Over the summer I took a month off, vacation.
I manage to distance myself from my work quite well.
But ignoring sports successes is impossible for me, it works on me like a magnet. 

Last year (2021) that was TeamNL at the Olympics, this year (2022) the performance of the Jumbo Visma team at the Tour de France. I started watching, listening and reading. What an Action Learning Team that is! A nice touch is that the environment has already determined that the team consists of 8 riders, the ideal number for a team, at least that's step 1. 

 

 Action Learning = P + Q + R

 

I have written 7 blogs about this. In each little blog I focused on: (P) programmed knowledge (R) reflection and (Q) questions. I have put these blogs together in this article. Enjoy reading!

What are the elements that Jumbo Visma believes contributed to the results?

1. You have to have a vision and go for it together;
2. The leadership of the team reflected well and honestly;
3. You have to learn from loss;
4. You have to learn from what goes well;
5. Don't assume just anything;
6. Not waiting for the Dutchman on their team to win the tour;
7. Use science.

In the blogs, I went into a bit more detail about the similarities with action learning in the 7 individual elements. Very interesting for me as a team coach.

When is it interesting for you
to watch a team like Jumbo Visma?

1. Jumbo Visma has a vision that revolves around individual performance and cooperation as a team!

Vision is the first element of seven that I describe, following the success of Jumbo Visma's cycling team.

Your best bet if you want to win a yellow jersey or get any kind of result is to focus on improving your own performance: getting a little better every day. A vision that many embrace, in sports one team does this better than another. In organizations, this is often less the case. There is often a lack of patience for this, in my experience.

When I coach a team in an action learning pit stop, it's not that difficult because we work outside of practice. So that's not playing a game but that's just training. But that's where it starts, simple by having everyone at the beginning of the session answer the question: what skill are you going to work extra on today? And answering the question: what do we want to learn as a team?

In daily practice, however, it becomes a lot harder, the team is less concerned with the performance and more concerned with the result. And that while everyone on the team knows that if you improve your performance every day, you get the best out of yourself. And so that's maximum results. But yes, on one team the coach gets more time and is allowed to fail more than on the other team. Just look at how long a coach or manager is allowed to keep working with a team when results are not being achieved (yet). If you believe in this vision, make sure you also name performance and progress in performance! The results will then come naturally.

"If you make more crosses (performance) you automatically start scoring more,
if you ask more questions (performance) you automatically become more innovative!"

Which makes me wonder: in today's dynamic and uncertain (VUCA) times, does a team have any other more sensible choice than to get a percent better every day?

This vision has not hurt the team at Jumbo Visma. One success followed another. For the simple reason that they work with people who are only concerned with one thing - getting one percent better every day.

Where in the process of Jumbo Visma do you recognize your own work situation?
! TIP: a very readable book about this is Atomic Habits by James Clear

The next section is about element 2, reflection and experience, how did this vision come about?

2. Team leadership reflected well and honestly

Reflection and thus experience is the second element of seven that I describe, following the success of Jumbo Visma's cycling team.

After several years of varying success, the Jumbo Visma leadership came to the bold conclusion, "With little experience and rash behavior, you can kill anything."

Honestly, I sometimes hold my heart when I see people who start working confidently with barely or no experience, with sometimes quite a lot of theoretical (books or course) knowledge. So is that an example of rash behavior that Jumbo Visma is talking about? And what are you helping to kill? A sports team's victory, a company's profits, someone's career or a human life? Over the years I have come to the realization that if you want to grow and gain experience you cannot avoid taking risks. Indeed, a team in which people are allowed and dare to take personal risks is essential for growth. Not for nothing is psychological safety so trending!

Pretty complex huh!

I think it is a moral responsibility of everyone, at all times, if you are pursuing something, to identify the risks. Any executive who wants to lead from experience can then ask you two questions:

1. is the risk acceptable?
2. Is the risk real or is there a (limiting) belief behind it?

Only then can you work on experience as an executive and you can continue to learn as an executive, I think.

With the current personnel shortage, in almost all sectors, an extra focus is required! Due to high workloads, more and more people are being inducted faster with minimal supervision. They do gain experience, and what is own reflection and peer reflection on the experience really worth? Without reflection it is worth less in any case, or how do you see it?

"Experience is a long chain of reflections"

So how much risk are you consciously running as a manager if you do not encourage the chain of reflections? And how reckless is that behavior? In the vision of Jumbo Visma, shouldn't you at least reflect daily on what I am and on what I improved another percent today? Then at least you have one guarantee. You become a little more experienced every day, with experience that matters. And that is Action Learning. Not going straight into the classroom and getting certificates, but learning in practice by actively reflecting experience together. 

Jumbo Visma did kill a seemingly certain victory in the past. And that through inexperience and rash behavior. But by sticking to the vision of getting a little better every day, the results, it seems, have come naturally.

What do you want to get one percent better at every day?

! TIP: very worth reading are Amy Edmondson's books on psychological safety and Teaming. 

3. You must learn from loss

Learning from loss is the third element of seven, which I describe, following the success of Jumbo Visma's cycling team.

"To win a round of France, it helps to lose a lot first," said the Jumbo Visma technical director. The team just missed out on victory twice, sometimes in a clumsy way. Pretty tough when that happens to you and because then to see it mainly as a learning process. In fact, half of the Jumbo Visma team left the team disappointed. Years of building gone, or did they? The other half, who stayed, suddenly showed much more resilience. And that resilience was exactly what was needed. This realization grew with the circumstances, over which the team had little influence. Like the opponents as the best example. Besides the sport, the present time teaches us more and more that social engineering, let alone guarantees of success, are not realistic. The only not insignificant guarantee of failure you have is that you gain more experience.

Experience, in my opinion (see previous blog) is just that, what can make the difference. If unexpected, sometimes ugly moments happen to you as a team, it helps if you have experienced something similar before. The Jumbo Visma team, believe me, have encountered them again this tour. They just handled it differently.

How do you get your team to turn loss and mistakes into learning opportunities?

"Sometimes you win sometimes you learn"

From my experience, some organizations handle this completely differently than others. This often has to do with people's beliefs and mindset. Both leaders and team members. Last but not least, this often determines how loss and mistakes were handled in the past. Did dealing with losing energize the team? Perhaps unremembered traumas actually emerged? Another obstacle, perhaps the biggest, is that team leadership only judges by results and there is no turning back. Also, or especially, sports excels at this in a negative sense. And as happened at Jumbo Visma, that half the team dropped out? How is that a loss. I am curious, how the leadership of Jumbo Visma looks at that now.

What weighs more heavily for the leadership: the loss of half or the increased resilience of that other half?

This question will never be answered unequivocally. The answer to this question is the beginning of what it all started with at Jumbo Visma: VISION!

How does your organization deal with loss?

My next blog is about the opposite, learning from what goes well.
! TIP: the book mental innovation by Hans van Breukelen might be interesting to read.

4. Learning from what goes well

Learning from what goes well is the fourth element of seven, which I describe, following the success of Jumbo Visma's cycling team.

My previous blog was about the importance of learning from what went wrong. So now the opposite. The question that then immediately comes to mind is: How (or when) does a team learn more from losing or more from winning and why?

What is so strong at Jumbo Visma is that they don't look at the victory, the result. They look at little things that go well. For example, I read that last year as a team they cycled their main opponents on a mountain at a distance. This did not last long, because a few kilometers further on they were caught up again. The team then analyzed what was going well when they rode the opponent behind. And that is exactly what Jumbo Visma used to put their main opponent behind for good this year. By doing that one thing that went well even better and more often, they won the Tour.

So don't be guided by the end result, but look at parts or phases where something went well. That's usually obvious in a win. But so did Jumbo Visma in a loss.

So also ask the question, What went well in a failed consultation? Or in whatever failed activity. A shame, after all, if you don't appreciate what you did well because the end result frustrates you. That's why in Action Learning meetings we always ask the questions: What went well and what can be improved. Regardless of whether it was a good or bad session.

What I learn from Jumbo Visma is that it does revolve around the end result. But a one-sided focus on the end result also distracts from what can be improved in the process. It distracts from the sometimes many small things that a team must continue to do very well together.

"Let go of the result,
if you play well, you will win by yourself."

What does it take in your team to continue to see, even in the face of adversity keep seeing what is going well?

My next blog, four of seven is about not assuming just anything.
Always Inquire, Never Assume: ANNA principle.
! TIP: books and articles on appreciative inquiry might be interesting to read.

5. Don't take anything for granted

Not assuming just anything is the fifth element of seven, which I describe, following the success of Jumbo Visma's cycling team.

The biggest mistake Jumbo Visma could make now is to assume that they will win the tour more often for the time being. After all, they have a tour winner who is still young and can last for years to come. Fortunately, they don't.

This statement is more topical than ever as far as I can remember. So many unexpected situations arise in the world and in organizations. Everyone needs to stay sharp and continually learn. Someone can be perfectly happy with their job, and what happens when suddenly a recruiter comes along with a better offer.

My WIAL partner Christoph Maria often calls out ANNA principle. Always Inquire Never Assume. This can prevent a lot of misery. How often does it happen in your team or organization that action is taken based on faulty assumptions? This is quite unfortunate, if it is not learned from and leads to wasted energy.

I think any self-professional organization may be and remain keen on this. People in the organization should at least be aware if someone is acting on an assumption. Sometimes a person has no choice. Possibly when it comes to people. Then a wrong assumption, well-meaning too, can lead to a socially and psychologically unsafe working environment.

Four questions by Byron Katie (source The Work) I have in my tool bag for such cases. These questions potentially set assumptions on edge.

1. Is it true?
2. How can you be absolutely sure it's true?
3. Who are you with that thought?
4. Who would you be without those thoughts? 

Usually it is not true, with which the assumption is unmasked. And towards the true problem can be worked. So that is a matter of inquiring.

My next little blog is about not waiting for the Dutchman to win the tour.
! TIP: books and articles The Work of Byron Katie

My next blog, six of seven gaar about not waiting for the Dutchman to win the tour.

6. Not waiting for the Dutchman on their team to win the tour

Not waiting for the Dutchman to win the tour is the sixth element of seven that I describe, following the success of Jumbo Visma's cycling team.

For a Dutch team, it would be extra nice if a Dutch rider is successful. If only for the publicity it generates in their own country. Chauvinism is not foreign to the Dutchman. To justify this, the label talent is often used. Then you suddenly hear: 'Holland has a talent!"

However, the team's leadership makes short work of this: "Whether someone has talent cannot be recognized so early. Thus, "Focusing the team on achieving success with one person is disastrous, despite the fact that cycling is all about individual gains.

In the WIAL NL Team Podcast S1E01 I discussed this at length with Sanne and Aik. In it it became apparent that of (both having once had talent status), one was comfortable with being designated as the pivot of a victory. But the other did not like that at all. I don't think there is anything wrong with one person's personal contribution or achievement being given extra emphasis. That is then factually correct.

In my opinion, this is different when naming one talent, after all, the expected performance is in the future and does not have to become factually correct. When people are praised for their talent it can create positive pressure. Just as well it can lead to a feeling of if it doesn't work out then apparently I don't have enough talent after all. I find that unfortunate, because effort and perseverance usually win out over talent anyway and strong teams can bring out the best in an individual. Right?

What does the word talent evoke in you?
! TIP: read more biographies these I often find very informative

My next blog is already the last in this series and is about "use science"

 

7. Use scientific knowledge

My last blog in this series is about Jumbo Visma's insight on the use of scientific knowledge. Since I can't keep it within the maximum size allowed, I've split it into two parts.

In cycling (or physics), I can well imagine how scientific knowledge is used. I see cyclists pedaling against the wind in wind turbines or working on their fitness at high altitudes. In doing so, much of the physiological performance is measured. Sport and science have made a beautiful alliance here. This was not always with the right intention, just think of the doping scandals of the past. The pursuit of success can spill over, shall we say. Fortunately, fair-play has won out and science contributes to cycling and other sports. This leads to better performance and fewer injuries. In physics, it is even clearer. What gravity is there is little doubt among ordinary citizens. But for theoretical physicists it is still not entirely clear.

I wonder how trainers and coaches have ever applied scientific knowledge in team building or motivational coaching? Perhaps it has occurred, but I rarely come across it.

The question that has occupied my mind for years is: to what extent does it make sense to improve teamwork and leadership using scientific knowledge? Isn't there more often coincidence, rather than an observable pattern?

I don't really dare make a statement about it. Especially from the knowledge, that most scientific knowledge now comes from statistical analysis, discovering precisely, what remained hidden from the normal observable. For example, I use Jung Action Typing, I am immersing myself in TMA and reach out to MBA students literature to address their challenges. All three involve static analysis. Yes and I also measure, for example, whether progress is being made in the number of questions people in a team ask each other. Can I call that scientific knowledge?

More and more often I read that scientific findings were not quite right after the fact. Just this week I read a piece about the famous marshmallow experiment. Nine hundred children were given a marshmallow. If they left it untouched for fifteen minutes they got two. If they ate it within fifteen minutes, they got one. It was later found that the children who were patient and could wait fifteen minutes for their reward were more successful later. Scientific evidence that children who can hold back and go for a better long-term outcome? That was the conclusion. Yes said, a nice return on the experiment.

So no! Later it turned out that children who were not so well off at home were not used to getting more and ate their food quickly. So they did the same with the marshmallow. So there was probably more behind it that made them less successful! The opportunities they got because of their origin? It shows once again that context can have so many more influencing factors in it. A reason to be very careful the shelf life of scientific insights. Personally, it helps me to change a mindset of certainty to a mindset of probability. When I look at Jumbo Visma with that, I have the insight that: science helps very well in the so-called beta aspects, in the alpha aspects in which I work I certainly don't have that yet].

What role does science play in your work?

! TIP: Find your own balance. as Rene ten Bos once said: even worse than blindly accepting everything is to disregard and ignore everything.

This was blog 7 of 7 about insights from a cycling team. Got any feedback? Fine, let me know!

World Institute for Action Learning - Netherlands, Twan Paes MBA MALC, October 2022.

 

 

 

In daily practice, people find it difficult to achieve performance in all situations together. The undercurrent is leading in this.

On January 1, 2021, WIAL's exclusive podcast with Toon Gerbrands will be live. This podcast is about his new book "Sometimes Everything is True," in which he rails against 52 sacred management houses. In this book, he endorses the importance of action intelligence. But what is action intelligence? And why would I want to apply it?

The Internet search very quickly leads me to martial arts. Mind you, this is not a scientific paper! This blog is intended as a starting point in exploring the concept of action intelligence.

Martial Arts

Robert Ogilvie, in his book "Martial Science and Business Strategy" (2004), cites a number of prominent warlords of yesteryear. These people are still leading the way in certain areas of martial arts teaching today. These are:

1. the Chinese warlord Sun Tsu (500 BC);

1. the Swiss Antoine Henri Jomini (1779-1869) general under Napoleon, author of the book of martial arts "Précis de l'art de guerre" (at least until 2004 still required literature at the U.S. Military Academy) and founder of the Russian High School of War;

1. the Prussian General Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz (1780-1831).

Ogilvie writes in his book that few realize that the combination of Jomini's systematics and Clausewitz's philosophies together defined the political and strategic military thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The link to today is that many corporate strategies seem to have emerged from this in turn or to have evolved on the basis of it.

Practice insight determines profit or loss

Ogilvie describes what warlords find decisive when it comes to winning or losing a war. See below.

1.  Sun Tsu indicated that moral, intellectual and chance aspects of war were more important than the physical. He also believed that careful planning, based on good information about the opponent, would contribute significantly to a quick military decision.

1. Jomini admitted that the principles of combat are simple, rely on "common sense" and are easy to understand, but their application is difficult. He believed that in addition to a certain degree of genius, intensive study is required to "master" them. Observing these rules does not always assure victory, but if they are neglected, it is almost certain that one will lose the battle.

1. Von Clausewitz understood that the world is changeable (dynamic) and that the intelligent general must set aside so-called established theories in certain circumstances and will have to act according to his own findings. He stated, "All principles, rules and methods exist to be used when necessary, but their application depends on the assessment of their employability. Rather, theory should be used as an aid to judgment and should never be exploited as a fixed standard.

My free translation is that they say profit or loss is determined by:

• practice before theory;

• oversee complex situations;

• collect relevant information;

• And turn that into actionable new knowledge and action;

• use common farm sense;

• Learn in action because situations change as you go along;

• Provide appropriate skills such as problem solving;

• And all this you cannot do alone.

What is the relationship with current organizations?

Without researching very deep and wide I find the following relationships in my google adventure.

Enterprise Strategy

Let's start with what organizations can learn from the martial arts. For that, we'll stick with Ogilvie for now, who has laid out the following recommendations for corporate strategies:
1 Avoid overly complicated plans.
2 Ensure that ends and means are (and remain) consistent with each other.
3 Ensure continuous and clear communication between departments and chiefs during plan execution.
4 During an action, ensure you have good and constant information about your opponent (competitor) and about the reactions of buyers or consumers.
5 Avoid both overestimating and underestimating the opponent.
6 Make sure there is enough critical mass in the right place, at the right time.
7 Persevere when it is useful. Perseverance should not be confused with (stupid) stubbornness. The difference between the two is just a nuance, but vital in the context of strategic leadership!

Behavior

Looking at the person behind the organization, authors such as Kessels (1999), Van Merriënboer, Van der Klink and Hendriks (2002) and Mulder (2000 & 2004) although all from the same period as Ogilvie (2004) translate that into employee behavior. They write that one can no longer consume, but must participate more actively in change and continue to adapt more quickly to new situations.

VUCA

Something whose importance is reiterated in other literature on the VUCAera. You cannot sit back and rely on past knowledge, solution approaches and models.

Professions

A mechanic, nurse or a police officer or woman also acts directly according to the practical situation. No doubt consciously and also unconsciously fed by protocols, knowledge and experience, but the practical situation in question determines, for example, how much time you have to think and act and not what is written in the booklet. Remmert Heuff, head of the DSI, told the ANP on Sept. 28, 2018 about this: a DSI member must be in top physical and mental condition and be able to quickly absorb complex situations. ''Action intelligence is what we call it. You have to keep an overview and be able to distinguish main issues from side issues at a glance," says Heuff. "You never know if something is going to happen, and if so where, but you always have to be alert."

So much for initial exploration. We're going to hear what Toon Gerbrands knows to say about action intelligence in January 2021.

Conclusion

A conclusion for this moment for me is that action intelligence is about the following overall picture:
the practical situation is leading and you must want to have a good overview. Make sure you collect the relevant information about it, use relevant knowledge and experience of others and create new business knowledge from it. Implement and reflect because everything you do in a dynamic vessel of action and reaction changes and leads to a new reality. Collaboration, dialogue and openness to other opinions are then essential to oversee the practical situation before decisions and solution directions are chosen. Here, freedom, trust and the ability to continue to reflect and learn in the action during implementation are very important.

Working together is a skill!

In daily practice, people find it difficult to achieve performance in all situations together. The undercurrent is leading in this.

WIAL helps you with the Team Performance Development Program to develop the knowledge and skills in this area and directly apply and learn from them in your own team action.

World Institute for Action Learning - Netherlands, Frank Campman MBA CALC, December 2020.

Invent it yourself, take ownership! A common cry of despair in organizations. But what makes it that this just doesn't seem to work in business?

And privately it succeeds!

Daily practice shows that we humans set all kinds of goals as soon as it is meaningful to us. Whether it's our vacation, wedding or training your son or daughter's soccer team, we go for it! We don't need an external incentive for this. It's mine! We have a goal, we determine what we want to invest time and money, set ourselves a deadline and find people who can help us. We solve problems along the way and we learn as we go. In other words, we humans can absolutely take ownership and enjoy it too!

So where does business go wrong?

People often cannot identify what the mission and vision of the organization is, don't know what the departmental objective is, how it translates to our team objective and how my own personal contribution adds to it. This problem becomes more pronounced as organizations with many layers of management and departments increasingly cut the work into areas of responsibility and standardize it into small routine tasks.

Wouter Hart describes in his book 'Verdraaide organisaties' that the counterpart of intention is the system world. This stands for the frenetic manageability of coordination mechanisms, control systems and management methods, with the result that people no longer see what their work contributes to the greater whole and to why they started doing this work in the first place: intention.

Undercurrent

The word organization already says that you don't do it alone. You are dealing with a group of people. A group of people with different interests and backgrounds. The feeling and thought about something or someone, we call the undercurrent. People, like animals, are afraid of no longer belonging. If a monkey falls outside the group it does not survive in nature. So I don't want to be different, not to be alone in an opinion. I keep my mouth shut. This makes why things go wrong even more complex.

The effect is alienation

There are studies that show that far too large a group of working people think that their work does not matter at all. They feel they cannot influence developments and decisions. No longer understand the arguments of choices. The result: it is no longer mine! It is someone else's problem (read: ownership). I am now talking about them! This is the stage that I am alienated from the organization.

Influence of the leader

Various studies show that as the number of people in a team grows, people feel less and less responsible for their personal contribution to achieving the group goal and thus the team's right to exist. As a result, you usually need more people to do the same amount of work! The influence you have as a team leader and department manager is to take a good look at what your optimal group size is to accomplish a certain amount of work and keep in mind that too many people in a team leads to a lower contribution per person and less self-esteem and satisfaction per individual team member (see the x-axis in the figure).

In contrast, the y-axis shows the impact that the more controllability you organize, the further away you get from ownership. To feel ownership, something must have meaning for me and I must have influence over choices that realize the desired effect. Besides the fact that more control often means more investment in the organization around the actual work, you also tend to need more people to do the work!

You are also influential in working with team members to peel off the team goal to the individual contribution, and together you can set ground rules of cooperation within the team.

The core is in the freedom and ability of people to ask through, hold each other accountable for the agreed behavior, learn in the action and reflect with each other and determine together what and how to adjust. So this is different from the solution process as applied with scrum teams etc.

Team Performance Process Supervisor

By creating the environment that best contributes to the desired effect you seek and supports people in developing the necessary skills, you are most likely to have people's behavior automatically adapt accordingly.

WIAL helps you with the Team Performance Process facilitator training (action learning coach) to facilitate the preconditions of team ownership.

Read more about the first step Certified Action Learning Coach training program

Note: Figure in this blog is not scientifically based, though the various components have emerged from research. I have put them together in a figure and serves as inspiration for thinking about the impact of intention versus system and the greatness of teams on the well-being of team members.

World Institute for Action Learning - Netherlands, Frank Campman MBA PALC, November 2020.

You might say that as we get older, we become more adept at asking questions. But is that really the case?

Should a leader have all the answers? 

Children naturally wonder. They ask questions out of open-mindedness and curiosity. Without thinking about what someone else will think of this question. Just doing. This in part determines their learning experience. You would say that as we get older, we become more adept at this. But is this really the case?

The answer is no. As we get older, we get worse at asking questions. Why is that?

Our education system may be changing, but it no longer affects today's working people. What we have all experienced to a greater or lesser extent is that if you asked too many questions to the teacher, the teacher had to slow you down because he didn't have time for that. He had to run down his curriculum and he had many more kids in the class. Suppose they were all firing hundreds of questions at the teacher in a day and he was going to discuss and research them extensively? Then he would not have time to cover all the other important and mandatory information that he would have to teach the children now!
The education system was not and is not at all set up for self-examination.

I deliberately make it black and white in this blog. For generations, we as children have been taught that the teacher asks the questions and we as children must provide the answers.
Not only at school, but also at home. As an example: You just came from work; exhausted, you prefer to fall on the couch. Then your sweet child comes to you full of energy and joy and wants to play with you, to be read to. He is brimming with new experiences and questions that arise in him at the moment. What have you got there? Are you going to play soccer with me? Can I have a piece of candy? Why not?

The moment the question is asked never seems to come out. You always have something else to do. After all, I'm here too! I have to leave, I have to ... !
To go crazy, right?

The time factor, then, seems to be a major reason we deprive children - consciously and unconsciously, in the delusion of the day - of the ability to further their learning through questioning. We make them reactive.

The child has become a manager

And then the time comes. The child grows up, goes to work and builds up a huge backpack full of learning history. Learning history that is different for everyone because of the accumulation of knowledge and experience. He makes a career and becomes a manager, a leader. The manager of old was an important crossroads of information and had the knowledge, gave orders. He could get by with that for a long time. But is that still the case?

In today's VUCA era, knowledge of today, may be obsolete tomorrow. What would happen if today's leader still thinks his knowledge and obtained information is the truth tomorrow as well?

The world around us is changing at an exponential rate in which business models and jobs that everyone always thought were for life are disappearing. A reactive learning style no longer fits with that.
At least, if you still want to stay sustainable in the job market and be meaningful.

The importance of the question

During action-learning sessions with coordinators, project leaders, managers, directors and administrators, it is always striking how experienced these people are. They have been through a lot, seen everything, have a solution for everything.

What also stands out is that they have limited time, can be impatient, need to make decisions, need to get results.

All true and important! But oh so dangerous.

I once read something along the lines of: (1) Knowledge without action is worthless, (2) action without knowledge is dangerous, and (3) action with yesterday's knowledge is disastrous.

And yet, action-learning sessions show that this is how we reach decision-making.
Because someone describes their problem (challenge) as they experience it in their own work environment and in no time others know what the solution is. Ready, who follows?

Briefly back. What have we solved now?

How well is someone single-handedly able to make a good problem definition at once? Regardless of his knowledge and experience, I would argue: NOT.
This is substantiated by the outcomes in the action-learning sessions. As soon as people ask open-ended questions without any judgment or solution embedded in them, it appears that a different problem definition underlies them.

So if it's another problem, what did we actually solve in the situation where we were done in no time? In doing so, didn't we potentially create new problems?

Now that the real problem has been defined, it is possible to examine the possible solutions and which one best fits this situation. Because every situation is different, so you can't just project a solution that has worked for you in another situation. Ten to one that there have also been other people's situations where your solution has not worked at all.

Doesn't that leave the real problem unsolved and continue to bother us on a daily basis? Is the solution really a solution and is it supported by the important stakeholders?

Have we then released budget in time and money for something that should not be spent on? Because you can only spend the budget in time and money once and thus this directly impacts all other challenges.

Isn't that perhaps where employers and employees' feelings of busyness, chaos and powerlessness also come from?

Are we able to come to new insights?

Dr. Bohm is clear on this, stating that dialogue moves people beyond the impasse of conflict and argument and allows for the formation of new understandings.
Dr. Revans, the founder of action learning, reaches similar conclusions.

Actually, they observe that the natural way of learning as we do as children is the way to proactively learn and progress. Nature is not so crazy!

And isn't coming to new understandings one of the basic conditions for change?

If you agree with this, you have immediately grasped one of the most important skills on the basis of which change (read: adaptive) capacity can take place, namely, investigative dialogue.

And yes, we as human beings are capable of new insights. Dreams come true. It's there by nature.

However, our pitfall, for example, to a greater or lesser extent, is our backpack and difficulty in letting go of the old, that we can act flexibly, can't use counterarguments and could be guided by social and groups conformity.

And so I could name several more executive skills that ultimately determine the degree to which we are successful and how quickly we can master new situations.

But even there, nature has helped us, because research shows that our brains are malleable by everything we think, feel, do and see; in other words, experience.
So everyone can change, no matter how long someone has been around.

World Institute for Action Learning - Netherlands, Frank Campman MBA PALC - August 2021

Research shows that 66% of teams fail to come up with better ideas and make better decisions than the best team member could do on their own!

Why is this observation important?

66% of teams are unable to outperform their best team member! While other research shows that teams where collaboration is high performing work up to almost five times faster and better than the fastest individuals. This affects the ability to respond to opportunities, challenges and problems in a timely manner. But also on the degree of success after implementation and the amount of investment to make it happen.

The problem of the weakest link

The effect of this does not stop with this one idea or decision, but does something to the other team members. And this has negative effects on cooperation overall! Colleagues increasingly lose connection not only with the other colleagues, but also with the common goal. They feel less and less heard and start contributing less and less to the team result. The feeling of needing each other and experiencing dependence on each other's work is rapidly diminishing.

This creates social laziness, increases victimization, and all this in turn can lead to alienation from one's own work, team and organization. Research also shows that 3-5% of team members do about 25% of the work. It is also likely that there is relatively high absenteeism and perhaps a relatively high outflow of colleagues. .

What is the crux of the problem?

The cause lies in the quality of team behavior and team process. Often also in the size of the teams with sometimes as many as 15 or more colleagues per team.

Cooperation, psychological safety and the team skill of questioning, addressing, decision-making and reflective ability are the most determining elements in the quality of team behavior and team process here.

What does the solution look like?

The latest requirement is to pay structural attention to collaboration within teams. Both for existing teams and newly formed teams. Collaboration is a profession! This starts with the team members by holding up the existing conditioning as a mirror and teaching them to see and recognize it. This is where the real conversation needs to start. In both the upper and lower stream. Only then can the team behavior and team process be aligned with the person, the common goal and the results to be achieved.

What does the first step of the solution look like?

The first step is to increase the degree of psychological safety and bonding. You do this by (further) developing the skill of asking open questions without judgment and continuing to ask for the answer. To do this well, it is also necessary to listen without judgment, i.e. to let go of your own perceptions and truth in the inquisitive phase to be curious about the other person's story and ideas.

Step 2

The second step is to dare and be able to do this skill not only in a 1-on-1 dialogue, but also in a team dialogue. Regardless of which team you participate in and regardless of the topic being discussed.

Step 3 is first slow down and then action mode

Step three is to (further) develop in team the skill to analyze problems for complexity and already known solutions. If the answer is positive, the team can immediately move into action mode.

How to do this. Team members must learn to grow together into a high performing team, where they learn to slow down to learn to discover and understand the context of the problem contributor. Only then can it be determined whether the problem is urgent, important and complex or just a puzzle after all. In case there is a complex problem and not a puzzle, it is often a symptom of a core problem not yet known. The team members now work together through the Action Learning dialogue to find out what the real problem is and only then will they look for solutions.

Combining learning and working in this process creates an action learning team. Doing this in more teams and connecting with each other creates an action learning community of practice.

The skills developed in steps one and two are what a team needs in step three to be successful and to continue to grow for continued success.

How can WIAL Netherlands help with this?

With the programs Leading with Questions 1 on 1 dialogue, Leading with Questions for team dialogue and Complex Problem Solving for teams, WIAL Netherlands creates a customized program for the specific situation and phase of the team and organization.
The programs can be taken separately, and also as an action learning High Performing Team.

Read more about the first step Leading with Questions 1 on 1 dialogue
About the second step read Leading with Questions Team dialogue
The third step is described at Complex Problem Solving for teams
The total of these three trainings is integrated into the Action Learning High Performing Team

Book tip

Hans van Loo's book Teaming discusses many of the studies and makes connections on what affects collaboration and the results to be achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

World Institute for Action Learning - Netherlands, Frank Campman MBA PALC, February 2023.