces surrounding that objective and the changes you want to bring about

FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS

Force field analysis is a tool for assessing a potential change and the forces in the environment that influence that change. (It is important to remember that the solution to nearly every problem requires some change.)

Again, we owe a debt to Kurt Lewin, its creator. Lewin discovered that you could take any situation that a group would like to change and identify a field of forces - political, social, organizational - which keep the situation as it is. The forces are of two kinds: driving forces -those that push us towards our objectives, and restraining forces - those that stand as obstacles. In the diagram below, these forces are displayed with different length arrows which signify the relative strength of each force.

At the center of the field is the point of equilibrium (where we are now), which means the situation is held in tension by the opposing forces, but quite susceptible to shifts. An unbalancing of forces can cause the equilibrium to shift either in the direction of the objective or in the opposite direction, indicating slippage.

For example, if a local authority has as one of its objectives to allocate 500 low income housing plots per month in a housing project, instead of the present average of 300 plots, the force field would look as follows:

Figure

The driving forces are the things the local authority has working for it to meet its objective. The restraining forces are obstacles that stand in the way.

Problem solvers need to determine how to unbalance the forces and shift the equilibrium in the desired direction. Three processes are involved:

(a) Diagnosis: Identify all the forces, driving and restraining, that are helping to maintain the current level of activity.

(b) Unfreezing: Changing the different strengths of the individual forces, both pro and con.

(c) Redefining: Stabilizing the forces at a new, desired level.

Figure

Going back to the diagnosis, it is helpful to assess the relative strength of each force. One technique would be to give the driving and restraining forces each 100 points and then divide these 100 between the various forces on either side of the status quo.

Once their relative individual strengths have been assessed, there are three basic strategies for bringing about change.

(a) Add to the driving forces. This generally is less desirable since adding driving forces usually results in more opposing forces, which increases tension.

(b) Remove, or reduce restraining forces. This is usually more desirable and less obvious.

(c) Add driving forces and eliminate or reduce restraining forces. This is probably the most frequently used strategy.

SOME GUIDELINES FOR USING FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS

Not all forces are easy to influence or change. Some are so rigid that they are almost impossible to move. These factors need to be taken into account as you review:

(a) Which of the forces should you dismiss as being impossible to change?

(b) Which of the forces are most vulnerable to change? Which of those are also more important?

Once the forces have been identified as significant and vulnerable to change, consider which ones you want to attempt to change. In this process, it is helpful to ask the following kinds of questions.

(a) Who has access to the force you want to change?

(b) Which force, if we change it, will trigger other forces (for example, influencing a key leader may automatically influence his or her followers)?

(c) What are the resources we have available or can find to bring about the desired change?

(d) Where do we have the most leverage to influence the forces?

(e) What new resistances can be expected to develop as we begin to strengthen or diminish other forces? How can they be countered?

(f) Who needs to be involved or informed to either lessen the resistance to change or to provide support for the change?

The force field analysis prepares us to carry out our next step (Planning a Course of Action) because it begins to suggest various options - various ways to meet the objective.

EXERCISE

Topic: Analysing the problem: Part 1

Time required: 15 minutes

DEFINING OBJECTIVES:

1. The problem to be solved is:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

2. Given the problem, the objective is to:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

3. Is the above stated objective:

(a) Specific	yes__ no__
(b) Measurable	yes__ no__
(c) Realistic (within our resources)	yes__ no__
(d) Attainable (within our will)	yes__ no__
(e) Results oriented	yes__ no__
(f) Related to the organization’s overall mission	yes__ no__
(g) Challenging enough to make it worthwhile	yes__ no__
(h) Something you personally would like to be involved in	yes__ no__

If the answer to any of these questions is no, you need to continue to work on your definition of the objective.

Remember, a concrete, measurable, result oriented objective is not necessarily realistic

Topic: Analysing the problem: Part 2

Time required: Approximately 1 hour

FORCE-HELD ANALYSIS

(a) State the current situation (where you are now) above Driving Forces on the following chart.

(b) State your objective (where you want to be at some future date) just above the Restraining Forces.

Driving Forces	Current situation	Restraining Forces	Objective
-----------------®		¬------------------------
1.		1.
2.		2.
3.		3.
4.		4.
5.		5.
6.		6.
7.		7.
8.		8.
9.		9.
10.		10.
11.		11.

(a) Identify the forces which will both help and hinder you in reaching your objective. Write them on the diagram above. Restraining forces block our progress; driving forces help us reach our goal.

(b) Identify the strength of each force by drawing arrows under each force. The length of the arrow should indicate the strength of the force.

(c) Identify the specific forces (restraining and driving) which you believe are most important. Once you have identified them, answer the following questions (criteria):

(i) Can you realistically change this force? (Influence)

(ii) Can it be changed to your advantage within the time required to help you meet your goal? (Time)

(iii) Do you have the resources to bring about the change? (Resources)

(iv) Will you be able to get the commitment of others needed to bring about the change?

In the columns provided on the following chart, check either “yes” or “no” for each of these criteria as it applies to each force.

	INFLUENCE		TIME		RESOURCES		COMMITMENT
	YES	NO	YES	NO	YES	NO	YES	NO
(A) LIST OF RESTRAINING FORCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(B) LIST OF DRIVING FORCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

(f) From the lists above and your assessment of how feasible it will be to either decrease the restraining forces or increase the driving forces, you can develop options that will help you reach your stated objective. Remember, removing restraining forces may be more effective than increasing driving forces. In many cases, the removal of restraining forces turns them into a driving force (e.g., lack of training may be a restraint but once people are trained, they becomes a driving force).

Planning a course of action

Figure

ONLY THAT WHICH IS PROVISIONAL ENDURES

FRENCH PROVERB

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Planning a course of action: Part 1

Time Required: Approximately 4 - 5 hours

Following problem analysis, the participants are requested to generate a list of various options that might be considered in achieving the defined objective. These are ultimately narrowed to the best option with, perhaps, a back-up strategy. Once the best alternative is determined, the next step is to put together a plan of action. Three sessions (or 45 hours) have been allocated to carry out the option generating and narrowing processes. It could take less time, depending on the number of reports to be given and critiqued.

TASKS:

1. Given the participants’ understanding of the various forces that will work for and against the accomplishment of their objective (completed in the previous session), the next step is to consider various options available to accomplish the objective. If you have not used a brainstorming technique earlier in the course, this is a good time to introduce it. The objective is to generate as many ideas as possible that can be considered to accomplish the objective. (The brainstorming technique is outlined on pages 80-81 in the training materials.)

There are a number of ways to identify options and the task can be accomplished in different sized groups. Mold the process to your needs and those of the group. Be flexible.

2. Once your participants have generated a list of options to be considered in achieving the objective, it is time to narrow them down to the one to be ultimately implemented. This process can be achieved in two steps. First, eliminate the ideas that are clearly not achievable and choose the two or three alternatives that are obviously viable. Since the participants have given considerable thought to the problem and its environment (the force field analysis), the best alternatives will literally pop out for further consideration. This narrowing process can be done in the smaller work groups that have been working together during past sessions. When the possible options have been narrowed to two or three, the individuals in each small group should complete the questionnaire (Impact anAlysis: Narrowing the Options) which is included in the training materials. The Impact Analysis Exercise should be completed for each of the final options to be considered. (Make sure you have photocopied enough forms.) Impact analysis involves assessing 5 criteria and a number of consequences for each option. The assessment exercise results in a gross score for each option being considered. These can be summarized on the Summary of Impact Analysis sheets (also provided in the training materials). The higher the score, the better the option. While this exercise is unlikely to be used back on the job, it points out the criteria and consequences that are important to consider in assessing any potential course of action.

3. Ask each small group to prepare and present a short report to the total training group for critique. The report should briefly describe the final 3 or 4 options considered; the one ultimately selected for implementation; and a discussion of the process used to reach decisions.

Topic: Planning a course of action: Part 2

Time required: Approximately 3 - 4 hours (depending upon the number of reports)

This session is a natural follow up to the Impact Analysis. Each small work group will design a plan of action to carry out their best option for achieving the objective determined earlier.

TASKS:

1. Give a short lecture on the steps to be considered in putting together an effective action plan. These are outlined in the readings, under the section entitled, “A detailed plan” (p. 83).

2. Have each small group prepare their plan of action using the forms available.

3. These plans should be reported to the total group for critique and discussion.

The forms designed for the action planning process (pages 85-91) are detailed and require one sheet for each task to be completed. This may seem a bit cumbersome (and probably not something that would be used often back home) but certainly the substeps represent an important sequence of decision making thinking in formulating an action plan. While the process is detailed and may seem too time consuming, it is worth pursuing for those who want to become better managers.

OVERVIEW

STEP D: PLANNING A COURSE OF ACTION

In the prior three steps, time has been spent defining problems and opportunities, establishing objectives to address these problems, determining the importance of various objectives and analyzing the forces that influence the accomplishment of selected objectives. This phase of the problem solving cycle has three distinct steps designed to put the objective into action. These include: (A) generating and evaluating options; (B) narrowing the many options into one; (C) developing a detailed plan of action; and (D) determining a flow of activities.

A. GENERATING AND EVALUATING OPTIONS

At this point, it is desirable to generate as many options as possible to solve the problem and meet the objectives. As a start, it would be useful to look back at the “force field” created earlier. Options are often suggested by the forces in the field. Sometimes an option will focus on reducing one or two critical restraining forces. Sometimes it’s a combination of reducing restraining forces and taking advantage of driving forces. This is the point in the problem solving process where creativity is important. The management team should be looking for new ways of thinking.

One approach to generating options for problem solving is “brainstorming.” Because brainstorming has proven to be such an effective management tool for helping work teams be more creative, the process is described in the following paragraphs.

THE BRAINSTORMING TECHNIQUE

A facilitator writes the topic or question to be brainstormed at the top of a large sheet of paper, then asks the group to call out their ideas in short phrases which can be written down quikly. In order to set a creative, high-energy tone, the following guidelines should be stated to the group from the onset.

· No judgments. No idea or suggestion, however unusual, is to be dismissed, or edited. (There will be a time to evaluate the ideas later.)

· Anything goes. Offbeat, unusual, humorous, and bizarre ideas are encouraged.

· Go for quantity. The more ideas, the greater the possibility for coming up with a winner.

· Building on other people’s ideas is fine.

The facilitator of the brainstorming can help to keep ideas moving, if necessary, by: (1) setting a time limit - commonly 3 to 10 minutes, depending on the topic and size of the group - so that people will know they can’t afford to sit on an idea; (2) giving a few examples to start things off; (3) coaxing (gently); or (4) asking for different sorts of examples if the group starts to develop a “one track mind.”

The conventional approach is to have one person record the group’s ideas on newsprint or a blackboard for all to see. Sometimes, two recorders work as a team, writing alternate items, so the group does not have to wait for the recorders to catch up.

Another variation that is especially useful if you have several topics to brainstorm is to write each topic on a separate sheet of newsprint or blackboard, and provide each participant with a marker or chalk so they can go up to the lists and record items “graffiti-style.”

Some researchers and trainers have suggested that brainstorming is not necessarily the best technique to generate lots of creative ideas. The problem seems to be that a group of people can go off on one tangent without exploring the full range of possibilities. This suggests several variations of the brainstorming process.

Variation 1:

Instruct each group member to brainstorm individually on the topic, writing down ideas on a small piece of paper. Then, share the ideas by reading off the lists (or compiling the lists later).

Variation 2:

Divide the group into two or more teams, each to brainstorm on the same topic. The “parallel groups” approach has some of the advantage of Variation 1, plus the sense of group cooperation which is an important side-effect of brainstorming.

Despite its limitations, brainstorming remains a popular technique. For many groups, it has provided a first dear picture of their potential to think creatively together and to move off in new directions. It also lets everyone know where the ideas have come from, thus setting the stage for consensus and action.

Having many good ideas improves your chances of having a good one

SYNETICS

Synetics, another popular approach to creative thinking, is a composite method, or series of methods, to help individuals and groups think more creatively - to generate new ideas - to unearth ways of doing things that are different and more productive. J. Gordon, author of the synetics approach, defines it as “the joining together of apparently different and irrelevant objects.” Synetics uses analogies, metaphors and similes to break out of the boundaries we often put on our own thought processes. These boundaries have a tendency to restrict our freedom to explore other possibilities as we continue to dig deeper into the routine of our experience.

Gordon suggests both learning (making the strange familiar) and innovation (making the familiar strange) as processes for fostering creative planned change. To better understand these processes, he defines four psychological states in the creative process:

(a) Detachment and involvement: Seemingly contradicting efforts to either get outside of the problem or deeply into it.

(b) Deferment: Tolerance for new ideas. In the case of problem solving, deferring action until all reasonable (and some unreasonable) options have been considered.

(c) Speculation: Including a flurry of questions, suppositions, intuitive responses, “thinking the unthinkable.”

(d) Autonomy of object: Or, as Gordon suggests, the end product (goal) sought becomes the process experienced.

Synetics operates from the psychological stance that it is easier to solve other problems than it is to solve our own. We need to get “outside of our problem” so we can get deeper into it - to develop insight by using “outsight.” The key is to go beyond the boundary of our conventional experiences in order to understand day-to-day events.

Creating new options for problem solving is enhanced by the ability to:

(a) Suspend judgment;
(b) Tolerate ambiguity and sometimes frivolity;
(c) Give up treasured positions and attitudes
(d) Set aside position and authority so others can contribute freely;
(e) Think intuitively in an environment that honors rational thought;
(f) Turn things upside down and inside out;
(g) Look over our own shoulder to process the process; and
(h) Always keep the big picture in mind, even when we are coping with the minute details.

Intuition is the subconscious accumulation of past experiences

SATISFICING OPTIONIZATION

Generating options, as a manager, can sometimes become a trap. After all, if s fun trying to figure out all the various ways to solve a problem. It can also give the manager an excuse for indecision. (“I haven’t looked at all the alternatives.”) The challenge is to open the door to new ideas, new ways of doing things, without becoming overwhelmed.

The manager is someone who must make decisions and solve problems in imperfect conditions. There is seldom time or resources available to find and implement the perfect solution. More often than not the manager is obliged to accept the first satisfactory solution, to not let the “best” become the enemy of the good.

Herbert Simon, who has written extensively about decision making in public settings calls this the “satisficing” solution. It is impossible to know all the options that are potentially available in any complex situation. It is also impossible to foretell future consequences accurately (although we must try to foresee the consequences of our decisions to the extent we can). Nor is it always possible to put values on events that have not yet occurred. So, all decision making is imperfect and subject to limits of rationality.

Having said this, and recognizing the reality of “satisficing” behavior by managers, it is important to resist the pressures that often force us to take the first available satisfactory solution to a problem. Finding new options to old problems is how the future gets invented. The effective manager is one who has one foot firmly planted in the present situation and the other gently searching for a solid piece of ground in the territory yet to be trod.

B. MANY OPTIONS TO ONE

While most problems can be solved in more than one way, the manager must “bite the bullet” and decide which option he or she is going to use. Sometimes the “best” option is obvious. Other times, it is more difficult to decide among various alternatives. These are the times when it is necessary to ask some fundamental questions about the various options so a reasoned judgment (decision) can be made.

(a) Will this option clearly help us reach our objective? (In other words, is it goal directed?)

(b) Is it feasible? Can we do it? Will it work?

(c) Do we have the resources to carry it out? People? Funds? Equipment? Time? Leadership? Organizational capacity? Motivation?

(d) Is it adequate to meet the challenge? Given the size of the problem, will this option result in change to make pursuing it worthwhile?

C. A DETAILED PLAN

Once the manager has decided on the “best” option, (one which satisfies the criteria stated above), it is time to put together a detailed plan of action. This plan should answer the following questions:

(a) What are the activities involved (steps to be taken)?

(b) Who will take primary responsibility for each action? (Someone needs to be in charge.)

(c) Who else needs to be involved?

(d) What resources will be needed (people, materials, money, equipment, skills)?

(e) When will each action be complete? (Not only how much time will be required, but a realistic date of completion.)

(f) How will we know progress is being made toward carrying out our option and meeting our objectives? How are we going to evaluate success? What are our verifiable indicators?

D. SEQUENCING EVENTS

The final stage of action planning is putting the various activities into sequence - some sense of what needs to be done in what order. Certain activities are dependent upon others and some activities are more critical than others.

A well known procedure for charting the sequence of activities is called PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique). Basically, in using the PERT procedure, one starts at the end point (the completion of a project) and works backwards through the activities and events that must occur in reaching that end point. For example, if the end point is a 3-session training program for homeowners to teach them building techniques, we can work backwards in this fashion:

· The week before the program, we will need to make sure last minute preparations (i.e., the training materials are ready, the instructors are ready, the list of homeowners is complete).

· Even before that, we need to secure a training site - e.g., a demonstration house in the initial stages of construction.

· To secure a site we will need to check out several possibilities.

· At about the same time, we will need to assemble training materials (a construction booklet, building materials, tools, etc.).

· Before all that, we will need a training design.

· And so forth until we arrive at the starting point.

Developing a PERT chart is generally a group activity. Each party to the project begins to see how his or her tasks fit into the overall plan. The group also begins to see how things could be done differently which would save time.

PERT is also a method that permits revisions in the plan when things don’t work out like the original plan said they would. Plans never work out quite right. But the planning process is indispensable.

A low income housing management team in Zimbabwe developed a simplified version of PERT which helped them determine the sequence of activities to initiate a large complex shelter project. Once each work group within the team (e.g., building liaison officers, community development workers, administrative officers) decided what they needed to do over a set period of time to carry out their roles and responsibilities within the project, they put these tasks on 5x3 cards. These were attached (by using masking tape) to a large matrix, which covered an entire wall of a local community centre. The matrix listed all the various work groups, or individuals, responsible for carrying out various tasks on the vertical axis. On the horizontal axis (across the top of the chart) was listed a three and one half month timetable, week by week. After each of the critical actors on the implementation team posted their tasks in the sequence they believed they should carry them out, they negotiated with other individuals or work groups a sequence and timing which took into consideration the interdependency of their actions. The building liaison officers, for example, told the community development staff they needed to schedule their training two weeks earlier than planned so the building liaison officers could begin meeting with individual plot holders.

By the end of the negotiation session, the implementation team had created a 30 foot long PERT chart with over 200 individual tasks. Each of those tasks had been negotiated (in terms of the overall time frame) against all other interdependent tasks. More importantly, the individual work groups began to realize the importance of teamwork and communication.

PERT charts don’t need to be fancy, they just need to work to the benefit of all concerned.

Good decisions are seasoned by projecting them into the future to see if they work

EXERCISE

TOPIC: IMPACT ANALYSIS: NARROWING THE OPTIONS: STEP I

OPTION #

(Complete this form for each major option being considered.)

* The OBJECTIVE to be achieved is:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

* The OPTION for achieving this objective is:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Check one numerical response for each of the following criteria:

(1) FOCUS:

_ 4	- option is focused directly on achieving the objective
_ 2	- option is focused more on another issue but will help achieve the stated objective
_ 0	- option is not focused on achieving the stated objective

(2) FEASIBILITY:

_ 4	- option is very feasible to implement
_ 2	- option is questionable in terms of its feasibility of implementation
_ 0	- it is highly doubtful that we could implement this option

(3) RESOURCE AVAILABILITY:

_ 4	- option can be implemented within the resources already available
_ 2	- resources could be garnered to implement this option but it would be difficult
_ 0	- it will be impossible to get all the resources required to implement this option

(4) ADEQUACY:

_ 4	- option is very adequate in meeting the challenge stated in the objectives
_ 2	- it is barely adequate to meet the challenge
_ 0	- option will not meet the challenge

(5) COMMITMENT:

_ 4	- top leadership will commit immediately to this option
_ 2	- getting leadership commitment is questionable
_ 0	- top leadership will not make commitment to this option

Assessment Criteria: Record the number of:	4 scores	x 4=
	2 scores	x 2=
	0 scores	x 0=
	Total

Potential Consequences: This option, if implemented, will have the following consequences (circle appropriate number):

		Favourable	Hard to say	Disastrous
Economic	Short-term	2	1	0
	Long-term	2	1	0
Social	Short-term	2	1	0
	Long-term	2	1	0
Political	Short-term	2	1	0
	Long-term	2	1	0
Environmental	Short-term	2	1	0
	Long-term	2	1	0
Cultural	Short-term	2	1	0
	Long-term	2	1	0
	Totals

TOPIC: IMPACT ANALYSIS: SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS: STEP II

For each option being considered, transfer criteria and consequence values assigned earlier.

		Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
Criteria
Focus		_____	_____	_____	_____
Feasibility		_____	_____	_____	_____
Resources		_____	_____	_____	_____
Adequacy		_____	_____	_____	_____
Commitment		_____	_____	_____	_____
Consequences
Economic
	short term	_____	_____	_____	_____
	long term	_____	_____	_____	_____
Social
	short term	_____	_____	_____	_____
	long term	_____	_____	_____	_____
Political
	short term	_____	_____	_____	_____
	long term	_____	_____	_____	_____
Environmental
	short term	_____	_____	_____	_____
	long term	_____	_____	_____	_____
Cultural
	short term	_____	_____	_____	_____
	long term	_____	_____	_____	_____
	Total points

It is possible to score a total of 40 points: Any option scoring less than 32 should be seriously reconsidered before any decision is made to implement it.

Any score of 10 or less (in either of the two categories) should prompt a reconsideration of the option. Low scores may require (1) new options be generated; (2) the expectations (objective) be readjusted to be more realistic; or (3) a redefinition of the problem.

EXERCISE

TOPIC: ACTION PLAN: STEP I

A. The objective to be realized is:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

B. The best option for achieving the objective is:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

C. The tasks required to carry out the options are (list all the tasks below):
________________________________________________________________

1.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

2.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

3.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

4.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Use an additional sheet, if necessary.

TOPIC: ACTION PLAN: STEP II

List each task to be completed below (from Step 1) and answer the following questions.

Task No. 1 is:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Which will be the primary responsibility of
________________________________________________________________
(be specific)

Who will also need to involve
________________________________________________________________

The total time required to complete the task is
________________________________________________________________
(in hours, days, weeks)

and it should be completed by
________________________________________________________________
(a specific date)

The following resources will be needed (funds, equipment, materials, manpower, etc.):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

The verifiable indicators of success in completing this task are (how will we know the task has been accomplished satisfactorily):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

TASK NO.

TASK
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

WHO:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

WITH WHOM:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

TOTAL TIME REQUIRED:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

COMPLETION DATE:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

RESOURCES REQUIRED:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

VERIFIABLE INDICATORS:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Use an additional sheet for each additional task.

Experimentation and redesign, implementation, evaluation

Figure

Note: The first four steps in the Action Research and Planning process lend themselves to practice within a workshop setting. The final three steps of the process [E Experimentation and Redesign; F Implementation; and G Evaluation], do not. The format of the following materials is changed somewhat to reflect the shift in emphasis.

OVERVIEW

STEP E: EXPERIMENTING AND REDESIGNING

This phase of the Action Research and Planning process is an opportunity to try out your new approaches and strategies in a relatively safe environment. It is the time to: “work the bugs out of the system”; check for commitment and acceptance; get feedback on what you are doing and how you can do it better; and make adjustments in preparation for a full-blown implementation.

For example, in developing training programs to meet the needs of new staff members, it is often helpful to design the program and test it with a small group of participants. There should be mutual agreement to give and receive feedback to strengthen the training for use with larger audiences.

Another opportunity for experimentation might be the initiation of a new approach to low income housing. Rather than commit totally to a new approach, it would make sense to try using it on a trial basis with a commitment from all concerned to develop good data on the experiment for further decision making.

Experimentation is an opportunity to:

(a) Assess the desirability of the proposed change;

(b) Correct unforeseen problems before the change becomes fully operational.

(c) Give participants in the effort an opportunity to deal with any unexpected consequences; and,

(d) Train those who will be involved in later implementation. Not only does it provide an opportunity to train organizations or community people in important skills and knowledge for later use, it also builds understanding and commitment through their early involvement.

During the experimentation stage, it is important to collect good data about what is happening so there can be a thorough analysis of the results. This analysis addresses such questions as:

· Are we doing what we said we would do as well as how we said we would do it?

· What new information or resources do we need?

· What was the overall reaction to the change? How did we feel personally about the experimentation?

· Should a total implementation be planned; should the effort be scrapped; or is there a new design that would best serve our needs?

· What can we do to make the proposed effort more effective?

This is a time when everyone involved should be consulted for their insights and assistance. If it is a field test of a training program, trainees need to be heard from - not just the staff. If it is a new approach in working with low income groups involved in a new housing project, they need to be brought into the analysis process.

Finally, this stage of AR may involve redesign based upon the results of the analysis. Much of what has gone on previously should be helpful. For example, the results of the earlier force field analysis and development of options can be a good resource in any redesign that might be necessary.

ANALYSING THE EXPERIMENT

Following is a list of questions to ask about the experimental stage which will help in considering whether a redesign is in order.

(a) Did you meet the objectives you set for yourself? If not, why not?

(b) What went well in the experimentation that should be continued in any final effort?

(c) What did not go well that should be discarded?

(d) What kinds of changes should be considered to strengthen upcoming implementation?

(e) Who was not involved that should have been? What can be done to get them involved in the implementation phase?

(f) What resources were lacking to make the experiment as successful as originally expected? How can they be acquired to support total implementation efforts?

(g) Was the timing right for the experimentation? If not, why not?

(h) Given the results of the experimentation, does it make sense to go ahead with the implementation phase?

Half the difficulties of man lie in his desire to answer every question with yes or no. Yes or no may neither of them be the answer. Each side may have in it some yes and some no.

STEP F: IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation is, in theory, the action phase of the action research and planning process. Implementation means to carry out, accomplish, fulfill, produce, complete. But there must be some things prior to implementation - a policy, program, resources, and, above all, decisions.

In reality, implementation relies upon all of the activities we have considered up until this time: building a problem solving relationship; identifying problems and opportunities; the analysis stage, and, finally, planning a course of action.

If your efforts up to this point have been successful, you should be in a good position to begin implementation. This is not to say there will not be delays, problems and stumbling blocks put in your way. If you remember what was said very early about the recycling nature of action research, you can expect a little backtracking to previous steps.

Some decisions to be made along the way to implementation include:

· Do we need to adjust the “mix” of resources

· Will it take more resources to do what we said we wanted to do?

· Should we continue to use our current plan, modify it, or develop a new one?

· When we accomplish our objectives, will we know enough “to get out of business” - or create new objectives?

If the first four steps in the Action Research and Planning process have been carried out effectively, implementation will be relatively easy.

STEP G: EVALUATING FOR RESULTS

Evaluation is an ongoing process - not something you do at the end of a project or activity. Nevertheless, a final evaluation (summing up) is important and oftentimes a requirement of funding agencies and higher authorities.

Action research and planning as a process has evaluation built into it every step of the way. In many ways, it is a guidance system that keeps us on track and moving from one step in the process to another with reassurance.

A small workbook called the Hip Pocket Guide to Planning and Evaluation has a good set of evaluation criteria. They include:

· Adequacy - Is your plan of action big enough and bold enough to accomplish your objective? Is the objective “big enough” given the size of the problem? Do you have sufficient resources?

· Effectiveness - Was the plan of action carried out, and has it resulted in the objective being met? To what extent has the objective been met and the problem reduced?

· Efficiency - Could the resources be combined differently or different resources used so that the same activities could be produced at lower costs? How costly is the plan of action compared to the benefits obtained? Would another plan of action accomplish the same objective at lower cost?

· Side Effects - What are the good and bad side effects of the actions you implemented? What anticipated side effects occurred?

These four evaluation criteria are most effective when they are applied to:

· Resources - people, funds, materials, equipment, time technology
· Activities - that which is done to carry out goals and objectives (what is done)
· Strategies - the “how” of the “what”
· Objectives - a planned and expected result

When the criteria stated earlier are applied to each of these “ingredients,” they provide an excellent management guidance system, to determine if your efforts are on track and moving toward the objectives that have been established.

Two other issues important to evaluation are:

· Measures: How are you going to measure what it is you decide to do?

· Sources of Information: What different sources do you have available and how will you tap them?

MEASURES

A measure is the amount of something that exists at a certain time.

The most difficult part of evaluation may be determining what kinds of measures to use for each of the criteria and inputs to problem solving that have just been discussed.

Some things are easy to measure (number of houses built, cost per house), while others are much more difficult (attitudes of building officials toward builders, effectiveness of a community awareness program).

Two important principles to remember about measuring are:

· Design your measurement tools after you know what it is you want to measure. (Just because something is countable, doesn’t mean you should count it.)

· Be stingy about what you measure - measure only those things that give you the information you need.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Measurement data can be abundant so pick and choose with care.

Example of Measure: The number of Building Liaison Officers who have improved their knowledge of building materials.

Data are the numbers you get when you take the measure.

Example of One Piece of Data: Fifty Building Liaison Officers have improved their knowledge of building materials.

If the objective was to improve the knowledge of 100 Building Liaison Officers within a specific period of time to a certain level, then our evaluation tells us we were only 50% effective.

Data comes in many forms and can be obtained through:

· Interviews
· Questionnaires
· Observation
· Ratings (by peers, staff, experts, the community)
· Tests
· Records and Reports
· Statistics
· Documents
· Examination

For the manager and community worker, evaluation is an on-going process - not a one-time end event. It is the guidance system that keeps resources, activities, strategies, and objectives on track.

Evaluation is a time of accounting for specific actions and their consequences; for plans and making improvements; for planting the seeds of future challenges.

A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Finally, some ideas are included about evaluation from The Universal Traveler.¹ It gives a slightly different perspective about evaluation and additional ideas about carrying out the process.

¹ Dan Koberg and Jim Bagnall, The Universal Traveler (Los Altos, William Kaufmann, Inc., 1974) pp. 80-84.z

Three Phases of Evaluation: In a most systematic view, an evaluation is a comparison of objectives with results. It initially asks, “What did you hope for and plan to happen?” and then measures those dreams against what actually did happen. From the measurement, the problem solver can discover the quantity and quality of progress and make plans for improvement in the future.

Example: Guide to Evaluation

· Statement of Goals: Objectives described in measurable terms.

· Achievement and Measurement: How far did I go? (the quantitative perspective) How well did I do? (the qualitative dimension)

Were there unplanned contingencies? (e.g., unforeseen benefits outside the objectives; unforeseen problems outside my intention; additional objectives discovered late in the process.)

· Comparison of Goals with Achievement: Point by point comparison

· Plans for the Future: Review and enforcement of behavior changes

Progress Chart: If you have tried making a chart relating your defined objectives (tasks) with your available time, you have already found a simple way to keep a running evaluation. When you keep the chart up-to-date it allows you to see, at a glance, how far along you are in terms of meeting your objectives. This method usually works best for quantitative measures but quality can be added in the form of side notes or comments made as in a journal.

Who Else Has an Opinion?: Being objective about our own achievements is tough enough without also having to depend on our own frame of reference. Others, who view the same world with different perceptions, can often open our eyes to a truth or reality, which was there all the time but unseen. For the opinions from outside to be more effective and less hurtful, they must be understood - not just dropped on you without follow-up explanations.

Step Outside for a Minute: Making plans and setting out to achieve them is positive behavior. The relevance, social value and possible negative consequences of the success or failure of such behavior is another matter. If our self-image is good, we know that our intentions are good and that our behavior is the result of good intentions. When those “good intentions” are challenged - as in an evaluation - we become self-protective and often offensively defensive.

Evaluation calls for stepping outside of our self-image - at least for a moment - to look objectively at what transpired. The purpose is positive, to make plans for improvement. As for any problem, it requires Acceptance. When the evaluator realizes that it is attainment and not “self being studied, measurements can proceed.

Group effectiveness

AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT - THE LAUNDRY

ZEN SAYING

TRAINER’S NOTES

Topic: Group effectiveness

Time required: Approximately 1 - 1 1/2 hours

The following two questionnaires are designed to help the participants assess their work in small groups. They should be used, independently, after the workshop participants have had an opportunity to work together for at least 3-4 hours in small groups. They would be useful to interject into the Action Research and Planning exercises at a time you consider to be appropriate, given the progress of the small groups.

EXERCISE

TOPIC: ANALYSING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Analyze your team by rating it on a scale from 1 to 7 (7 being what you would consider to be ideal) with respect to each of these variables. Then, with the rest of your team, discuss the situation with respect to each variable, paying particular attention to those for which the average rating is below 5 or for which the range of individual ratings is particularly wide.

1. My satisfaction with our team’s progress so far.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Dissatisfied	Satisfied
2. My feeling of freedom to express my ideas.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Dissatisfied	Satisfied
3. The extent I feel my ideas and opinions are heard.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Dissatisfied	Satisfied
4. The way decisions are made.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Dissatisfied	Satisfied
5. The degree of trust and openness I feel exists in our group.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Dissatisfied	Satisfied
6. How we are managing our time.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Dissatisfied	Satisfied

This form is designed to help you think about your behavior in groups. First, read over the scales and, on each one, place a check indicating the place on the scale that describes you best.

After marking all the scales, pick out the 3 or 4 areas of personal behavior which you would most like to change. On these scales draw an arrow above the line to indicate the desirable direction for changing your behavior.

1. Ability to listen to others in an understanding way.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low	High
2. Ability to influence others in the group.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low	High
3. Tendency to build on the previous ideas of other group members.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Infrequent	Frequent
4. Likely to trust others.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Unlikely	Likely
5. Willingness to discuss my feelings (emotions) in a group.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Unwilling	Willing
6. Willingness to be influenced by others.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Unwilling	Willing
7. Tendency to run the group.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low	High
8. Tendency to seek dose personal relationships with others in a group.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low	High
9. My reaction to comments about my behavior in groups.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Reject	Welcome
10. Extent to which I am aware of the feelings of others.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Unaware	Aware
11. Extent to which I understand why I do what I do.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low	High
12. Reaction to conflict or disagreement in the group.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low tolerance	High tolerance
13. Reaction to opinions opposed to mine.
1 ...........2 ...........3 ...........4 ...........5 ...........6 ...........7
Low tolerance	High tolerance